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, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
We are funding 1,500 additional medical school places each year to ensure that the NHS can continue to deliver safe, compassionate and effective care well into the future. Around 500 places will be made available in September 2018, and the remaining 1,000 places by September 2019.
Rebecca Pow
In Taunton Deane, we are desperately short of trained health professionals, from dermatologists to nurses, but one of the worst shortages is of GPs, with some practices not even able to get locums. I know Ministers are working on this, but could my right hon. Friend update me on what the Department is doing to encourage more medical students to become GPs? It is hard to believe they do not want to come to Somerset, but what are we doing to encourage them?
Mr Hunt
There is no greater champion for Somerset than my hon. Friend. What I would say to her is what I would say to all medical students, which is that general practice is going to be the biggest area of expansion in the NHS over the coming years; in fact, we are planning to have the biggest increase in GPs in the history of the NHS.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
It will take many years for the doctors the Secretary of State has just talked about to come on stream, and we have a workforce crisis in the NHS now, partly because of the cuts the Government made in the last Parliament, but also because of their irrational pursuit of the hardest of Brexits. He could do something very simple today to address this crisis in the short term, and that is to announce that all EU nationals who do vital work in our NHS will be able to stay when we leave the European Union.
Mr Hunt
The one simple thing the Government are not going to do is refuse to listen to what the British people said when they voted on 23 June. We will do what they said—it is the right thing to do. However, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the vital role that the around 10,000 EU doctors in the NHS play in this country. I can reassure him that the number of doctors joining the NHS from the EU was higher in the four months following the referendum result than in the same four months the previous year.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Mr Hunt
I can absolutely confirm that the garden of England would be an ideal place for a new medical school—alongside many other parts of the country that are actively competing to start medical schools as a result of the expansion in doctor numbers. It is an independent process run by the General Medical Council, and we will await what it says with great interest.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
On this wonderful first day of spring, will the Secretary of State think anew about the training of GPs? We want more GPs, we want them highly trained and we want them to know that someone who suffers from atrial fibrillation should not be neglected and should not be put on aspirin or warfarin, but should be given the new anti-coagulants.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman speaks very wisely about this, and he is one of a number of people who say we need to look at the training we give GPs on patient safety, on growing, new areas like mental health, and on things like the identification of cancers. This is something we are having an ongoing discussion with the Royal College of General Practitioners about.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
Given the importance of training new doctors and nurses to the future of the health service, will my right hon. Friend welcome the building, which will commence later this summer at the Anglia Ruskin University in Chelmsford, of a new medical school that is solely there to train doctors to meet the needs of people in Essex and beyond its borders?
Mr Hunt
I absolutely welcome that, and I know my right hon. Friend has personally championed it as a local MP. The historical mistake that those on both sides of the House have made is not to do long-term workforce planning for the NHS, and that is something we want to put right.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Plans to train more UK doctors are absolutely welcome, but the Secretary of State knows that it takes at least 10 years to train a doctor, so what is his response to the surveys by the British Medical Association and the GMC showing that, having been left hanging for nine months, 40% to 60% of EU doctors are thinking of leaving?
Mr Hunt
My response is the one I give many times in this House, which is to stress to all those doctors how valued they are as critical parts of the NHS. We do not see any evidence of the number of doctors joining from the EU going down. The NHS is one of the best health services in the world, and it is a great place for people from other countries to work and train.
Dr Whitford
The workforce is one of the biggest challenges right across the nations of the UK, and particularly in rural areas, as we heard earlier. With a 92% drop in the number of EU nurses coming to the UK and a 60% increase in the number who left last year, how does the Secretary of State plan to avoid an NHS staffing crisis immediately post-Brexit, before there is time to train anybody extra?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady needs to be very careful in her use of statistics, because she will know that one reason for the drop in the number of nurses coming from the EU is that prior to the Brexit vote we introduced much stricter language tests, as that is better for the safety of patients and a very important thing that we need to get right. We are very confident that nurses will continue to want to work in the NHS, because it is a great place to work.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
Between February 2016 and January 2017, there were just under 3,500 waits of longer than 12 hours from decision to admit to admission. That is completely unacceptable, which is why the Government took urgent steps to free up NHS bed capacity in this month’s Budget.
Dr Allin-Khan
Earlier this month, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners said that the “best place for GPs” is working within their communities to provide the highest possible general practice quality. What forecast has the Secretary of State made of the reduction in A&E waiting times next winter as a result of the new GP triage units in A&E departments? Does he agree that this is simply a small sticking plaster on the gaping wound that is our drastically underfunded NHS?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady had a question, it was rather overlong and the least courtesy she can do the House is to listen quietly and with good manners to the reply.
Mr Hunt
Thank you, Mr Speaker. To continue, let me say that in this so-called “drastically underfunded NHS”, the hon. Lady’s local hospital—St George’s in Tooting—now has 36 more doctors working in A&E than there were in 2010. However, we also think that as a lot of people go to A&E departments with minor injuries and things that can be dealt with by GPs, we need to have GPs on site, and this Parliament we are planning to have 5,000 more doctors working in general practice.
Christian Matheson
In January, more than 1,000 patients at the Countess of Chester’s A&E unit had to wait more than four hours and only 81% of patients had to wait less than four hours. Now that the 95% target has been abandoned, until at least midway through next year, what guarantee can the Secretary of State give my constituents that we will not get a repeat of this next winter?
Mr Hunt
On the contrary, we have not abandoned the 95% target—we have reiterated its importance. There is, however, one part of the United Kingdom that has said it wants to move away from the 95% target—Wales. The Welsh Health Minister said last week:
“You can go to A&E and be there five hours but have…a good experience.”
That is not looking after patients; it is giving up on them.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
On this important issue of A&Es, does the Secretary of State agree that it makes no sense at all for my local clinical commissioning group to be bringing forward a business case to spend an extra £300 million on bulldozing Huddersfield royal infirmary and downgrading our A&E?
Mr Hunt
I recognise the very strong arguments my hon. Friend makes and the strong campaigning he does on behalf of his constituents. We are waiting for the final recommendations to come from his local CCG, but I agree that too often we have closed beds in the NHS when we do not have alternative capacity in the community, and we need to be very careful not to repeat that mistake.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The cost of presenting with a minor ailment at a pharmacy is only 10% of the cost of presenting at A&E. What more can be done to help persuade those who present themselves to A&E that the pharmacy sector could be a better use of their time?
Mr Hunt
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on that. Despite the current debates, the pharmacy sector has a very bright future, and we have set up a £40 million integration fund precisely to help pharmacists to play more of a role in the NHS and, in particular, to reduce pressure on A&Es.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
This year, the winter crisis in A&E has been the worst ever. Things have got so bad that, rather than waiting in A&E, record numbers of people are just giving up—I am sure there are many who wish the Secretary of State would do likewise. In January, nearly 1,000 people were stuck on trolleys waiting more than 12 hours to be admitted to A&E. Will the Secretary of State accept that that is far more than just a small number of isolated incidents? After five years in the job, he has to accept responsibility for the crisis he has created.
Mr Hunt
I accept responsibility for everything that happens in the NHS, including the fact that, compared with 2010, we are seeing 2,500 more patients within four hours every single day. We are also seeing a big increase in demand, which is why there were particular measures in the Budget to make sure that we return to the 95% target, including £2 billion for social care, which is £2 billion more than the Labour party promised for social care at the election.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The urgent care centre at Corby has done much to relieve the pressures on Kettering A&E, and it is a class leader. Given the announcement of £100 million for new triaging projects, would the Secretary of State like to visit the Corby urgent care centre to see this beacon of best practice at first hand?
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
Cough-assist machines are one of a variety of respiratory treatments that may be appropriate for sufferers of conditions such as motor neurone disease or muscular dystrophy. In the end, it is a matter of clinical judgment.
John Mc Nally
There are good examples of best practice cough-assist commissioning policies for muscle-wasting conditions that can be followed by health boards and CCGs. Given the hard work being done to extend the lives of those who suffer from muscular dystrophies, what support and assistance can the Department provide to Muscular Dystrophy UK to ensure that such policy is more widely adopted?
David Mowat
It is not for the Government to direct clinicians regarding the efficacy of particular treatments; it is for clinicians to decide, based on guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and others. In developing its recent motor neurone disease guidance, NICE found that the evidence base for the routine use of cough-assist machines was weak. However, the matter is kept under review, so that may change as and if new data emerge.
Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Many NHS bodies work with their international peers, and each makes its own assessment about the effectiveness of intended collaboration, rather than any determination being made at a national level. Trusts should only pursue opportunities that deliver value for money and do not impair their ability to deliver NHS services.
Charlotte Leslie
A team of clinicians at Southmead hospital in my constituency, led by Professor Tim Draycott, have developed and are now exporting internationally a system of maternity healthcare that is transforming maternity safety and childbirth. What is the Department doing to provide further support and ensure that the evidence base the team have developed is embedded and incorporated in policy making in this place?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend will be aware that the professor to whom she refers has presented his findings to the Secretary of State. Partly in response to that, we have set up an £8 million innovation fund to help to take such initiatives forward and to spread best practice throughout the country.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
May I endorse what the hon. Member for Bristol North West (Charlotte Leslie) said? In the area of diabetes, for example, our country has some of the best clinicians in the world. Will the Minister ensure that the next time the Prime Minister goes on an official delegation she takes one of these professors with her to show the rest of the world what we are able to do for conditions such as diabetes?
Mr Dunne
The right hon. Gentleman is an acknowledged expert on diabetes. I have visited facilities around the world, including in Abu Dhabi, where Imperial College London has a joint venture with the diabetes centre there. The UK is an acknowledged expert, and we are launching the national diabetes prevention programme, which will roll out across 10 pilot sites for type 2 diabetes prevention work. I shall encourage the Prime Minister to consider the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal that we expand that work on other trade visits, certainly those for health, around the world.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
This Government were the first to set a national ambition to eliminate inappropriate out-of-area placements by 2020-21. By then, no adult, child or young person will be sent away from their local area to be treated for a general mental health condition.
Paula Sherriff
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. My 17-year-old constituent Jess needed an acute mental health bed. The nearest available was in Colchester. She was allowed to go home some weekends, but it meant an 800-mile trip for her mum. We can only imagine the emotional and financial hardship that that caused. The Secretary of State tells us that he is working on this matter, and I believe that he does want to improve things, but what progress has actually been made, as this is really, really not good enough for Jess and others?
Mr Hunt
I agree with the hon. Lady and she makes her case very powerfully. We need to make progress and we need to make it fast, particularly for young people, as their recovery can be very closely linked with the potential of their parents to come to visit them. Nearby places such as the Sheffield Health and Social Care Foundation Trust, which do not serve her constituents, have eliminated out-of-area placements and saved £2 million in the process. It is about spreading that best practice.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend speaks very wisely on this matter. In the end, schools are a vital place in which to spot mental health conditions early. We know that around half of mental health conditions become established before the age of 14, and this will be a big part of the Green Paper that we publish later this year.
Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)
Does the Secretary of State recognise the ways in which poverty, the associated financial strain and deprivation intersect with mental health; understand the need for him to work with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to ensure that mental health is properly recognised in personal independence payment assessments; and recognise that the problem is more acutely affected if people have to travel out of their area of residence?
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Some innovative and award-winning work is being done by Bradford District NHS Care Trust. It is working alongside excellent voluntary organisations and charitable organisations such as the Cellar Trust in Shipley, which is delivering much improved support for mental health patients. Will the Secretary of State congratulate the work that is being done in Bradford, and would he like to pay a visit so that he can share this best practice with other parts of the UK?
Mr Hunt
I am happy to congratulate the Cellar Trust, and to pay a visit if I can find the time to do so. My hon. Friend is right to say that voluntary organisations play a vital role. Very often, they can see the whole picture and they treat the whole person, not just the specific NHS or specific housing issue, so he is right to commend its work.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
Recent figures show that 18 mental health patients were placed more than 185 miles away from their home for treatment, including five from the northern region—Jess is one such example. Their families will have to travel the equivalent of Manchester to London, or further, to visit them. We have also learned that £800 million was taken out of CCG budgets, which could be funding services such as mental health in-patient beds, just to help NHS England balance the books. Will the Secretary of State tell those patients and families why they should be treated so far from home when their local CCG should be able to fund the in-patient beds they need?
Mr Hunt
With great respect to the hon. Lady, we are the first Government to count out-of-area placements, and to commit to eradicating them. What she does not tell the House is the context, which is the biggest expansion in mental health provision anywhere in Europe, with 1,400 more people being treated every single day, and an extra £342 million being spent this year on mental health compared with last year.
David Mackintosh (Northampton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
As part of our plan to improve access to general practice, we are taking steps to ensure that there will be an extra 5,000 doctors by 2020. We are increasing the number of GP training places, recruiting up to 500 doctors from overseas and encouraging doctors who have retired to return to general practice.
David Mackintosh
I am aware of a number of issues with the recruitment of GPs in my constituency, such as at St Luke’s surgery in Duston. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the issues with that surgery in particular?
Mr Hunt
I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend. He will know that the surgery got an £80,000 grant this year through NHS England’s general practice resilience scheme, but I am aware that there are lots of pressures on surgeries such as St Luke’s and I am happy to talk about it further.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear the Secretary of State issue some information about the additional GPs who will be coming on stream in the coming years. How many will be coming to north-east Lincolnshire and when will they be there? We have a critical shortage of GPs and people are struggling to get appointments.
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that areas such as Lincolnshire find it particularly difficult to attract GP recruits, which is why we have set up a fund that gives new GP trainees a financial incentive to move to some of the more remote parts of the country. This is beginning to have some effect, and I am happy to write to her with more details.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s efforts to recruit more GPs, and I know that he wants all GPs and, indeed, doctors to have high levels of job satisfaction. Is he aware of the fact that reasonable numbers of doctors are leaving the UK to work overseas? Given the cost of medical training and the money that taxpayers put into that education, will he look at that issue, perhaps by requiring a certain commitment to the NHS?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend raises an important point. There is currently no evidence of an increase in the number of doctors going to work abroad, but there is an issue of fairness because it costs around £230,000 to train a doctor over five years. In return for that, there should be some commitment to spend some time working in the NHS, and we are consulting on that at the moment.
Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)
GPs around the country are facing unprecedented pressures as they work to deliver the highest possible standards of care, despite underinvestment and increasing patient demand. A record number of GP practices closed in 2016. Are the Government really serious about addressing the problem for the sake of GPs and their patients? If so, why has the promised £16 million resilience fund not been delivered in full, when it was promised by October 2016? There is very little evidence to date of the Government delivering on any of their promises in “General Practice Forward View”, no sign of the extra £2.4 billion, no sign of—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have got the general drift. May I gently say to the hon. Lady that the longer the Opposition Front Benchers take, the less time there is for Back Benchers on both sides? This is becoming a worsening phenomenon. It is not only the fault of the hon. Lady, but it really must stop. It is not fair to Back-Bench Members.
Mr Hunt
During my time as Health Secretary, the real-terms investment in general practice has gone up by £700 million or 8%, and we are planning to increase it by 14%—£2.4 billion—over this Parliament. A lot of extra money is going in, but I recognise that there are still a lot of pressures.
David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s plans to recruit doctors will be widely welcomed in Leicestershire, but should he not be making greater use of already properly regulated practitioners—those who are regulated by the Professional Standards Authority—of whom there are 20,000, including hypnotherapists?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend’s ingenuity in bringing these issues up in question after question never ceases to amaze me. As he knows, we recognise that the pressure in primary care cannot just be borne by general practice, but we must always follow the science as to where we get our help from.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Only recently, a surgery has been closed down in the borough of Halton. There is a clear shortage of GPs. Despite the efforts of the clinical commissioning group to try to find replacements, that has not happened. How will merging CCGs help, and can the Secretary of State rule out any merger between Warrington and Halton?
Mr Hunt
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that we set up the CCGs. I remind him that CCGs came together without central prescription as to what their size should be, but we will always listen to the advice we get on the ground if people want to change their size.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
The Prime Minister herself announced our commitment to developing and expanding digital mental health services, and we have backed that with an investment of more than £65 million. This work includes improving digital technology for the mental healthcare system, developing digital tools and therapies, and improving mental health information and services provided through nhs.uk and 111 platforms.
Mary Robinson
The Minister will know that for people with mental health problems, attending accident and emergency or going to see their GP is not always the best point of intervention, so I welcome measures to improve accessibility. Stockport Healthy Minds, which serves my constituency of Cheadle, provides a range of services such as online self-help courses, one-to-one therapy sessions, and group workshops. What is her Department doing to provide projects like Healthy Minds with the support and accessibility they need?
Nicola Blackwood
In addition to the funding that we are providing to improve the mental health pathways through nhs.uk and 111, we are providing £500,000 for the development of six digital tools, with a particular focus on children and young people’s mental health. I pay tribute to the work of Healthy Minds in my hon. Friend’s constituency and to her own championing of this issue.
Mr Speaker
Order. It is always a pleasure to hear the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), but can I just say to him that it is a good idea to bob consistently, and then one knows of the interest of an hon. Member? On this occasion, he looked at me meaningfully but was not bobbing; I am not psychic. But let us hear the voice of Hyndburn: Graham Jones.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker, for your asking me to ask a question. Mental health is a really serious, and growing, problem. I have been out with my local police force and I appreciate the emphasis on digital technology, but what are we doing on the frontline as well? We cannot just have digital operations. In the Lancashire constabulary, because of the Government’s cuts, we are removing the mental health worker from the frontline force. While we may be doing something around digital, we are removing mental health services, because that post goes on 31 March. Is this not ridiculous? Is it not the case that the Government do not have a coherent policy on mental health?
Mr Speaker
Order. I was quite tough on the hon. Member for Burnley (Julie Cooper), but the hon. Gentleman took his time—he really did.
Nicola Blackwood
The hon. Gentleman misrepresents the situation entirely. Not only are we investing an extra £1 billion year in mental health services and expanding mental health services at a faster rate than anywhere else in Europe, but we have invested £15 million extra in places of safety for those in crisis and are expanding triage services, precisely to address the problem that he raises of those in mental health crisis who come into contact with the criminal justice service.
Several hon. Members rose—
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
While digital platforms can be useful in guiding patients to the right service, does the Minister accept that there are still huge shortages of people who can carry out talking therapies, and long waits for child and adolescent mental health services? When are the Government going to stop talking about improving mental health services and actually ensure that the money is going where it is needed to recruit staff?
Nicola Blackwood
We are working extremely hard on increasing staff. We are not only introducing our new mental health workforce strategy, which we will publish shortly, but increasing the number of people who are seeing these services. Four million extra people have seen psychiatry services—talking therapies—and 90% of those patients are being seen within six weeks, which is exceeding our waiting time target.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
We have engaged fully with the health and research community to ensure a positive and beneficial application of the GDPR in the UK. My hon. Friend is right that data are vital to the delivery of safe and high-quality care, but we need to ensure that there is a trusted system in place, and that people understand that their information is secure and have confidence in its use.
Mr Baron
I thank the Minister for that answer, but I have to tell her that when the EU’s general data protection regulation becomes enforceable next year, it will be more difficult to share data. Cancer charities, including Cancer Research UK, are concerned because the progress of life-saving research, especially into rare and children’s cancers, would not have been possible were it not for data-sharing. Will she do what she can to shield the UK from this harmful regulation, given that it disproportionately affects us because of the wealth of our data?
Nicola Blackwood
We have been clear that we are going to introduce the data regulation. We are working on exactly how we will do that in a balanced way that encourages data-sharing for the purposes of research in a sustainable NHS. We have set up a sub-group to examine the impact of the GDPR on research. It is hosted by the Wellcome Trust and includes members of the Health Research Authority’s confidentiality advisory group, the NHS Confederation, the Medical Research Council, the Department of Health, and the PHG Foundation. We will ensure that this works in an effective way to address the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that Public Health England published a paper in June 2015 precisely on this subject, but it concluded that within the currently accepted clinical guidelines there are no clinical indicators for testing women using enriched culture medium methods. This test is not, therefore, recommended for routine use at present.
Sir Nicholas Soames
My hon. Friend will be aware from his reading of the British Paediatric Surveillance Unit report that the incidence of group B strep has increased by 30% over the last 15 years. Does he agree that this matter has gone on for far too long, and that the Government must come to a conclusion to prevent further tragedies?
Mr Dunne
As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the UK National Screening Committee is reviewing the evidence for antenatal screening, including the use of enriched culture medium tests for group B streptococcus, following a public consultation. I understand that its recommendation will be published very soon, and I assure him that I will consider the recommendation very carefully and write to him with my view.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
“General Practice Forward View” announced that investment in general practice will increase from £9.6 billion in 2015-16 to more than £12 billion in 2020-21. This represents an increase of 14% in real terms, which is almost double the increase for the rest of the NHS. Two years into the forward view, we remain on track to deliver that.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the Minister’s response, but the reality on the ground in areas such as Redcar and Teesside is that we face a deficit of £281 million by 2020. How can he reassure my constituents, who are already finding it hard to get an appointment with a GP, that already scarce services will not become even more so?
David Mowat
We do recognise that in parts of the country there are shortages of GPs. As Members have heard, we are planning to have 5,000 more doctors working in general practice by 2020, and a proportion of those will be in Teesside. It is important that we meet that goal.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
GPs in Wycombe cite long hours, bureaucracy and the declining attractiveness of the partnership model as reasons why people do not want to be in general practice. Will the Minister ensure that funding within the forward view is directed to deal with those key problems?
David Mowat
Yes, and the contract discussions that we have just completed with the British Medical Association addressed a number of the issues that my hon. Friend talks about, in terms of the pressures on doctors working in general practice. We acknowledge that the workload pressures are enormous, and, through the contract, we need to do all that we can to mitigate them.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
More than 80% of clinical appointments are carried out by GPs, but they receive a proportionately much lower level of funding. What steps will the Department of Health take to make sure that all sustainability and transformation plans abide by NHS England’s recommended allocation of funding to general practice?
David Mowat
One of the criteria by which STPs are being judged is the extent to which they are making this tilt from secondary into primary care, exactly as the hon. Lady suggests. That is precisely why the extra funding for primary care that I have set out is so important and why it is happening.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
“General Practice Forward View” talks about supporting general practice to improve digital technology for patients. Given the recent data challenges, does the Minister agree that putting a national data guardian on a statutory footing to protect patients and professionals is becoming an imperative?
David Mowat
I know that my hon. Friend has introduced a private Member’s Bill in this area, and the Government intend to support it.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The support that is provided to GP practices in relation to IT, information and so on is absolutely crucial to their effective operation, but problems continue today in my constituency with the service provided by Capita. Capita cannot, for example, now get prescribing certificates for locums and new GPs. When are the Government going to get a grip on this failing contract and, if Capita cannot perform adequately, get someone else to do it?
David Mowat
The hon. Lady is right. There have been issues with the Capita contract, and we have been let down by Capita. We are working hard to get that sorted, and my colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), meets Capita weekly to get this fixed. We are making progress, and we believe that the issues that the hon. Lady refers to will be fixed in the foreseeable future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
There is a shortage of GPs across Northamptonshire, especially in Kettering, and the age profile of local GPs means that a very large number are about to reach retirement, which will make the problem worse. What can be done to encourage experienced GPs to stay on longer and to encourage those who have retired to come back?
David Mowat
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the things we need to achieve is either to encourage older GPs to work part time or to make it easier for them to step down into more of a mentoring role. With the Royal College of General Practitioners, we have brought forward a scheme called GP Career Plus, which enables GPs in 10 pilot areas—the pilots are being rolled out now—to work as mentors across practice areas, and not to feel as though they have to retire, as GPs too frequently do at the moment.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Standards for paediatric co-location for congenital heart disease services are not currently met by the Royal Brompton, Leicester and Newcastle hospitals. NHS England is consulting on proposals to cease commissioning level 1 surgical services from the Royal Brompton and Leicester. No final decisions have been made on the proposed changes. Public consultation continues until 5 June 2017, and I encourage my hon. Friend to participate in that consultation.
Dr Mathias
Mr Speaker, you are absolutely correct in your comment.
Does the Minister agree that the standards review found that not all clinicians are in agreement about how essential the co-location of paediatric services is, bearing in mind that a child being treated right now at the Royal Brompton will have 24-hour access to all necessary medical specialties? Will he tell us what improvements co-location at the world-class Royal Brompton hospital would achieve?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend has considerable expertise, but I am advised that having all relevant children’s specialties on the same site is the optimal model of care for the most critically ill children. It promotes closer, more integrated ways of working between specialist teams, and ensures rapid access to key services, such as paediatric surgery, at the most critical times when they are needed.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Mortality rates for the treatment of congenital heart disease fell from 14% in 1991 to 2% last year. The Royal Brompton, where the service is threatened with closure, does better even than this. What evidence is there that the closure programme will produce any further improvement, and if there is none, why is it being pursued?
Mr Dunne
The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we have some world-leading patient outcomes for congenital heart disease, and I recognise the statistics that he read out. This is being driven entirely by seeking to improve patient outcomes across the country—improving them even on that very good performance—and to ensure greater resilience of service in some areas where there are relatively low volumes and an over-reliance on locums. I accept that that is not the case at the Royal Brompton, but it is in some of the others.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Leeds heart unit is performing very well, and is free from the threat that it was facing, unfairly, a few years ago. Will lessons be learned, however, from the disastrous Safe and Sustainable review process, which pitted hospital against hospital and clinician against clinician? Can we find a much better way—I hope the Minister will tell us that this is happening now—to reconfigure such services?
Mr Dunne
I recognise that when the proposal was put forward back in 2012, it led to a process that we felt was wrong, and we therefore stopped it. This process, we hope, is being conducted in a more rigorous and fairer way, and will lead to outcomes driven, as I say, by improving patient experience.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
Labour’s legacy cost from the 103 hospital PFI schemes entered into between 1997 and 2010 was a public sector liability of £77 billion. The estimated total NHS PFI payments for the financial year ending at the end of this month is £1.97 billion, and the totals for the next three financial years are £2.04 billion, £2.11 billion and £2.16 billion.
Tim Loughton
Those are alarming figures, so what are the Government doing to support the trusts affected by those expensive and inflexible PFI and other deals reached under the previous Labour Government? What assessment has the Minister made of what the funds could be buying in the NHS now if it was not saddled by this Labour debt legacy?
Mr Dunne
My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Opposition constantly complain about the cost of the PFI programmes that they themselves initiated. The Government are making large efforts to support trusts in dealing with the PFI legacy. We are giving the seven trusts worst affected by PFI schemes access to a £1.5 billion support fund over a 25-year period. In 2014 alone, trusts negotiated savings worth over £250 million on their contracts.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Mr Dunne
The Department is urgently undertaking work to understand what the impact on the NHS will be. There have been regular meetings with the NHS Litigation Authority since the announcement. The Government will adjust the NHSLA’s budget to meet the additional costs associated with the change in the discount rate.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) shoehorned Question 21, which we did not reach, into a Question that we did reach. He blurted it out so quickly that it took us a while to notice that it had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the private finance initiative. Very naughty boy!
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
PFI always was idiotic. It carried on under the coalition Government and has left a huge financial hangover. Will the Minister have a word with his colleagues in the Treasury, because the Treasury figures on hospital liabilities are different from the figures that some of the hospitals themselves produce? As there is a discrepancy, we do not even know what the liabilities are.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
Social care continues to be a key priority for the Government. That is why local authorities in England will receive an uplift in the money available for social care over the next three years of 17% in cash terms. That significant uplift will allow councils to support more people and sustain a diverse care market.
Rosie Cooper
Does the Minister recognise that the figure he has just given—the additional £1 billion in the Budget—is just half of what is needed to fill the shortfall in social care? Will he tell the House what he is doing to ensure that the sector gets the additional money and to stop councils being bankrupted by their social care requirements?
David Mowat
The 17% cash uplift over the next three years exceeds what we have been asked for by a number of stakeholders in the sector. I have conceded at this Dispatch Box many times that the sector is under pressure. The additional moneys that we have come forward with will help to alleviate that and will make a big difference. In Lancashire, the figure is not 17% over three years; it is 18% over three years.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
The Minister is quite right that central Government are providing extra money for essential care and allowing local councils to raise a precept on the council tax for social care. How will the Government ensure that councils actually spend that money on social care?
David Mowat
Much of the money will go through the better care fund and there is conditionality on that. We expect councils to spend this money, as they have requested it, on social care and we believe that that will be the case. We understand the pressures and have acted.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
But 1.2 million older people are living with unmet care needs. The £1 billion that was announced in the Budget for this year is not enough to prop up the failing care sector, when many councils are suffering contracts being handed back. Given that 1 million people over the age of 65 do not have adult children, will the Minister explain how all those people living with unmet care needs are meant to manage?
David Mowat
The figure on unmet care needs comes from an Age UK analysis. I am meeting Age UK to go through its recent report, but we do not accept that analysis because the Care Act 2014, which had cross-party support, set statutory consistent definitions for what care councils have to provide. It is illegal for that not to be met, and our follow-up work with the Local Government Association has indicated that it is being met. Furthermore, we have put in a 17% increase over the next three years.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
Our childhood obesity plan includes a number of measures, such as the soft drinks industry levy, reformulation and school-based interventions, that will help all children, including those in inner-city communities. We will monitor progress carefully, including through the national child measurement programme. We will routinely publish developments on all key measurements for the programme, but it stands to reason that those who are most in need will benefit most from these interventions.
Rushanara Ali
I thank the Minister for that answer, but it remains the case that childhood obesity is twice as high in deprived areas as it is in more affluent areas. In Tower Hamlets, 20% of children are obese and a third are overweight. What will the Government do to reduce childhood obesity and when will the plan be published?
Nicola Blackwood
The childhood obesity plan has already been published. I think the hon. Lady may be talking about the reformulation targets and the baseline data, which are coming out imminently. The experts in Public Health England are working feverishly to make sure that the data are exactly as they should be. One measure I think she will be particularly keen to see is the investment in schools committed to by the Chancellor in the Budget, including the voluntary healthy rating scheme, which will be published in June.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
What measure is being used to ascertain the success or otherwise of the strategy and when will we know whether it has worked or not?
Nicola Blackwood
As I mentioned, we will be publishing the reformulation baselines against which all future success will be measured. They will include measurement across all industry targets. In addition, we will of course have the voluntary healthy rating scheme for primary schools to recognise and encourage their contribution to preventing obesity.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
As part of our ambition to make the NHS the safest healthcare system in the world, I will today be speaking at the largest ever conference on learning from avoidable deaths and what we can do to improve care in the future. As part of that, I can inform the House that the NHS Litigation Authority will radically change its focus from simply defending NHS litigation claims to the early settlement of cases, learning from what goes wrong and the prevention of errors. As part of those changes, it will change its name to NHS Resolution.
Margaret Ferrier
My constituent Pauline Cafferkey was cleared of misconduct last September, following a very public case surrounding her return from Sierra Leone and her contraction of Ebola. Will she receive an apology from Public Health England and will it reimburse her legal costs?
Mr Hunt
With respect to Pauline Cafferkey, who is a very brave lady and who gave very good service to this country and the people of Sierra Leone with her work during the Ebola crisis, the hon. Lady will understand that disciplinary procedures are an independent matter. They are not dealt with by the Government. They have to be done at arm’s length and we have to respect whatever is said or done.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Nicola Blackwood)
We are firmly committed to improving the UK’s air quality and cutting harmful emissions. We have committed £2 billion since 2011 to increase the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles, support greener transport schemes and set out how we will improve air quality through a new programme of clean air zones. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low emission buses, taxis and alternative fuels. I regularly meet the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see how we can roll out this work.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab)
The Government have not met the four-hour target for A&E since July 2015. In the NHS mandate, finally published yesterday, the Secretary of State is effectively telling hospitals that they do not need to meet it in 2017 and that it only needs to be met in aggregate across hospitals
“within the course of 2018”.
Is that not the clearest admission that the targets will not be met next year, because in the next 12 months the NHS will be denied the funding it needs and, as a consequence, patients will suffer?
Mr Hunt
Apart from observing that if the hon. Gentleman cares so much about the 95% target he might want to ask his colleagues in Wales why they are looking at scrapping it, on the money let me be very clear: in the next year, the NHS will be getting about £1.5 billion more than his party were promising at the last election and the social care system will be getting £1.5 billion more than his party were promising at the last election. We are doing our job.
Jonathan Ashworth
The Secretary of State says he is doing his job, so why does he not take that up with NHS Providers, which is warning that because of the underfunding, it will be “mission impossible” in the next 12 months to deliver standards of care. Returning to the NHS mandate, did you notice, Mr Speaker, that in that mandate there is no mention whatsoever of Brexit, even though the NHS relies on 140,000 NHS and care workers? I know that the Secretary of State is not a member of the Cabinet Brexit committee, but will he use his considerable influence with the Prime Minister to ensure that when she triggers article 50 next week, she will finally give an absolute guarantee of the rights of all those EU workers in our NHS?
Mr Hunt
First, let me first reassure you, Mr Speaker, that I will be attending the Brexit committee when it is relevant to the NHS; in fact, I shall attend it this week, because issues relating to the NHS are coming up in it. What we are not going to do in that committee, however, is to take steps that would risk the welfare of British citizens living in countries such as Spain, Ireland and France. That is why, although it is a top priority for us to negotiate the rights of EU citizens living in Britain, including those working in the NHS, it has to be part of an agreement that protects the rights of British citizens abroad.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Nicola Blackwood
Frist, let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his leadership of the APPG on rare diseases. I am sure he will join me in feeling proud that the UK is a recognised leader in research, treatment and care for rare diseases in particular. We are at the forefront of the genomics revolution. He is right that the UK strategy for rare diseases needs to be translated into an implementation plan, and that is one of my personal commitments.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
There is no hitch. The Government remain committed to putting this into place, and the legislation will be brought forward shortly.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
Mr Hunt
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that this is a serious issue. I commend the brilliant work done by NHS trauma centres throughout the country, which are world-beating, but, as well as setting up those centres, we have established much closer co-operation with local police forces so that we can work out where the crime hotspots are and help the police to prevent such things from happening.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
As my hon. Friend will have heard from the Secretary of State earlier, a number of areas are competing to secure a new medical facility. One of our criteria will involve encouraging doctors to be trained in areas where there are shortages, and I am sure that Lincoln University will take that factor into consideration.
Michael Dugher (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The British Medical Association said recently that the funds for sustainability and transformation plans that were announced in the Budget would be completely inadequate for the task. Health trusts throughout the country are being forced to consider rationing treatment and ending or downgrading local services such as A&E, which will result in even longer waits and journey times to access care. Why do the Government not call STPs what they really are—secret Tory plans to decimate the national health service further?
Mr Hunt
This is a year in which funding for the NHS has risen by £3.8 billion in real terms. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say what he has said, given that in 2015 he stood on a platform to give the NHS £1.3 billion less this year than it is receiving under the Conservatives.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Mr Speaker
What a magnificently enjoyable life the Secretary of State has—not to mention Mrs Bone.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Last week, to the distress of its vulnerable residents, Aldingham House care home in Blackheath became the latest care home in south-east London to close. Do the Government accept that the care home industry is at breaking point, and, if so, what are they doing about it?
David Mowat
The number of care home beds in the country has remained broadly constant at just over half a million over the last 10 years. There is variation and churn between areas, but I believe that the 17% cash-terms increase that we have injected into the social care market in the Budget, and the better care fund that is to come, will make a difference.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Portsmouth South) (Con)
I welcome the new nursing associates role that is currently being piloted. Will other areas, such as Portsmouth, be able to offer the same opportunities in the future, and will the new role be open to older people wishing to return to the workplace?
Mr Dunne
As my hon. Friend knows, we are launching a second wave of nursing associates at the beginning of April. I am pleased to be able to confirm that Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust, which manages Portsmouth Hospitals NHS Trust, is one of the trusts that will receive nursing associates, and that the system is partly designed to give social care workers opportunities to upskill.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of a recent High Court case concerning a surrogacy issue that has led to legal limbo. Does he agree that the existing legislation has let children down, and that reform is urgently needed?
Nicola Blackwood
I can confirm that the High Court has made a judgment, that the current orders for parental orders are discriminatory, and that the Government will act within a reasonable timescale. We intend to lay an order before the summer recess in an attempt to address some of the challenges.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
One of my constituents, Harriet North, has been diagnosed with TRAPS—tumour necrosis factor receptor-associated periodic syndrome. Her consultants say that the drug Anakinra will not only transform her life, but will save her life. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how we can get the best treatment for Harriet, and if it is possible for NHS England to review the decision on this?
Nicola Blackwood
My hon. Friend has raised this case with the Department and has been making a number of pleas on behalf of his constituent. It is a very difficult case and I would like to pass on my sympathies to his constituent. Obviously, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is independent and this drug is not recommended for TRAPS. I do not know the details of the case because it is confidential, but I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to see if anything can be done.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I do not know if you spotted the rather topical news story about children’s dentistry this morning, Mr Speaker: there were 1,464 hospital admissions for children for teeth extractions across one clinical commissioning area of Birmingham last year, the highest figure since 2010-11. How does the Minister account for this, and what is he going to do about it?
David Mowat
The figures for child extractions are clearly disappointing and two key actions need to take place: less sugar, which we expect the soft drinks levy to help with; and getting more fluoride on to teeth, particularly through fluoride varnishing. That has increased across the NHS over the last year, and by 12% in Birmingham. We hope that that will make a difference.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The NHS mandate was published yesterday, just days before coming into force. Can the Secretary of State set out the reason for the delay, because it allows very little time for scrutiny of this important document by this House? Will he also set out how he is going to prevent money being leached from mental health services and primary care to prop up provider deficits, so that we can meet objective 6 on improving community services?
Mr Hunt
My hon. Friend makes very important points. The reason for the delay was because about a month ago we had wind that we might be successful in securing extra money for social care in the Budget, and we needed to wait until the Budget was completed before we concluded discussions on the mandate. Our confidence as a result of what is in the Budget has enabled us to make the commitments we have made in the mandate, including making sure that we continue to invest in the transformation of out-of-hospital care.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We are out of time, but I want to get in two more questions.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware that many migrants in the UK are not registered with GPs, yet now when they come to Britain they have to pay an NHS fine. What is he doing, with the Home Office, to ensure that migrants are registered with a GP and are aware of community health facilities?
Mr Hunt
I am not quite sure whether I understand the right hon. Lady’s question, but there is not a fining system for migrants; what we say is that people who come to the UK as visitors should pay for their healthcare, or pay the visa surcharge if they are coming for a longer period. There is an exemption for public health, because it is important for everyone that we make sure that we treat people for things like tuberculosis.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Secretary of State is aware of the concern that I and the people of Witney have about the future of Deer Park medical centre, which is a vital local resource. I am grateful to him for meeting me and for our correspondence. Please will he confirm that he will press the Independent Review Panel for a response at the earliest opportunity, given that the clinical commissioning group is determined to close this vital practice in three days’ time, and that he will consider the views of the patients of Witney very carefully indeed?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues, but we must move on.
Money Laundering: British Banks
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on allegations of money laundering against British banks.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
We want our financial institutions to lead the way in the global fight against money laundering. This is not only a question of financial crime, with illicit finance used to fund serious organised crime groups, as well as terrorist organisations; this is about keeping our citizens safe. That is why the Government are going to do what it takes to prevent the practice and pursue anyone who might seek to abuse our financial system.
The Financial Conduct Authority and the National Crime Agency take any such allegations seriously and will investigate closely whether recent information from The Guardian newspaper—or, indeed, any other media source—regarding money laundering from Russia would allow the progression of an investigation. Beyond that, we need to ensure that sophisticated criminal networks cannot exploit our financial services industry.
This Government already do more than any other to tackle the global threat of money laundering. Since 2010, we have seized £1.4 billion in illegal funds and put hundreds of millions more beyond the reach of criminals. We have set up the Panama papers taskforce and we hosted the global anti-corruption summit last year. Now, we are preparing the most significant changes to our anti-money-laundering and terrorist finance regime in over a decade. We are strengthening the rules to put the UK at the forefront of international efforts to crack down on money laundering, with new regulations coming into force by the end of June. We are also bringing in a landmark piece of legislation in the form of the Criminal Finances Bill. That will allow banks to share more information than ever to help to uncover money laundering. It will also give law enforcement agencies new powers to bring criminals to justice.
However, domestic changes alone are not enough in a world of global criminal networks, which is why we are working closely with our international partners to stand up to this threat together. Work continues apace in groups such as the G20 and the Financial Action Task Force, whose membership includes all the world’s leading financial centres. We have led the way in getting more than 90 countries to exchange data on offshore accounts and to uphold the global standard of tax transparency. We are determined to make the UK the most difficult place in the world for international crime networks to channel their finances through, and we will not relent in our efforts to do that.
John McDonnell
I hope that the Minister recognises the immense gravity of the situation that we are facing, because I believe that his statement reflects complacency on the part of the Government. Let me go through the allegations, which are of the deepest concern. First, it is alleged that, via an operation referred to as the “global laundromat”, banks based in Britain have been used to launder immense sums of money obtained from criminal activity in Russia linked to the FSB spy agency there. This appears to point to an overwhelming failure of basic management on the part of the banks. One of those banks, HSBC, is an institution that has previously faced money laundering charges in the US and across the globe. The direct intervention of this Government helped to block a 2012 US investigation on the purported grounds of its potential risk to financial stability. Money laundering through London and elsewhere threatens the stability of our financial sector and our economy.
In the case of another bank, RBS, the Government directly own a 72% stake. A third bank, Barclays, has been under investigation for its role in LIBOR rigging. Will the Minister give us specific details of what steps are being taken to address this scandal? Can we have an assurance that there is the potential to open criminal proceedings to break up what is effectively a criminal network? Will the Government also undertake that they will not—as they have in the past with HSBC—attempt to intervene in criminal or other investigations taking place elsewhere in the world? The major risk to financial stability is not from investigations intended to clear out criminal activity from our banking system; it is from inactivity on the part of the Government and others, and from failing to act to ensure that our major banks are clean and fit for purpose.
Secondly, all those banks claim to have strict internal policies to deal with money laundering. The Financial Conduct Authority places great stress on the need for banks to self-police and create appropriate internal procedures to prevent money laundering. It is obvious from today’s revelations, however, that the current arrangements are not working to prevent widespread, organised and sophisticated criminal activity. Will the Government tell the House what steps they will be taking to address this matter with the FCA? Will the Government today commit to opening an inquiry with a view to reporting rapidly on measures to be taken that will strengthen the regulations, including introducing tighter controls on and closer monitoring of the banks themselves?
Finally, when the Government own major stakes in the banks involved—RBS in particular, since they are no longer able to sell off that stake—there is an immediate need for them to reassure taxpayers that publicly owned banks are not indirectly involved in criminal activity. What steps will the Government, as a major shareholder in RBS, take to investigate the allegations against it and to reassure taxpayers? Our banks have been found wanting yet again. Urgent action is needed from the Government to protect the standing of our finance sector and to protect our economy. Complacency and inaction are not good enough.
Simon Kirby
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are far from complacent. As I outlined earlier, we have been updating the UK’s money laundering regulations, and I hope that the Criminal Finances Bill, which is currently in the other place, will receive Royal Assent in the near future, creating new powers for enforcement agencies. The FCA takes misconduct seriously and fined Deutsche Bank £163 million only last month. As for whether we should be telling the independent FCA or the NCA what to do, it is worth saying that if the information reveals new findings, the FCA will be able to investigate accordingly. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on potential legal proceedings.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Does the commitment expressed in our hosting of the anti-corruption summit not a year ago still exist to drive forward its agenda?
Simon Kirby
Absolutely. This Government are fully committed to ensuring that taxpayers are fully protected and that we do all we can to stamp out illegal money laundering activity.
Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)
This revelation is shocking, but it is not in the least bit surprising. For over a year, I have been campaigning in this House on associated areas. After the story was released yesterday evening, I undertook research that indicates that at the heart of the issue is the banks’ use of limited partnerships—not only Scottish limited partnerships, but many other forms—that allow the criminals to hide their ownership of companies. It is through that mechanism that these things are happening.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy closed its review of limited partnerships on Friday. Will the Government allow me and other interested Members to resubmit to the review, although it is formally closed, so that we can raise this important matter and have it considered in the review?
Secondly, when one looks at the outcome and the extent of the situation, it is too much to believe that we are the world leader in money laundering regulation in general, so it is time for another look at that. Thirdly, a key concern of many in the House is that the banks have not had a supportive whistleblowing regime in recent years. We need to encourage, not inhibit, whistleblowing.
Simon Kirby
In this alleged case, my understanding is that the bodies used were limited companies, not limited partnerships. Last year, BEIS introduced the register of people with significant control, and we will be consulting shortly on UK property-owning foreign companies. That is a step forward.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the limited partnership consultation; I am sure that any right hon. or hon. Member who wants to write to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy can do so. It is also appropriate to say that we are world leaders in financial regulation. The FCA does a good job, is held in high regard by the rest of the world and strikes the right balance between consumer protection and fairness.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend takes this issue seriously. Will he tell the House how unexplained wealth orders will prevent criminals from using the proceeds of crime in the UK?
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend raises an important part of the Criminal Finances Bill, which is going through the other place as we speak. I look forward to its receiving Royal Assent and becoming law, giving new law enforcement powers to stop any of this activity.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Economic Secretary has shown real complacency about the huge and building scandal that has been revealed by The Guardian today. Given that our banking sector is very large and that the consequences of its being destabilised by such criminal behaviour are very serious for our economy, does he not realise that his complacent, process-driven answers today are simply not good enough?
Simon Kirby
I do not recognise that at all. The FCA and the NCA are well placed to investigate this, if appropriate. We have not only world-leading financial regulation but world-leading financial services. More than 1 million people across the country are employed in financial services in all our constituencies, and the vast majority of them work hard, do a good job and represent customers as well as they can. We have outlined the measures that the Government are undertaking—[Interruption.] I have addressed everything that the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) mentioned. This Government are doing more than at any time in the past 10 years to tackle this issue.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond (Yorks)) (Con)
Given the overlap between money laundering networks and terrorist financing networks, does my hon. Friend agree that this is also an issue of national security and that, furthermore, the only way we can tackle it is with greater information sharing between the private sector, regulatory bodies and enforcement agencies?
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Greater information sharing and transparency are the way forward. The register of people with significant control is an important step forward, and I look forward to additional transparency in the future. Ultimately, people with nothing to hide have nothing to fear.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
To counter the impression that he has been promoted beyond his competence, can the Minister tell us which British banks have been convicted of money laundering over the past five years? What specific, individual thing has he learned from reading those judgments? [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The question was discourteous, but it was not disorderly—there is a distinction. The hon. Gentleman has been practising that technique in all sorts of different forums in all the 30 years that I have known him. The question was not one of the more extreme variants on the theme.
Simon Kirby
I can tell the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) that the FCA has carried out a number of enforcement actions, both large and small, over a large number of different financial services. It is right and proper that a balance between fairness and responsible behaviour is struck at all times.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
If these allegations are proven, particularly against a bank in which the Government own a majority stake, will my hon. Friend commit to using the full powers of the Criminal Finances Bill to clamp down on this type of money laundering, which, if proven, will be a national disgrace and scandal?
Simon Kirby
It is worth saying that our shareholding in a number of banks is at arm’s length. We are not operationally in control, as is right and proper. The important thing is that we learn lessons from the past and make sure that the past is not repeated.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
Has the Minister discussed the matter with the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), who the US House of Representatives found intervened with the American authorities to prevent HSBC from being prosecuted in 2012? What has the FCA specifically done since the “global laundromat” was discovered in 2013?
Simon Kirby
I have not had that conversation with my right hon. Friend. It is fair to say that the FCA has carried out a number of investigations, and it is right and proper that it does so. The FCA is an independent operational body that we set up as asked, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
It seems to me, and to many others, that there is an unwritten deal here: that Russians and others of dubious or illegal means can essentially come to this country, send their kids to our schools, buy our real estate or our sports clubs and get involved in this country on the basis—this is the other side of the deal—that they do no wrong while they are here. That is not an acceptable way forward, if it ever was. Is it not now time to rethink this issue?
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. This Government are doing more than ever before to tackle this important issue. When it comes to money laundering, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has called for evidence on the use of limited partnerships, which were raised by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin), and will in due course consider any action needed to address those concerns.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
To a long list of misdemeanours committed by the banks for which directors have not been held responsible, we now have this allegation of extensive laundering of funds that were either stolen or of criminal origin. One of the explanations that has been given is that directors of banks see compliance as an expense with no return. Can the Minister assure us that the allegations will be properly investigated by criminal investigators and that, if it is found that directors have encouraged slack compliance for the profit of their bank, they will feel the full weight of the law and realise that slack compliance has a cost in their personal lives?
Simon Kirby
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that in this country we have not only a world-regarded financial regulation system but a rule of law that is both fair and effective. If there is any wrongdoing or impropriety, it is right and proper that those people face the full weight of the law.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
How many money launderers have been sent to prison in the past five years?
Simon Kirby
I am not aware of the exact answer to that question, but I will write to my hon. Friend with all the information I have. I am convinced that, across the world and in this country, money laundering is taken very seriously.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Are the Government or any other public agency in Britain investigating whether laundered Russian money was channelled to any individuals in either the leave campaign or the Trump presidential campaign? Is the Minister aware of any other investigations?
Simon Kirby
I make it clear that I am not aware of any connection. It is right and proper that the FCA and the NCA have been watching that issue for some time. It is a confidential matter; if there is new information, I am sure they will consider it.
Mr Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
Compliance officers across the banking sector play a key role in stamping out some of the behaviour that has been reported. Will the Minister assure the House that the FCA and other regulators are making sure that compliance officers are properly trained and are proactive on the ground?
Simon Kirby
I reassure my hon. Friend that that is the case. It is right and proper that the issue of money laundering is addressed from top to bottom. Everyone has a responsible part to play.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Having previously claimed that
“there is little evidence of corporate economic wrongdoing going unpunished”,
the Ministry of Justice is now considering whether it should extend the criminal liability offences to money laundering. Does the Minister now agree that the “global laundromat” allegations clearly highlight that the law needs to be toughened up in this area?
Simon Kirby
I am sure that the MOJ will listen carefully to the hon. Lady’s point.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The report indicates that many of the laundered funds went into shell companies. Can the Minister explain how the world’s first open register of equitable ownership will help prosecuting authorities to bring to justice those who benefit from such funds?
Simon Kirby
The people with significant control register is open for everyone to see. Thousands, if not millions, of people are able to see it. Transparency is absolutely the best thing to make people aware of wrongdoing and to make sure that nothing is hidden.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It is clear that the current measures, though welcome, are simply not sufficient to tackle this sort of money laundering. Considering that dirty money is channelled through our British banks, how much worse would it be if the Chancellor achieved his vision of this country becoming a corporate tax haven—another Panama—post-Brexit?
Simon Kirby
That is not the Chancellor’s vision. The Government are currently consulting on the fourth money laundering directive. I have mentioned the Criminal Finances Bill, which is in the other place. The FCA is also vigilant in enforcing measures, and it takes misconduct very seriously.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Having witnessed at first hand the anti-money laundering procedures of UK banks, when I tried to keep open an existing bank account, I wonder how any organisation has managed to launder ill-gotten gains through our banks, and I can only conclude that it is because complying with the regulations is seen as no more than a tick-box exercise. Does my hon. Friend agree that banks should adopt a more proportionate and common-sense approach when dealing with members of the public?
Simon Kirby
My hon. Friend will be pleased that the fourth money laundering directive, which the Government are consulting on as we speak, includes provision for a more proportionate approach to that very issue, and I hope he takes part in the consultation. I also hope that the banks, with FCA guidance and a Government steer, will have to take a proportionate approach in the very near future.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
The Home Affairs Committee estimates that £100 billion is laundered through London every year, but only 0.17% of that has been frozen, so the Minister might as well go to Heathrow and put up a welcome sign for Russian murderers and money launderers. Five criminal complaints have been submitted to UK law enforcement agencies about money laundering connected to the Magnitsky case. Not a single one has resulted in the opening of a criminal case, whereas 12 other countries have opened investigations on the same evidence. So the question is this: what is necessary to get UK law enforcement agencies to do their jobs and prosecute money launderers? Why has that not been working, and what is the Minister going to do about it?
Simon Kirby
I hope the NCA and the FCA would, if appropriate, do a considerable amount about it. They are independently operational bodies. It is right and proper that I cannot comment at the Dispatch Box about what may or may not happen. However, if there is wrongdoing, it is right and proper that it is addressed.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As we have heard, HSBC has been a serial offender on money laundering all around the world. It has had fines in the US and in Switzerland, and it has been mentioned again. There were calls for an investigation into other banks in 2012. The “laundromat” scheme was first reported in The Independent in 2014, so yesterday’s news is not actually new news; it just shows the scale of the problem with people using British banks and shell companies registered in the UK. If the UK really is a world leader in money laundering and other financial regulation, how bad are things in the rest of the world, and what is the UK doing to help stamp out the problem elsewhere?
Simon Kirby
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. It is important to co-operate with countries around the world. We have been very clear that we will work with the Financial Action Task Force and other regulators around the world, and that is important. This is not something we can solve domestically on our own.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Investigators at the National Crime Agency are saying that Russian officials have been hampering their investigations by refusing to co-operate. What discussions has the Minister had, or will he have, with his Foreign Office counterparts to see whether they can broker a better relationship with those Russian officials?
Simon Kirby
I would imagine that the FCA is in contact with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and, if appropriate, they will have conversations about this issue. What is important is that, if these allegations are correct, and any new information is presented, the NCA and the FCA act on it appropriately.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
May I ask why the Chancellor is not here, because, frankly, the Minister’s answers today have been appalling? Some £80 billion could have been laundered, according to this story. Should we not think again about the powers the FCA and other regulators have to prevent these things from happening? Can he please answer some questions?
Simon Kirby
I am very sorry, but I have been doing my very best to answer the questions that have been asked. Sadly, I cannot be held responsible for the quality or the content of the questions. What I would say is that I am the Minister responsible for financial services, and the Government are responsible for legislating in this place and in the other place. To answer the hon. Lady’s question, the Criminal Finances Bill is an example of what we are doing now, as we speak, to improve things. The FCA is in constant dialogue with not only the banks but the Government to make sure it moves with the times.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
If it is found during the investigation that terrorism has been facilitated, what personal responsibility will the Minister take for that dreadful finding?
Simon Kirby
It is important to say that these schemes operated from 2010 to 2014. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned that The Independent first raised the story in 2014. However, if there is new evidence, it is important that the NCA and the FCA look at it and act accordingly. We set up those bodies to act operationally and independently from Government, and that is right and proper.
Rectification Procedure
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On Thursday 16 March, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards published her report on a complaint about my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which concluded that I had breached the rules relating to how I registered information and, in a subsequent and inadvertent omission, had failed to draw the House’s attention to these interests while asking a question about the future of deep coal mining in the UK on 13 March 2013. Mr Speaker, I wish to apologise to the House fully and unreservedly for what was a genuinely inadvertent breach of the rules, with which I have at all times sought to comply.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said, and I think it will have been heard and appreciated by the House.
Point of Order
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice concerning the emergency personal independence payments regulations, which came into force last Thursday. Over 160 Members of this House have signed a prayer against the regulations, for which the praying-against period comes to an end on 3 April. A debate has been arranged for next week in the other place, but to date the Government have refused to arrange a debate and vote on the Floor of this House.
There is a huge democratic deficit, with the regulations enforced by negative statutory instrument. That is a sad reflection of the Government’s attitude to this House. On top of that, over 180,000 people have signed a petition against the regulations. Some 81,000 disabled people will have been through a PIP assessment that will deny people in psychological distress access to additional support. Please can you advise me how I can press the Government to hold a debate on these regulations before we rise for the Easter recess?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Lady has raised her point with very considerable force, and she has underlined the reasons for its urgency. I have noted the number of Members, to which she referred, who have prayed against the regulations. Her point of order is not, sadly, a matter for the Chair, but it will have been heard on the Treasury Bench, and it is not an unreasonable hope and expectation on her part and that of those Members who prayed against the regulations that a debate will be arranged in a timely fashion.
In so far as she seeks advice, I would say to her that she and her colleagues could use the opportunity of business questions on Thursday to press their claims in respect of the schedule for next week’s business, for it is with next week that the hon. Lady is concerned. Whether group activity—that is to say, significant numbers raising the matter—will be effective, I do not know, but it seems a reasonable supposition that, if anything will, it might. I think we will leave it there for now.
Short and Holiday-let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities)
Tuesday 21st March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities) Bill 2016-17 View all Short and Holiday-Let Accommodation (Notification of Local Authorities) Bill 2016-17 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require householders to notify local authorities of an intention to register accommodation for short or holiday lets; and for connected purposes.
Good ideas can be undermined when a minority abuse or exploit them, causing harm to others and undermining the wellbeing of the wider community. The “sharing” economy is fizzing with good ideas and opportunities. We are in an era where the potential use of resources—from labour to transport to homes—can be made more of by the speed and flexibility of digital communications, and we should not be putting unnecessary barriers in the way. Yet, that is not the same as saying there should be no rules. Individuals and communities need to be protected, and the rules we agree on must be enforced.
We now have an emerging consensus, including London councils of different political complexions, the Mayor of London and London Assembly members, on the need for further action. So today I am putting forward a proposal that will make it possible to effectively enforce the rules preventing the abuse of short and holiday let accommodation. Although I welcome the freedom for homeowners to let their properties for such purposes without excessive bureaucratic interference, it is difficult and expensive for cash-strapped councils to police the rules. With no requirement to seek permission for a short let, the only way to identify where such lettings are taking place—and, more importantly, where they are in breach of the rules—is by having staff comb the various websites to find them.
As some of us flagged up during the passage of the Deregulation Bill, which set the 90-day annual maximum for short lets, proving a property is let at all can be tough when there is no notification, and proving a property is let for more than three months in any one year is labour-intensive, expensive and cumbersome. Officers of my own local authority, Westminster, have been of great help in preparing this short Bill, and they have told me:
“It is difficult to determine the addresses as there is no prior notification system. My officers spend an inordinate amount of time trying to identify properties from website photographs where addresses are not provided like Airbnb. We also rely heavily on members of the public notifying us of people short-letting properties.
We are up against it but remain vigilant and continue to do all that we can to deal with the commercial lets (i.e. Those let in excess of 90 nights).”
People who are using Airbnb and others of the various platforms for short and holiday lets sometimes say to me, “Why does it matter? Why shouldn’t we, as homeowners, do what we want with our properties?” For many of them, it should not matter at all, as they are the occasional hosts—they are the sharing economy—earning a bit of extra cash from a spare room or when they are away. They are aware of their own legal responsibilities and are considerate of neighbours—let them flourish. The problem is that they are not alone. Alongside the responsible owner-occupiers are irresponsible ones, illegal sub-letters and an increasingly significant commercial operation seeking to take advantage of potentially higher yields.
Across all London boroughs, in the year following the Deregulation Act 2015 there was a city-wide 126% increase in the number of short lettings advertised on Airbnb alone. Westminster had an 80% increase, but some boroughs saw even bigger rises, with Camden’s figure going up by 124%, Southwark’s by 139% and Brent’s by a staggering 762%. There is now evidence to suggest that the short let phenomenon is spreading across the UK, with Edinburgh and Manchester following London—Brighton and Bristol are among the other authorities experiencing this. The latest data on InsideAirbnb.com confirms that, with nearly 50,000 listings across Edinburgh and Manchester alone. In terms of potential breaches of the law, my borough is currently investigating more than 1,100 properties believed to have breached the 90-night limit.
Also in the early part of last year, the number of whole properties—as opposed to rooms—in London listed on Airbnb increased by a quarter, from 17,625 to 21,861. Research by the Residential Landlords Association shows that 41% of all Airbnb listings in London last June were multi-listings, meaning that the property owners had more than one property advertised; this increase, to some 17,590 properties, is also a sign that the website is increasingly becoming commercialised. Meanwhile, 54% of entire home and entire apartment listings in Manchester, and 43% of those in Edinburgh, were identified as multi-listing properties, again indicating that the trend is going well beyond the image of the sharing economy.
Two concerning issues arise from that, the first of which is the loss of residential accommodation. Short lets can bring in up to three times the income of more traditional flat rentals: £1,800 a week, on average, for a two-bedroom flat, as opposed to £620 a week for a traditional assured shorthold tenancy, according to Westminster City Council. Even before the Deregulation Act, evidence suggested that flats were being, in effect, converted into semi-permanent holiday lets, but now the pressure is even more intense. The potential to earn more from short lets is a key selling point on some of the sites. People are told:
“The rents you can achieve during weekend stays or overnight stays can easily match or beat what you could achieve for a monthly rental income from a normal tenancy—plus you can enjoy the flexibility of choosing when to put your property up for rent, and when not to.”
Another company states:
“A short term let normally generates 50-100% more income than a long term let.”
So, alongside the genuine sharing economy lettings by homeowners, that leads to a longer-term loss of residential homes, even those available for traditional assured shorthold lettings. Westminster City Council alone estimates there to be 3,000 whole properties on listings sites, with about 1,000 each in a number of other individual boroughs.
One constituent wrote to me to say:
“This style of letting has nothing to do with people make a bit of extra money on the side from their homes, by renting out the odd room, (which was the original premise of Airbnb) and has now become a licence for people to make big (non-tax-declared money) at the expense of local residents who are subjected to its considerable downsides”.
Where this all began for me was the number of constituents coming to raise concerns about the impact of their communities becoming an unofficial part of the hospitality industry. Their questions were about issues including: the impact of transience; their security; antisocial behaviour arising from noise; waste issues; overcrowding; and a range of other sources of disturbance. Those disturbances place a cost on the local authority, too. Enforcement costs, and the costs of dealing with noise and other breaches of regulations have to be met by cash-strapped local authorities.
One constituent wrote to me to say:
“We are a single house in Bayswater (six flats) and we manage ourselves. All the flats but one (ours) are now non-owner-occupied. A few weeks ago it became obvious that one flat was renting on Airbnb, and I’m fairly sure had broken the 90 day limit. This is technically in breach of the terms of our leases, which have that ‘single private use’ clause in them, but more than that I really hate the idea of our house turning into a hotel, our front door key in strangers’ hands. And I’m fairly sure it breaches the terms of our buildings insurance which is a bit scary.”
That whole area of downsides from short lettings—insurance and other lease requirements regularly being breached as a consequence of short lets— is beginning to come to the public’s attention.
Meanwhile, tax revenues are, if anything, going down—that is certainly what other cities are finding. One article looking at the American experience found:
“First up on the list of grievances big cities have with vacation rental sites is lost tax revenue. The number of missing tax dollars is truly astounding. A study from AllTheRooms.com, a vacation rental and hotel search engine, found that the total 2016 tax revenue from room rentals brokered through Airbnb would amount to almost $440 million if they were taxed at the same rate as traditional hotels.”
That is the American experience. We do not have a local UK experience, but that is where we are going.
Unlike before the 2015 Act, councils now have to prove not merely that a property is being short let, but that it has been short let for more than 90 days in a year, which is a far harder and more resource-intensive task. What can be done to resolve this? Local authorities are looking for the Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government to be more prepared to intervene to exempt neighbourhoods from the current set of regulations—they have the powers to do that. Westminster City Council applied for such an exemption but was turned down, although I know it is considering making a fresh application. The platforms can also do more. I welcome the fact that Airbnb has said it will enforce the 90-day maximum rule, but not all other letting platforms are taking the same approach—in some cases they are making it clear that they believe it is for the host to uphold the law, not for themselves, as letting platforms, to do so.
What I believe is now necessary, and what this short Bill aims to do, is to introduce a light-touch online notification system that is mandatory for homeowners to complete, where they merely confirm the dates their property is to be used for short letting. This is not about seeking permission, but is merely about allowing local authorities to know where short and holiday lets are taking place so that they are able to enforce effectively. By all means encourage people to make good use of their homes and earn extra cash, but let us make sure that this does not intensify the housing crisis, land costs on others—while sharing none of the rewards—and inflict misery on long-term residents who, to their shock, can find themselves waking up in a hotel annexe, but after all the caretakers have gone home.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Ms Karen Buck, Mark Field, Tulip Siddiq, Jim Fitzpatrick, Andy Slaughter, Victoria Borwick, Kate Green, Peter Kyle, Rushanara Ali, Kerry McCarthy and Ruth Cadbury present the Bill.
Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March, and to be printed (Bill 159).
Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 21st March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 View all Intellectual Property (Unjustified Threats) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 21 March 2017 - (21 Mar 2017)
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Intellectual property makes a significant contribution to the UK economy each year. In 2014, UK firms invested an estimated £133 billion in knowledge assets, compared with £121 billion in tangible assets. As the Intellectual Property Office notes, UK investment in intangible assets that are protected by intellectual property rose from £47 billion in 2000 to £70 billion in 2014, and is estimated to represent 4.2% of total GDP. What is more, the UK system of regulating intellectual property is considered to be one of the best: it was rated No. 3 by business in the 2016 Taylor Wessing global IP index in respect of obtaining, exploiting and enforcing the main types of intellectual property rights. It is clear that intellectual property is of great importance to the UK economy, so the impact of leaving the European Union on IP and the provisions in the Bill is vital to the economy. It is of great interest to businesses, which value certainty, and it is crucial to potential investors in businesses in the United Kingdom.
The Bill will apply to patents, trademarks and designs. The Minister stated in Committee, and in a written answer on 20 October last year, that the European Patent Office was established by international treaty and that our participation in its work will be unaffected by our leaving the EU. The suggestion is that patents will be relatively untouched by Brexit; it is to be hoped that the Minister’s confidence is not misplaced. Several IP rights that derive from EU regulations will no longer apply to the UK, and the impact of Brexit is far from clear at this stage. As the Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys recently commented:
“The continued validity of these rights in the UK is uncertain. Transitional agreements may be negotiated to allow time for rights holders to convert these into national rights or to file separate national rights... The government has remained silent on whether or not it intends to implement the new Trade Mark Directive into UK domestic law.”
The Minister signalled in Committee the Government’s intention to ratify the unified patent court agreement by the end of April. The court will deal with disputes relating to European patents and help the business that the Bill seeks to assist by removing the threat of unjustified litigation—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) in Committee. Will we still be members of the court after we leave the EU? The court is part of the effort to reduce costs across jurisdictions and make it easier to do business. As we prepare to leave the EU, the last thing we need is additional costs on businesses, so clarity is needed about our membership of the court. The Minister said in Committee that decisions had not yet been taken, so will he provide an update and confirm that he understands just how important it is that we minimise costs across jurisdictions, including those relating to intellectual property rights? What is his view on our potential membership of the patent court after we leave the EU?
The CIPA said:
“For the UK to continue participating after Brexit, there would need to be a new international agreement with the participating Member States and the UK to provide compatibility with EU law... If the UK does not remain a member of the UPC…there will be a need for further transitional provisions to protect any rights acquired or cases in progress at the time the UK leaves. It is still unclear whether UK European Patent Attorneys will be able to represent parties in the different Divisions of the UPC after Brexit.”
It went on to say:
“CIPA has a strong preference for the UK to participate in the UP and UPC system, if a solid legal basis for this can be agreed.”
Given the UK’s leading position in patents and patent law, it makes sense to do all we can to maintain our position and to ensure that confidence in our position remains as high as possible. It is important that we avoid taking a step backwards on IP law and losing the potential benefits that the development of single European patent protection will bring. The economic and competitive advantages of such protection are clear enough. The alternative of having a separate UK system, with the likely need for rights holders to apply for UK and EU protection separately, will mean additional burdens for UK businesses and for our economy, compared with the UK remaining a central part of the European-wide patent system.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said in Committee, it is vital that the Minister takes all steps to ensure that patent law and IP law more generally do not take a retrograde step following Brexit. IP is how innovation is rewarded; it is fundamental to ensure our ability to deliver a high-pay economy and prosperity, and to Britain’s promise that the next generation is better off than the previous one. Since 2010, we have seen living standards fall while the economy as a whole has grown. The people of this country cannot afford to miss opportunities, including this one. The alternative of a race to the bottom, a low-wage economy and our competing as some kind of tax dodger’s paradise off the coast of continental Europe will not deliver better living standards.
Intellectual property is one of many ways in which we must build on our success as a country and not allow decline. How intellectual property rights are protected, and how they are seen to be protected during the Brexit negotiations, will be crucial to delivering and enhancing business and investor confidence and to getting the best possible outcome from the negotiations. The Prime Minister may not wish to give a running commentary, but she and her Ministers need to reassure businesses, their staff and the whole country that everything is being done to secure our future. That is why I tabled the new clause to call for the Government to review the impact of Brexit on the IP provisions in the Bill.
A report after a year would not only help to bring sovereignty back to Parliament—something we heard a great deal about during the referendum debates—but help UK businesses and foreign investors to understand the post-Brexit intellectual property world with respect to the provisions in the Bill. The protections being harmonised in the Bill are important to help to protect our businesses, ensure a fair market and encourage entrepreneurs and inventors, and especially to ensure opportunity for smaller businesses. Nevertheless, those businesses, entrepreneurs and inventors all want to know, as far as possible, what the arrangements and relationships with the EU will be like post-Brexit.
The law firm Charles Russell Speechlys says:
“Discussions are taking place regarding the post-Brexit options for IP. National IP rights are unlikely to be affected post-Brexit. Pan-European IP rights will be affected. Trade marks and designs are likely to be the IP rights most affected but it will impact on other IP rights as well.
On leaving the EU, the UK will no longer automatically be covered by EU trade marks. An orderly transitional period is expected with the potential to split existing EUTMs into UK national and EUTMs post-Brexit (subject to negotiation and relevant supporting legislation). Trade mark owners will need to reinstate lapsed UK marks which have been subsumed into EUTMs by seniority but it is not yet clear how that will work.”
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to issue a report on the impact of the Government’s plans for exiting the European Union on the provisions in the Bill within 12 months of it coming into force.
The Bill does not take forward any EU obligations. The IP unjustified threats provisions do not derive from EU law. They are “home grown” provisions that were first enacted for patents back in the 19th century. The important protections provided by the Bill will not in themselves be changed by Brexit. Businesses pushed for clarity and certainty about how they can contact others over IP disputes, and the Bill will deliver that. Our leaving the EU does not alter that. Of course some IP rights are EU-wide, and the Bill will apply properly to those rights. The threats regime will be consistent across all relevant rights that have effect in the UK.
Furthermore, the Bill will ensure that our UK threats regime works appropriately with the proposed unitary patent and unified patent court when they come into effect. The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) asked about the UPC following our exit from the EU. The options for the UK’s intellectual property regime after our exit, including our relationship with the unified patent court, will be the subject of negotiation, and it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions in advance. None the less, our efforts will be focused on seeking the best deal possible in negotiations with our European partners, and we want that deal to reflect the kind of mature co-operative relationship that close friends and allies enjoy.
As long as we are members of the EU, the UK will continue to play a full and active role, and making sure the IP regime continues to function properly for EU-wide rights is an example. The UK’s involvement in the EU IP framework after exit is not a matter for the Bill; it will be part of the EU exit negotiations, which of course have not yet begun. It is likely that those negotiations will still be in progress at the point at which the new clause would require us to report. Publishing the suggested report would be unnecessary and could well undermine our ability to negotiate the best deal for Britain in this area.
The hon. Gentleman asked about EU-wide IP rights on Brexit. Of course we are already talking to businesses and to other stakeholders about this important issue. There will be time to address it fully and properly during exit negotiations. Naturally, we will want to see the best outcome and one that supports our innovative businesses. He asked also about EU trade marks and designs. We recognise that users will want clarity over the long-term coverage of those rights. We acknowledge the importance of involving users in the consideration of these issues, and we are working with stakeholders at the moment to gather views on how to address their concerns.
The hon. Gentleman asked on a number of occasions about the EU trademark reform package and the directive. On balance, we think that the reform package is a good one, with modernisations that will make the overall system easier and cheaper for businesses to use.
We are committed to getting the right deal for the UK and we will work with Parliament to ensure a smooth and successful exit. The new clause would not help us in any of this work; it is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the UK’s interests. For that reason, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Bill Esterson
I am glad that the Minister said that he was already having discussions with businesses; that is incredibly important. I urge him to make it clear very publicly, sooner rather than later, exactly what the nature of those discussions are. Businesses are already exceedingly worried about the consequences for intellectual property. I thank him for picking up the points that I made about the relationship between EU patent law and UK patent law. I think that he understands that a great deal of reassurance is needed. I do not agree that we would make life more difficult by having this requirement on Government. In fact, it is a sensible move. I would be surprised and very concerned if we did not see a degree of reporting back during negotiations on these and many other matters. None the less, he has put forward the Government’s view in response to the points that I have raised, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1
Patents
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 1, page 2, line 15, after “do,” insert “or claims to do,”.
This amendment deals with people or companies who hold themselves out as the primary infringer: ie, they claim to be the manufacturer or importer of a product (and therefore can be written to freely) when, in fact, they are not. A definition is provided in amendment 3.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, page 2, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) A threat of infringement proceedings is not actionable if the threat—
(a) is made to a person mentioned in subsection (4), and
(b) relates to—
(i) potential future acts of infringement, or
(ii) other acts of infringement
which are fundamentally similar to the current alleged act of infringement.”
This amendment would allow communications from the rights holder to the primary infringer to also refer to secondary infringing acts (by the primary infringer), without it constituting a threat.
Amendment 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
“(7) In subsection (4)(a) “claims to do an act” means the person makes an explicit claim in public that they are the manufacturer or importer of the product or process.”
This amendment provides a definition of “claims to do” in amendment 1.
Bill Esterson
Amendments 1 and 3 are related to primary infringers and those who claim “to do”. Amendment 1 addresses the concern about the impact on those who claim to make a product and the potential for action to be taken against them. Amendment 3 defines “claims to do”.
We are dealing here with communication and threats. As the Bill stands, the onus is on a rights holder not to communicate with a party that claims to be a primary infringer of rights. The example that springs to mind is that of an own-label brand in a supermarket. Under the Bill, a manufacturer who believes that a product contravenes their rights may not communicate with the supermarket unless they are confident that there is no other way of finding out who the manufacturer really is. The problem is that smaller manufacturers wanting to challenge the bigger players may not have the expertise or access to expertise needed to comply with the provisions of the Bill. They do not have the staff, time or money to engage legal services or to search for the true identity of the manufacturer. The Minister said in Committee that if action were taken against a rights holder, they would be able to defend themselves in court. Now, that is entirely accurate in legal terms, but the problem is that smaller organisations lack the resources to be able to do so.
Bill Esterson
As my hon. Friend may well have said in Committee.
The problem is one of imbalance. Our court system necessarily favours those who have the deepest pockets and the greatest resources, and that does not mean smaller businesses. Will smaller businesses risk winning or losing in court? Will they have the money to defend themselves against an action, or will they think it is worth defending their intellectual property in the first place? It will be for the courts to decide whether a rights holder could have found out who the primary infringer was. For smaller businesses, it could well be a tough choice as to whether they believe the court will back them when they say in court that they did not realise that they should not have contacted the apparent infringer.
If not through what I am proposing, and what my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) proposed in Committee, how does the Minister propose to ensure that there is a level playing field between protecting the rights holder, especially the smaller rights holder, and preventing unjustified threats, especially where the rights holder is the smaller party? How does he propose to guarantee smaller businesses the ability to operate on a level playing field? To be entirely fair to the Minister, I completely understand that that is the purpose of the whole Bill. My thanks go to the Law Commission for its work in delivering to such an objective. The Bill very much has in mind the need to balance protection and encouragement for innovators, entrepreneurs and investors with the need to ensure a fair market and to prevent unfair and exploitative competition. However, there appears to be a degree of ongoing potential for imbalance in the legislation regarding those who claim to be the manufacturer or the primary infringer, and the Minister’s answers in Committee did not go far enough to guarantee that smaller businesses will be protected.
Amendment 2 would address some further concerns of smaller businesses that lack the resources for legal advice and that may fall foul of the Bill’s narrow remit. The amendment addresses the problems where a rights holder challenges not just the primary infringement but secondary acts of infringement. The rights holder may wish to prevent future infringement or to comment on related infringements of a similar nature. The amendment would minimise the fallout from inadvertent infringements. The amendment would not penalise a rights holder for mentioning secondary infringements when such communication was about potential future infringements or similar current infringements. The Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys raised the concern that future infringements are excluded as the Bill is now drafted.
It seems reasonable to ask an infringer to stop now and in the future, and not to carry out similar infringements, so amendment 2 also deals with the concern of smaller businesses that lack the resources or expertise to ensure that all their communications are strictly compliant with the Bill’s provisions. I agree with the Minister that rights holders ideally should get their communications right, and that is a large part of the thrust of the Bill, but my concern is that the lack of access to legal expertise for smaller businesses could be a real problem.
Joseph Johnson
One of the key purposes of the Bill is to simplify an important but complex area of intellectual property law, making it more accessible and easier to use. One way in which it does this is by setting out a clear statement of those acts that a rights holder can safely refer to in a communication, and that will not trigger an unjustified threats action. This helps to encourage rights holders to communicate with the trade source of an alleged infringement. It would include those who manufacture or import patented products or use patented processes, for example. Such acts are known as primary infringements.
Amendments 1 and 3 seek to make it allowable to approach someone who explicitly claims to be a primary infringer. I am not convinced that there is problem that needs to be solved, but, in any event, there are two key points. First, under the reforms as they stand, a rights holder can already communicate with potential infringers of all types, including those identified by amendments 1 and 3. The Bill provides clear guidance on how this can be done. The provisions therefore make it easier for parties, including small and medium-sized enterprises, to communicate and resolve issues without the need for litigation. Secondly, it is perfectly allowable to make a threat to anyone so long as that threat refers only to manufacturing and importing, or other primary acts. Someone making such a threat would not be at risk of being sued, even if the recipient was falsely claiming to do those acts. For these reasons, as well as the additional complexity introduced, I do not accept that amendments 1 and 3 are appropriate.
Moving on to amendment 2, I agree it is important that issues of infringement can be raised early, before real commercial damage is done. For that reason, the Bill already allows threats to be made in relation to future or intended acts of primary infringement, so amendment 2 adds nothing in that regard. Furthermore, the Bill already allows the rights holder to refer to certain secondary acts when communicating with an alleged primary infringer. When someone is manufacturing an allegedly infringing product, the rights holder can also discuss the retailing of that same product. Users wanted this, as it is pragmatic and helps to save time and money, but it would not be right to extend this further and allow threats to be made to that same manufacturer about the retail or stocking of other products that they did not make themselves. That could damage businesses that retail products acquired from a legitimate manufacturer, and would disrupt the ability of that legitimate manufacturer to operate in the marketplace—an outcome that the threats provisions exist to prevent.
Finally, it is highly uncertain for businesses what would be considered to be “fundamentally similar” acts of infringement, as set out in the amendment, and litigation on the meaning would no doubt ensue. If the intention is to capture only similar products, I do not think that is achieved.
These amendments would introduce additional and unwelcome complexity. They would blur the line between who is protected from threats and who can safely be approached. Rather than benefiting rights holders, this could instead make getting legal advice more difficult and costly. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments.
Bill Esterson
We appear to have rehearsed, more or less word for word, what happened in Committee. I am disappointed by the Minister’s responses, because he does not appear to have picked up on the concern about the imbalance between larger and smaller businesses—a fundamental element of what we think is missing from the Bill as drafted. I would like greater clarity from him, but perhaps that will come as the Bill is implemented. I urge the Government to consider the impact on smaller businesses. On own label, apparently once the rights holder has found out that an own label product is not made by a supermarket, such action would have to cease or it would be covered by the legislation. That was certainly our intention in the amendment.
I hope that our points about the need to protect smaller businesses have been well made. I thank the Minister for his responses, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Joseph Johnson
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Intellectual property is crucial to supporting economic growth and a key part of our industrial strategy. I am therefore pleased that this small but important Bill is completing its passage today. The Bill will ensure that businesses, especially SMEs, are best able to make use of the IP regime. In doing so, it will help to deliver the Government’s manifesto commitment to make the UK the best place in Europe to innovate, patent new ideas, and set up and expand a business. The Bill brings clarity and consistency, making it easier and cheaper to solve infringement issues quickly and without litigation. It clearly defines how information can be exchanged to resolve disputes over IP infringement. It also means that legal advisers will now be better able to help to settle disputes without becoming embroiled themselves.
The reforms contained in the Bill are widely supported by stakeholders, not least because of careful research and consultation by the Law Commission. I thank the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission for their hard work and expertise in developing these reforms, and for the excellent support they have given the Bill during its passage. I would like briefly to highlight the value of the Law Commission special parliamentary procedure used in the passage of this Bill. The Bill has been strengthened by, in particular, the detailed scrutiny in the other place afforded by that procedure. I am grateful to hon. Members in this House, particularly those who served on the Committee, for their interest and for giving this Bill due consideration. My thanks also go to the hard-working Bill team and to Intellectual Property Office officials for their exceptional work.
The unjustified threats provisions are a valuable part of the wider IP regime and provide much needed protection. These reforms will ensure that those provisions are fit for purpose and make a real difference to our innovators, designers and businesses. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill Esterson
I join the Minister in saying that the provisions of this Bill are, overall, exactly what is needed to create a level playing field and support and encouragement for innovation and creativity. Those who develop ideas need to have their ideas protected and supported, and bringing together the different elements of intellectual property legislation in the way that this Bill does is very much the right way to go. I mentioned on Report some of the figures and the benefits derived from the fact that the UK has one of the finest IP systems in the world. We must do all in our power to ensure that that continues because it is one of the reasons that this country is an attractive place for investment, and that is one of the reasons we must be optimistic about our future, despite the many challenges that we currently face, particularly the uncertainty around Brexit.
However, we have raised concerns throughout this process. It is a shame that there was not more in the Bill about alternative dispute resolution. The opportunity to tighten things up in relation to smaller businesses would have been welcome, but that has not happened. We need to reward innovation and entrepreneurs, and to balance that against the creation of a fair market and a successful economy. The Minister mentioned the industrial strategy Green Paper. It is critical to the success of the industrial strategy that our intellectual property system functions as well as possible. I hesitate to say that I look forward to how this will develop during the Brexit negotiations, but we certainly need to work extremely hard to make sure that the success of our IP system is retained during those negotiations because of the very close linkage between IP in this country and across the European Union. The Minister mentioned the protection for legal advisers. That is a welcome step forward, as is the clarity and consistency achieved by this Bill. We certainly support its core principles and the overall aims and objectives that have been achieved.
I add my thanks to the Law Commission, to those who have worked on the Bill, and to those who served on the Bill Committee. I hope that the Bill will achieve what is intended for it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I must say that that is the most efficient debate on a Bill I have ever seen in this House, and I think that somebody somewhere ought to be commended for it.
Fuel Poverty
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Climate Change and Industry (Mr Nick Hurd)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
I am delighted to open the first annual debate on the important issue of fuel poverty. The fact remains that far too many of our fellow citizens and constituents struggle to afford to keep their homes at reasonable, comfortable temperatures. As I will argue, we are making progress, with some 780,000 fewer fuel-poor homes in 2014 than in 2010, but there is a lot more to do to meet the demanding targets we have rightly set ourselves, as a country, for 2030. It is quite right that the Government of the day are regularly held to account for what they are doing, and encouraging others to do, in the face of this stubborn and complex social challenge.
The debate is important because it is an opportunity for Government and Parliament to hear directly from MPs from across the nation about their experience and insights. In our day-to-day work, we, as MPs, come across the consequences of fuel poverty, not least its impact on the wellbeing and health of our constituents.
Before we get into the discussion, I want to set out the context. Over the past five years, Government have taken action to overhaul the framework for tackling fuel poverty in England. At long last, we have a long-term strategic framework for action on fuel poverty, which is rooted in the 2015 fuel poverty strategy and the long-term statutory target. The journey began in 2012 with the independent review of fuel poverty led by Professor Sir John Hills. The review found that fuel poverty is a distinct issue, separate from income poverty.
However, the debate clearly links to other areas of policy, such as the action the Government are taking to improve living standards by means of the national living wage and by increasing tax thresholds for the lowest-paid. Likewise, we could not have made clearer our determination to make sure that the energy market works for all. Ofgem’s introduction of a prepayment meter tariff cap is a welcome first step. As the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), indicated last week, a consumer Green Paper will be out shortly.
Today, I want to focus on the policy framework that is specific to fuel poverty. The journey to this point started with Professor Hills’s review, which reflected on previous activity and measures to tackle fuel poverty. The review highlighted the fact that although the 10% indicator that had, until that point, been used to measure fuel poverty was well-meaning, it was fundamentally flawed. In 2013, the Government confirmed that the findings of the Hills review of fuel poverty would be adopted, including the low income, high costs indicator. That measure finds a household to be living in fuel poverty if its income is below the poverty line and it has higher-than-typical energy costs.
In 2014 the Government introduced the fuel poverty target for England. The target is to ensure that, so far as is reasonably practicable, fuel-poor households are improved to a band C energy efficiency rating by 2030. In 2015 we saw the publication of “Cutting the cost of keeping warm: a fuel poverty strategy for England”, which set out the principles that the Government would apply and the approaches to be taken when making progress towards the fuel poverty target. The strategy set out the importance of effective levels of public accountability and the role that the Committee on Fuel Poverty, a non-departmental public body formerly known as the Fuel Poverty Advisory Group, will play in that. I welcome the insight and challenge that the committee brings as we look to tackle the serious and long-term societal issue of fuel poverty.
Recognising that 2030 is some way off, the strategy includes interim milestones to guide activity in the shorter term, helping to focus our attention on making progress as we move forward. The milestones are to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that fuel-poor households are improved to a band E rating by 2020 and to a band D rating by 2025. That is the framework.
The fuel poverty target is certainly ambitious, and I have not heard anyone argue to the contrary. The band C target is set at a level that only 7% of fuel-poor households currently enjoy. We are aiming high, and it is right for us to do so. As the Committee on Climate Change reiterated in its report last week, the target is extremely challenging. However, we must be clear that meeting that challenge may provide huge benefits for households that need support. Improving those E, F or G-rated homes to band D can reduce energy costs by an average of £400. I am pleased to be able to say that although the challenge is significant, progress is being made.
Looking to our 2020 milestone, the percentage of fuel-poor households living in homes rated band E or higher has already improved from 79% in 2010 to 88% in 2014—the latest year for which statistics are available. Looking at the 2025 milestone, we see that the percentage of homes rated band D or higher has improved from 29% in 2010 to 59% in 2014.
Lady Hermon
There is a competition going on here over who will intervene. It is kind of the Minister to give way. I am sure he is aware that fuel poverty is particularly acute in Northern Ireland. Many households are still dependent on heating oil, the cost of which is increasing. Will the Minister pledge that if, as I optimistically forecast, a devolved Administration is restored in Northern Ireland next week, he will liaise very closely indeed with his counterpart in Northern Ireland to develop a strategy that benefits all households across the United Kingdom—not just those in England—rather than leaving Northern Ireland to fend for itself? That is an optimistic forecast, but we have to live in hope.
Mr Hurd
We do indeed. The hon. Lady is entirely right; the fuel poverty statistics for Northern Ireland are particularly striking and stubbornly high. As she indicates, she hopes for better times. Although this is, as she well knows, a devolved matter, the Government are ready and happy to co-operate with the Administration when it is formed.
Jonathan Edwards
What consideration have the Government given to developments in currency levels? We live in an age in which sterling is devaluing. The harder the Brexit, the more sterling will have to devalue. The US dollar, on the other hand, is likely to strengthen as a result of Trump’s expansionary fiscal policy, and the Fed has increased interest rates. Oil is traded in dollars, and the gas price is pegged to oil, so those two developments inevitably mean that energy prices in the UK will increase significantly. What are the Government going to do to mitigate that?
Mr Hurd
As I said earlier, I do not think that anyone can be under any illusions; the Government are very serious in their intention to make the energy market work more effectively for all. We are all clear that it does not work effectively for all, and the steps that the Government will take will be set out in a consumer Green Paper very shortly.
I was talking about the Government’s performance against the 2025 milestone that we have set, and I stated that the percentage of homes rated band D or higher has improved from 29% in 2010 to 59% in 2014. That represents approximately 780,000 fewer fuel-poor homes rated E, F or G in 2014 compared with the position in 2010. I hope that the House will welcome that. In terms of the trajectory of improvement, there were 174,000 fewer E, F or G-rated homes in 2014 than there were in 2013, which shows that existing policies are making a difference. As an example, since the scheme started in 2013, approximately 700,000 measures have been installed in 500,000 low-income households as a result of the energy company obligation. That is part of a total of 1.6 million homes that have been improved under ECO.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
My constituents in South Leicestershire want to know that the Government are doing everything they can to ensure that the energy market works for all of us, whether we are in South Leicestershire or across the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend share my view that energy companies should be expected to treat all their customers fairly, not just those who decide to switch?
Mr Hurd
I agree with my hon. Friend. We all know from our constituents about the stress that is caused by anxiety about fuel. I represent a relatively affluent constituency in London, but the statistics show that 8% of my constituents qualify as fuel-poor. This issue affects constituencies across the country. I certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I hope that he will be very satisfied by the material in the consumer Green Paper that will be published imminently.
Recognising that improving household energy efficiency is the most sustainable long-term solution to tackling fuel poverty, we are not complacent, and we are going further to take action. Today, the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order is being debated in the House of Lords. It will extend the scheme from 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2018. Should the scheme proceed as planned, we expect more than 500,000 homes to be improved over the coming 18 months. The order will also reform the energy company obligation so that 70% of the support available under it will be directed at low-income homes. That represents a real-terms increase from £310 million to £450 million per year, which will be invested in improving the energy efficiency of homes that most need support.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I have no doubt about the Minister’s personal commitment to this agenda, but I wonder why the Government will not make energy efficiency into a national infrastructure priority. Why is energy efficiency not part of the national infrastructure assessment? That would be the way to scale up and meet the ambition he claims the Government have.
Mr Hurd
It is not a claim about ambition; the ambition is set out in long-term statutory targets. The figures I have given show that these are substantial investments. As I will come on to clarify, there is some £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable consumers in the financial year 2017-18, so there is no shortage of ambition or of investment. The hon. Lady and I share a strong belief in the importance of energy efficiency. I am trying to stress that what we are doing will increasingly focus on the most vulnerable, and, with public finances constrained, that must be the right priority.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
May I welcome the efforts that the Government have made and their clear success in improving energy efficiency? My hon. Friend is so right to highlight the fact that making the obvious saving of getting people to spend less on energy through using less is much more important than the amount we give people to subsidise their energy costs or any intervention we make in the market to cap energy costs.
Mr Hurd
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. As I have said, previously, he is one of the most thoughtful Members of the House on this subject. He will know that we are on the cusp of something very interesting in our relationship with energy and our ability to manage it more intelligently. Such an opportunity must be just as much available to well-to-do people as it is to those struggling with their bills, and that must be a priority for us. That is partly why I stressed the point that the reforms we are making to the existing policy instruments will increasingly focus on the most vulnerable and the poorest in our communities.
However important it is to improve the energy efficiency of people’s homes, it will inevitably take time, and Government recognise that people also need immediate support with energy bills. We therefore have in place the second pillar of the strategy, the warm home discount. This scheme now provides over 2 million low-income and vulnerable households with a £140 rebate off their energy bill each winter, when temperatures are lowest and bills are highest.
Together the schemes mean that, as I have said, there will be at least £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable consumers during the financial year 2017-18. This is a significant level of support for households across the country. Other policies will also make a contribution, such as the prepayment safeguard tariff, which I hope the House welcomes, and the roll-out of smart meters. Smart meters are regularly debated in this place, and the evidence is already showing the consumer popularity of this technology and its ability to help people save money and manage their energy use in a smarter way.
Making progress cannot be just about subsidy; regulation will play an important role as we take action to ensure that tenants can live in a home that keeps them comfortably warm. The private rented sector regulations will target the least efficient F and G-rated properties from 2018 by requiring landlords to improve those properties to at least a band E, unless a valid exemption applies. The Department is currently considering options for the implementation of the regulations, with a view to ensuring that they can be implemented effectively by April 2018.
Of course, there is more work to be done. One key area will be to improve targeting on the households most in need. The Digital Economy Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, will be important in that regard, as it will make available better data on householders and properties. We believe that that will in turn reduce the costs that energy suppliers face in identifying the households most in need, and allow more measures to be installed for the same cost.
The actions I have described are all led by the Government. However, fuel poverty is a problem for all of society, and the Government cannot tackle it alone. That is why partnership is a key theme of the fuel poverty strategy. It is important for the Government to play a leadership role, but also to work in partnership with local government, businesses and the charitable sector. Only by making the most of the varied skills and resources of each of those partners will we, collaboratively, be able to tackle fuel poverty.
Caroline Lucas
According to the Government’s own statistics, the EU ecodesign directive has helped households, small businesses and industry to save thousands on the cost of energy. Indeed, the average annual saving from ecodesign policies for homes is expected to be £153 by 2020, which is 20% of the average annual energy bill. Will the Minister assure us that such rules on energy efficiency will continue to be implemented and updated both during and after our renegotiation with the EU?
Mr Hurd
I certainly agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of good design. In fact, some of the most important progress we have made as a country on energy efficiency has been through building regulations and standards for the quality of our homes and offices. The Government remain ambitious in that respect, and she will know how important that is. She will know that I obviously cannot at this stage clarify our intentions post-Brexit, because that is tied up in a series of wider issues, but I hope I can reassure her that we understand completely the importance of continued ambition in this area. We are very clear that there remains considerable scope for harnessing creativity and innovation in using design to improve standards, which will in turn reduce costs.
Lady Hermon
The Minister is commenting on the need to work in partnership, and I absolutely agree. May I just point out that the warm home discount scheme does not apply in Northern Ireland, which makes fuel poverty there even worse? In partnership with the incoming Administration in Northern Ireland, will the Minister pledge to prioritise the need to introduce the warm home discount scheme in Northern Ireland, even if that means that the Government in Westminster have to provide additional funding to the Northern Ireland Executive?
Mr Hurd
I listened very carefully to the hon. Lady, but the bottom line is that this is a devolved matter. I am more than happy to discuss the fuel poverty strategy with counterparts in Northern Ireland, but it is categorically a devolved matter.
I was talking about partnerships, and I am glad that the House has filled up a little—when we started it was a little bare—because I am looking forward to hearing from hon. Members about their experience of what is happening with partnerships in their constituencies, including what is and is not working, and more widely about what is going on in their constituencies to help bring about change to support households that need support.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Minister is talking about partnership at the local level. A huge variety of organisations in Greenwich and Woolwich are working on this very issue, not least South East London Community Energy. Is the Department giving any thought to how such organisations can link up with local authorities to avoid the fragmentation that can exist at the local level, and ensure they work in partnership to target people who need their help the most?
Mr Hurd
I am very sincere in what I say about partnerships—when I was the Minister for Civil Society, it was absolutely core to our approach—so we are very keen to get good information about what is working and what is not working with partnerships, because they are easy to talk about, but they are actually quite hard to implement in practice. We are doing some work with local authorities, but the hon. Gentleman has made an important point about the sharing of knowledge and information so that we can get a better understanding of what works. Some of this stuff is quite complex in relation to breaking down the social barriers to people accepting help when it is offered.
James Heappey
The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) quite rightly said that we must be ambitious in the way we design buildings, and I could not agree more, although I am not sure that this is really connected to Brexit. The fact is that it is not merely the affordability of purchasing or renting a building that is so important, but the affordability of the operation of that building thereafter. By having good design principles for energy efficiency and insulation in its design process, we can make a building more affordable to live or work in, rather than simply making it more affordable to buy in the first place.
On co-operation and partnerships, what are the Minister’s plans for using the data owned by the Data Communications Company from smart meters not only to nudge people to switch tariffs, but to make the data available to other organisations that could advise people on emerging technologies, such as demand management, so that they can load shift to minimise their bills in that way?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend makes important points not only about the importance of good design and the opportunities attached to it, but about the potential for data to make us more efficient in targeting support and to help us develop the smarter system that he talks about so eloquently. He will know that there are tremendous sensitivities around the sharing of data, towards which the Government have to take an extremely responsible attitude, but he is right about the opportunities. What he talks about is under active consideration, as he knows.
I ought to bring my remarks to a close so that colleagues can contribute to the debate, but I want to bring us back to why we are here today. Fuel poverty affects households in all our constituencies and it is a problem that we should work together to solve collectively. The fuel poverty strategy made it clear that the Government are committed to ensuring that there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of fuel poverty through the means of this annual debate, so I welcome the views of the hon. Members who are in the Chamber.
As I have suggested in my opening remarks, it is clear that we have made progress, not least in setting up, after too long, the much-needed strategic framework and statutory targets that will drive progress and ambition through successive Governments. The numbers show that since 2010 this Government and the previous Government have made progress, but the social challenge we face is very stubborn indeed. I reassure the House that the Government remain extremely committed not just to delivering on our manifesto commitment, but to keeping the country on track to meeting the 2030 target, however challenging.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I am delighted to be debating such an important issue with the Minister in this, our first debate together in this Chamber. I welcome the comments he has made thus far.
As Members are aware, this debate is a statutory requirement. As such, it is a prime opportunity to examine the efficacy of the Government’s actions to date in tackling fuel poverty. As the Minister has said, it is an opportunity for Members to share experiences from their own constituencies on this matter.
My local authority has been championing its own fuel poverty strategy. “A Fair Energy Deal for Salford” is one campaign that it is working on with partners such as National Energy Action, energy companies, registered social landlords and landlords in the private rented sector to obtain a pledge to reduce the number of prepayment meters and replace them with standard meters. A shocking 22% of households in Salford have prepayment meters, whereas the national average is 15.1%, as the Minister knows.
In addition, the ability of my local authority to assist vulnerable households has been extended. It launched the “Warm Salford” campaign in 2015, which provides additional grants to give vulnerable households better access to energy company obligation products or to assist those who are vulnerable, but who do not meet the criteria of the national schemes.
We also launched the Warm Salford Referral Network in October 2014, which brings together a partnership of local authorities, the NHS and third-sector partners. It aims to reach those who are most vulnerable to fuel poverty. The good news is that from 2015 to December 2016, more than 310 vulnerable households were referred to it, given advice and referred on for the help they needed to access local, regional and national schemes.
Despite that positive news, 11,333 homes—that is 10.8% of Salford’s households—are still living in fuel poverty. Nationally, despite similar action by other local authorities, more than 4 million families and households are living in fuel poverty in the UK. That is 15 homes in every 100. Members from all parts of the House will no doubt have been contacted by their constituents about fuel poverty. If not, I suggest that they watch the film “I, Daniel Blake”, which shows in painful detail the desperation of one family trying to warm themselves on tea lights in a plant pot because they cannot afford to top up the prepayment meter.
I met one such constituent in Salford—a mother who was living in poorly maintained private sector accommodation, with small children sleeping beside walls covered in black mould. There was not enough money for that mother to pay the bills or even turn the heating on to alleviate the damp conditions. The desperation in that mother’s eyes when she told me she just could not cope any more, as I tried to find help out there, will haunt me forever.
Sadly, that is not a stand-alone case. A cold, poorly insulated home does not just mean that lots of heat is wasted, resulting in a high bill; it means people getting ill, repeated visits to the doctor, a much longer recovery time and, ultimately, greater pressure on the NHS.
Jonathan Edwards
If I heard the hon. Lady correctly, she said that 15% of households in the UK live in fuel poverty. In Wales, the figure is considerably worse at well over a third. The Welsh Government have failed to make any inroads into that over the past 20 years or so, despite Wales being an energy-rich nation and a substantial exporter of electricity. Does she agree that for the people of Wales, at least part of the answer should be Welsh communities getting control over their own energy resources?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. There is scope for communities to regain control of their energy supplies in the longer term. That is certainly something the Government should look at. There are a number of other important points that I would like the Minister to address today, so I will continue with my submission.
The health impacts of fuel poverty are worst for those who are most vulnerable—for example, disabled people who find it difficult to move around and do not get the chance to warm up; young people, who run twice the risk of developing a respiratory condition such as asthma; and adolescents, who face a fivefold increase in the likelihood of mental illness. Evidence also highlights that infants living in cold conditions have a 30% greater risk of admission to hospital or primary care facilities. Older people also face a significantly high risk, as the Marmot review team highlighted, stating that they are almost three times more likely to suffer from coughing, wheezing and respiratory illness.
Sir John Hills, professor of social policy at the London School of Economics, states that there is a body of persuasive evidence that links low temperatures with a number of health impacts, ranging from minor infections to serious medical conditions that can ultimately prove fatal. Sadly, that has proven to be the case, with the NEA finding that an average of over 8,000 people in England and Wales die each winter because they cannot keep their homes warm at a reasonable cost. That estimate includes eight attributable deaths in my constituency of Salford and Eccles—eight deaths.
James Heappey
The shadow Secretary of State makes an important and compelling point on the importance of heat to providing a healthy home. Does she agree that one solution is to give more encouragement to heat networks, particularly those that take waste heat from industry or business and use it to heat homes in the immediate vicinity, as I believe happens at MediaCity in Salford in her own constituency?
Rebecca Long Bailey
The hon. Gentleman makes another important point. That is certainly something that the Government should be giving due consideration to.
Rebecca Long Bailey
They need to give greater consideration to it and provide greater investment. I will move on.
Fuel poverty has a greater social impact. Children who live in cold homes see an impact on their ability to achieve, whether because of illness or simply because of a poor quality home environment. The financial and emotional stress it can place on families can damage relationships and lead to long-term stress-related mental health issues.
I am concerned that, although some work has been done in this area, the fact remains that the number of homes in fuel poverty has slowly been creeping up. The fuel poverty gap, which is a measure of the difference between a household’s energy bill and what it can afford to pay, increased from £235 in 2003 to £371 in 2014. At the same time, we have seen stagnating wages, or a lost decade in earnings as the Bank of England has termed it. What is more worrying is that after the recent Budget, the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that, on the Government’s current economic trajectory, average wages in 2022 will be worse in real terms than before the financial crash. The Minister will appreciate that as inflation pushes up, the differential between price increases and wage growth will continue to close. Even if energy prices are capped, which I know is an option being considered by the Government, the amount that families have to spend on bills will still get smaller and smaller.
It is not enough, therefore, simply to tackle fuel poverty as a stand-alone issue. The Government must tackle the causes of fuel poverty. Without investing in the tools that businesses need to drive up wages and productivity, wages will continue to stagnate in the long term. Sadly, in the Budget we did not see the investment required from the Government that would in any way go towards bringing us in line with other industrial countries. It is therefore no shock that Britain is the only large developed country where wages fell even as economic growth returned after the crash. I digress slightly, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Caroline Lucas
I will gently move the hon. Lady back to energy efficiency. She is making a very compelling public health case for the need to tackle energy efficiency and fuel poverty. Does she share my frustration that the national infrastructure assessment is a golden opportunity with respect to putting energy efficiency front and centre in the Government’s low carbon green strategy and industrial strategy? They should do that, because it could help to sort out not only the health crisis, but the climate crisis.
Rebecca Long Bailey
I completely agree with the hon. Lady. I share her frustrations and I will come on to that point shortly.
Looking at the efficacy of the Government’s fuel poverty initiatives thus far, they made a manifesto commitment to install one low-cost insulation measure in 1 million homes over the five years of the parliamentary term. That is welcome, but I suggest the Government need to be far more ambitious. Labour, for example, delivered 2.5 million insulation measures installed in homes in just one single year.
Turning to the funding through the warm home discount, whereby money is given as relief to bill payers, this is commendable and it should certainly continue, but it is physically insulating homes themselves that will provide the long-term solution. On the energy company obligation, the main mechanism by which the Government take action on fuel poverty, it has a clear pathway only to next year. There is currently no clear indication of what will happen to the obligation after 2018 and the Government’s consultation on its future has not been forthcoming. I would be grateful if the Minister provided in this debate an update on progress on that area.
The Minister will be absolutely distraught to hear that the UK ranked 14 out of 16 western European countries for fuel poverty, and ranked bottom for the proportion of people who cannot afford to adequately heat their home. I think he would probably agree that this is not a brilliant record for the country with the fifth-largest economy in the world. A helpful comparison to draw is Sweden, where incomes are similar to the UK’s but winters are much colder and gas is more expensive. One might think that Sweden would have a significant fuel poverty problem that far outstripped that of the UK, which by comparison has mild winters, but levels of fuel poverty in Sweden are approximately half those found in the UK. The major difference is that Swedish homes are properly insulated. A typical Swedish wall is three times more energy efficient. A commitment to that kind of innovation, along with providing the necessary funding, will truly tackle fuel poverty.
The Labour party is keen to make that commitment as part of its industrial strategy to end social injustice and to build a world-leading UK-based renewables and energy efficiency sector with UK-based supply chains. Labour agrees with the NEA, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), which states that the National Infrastructure Commission and the UK Government must act on the strong case for domestic energy efficiency to be regarded as a hugely important infrastructure priority. The Minister might wish to outline the Government’s position on that and whether he agrees with Labour.
Economic analysis by the well-regarded Frontier Economics suggests that the net present value of investing in insulating homes could be as valuable as the HS2 project. Cambridge Econometrics found that for each pound spent on insulating homes £1.12 is generated for the Treasury and £3 for the economy in GDP, and 42 pence is saved by the NHS. It is clear that investing in insulation has a positive effect not just for those in fuel poverty or for climate change, but for the wider economy. Unfortunately, however, the fact is that if we compare major insulation measures being installed today to 10 years ago under the previous Labour Government, there has been a huge 88% fall. Put another way, the long-term solution to fuel poverty gets 12% of the support that it originally received.
The fuel poor, by definition, are not in a place to insulate their own homes. It is therefore incumbent on the Government to step in. It is also important for the Government to recognise the wider benefits a real fuel efficiency infrastructure plan would have for all income groups, industry and the wider economy. A little more support from the Government, both to those affected by fuel poverty and to industries waiting to blossom in the renewables sector, could unleash untold economic and social benefits.
To conclude, the Government’s intentions, and those of Ministers, might be good, but there is still a mountain of work to be done. The Labour party is open to working across the House to end fuel poverty for all our constituents. I do hope the Minster has listened to my concerns and will respond accordingly.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I welcome this debate. I hope the Minister, in summing up, will reflect on the impact of high energy costs and high energy demand on the highlands and islands of Scotland in particular. As a highlands MP, I know that fuel poverty is a massive issue.
We need the Government to listen to our story, appreciate our particular situation and work with all of us to deliver fairness in energy charging that can offer hope that, working together, we can drive consumers out of fuel poverty. According to Scottish Government statistics, 34% of Scottish households are in fuel poverty, while for the highlands the figure is 56%; for the western isles, it is 59% and for Orkney it is 65%. Those are shocking statistics. More than half of households in much of the highlands and about two thirds of households in Orkney are in fuel poverty. Can we in this House accept those statistics?
I have to say that there have been times in the past when the House listened to the legitimate grievances of highlanders and islanders, and took action to improve our situation. Just over 100 years ago, in 1886, the House passed an Act that for the first time gave security of tenure to crofters. The clearances and the removal of people, often in a brutal way, was stopped by the crofting Act’s coming into force. In 1965, the Government established the Highlands and Islands development board, now known as Highlands and Islands Enterprise—a venture instrumental in reversing decades of economic decline in the highlands and islands.
I ask the House today to recognise the unfairness in the market for electricity costs that penalise highlanders and islanders. I am asking for the same consideration that was shown when the highlands required Government intervention in the past. We need it now to create fairness in electricity pricing. I accept that those of us from these areas live in some of the most beautiful parts of not just Scotland and the UK, but the world. But we cannot heat our homes with the breath-taking scenery. It is perhaps an enchanting landscape, but often there are biting winds, driving rain and long dark cold winter nights. The aesthetic beauty of the highlands can gladden the heart, but it will not deliver warmth to a pensioner at an affordable cost over a long winter.
We hear repeatedly that the Government want to help those who are just about managing. In many cases in the highlands, the cost of heating means that too many of our people are having to make the choice between putting food on the table and heating their homes. I mentioned that 56% of highland households are in fuel poverty, but 74% of our elderly population are in fuel poverty, of whom 34% are in extreme fuel poverty. I ask the House to dwell on these statistics and then consider what we can do to challenge this situation.
On the island of Skye, electricity came with the construction of the Storr Lochs hydro scheme in the early 1950s. The facility, apart from a small upgrade over the last few years, will now be virtually fully depreciated. It will be producing very cheap, almost free electricity on to the grid: cheap electricity that islanders then have to pay a premium to get back. It is simply an injustice that in an area of the highest levels of fuel poverty, where we produce cheap electricity, we are being overcharged. That is the reality.
There is the broader point that Scotland is an energy-rich country, whether from fossil fuels or our ability to deliver renewable energy today and in the future. Our unique characteristics as an energy producer should not be trapping our people in fuel poverty. Let us not forget that Westminster has extracted a bounty of £360 billion in taxation receipts from North sea oil since the 1970s. Where is the long-run benefit of this dividend? Why is it that the citizens of an energy-rich country such as Scotland, which has produced a bonanza for the Government, suffer fuel poverty to such an extent? We need to take into account the human cost of this failure to tackle head on the root cause of fuel poverty—high and unfair pricing through the lack of a universal market as one issue.
The charity Turn2us has found that one in two low-income households are struggling to afford their energy costs, despite being in work. Among the hardest hit are people with disabilities, with more than two in three of them, 67%, reporting their struggles. Families are also hard hit: almost two thirds of working parents, 65%, are unable to meet these costs. Worryingly, of the households that are struggling with energy costs, nearly half have done so for more than a year.
The knock-on effect is severe, with a third forced to skip meals and over a fifth experiencing stress and other mental health problems. Some of the comments made to Turn2us included these:
“The bills are killing me, sometimes I have to contemplate paying all the rent or heating my home…There are many pensioners like myself that don’t qualify for any help but still have to decide whether to heat or eat…Starve or freeze? Either way you get ill, can’t work, eat or pay any bills… No lights only candles, only hoover once a week, only use washing machine once a week, no heating, meals that cook quickly.”
This is not an abstract discussion. These are comments from real people who are struggling on a daily basis. I remind Members that 70% of elderly highlanders are in fuel poverty. That is why people get angry when they see a lack of action. When we hear hon. Members questioning the retention of the triple lock on future rises for the state pension, many of us proclaim that this will not happen in our name. I became an MP to stand up for my constituents and I cannot accept that so many highlanders are in fuel poverty. There is a debate on Scotland’s constitutional future, and we will have a vote on our independence. Let me say that in an independent Scotland, we would recognise our responsibilities to those in fuel poverty and would take action to eradicate it.
The UK has a universal market for postal delivery, as for many other services. People pay the same price whether they live in Skye or Somerset, in Ardnamurchan or Avon, in Gairloch or Gloucester. Why is that not the case for electricity distribution charges? Why are highlanders and islanders facing a premium in electricity distribution charges just because of where they live?
The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said in her capacity as energy Minister in 2015:
“It is not right that people face higher electricity costs just because of where they live.”
I commend the right hon. Lady for those remarks, but if they are to mean anything they have to be matched by actions from this Government. The issue is not just about the highlands and islands; there are 14 regional markets throughout the UK with different levels of network charges. It is not about price competition either, but about a regulated charge varying from region to region through a price control framework. The reality is that if people live in the highlands and islands, they will pay for the privilege—courtesy of the UK Government.
Electricity distribution charges for the north of Scotland are 84% higher than they are for London. Fuel poverty is exacerbated by the lack of a universal market. Westminster calls the tune; highlanders and islanders pay the price. We pay a high price for transmission charges, but we also have a high rate of energy consumption. The highlands and islands are noted for windy and wet conditions. It is not unusual for people in the highlands to have their heating on all year round. Ofgem noted in a study on the matter that households in the north of Scotland would benefit from a cost reduction of about £60 a year if there was a universal network charge. Sixty pounds would make a significant impact on someone on a low income or a pensioner.
In the highlands and islands, not only are people faced with high transmission charges, but many consumers suffer from a lack of choice in energy provision. Most households cannot benefit from a gas grid connection; the choice is often between electricity and domestic heating oil. The hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place, noted that prices will go up substantially because of currency movements in the recent past. With such limitations, the last thing we need is price discrimination—for that is what it is—being foisted on us.
Where people live should not result in their being penalised by having to pay higher network charges. Where is the “one nation” that the UK Government speak of so fondly? [Interruption.] I notice that the Under-Secretary of State is laughing. I will happily give way to him if he wants to explain why he thinks this is a laughing matter; it is no laughing matter to people in the highlands and islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)
I am delighted to intervene on the hon. Gentleman to ask how he can seriously invoke the principle of “one nation”, to which my party has been an adherent for 100 years, when he is a Scottish National party Member who is campaigning to remove his country from this nation.
Ian Blackford
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has risen to explain that, but he cannot get away from the fact that he sat there and smugly laughed when I made my point about the one nation. The point I am making is that it is your Government—I apologise for using the word “your”, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is the Government who are responsible for over-charging highlanders, because they will not recognise that we should have a universal market. It is the Government of the United Kingdom who should address that. Laughing, which is what the hon. Gentleman did, at highlanders and islanders is not acceptable. I hope people in Scotland were watching what happened on the Government Front Bench just now.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is standing up to make an impassioned, eloquent and compassionate speech, but may I pick him up on one point? He mentioned “one nation”, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary intervened. Earlier in the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he mentioned the triple lock. Is that not something for which to thank the Government, rather than castigate them? Will he acknowledge when the Government get things right, as well as challenge them when he perceives there are errors?
Ian Blackford
I will happily do so, and I have spoken about the triple lock on many occasions, but we have had debates here in the recent past in which many Members have questioned continuing with the triple lock. I am asking the Government to commit to retaining that triple lock in order to drive pensioners out of poverty. I commend the Government because they did the right thing in that particular case, but I hope that their commitment to the triple lock will be sustained so that it continues to drive pensioners out of poverty.
When they are right, I happily give credit to the Government, but I do not take kindly to Front-Bench Members laughing when I am standing up for my constituents in pointing out that the definition of “one nation” that the Government talk about is inappropriate when highlanders and islanders are not being treated fairly. There should be equity and fairness, but they do not exist in the UK today.
The highlands and islands of Scotland experience the harshest climatic conditions in the UK and record levels of fuel poverty. There is far greater, area-wide dependence on the use of electricity for heating as well as lighting, but the standard unit price charged is 2p per kilowatt-hour more than in most other parts of the UK, and 6p or more for the various “economy” tariffs on offer. Perhaps 2p per kilowatt-hour does not sound much, but it is a price premium of 15%. That is what this Government are doing to people in the highlands and islands. They are punishing people there on the basis of where they live, despite the fact that, in many cases, we produce the cheapest electricity, as we do in Skye. The Government are culpable over that, which is why I am asking the Minister to address the point when he sums up later this afternoon. That price for living in the highlands and islands is set by the Government, and it is not acceptable.
On top of all this, there is far greater reliance in off-gas areas on using domestic heating oil and solid fuel, which pushes up household heating costs further still. As a result, domestic energy bills in off-gas areas are, on average, £1,000 more per annum than the £1,369 dual fuel national average for 2014. Figures from the Lochalsh & Skye Energy Advice Service in my constituency suggest that the average total heating bills in Skye and Lochalsh amount to an eye-watering £2,218 per annum; for those whose primary heating is from oil, the average is as high as £2,519. To cap it all, electricity customers with prepayment meters, often the least well off, not only have to pay additional standing charges, but are discovering that their notional right to change to a cheaper supplier has become impracticable.
The Government must also accept that having 14 regional markets in the UK, with consumers in the highlands and islands paying a premium, is discriminatory. Many Members claim that responsibility for fuel poverty is devolved, which of course it is, but we have no control over the pricing or the regulatory environment; we can deal only with the consequences of fuel poverty that are symptoms of a market that is wholly under the jurisdiction of Westminster.
Our Government in Edinburgh have taken a range of actions to mitigate the effects of fuel poverty, but we need the tools that would come with having greater powers—notably through independence—to be able to deal fully with the circumstances that lead to fuel poverty. We are having to clear up the effects of the lack of a universal market and the pricing regime. Tackling fuel poverty has been a priority for the SNP Government, and by 2021 we will have committed over £1 billion to making Scottish homes warmer and cheaper to heat.
The financial support to tackle fuel poverty is increasing. The Scottish Government’s budget for fuel poverty and energy efficiency measures in 2017-18 will be £114 million, an increase of more than 11% on the previous year. An independent review of the way in which fuel poverty is defined has been undertaken by a panel of four academic experts in the light of concerns that current definitions may be impeding efforts to target those most in need. In the meantime, there is a new pilot programme in rural areas offering targeted support to cut energy bills.
Although fuel prices are beyond our control and fuel price moves can militate against our efforts to reduce fuel poverty, it is welcome that, owing to relatively stable market conditions, the number of people in fuel poverty in Scotland has fallen by 100,000. That reduction was heavily influenced by the measures that we have introduced. However, it is worth noting that fuel poverty in Scotland would be at only 8% if fuel prices had only risen in line with inflation between 2002 and 2015. High and rising pricing is our biggest enemy—and I use that word advisedly.
Scottish Government action has been commended by, among others, the Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group in a recent report, but more needs to be done in a holistic manner to tackle the scourge of fuel poverty. New affordable homes are part of that mix, and this year the Scottish Government will invest £590 million to increase the supply of affordable homes in Scotland. Targeted financial support of £1,900 for low-income families through the Best Start grant also helps—support, incidentally, that is £1,400 higher than what is on offer from the UK Government.
We are taking our responsibilities seriously. Through those measures, through such initiatives as supporting a real living wage and through the recently published Child Poverty (Scotland) Bill, we will use our powers to improve the conditions of many of those who are suffering fuel poverty in Scotland.
Finally, I want to reflect on the recently announced 14.9% increase in electricity pricing by SSE and on the fact that a 5% increase in prices pushes an additional 46,000 people in Scotland into fuel poverty. In the past, I have commended SSE for its customer service and the astonishing way in which its staff respond when bad weather leads to power interruptions, as it sometimes does during the winter months in the highlands. The speed of the response of the company and its customer service have been exemplary. Notwithstanding that commendation, however, it should be recognised that being effectively a near-monopoly supplier in the highlands and islands also brings a duty to act in a spirit of social responsibility. After all, in many respects SSE is a public utility in all but name. A price rise of this magnitude is simply not justified; the company has let itself down.
We await SSE’s financial results for the year to March 2017, but its interim statement forecast a year of growth and dividend increases. In the year to March 2016, its dividends to shareholders increased by 18.3% to £708 million. I would caution the company to ensure that it behaves in a socially responsible manner at all times. Increasing rewards to shareholders so generously does not sit well with the reality of so many of its customers being in fuel poverty, and now being pushed further into fuel poverty by this price increase. I am not against the company’s making a reasonable return on its investments—it must generate sufficient cash to invest in future electricity generation—but it must also balance the needs of all its stakeholders. In particular, affordability and the ability to pay bills must be at the heart of its thinking when it is addressing executive pay and shareholder rewards.
I welcome today’s debate, but we need action from the UK Government, most notably on the creation of a universal market. People should not be penalised because of where they live. Equity and fairness must be introduced, and it is time for the Government to take appropriate action.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I want to approach today’s debate from the perspective of older people and those who are particularly vulnerable as a result of fuel poverty. I want to be a voice for the people in Scotland who are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, as others are across the United Kingdom. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) for talking about the difficulties faced by those in his constituency and throughout the highlands.
In Scotland, 58% of single pensioner households are in fuel poverty, as are 44% of pensioner couples. The UK as a whole has one of the highest rates of fuel poverty and one of the most inefficient housing stocks in Europe. Fuel poverty rates are higher in Scotland. It is an indisputable fact that more often than not it is colder in Braemar than in Bournemouth, and that means that houses must be heated from a lower ambient temperature and for longer periods throughout the year.
Today in London the sun is shining, and although it is cold, older and vulnerable people could probably venture outside. This morning I received two picture messages showing snow lying on the ground outside my Wishaw home. Not many older or vulnerable people will be venturing outside there until it thaws. They will need to heat their homes in the meantime, and the cost of heating those homes is a burden that many of them simply cannot afford. That is shameful. When people are old, infirm or immobile, the cost of heating can be excessive, especially for those on low fixed incomes.
Many in fuel poverty will be using prepayment meters to pay for the cost of heating their homes. Consumers who are in arrears with gas or electricity bills can be switched to prepayment meters. According to Ofgem, more than 90% of those consumers are currently not repaying a debt, and are therefore unable to switch to different tariffs that could cut their fuel costs. Switching is absolutely impossible for them.
There are two main ways of tackling fuel poverty. One is to make homes more energy-efficient, and, as housing is a devolved competence, the Scottish Government have poured significant resources into making homes more affordable to heat.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
Is the hon. Lady aware that electricity prices have risen by about 125% overall, and gas prices have risen by about 75%? More important from the point of view of older people, the Government have withdrawn their green deal. Houses could have been insulated against cold weather. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point when he winds up the debate.
Marion Fellows
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Thank goodness I live in Scotland, because the Scottish Government are pouring even more money into making homes more energy-efficient. I myself have benefited from a deal whereby my loft was insulated at no cost, because by that time both my husband and I were of pensionable age. In fact, I think that it was only my husband who was of pensionable age. May I make a plea for that?
Marion Fellows
The hon. Gentleman is cheering me on from the Benches behind me.
By 2021, the Scottish Government will have spent more than £1 billion to ensure that Scottish homes and other buildings are warmer. Since 2008, more than 1 million energy efficiency measures have been installed in nearly 1 million households across Scotland, and the proportion of homes with the three highest energy ratings has increased by 71 per cent since 2010.
Scottish local authorities have also had an additional £10 million this winter to ensure that homes are energy efficient. The Scottish Government do not do that because it is a nice thing to do; they do it because it is absolutely necessary and imperative, to protect the most vulnerable people living in Scotland. Also, rather than simply throwing money at the problem, the Scottish Government have taken a consultative approach, working with many independent stakeholders and acting on their recommendations. My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned the independent Scottish Fuel Poverty Strategic Working Group, and it has commended the Scottish Government; I will come back to that later.
Progress has been made. In 2015 almost 100,000 fewer households were in fuel poverty than in 2014. Energy to heat our home is a basic human right that no one should go without. That is especially true for older and vulnerable people in our society. Action has been, and will continue to be, taken in Scotland during the course of this Parliament, and a warm homes Bill will be introduced to set a new target for tackling fuel poverty so that it may be challenged head on.
I received an email from Age Scotland this morning. It welcomes the fact that the Scottish Government have designated energy efficiency as a national infrastructure priority. They have also given a commitment to invest half a billion pounds over the lifetime of this Parliament to tackle fuel poverty and promote energy efficiency. That is crucial, and it is what the UK Government need to do for homes in England and Wales, and to help in Northern Ireland. I know this does not come under the competency, but the Westminster Government is the largest Government in the UK and they must set an example.
As has been said, rural communities have particular issues with fuel poverty. In Scotland, the fuel poverty rate is 50% in rural areas compared with 32% in towns and cities, and a staggering 71% of homes in the Western Isles are in fuel poverty. Due to the demographics of these islands, pensioners are largely affected. Only this month, on 8 March, the Scottish Government announced a pilot scheme that will see 220 rural households offered support specific to the needs of older people in these islands to cut their energy bills. The pilot and its review will be used to develop the Scottish Government’s new fuel poverty strategy, due to be published later this year.
The Scottish Government have made huge efforts to minimise the number of older people affected by fuel poverty but are hampered by realities such as many rural homes being off the mains or off-grid, which means they cannot access gas supplies as the majority of us do—something most of us in this Chamber take for granted.
New powers to the Scottish Parliament will maintain winter fuel payments for pensioners in Scotland. Furthermore, early payments to almost 80,000 pensioners who live off-grid will also be made available so that they can take advantage of lower energy prices available during the summer months. That is a common sense idea that will help improve the lives of many older people. In addition, the winter fuel payment will be extended to families with children in receipt of the highest care component of disability living allowance.
As I have shown, the Scottish Government are already taking great steps to address fuel poverty. However, only so many powers to do so are located north of the border; the rest lie here at Westminster, and it is therefore here that the responsibility must lie. As has been mentioned, the fuel poverty rate for 2015 would have been 8.4% instead of 31% if fuel prices had only risen with inflation. Instead, the UK Government have allowed corporations to hike up energy prices, to the detriment of vulnerable groups who are in greater need of a warm home—a basic necessity which, let us be honest, can make the difference between life and death. The current cost of fuel poverty to NHS Scotland is calculated at £80 million per annum, and that must be much higher in the rest of the UK.
Increases in prices can outweigh everything that the Scottish Government are trying to do on fuel efficiency. No matter how much the Scottish Government spend, they can still have little impact on fuel prices across the UK. However, a Scottish Government Minister chaired a summit on 14 December last year urging energy companies to make a difference to low-income households living in fuel poverty and facing a poverty premium tax.
James Heappey
The hon. Lady is right that there are ways of insulating people from the volatile cost of energy, the most obvious of which is the electrification of heat. Will she share what the Scottish Government’s plans are for delivering that?
Marion Fellows
No, I cannot, because I am not here representing the Scottish Government. The electrification of heat is a joke in some of the far-flung places in the highlands and islands. If we electrify heat, we are then causing more carbon emissions in many regards, depending on what fuel we use. We in Scotland already have huge power resources run by water power, and the Scottish Government only recently opened a new dam that would produce—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) is chuntering from a sedentary position; I beg his pardon, but I can only answer what I have been asked. Recently the Scottish Government opened a new dam, producing power, but we have the real difficulties of getting power from Scotland on to the grid at a reasonable cost.
Marion Fellows
No, I am sorry, but I will continue my speech.
There are of course other ways that the UK Government can take action. They can increase household incomes, but instead they have allowed wages to stagnate, adopted a false living wage for select age groups, and pushed people further into poverty through their welfare cuts. The truth is that this Government do not do enough to help our most vulnerable people.
The Scottish Government have now taken over control of some of the new welfare powers. They have hit the ground running by doing what they can to support vulnerable groups, and please be assured that the new Scottish Government welfare powers will be built on a foundation of respect and dignity—things that are severely lacking in the UK welfare regime. For older people, the Scottish Government have launched a campaign to ensure that all groups are able to access the public funds they are entitled to; for example, one third of pensioners are entitled to pension credit but do not claim it. The new best start grant has already been referred to, and the Scottish Government have spent almost £58 million mitigating the impact of Tory austerity cuts to welfare on homes across Scotland. A £7.7 million increase in funding for discretionary housing payments will be made as the Scottish Parliament takes over more welfare powers. Between April 2013 and March 2016, local authorities will have made 321,000 discretionary housing payment awards totalling £129 million.
I can tell the House from personal experience how important these discretionary housing payments and the Scottish welfare fund set up by the Scottish Government to mitigate these cuts were to people when I was a local councillor. Since becoming an MP, I can also tell of the numbers of people attending my surgeries in real poverty, and that impacts especially on their ability to keep their houses warm; they are in real fuel poverty as a direct result of some of the actions taken by this Government.
The Scottish Government have also taken steps to mitigate the impact of the bedroom tax. All of this has helped the most vulnerable groups in Scotland. However—this will come as no surprise to the House—I agree with the First Minister that the Scottish Parliament’s finances and powers should be used to tackle poverty at its core, rather than being a plaster over Tory neglect. Given the powers that they currently have, the Scottish Government are doing what they can to alleviate fuel poverty in Scotland. Much of what they have done has helped with energy efficiency, thus reducing bills. The World Health Organisation attributes 30% of preventable deaths to cold and poorly insulated housing. Inroads have been made in Scotland to improve housing. In fact, some new houses were built and allocated recently in my constituency and they have been built to the highest specifications. This will enable the people living in them to spend far less on fuel than is currently the case in most houses across Scotland.
It is imperative that the UK Government urgently address the cost of energy across the UK. The large energy firms must be made to fulfil their social responsibilities. It is shameful that so many folk across the UK have to juggle heating and eating. Rolling out smart meters is not enough when people have no means of keeping warm. The fact that the Minister refers to an annual debate on fuel poverty should give us all pause for thought.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I had not intended to speak today because I thought this was going to be a packed debate; that was my misjudgment. This is a crucial debate, however, and I want to add a few words. One of the frustrations that many of us feel is that tackling fuel poverty by investing in energy efficiency can really be a win-win situation in getting people’s fuel bills down, tackling climate change and creating jobs. The creation of those jobs has led to the conclusion that by investing in tackling energy efficiency problems we can actually raise more money than we need to invest. That was rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey).
Evidence shows that £3 can be returned to the economy for every £1 invested by central Government, so when the Government say that they cannot afford to invest more in this agenda, it is only right for us to point out that, if the agenda were tackled properly, it could save them money as well as having very real impacts such as reducing the serious harm being done to so many in our communities and preventing premature deaths. So, given that there are so few win-wins in politics, it seems particularly perverse that the Government are turning their back on this one. Taking action in this way would help to ensure that the 2.3 million families living in fuel poverty across the UK had some kind of hope for the future.
We have heard from several hon. Members that fuel poverty is not just an inconvenience; it is nothing less than a national crisis. Forgive me for referencing this for, I think, a third time, but this is so frustrating because we know that we need to scale up investment in energy efficiency, and the national infrastructure process would have been an obvious way to do that. It would be a way to channel funding into this incredibly important area, which otherwise risks being overlooked in many ways.
I want to mention the Committee on Climate Change, whose report last week made it clear that improving energy efficiency through better insulating our homes is key to meeting our climate targets. In that respect, will the Minister give us an indication of when the severely delayed clean growth plan will be published and whether it will include a comprehensive energy efficiency plan, including a statutory commitment to ensuring that all fuel-poor homes have an energy performance rating of at least C by 2030 at the latest?
With one in 10 households living in fuel poverty, it is also a matter of concern that the Government have no scheme for comprehensively insulating fuel-poor homes in England. Meanwhile, the changes being made to the energy company obligation are likely to decrease the support available to fuel-poor households, with those on low incomes unable to replace inefficient gas boilers, for example. We know that 9,000 excess deaths were linked to fuel poverty last winter, and if we are to take seriously the claims being made about the Government’s commitment to this issue, we need to know when they will put in place the kind of actions that are needed.
Finally, I want to say a little bit about how people can, to coin a phrase, take back control. That phrase has been used a lot in recent months, and if there is one area of our lives where we should be taking back control, it is in relation to energy. Right now, our energy system is in the hands of the big six, and for ordinary consumers, it can feel very hard to have any kind of leverage. We are always told that we simply have to switch our power supplier, but again, that puts responsibility on the consumer and we are still at the mercy of whatever the different energy companies come up with.
Instead of having the big six, we should have 60,000. We should do what Germany is doing and have real community energy, not just as a nice-to-have extra bit of luxury but as the bread and butter of our energy system. If we were to do that, we could really give people more control over energy. We could ensure that the huge energy companies were not siphoning off big profits and that investment was going back into the community. We would need to ensure priority access to the grid for community renewables, and a community right of first use—at wholesale, not retail, prices—of the energy generated. We would also need a planning framework that was able to determine locally the degree of community ownership required as a precondition of permitted development, and a right to acquire or own the local distribution network and to sell long consumption—in other words, demand reduction—alongside demand management and renewable energy. I can also imagine a role for the Green Investment Bank, if it was still properly in our hands rather than being flogged off to Macquarie, as seems likely to happen.
We have heard a lot today about the importance of tackling fuel poverty, and that is exactly right. We have also heard a lot about the impact of fuel poverty on our constituents. If we were to take a slightly bolder view, we could solve fuel poverty at the same time as bringing energy properly back into community hands—into the hands of us all—and that is a vision worth fighting for.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
We are in a cold homes crisis, with more than 4 million households in fuel poverty across the UK. Across the UK in 2014-2015, there were 43,900 excess winter deaths. According to the World Health Organisation, a minimum of 30% of those deaths resulted from cold homes. In my constituency, there are 7,241 households struggling in fuel poverty. Life in fuel poverty is miserable. No one should be choosing between heating their home and eating. Children should not be growing up in cold, damp rooms. Old people should not have to stay in bed or live in just one room because they cannot warm their house.
This debate is happening because the last Administration’s fuel poverty strategy, published in 2015, mandated it to happen. The current statutory target is to lift as many fuel-poor households up to band C energy efficiency standard “as is reasonably practicable” by 2030. This Government’s record on fuel poverty and their performance against that target are abysmal and going nowhere fast. The charity National Energy Action estimates that at this rate we will miss the target by 80 years. Yes, 80 years. A baby born today will not see the end of fuel poverty in the UK in her lifetime. That is a scandal. That is approximately calculated by noting that around 30,000 fuel-poor houses per year are being brought up to band C. That is so far from what is needed that I do not know how the Government can defend it.
What response to this striking lack of progress have we had from the Government? They say that they will spend less on energy efficiency measures—measures that are recognised in their own fuel poverty strategy as the most sustainable way to make permanent progress on fuel poverty. Under a Labour Government in 2007, we saw 2.5 million energy efficiency measures implemented in a single year. That number has now fallen off a cliff. Under this Government’s policies, we will see 12% of that. Total investment fell by 53% between 2010 and 2015, and England is now the only UK nation without a Government-funded energy efficiency programme. That has not been the case for 30 years.
The Government lack the necessary political will and determination to address this injustice. It is so frustrating, not just because it condemns thousands of households to continued misery, indignity and ill health, and not just because the youngest, the oldest and the poorest in our society are hit hardest by fuel poverty, but because the solutions are so clearly and obviously sensible.
Properly addressing fuel poverty would ease the burden on the NHS. National Energy Action estimates that £1.6 billion is spent each year on treating the impacts of cold homes. Labour’s commitment to insulate 4 million homes would create over 100,000 jobs and apprenticeships, as well as training programmes across every region of the country. Those homes would have reduced energy bills, which is another key driver of fuel poverty. A report by Cambridge Econometrics and Verco found that every £1 invested in an ambitious energy efficiency programme such as Labour’s would return £3. The plan would reduce natural gas imports by 26% by 2030 due to reduced demand, save £8 billion a year on energy bills, increase relative GDP by 0.6% by 2030 and reduce carbon emissions.
One of the ways to bring energy efficiency measures to fuel-poor households is through the energy company obligation or ECO. The newly costed ECO will cost £640 million a year—a 42% reduction compared with the previous phase of the programme. While the Government may say that that is more tightly focused on fuel poverty, the reality is a massive funding cut. This Government are betraying those in fuel poverty and snubbing their own legal targets.
A key risk factor for those in fuel poverty is living in a household that is off the gas grid. Non-gas households rely on more expensive fuels, such as electricity and oil, to heat their homes and often live in harder-to-treat, energy-inefficient properties with no central heating or solid walls. Some 20% of fuel-poor households are off the gas grid, yet they have received only 1.4% of the measures under the affordable warmth element of ECO since 2013.
James Heappey
That ties in with the earlier point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). We could encourage the electrification of heat as a solution for those who are off the gas grid. Heat pumps can operate efficiently and reduce heating costs for those who would otherwise be at the mercy of the oil market. Does the shadow Minister agree that that should be a priority for such customers?
Gill Furniss
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. We must be bold in these areas and consider everything that we possibly can. I thank him for that intervention.
Gas distribution networks, which manage the network infrastructure that transports gas to homes and businesses across GB, should deliver 14,864 new connections to fuel-poor households, but funding for new central heating systems available through the ECO is limited to 4,000 systems, so funding is lacking for over 10,000 households. In the spring Budget, the Chancellor completely failed to act on that and provided no extra funding to ensure that the most affected fuel-poor households are given the support to stay warm. Regrettably, that seems to be a running theme in the Government’s approach to tackling fuel poverty. Given the shortage of funds, I hope the Minister can explain how exactly the Government intend to tackle the off-gas homes that are most at risk of severe fuel poverty.
The warm homes discount is an annual payment of £140 to around 2.1 million households to relieve pressure on their energy bills, but it was revealed last year that only 15% of those in receipt of the discount were actually in fuel poverty. The Treasury, then under the new editor of the Evening Standard, said that the system was working, but the scheme’s targeting is a total failure. The Minister for Climate Change and Industry said in a Delegated Legislation Committee last year that the Government would address that through better data-sharing in the Digital Economy Bill, but the Government are yet to explain how they will improve targeting.
A co-ordinated, comprehensive approach to fuel poverty at a local level can be key to tackling the cold homes crisis. In its 2015 cold weather plan, Public Health England made it clear that fuel poverty and reducing excess winter illness and death should be deemed core business by health and wellbeing boards and should be included in their strategy plans. However, research has found that 40% of the 152 health and wellbeing boards in England failed to address fuel poverty in their strategies. I have written to my local health and wellbeing board to ask them about its progress on implementing the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines. It replied that the savage cuts to local funding and the lack of Government funding to address fuel poverty directly have made it difficult to implement the NICE guidelines fully. This Government have been standing still on fuel poverty and going backwards on energy efficiency measures to address it.
Mr Jim Cunningham
We debated this matter in the previous Parliament, but we never seem to resolve it. The Prime Minister has hinted that she may put a cap on prices, but if she is going to do that, she should really tackle the big six cabal, which was raised in the House last week. It is not good enough to tell people that they should shop around and get a different supplier—that does not work. It is about time that this Government put their money where their mouth is and tackled the big cartel.
Gill Furniss
My hon. Friend’s intervention is timely in that several hon. Members have put that case well. The Labour party’s last manifesto proposed to freeze the energy prices of the big six.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend made an important point about the contribution made by local authorities in drawing together the work that happens at a local level. Does she agree that, to reduce the number of excess winter deaths, it is important at a national level that the Government co-ordinate across Whitehall and that meaningful conversations happen between Departments?
Gill Furniss
That is absolutely the way forward. We should be looking at new build homes that contain all the necessary measures, and many Departments have a part to play in that. Sheffield Heat and Power is good example of how to take waste and turn it into energy. That is what I mean when I said that we must be bold. We have to take every opportunity and learn lessons from other countries.
Gill Furniss
No, I must move on.
The Government’s flagship green deal policy is universally recognised as a failure. It was well intentioned, but we warned at the time that implementation was going very badly. By the end, the green deal improved only 15,000 homes at a cost of £17,000 per home. No replacement policy is in sight so far as I am aware.
The Government have cancelled the zero-carbon homes initiative. By contrast, Labour would build 1 million new carbon-neutral homes and insulate 4 million more. Labour would roll out a £90 million “homes for heroes” programme that offers free home insulation to disabled veterans. The Labour party has committed to making energy efficiency a key infrastructure priority. That makes economic sense and is the right thing for the future of the UK.
Jesse Norman
Mr Deputy Speaker, I had until recently hoped to be greeting your female colleague—Madam Deputy Speaker—as you and I have spent so much time in the Chamber over the past few days. In her absence, it is a delight to welcome you to the Chair.
I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. I will respond to some of their many points but, first, I will recap the situation. The most recent statistics, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and Industry in his opening remarks, show that there were approximately 780,000 fewer homes in the lowest energy efficiency rating bands—E, F and G—in 2014 compared with 2010, which demonstrates real, sustainable progress towards the 2020 and 2025 milestones. It is clear from the statistics that the fuel poverty milestones and target are backloaded and that the scale of improvements required to reach each of the target dates increases over time.
Today, the energy company obligation regulations are being debated in the House of Lords. They seek to increase the proportion of support directed at low-income homes. Although the ECO policy has reduced in size compared with the scale of recent years, support for low-income households has been protected. In fact, the regulations for the new scheme to launch on 1 April 2017 represent an increase from £310 million to £450 million a year.
Combined with immediate support on the cost of energy bills provided via the warm home discount, there will be at least £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable consumers over 2017-18. That is a significant commitment towards some of the households that are faced with the challenge of keeping their home warm. It is therefore far from true that, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, the Government are turning their back on the situation. Quite the opposite.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), criticised what she described as the Government’s “quite abysmal” record. I can do no better than to point out that, in the years from 2003 to 2010, the last Labour Government succeeded in increasing the number of fuel-poor households from 2.41 million to 2.49 million. The result of what she regards as an effective energy policy was to increase the number of people in fuel poverty.
Regulation, particularly for landlords, will also play an important role in making progress towards the milestones, as will other actions such as the safeguard tariff for pre-payment meters and the roll out of smart meters. In the longer term, the Government will be assessing the resources and policy mix required to meet the 2030 fuel poverty target. However, flexibility is important given the long-term, structural nature of fuel poverty. We should not, in 2017, seek to say precisely how best we can meet the target or commit future Governments to 13 years of spending in a particular way given that so much could change in the energy sector and in applicable technologies.
Caroline Lucas
On the Government’s commitment to this agenda, can the Minister answer the fact that the notional annual spend on the overall ECO programme has reduced from an original £1.3 billion to £640 million? The new cap on heating measures with the ECO leaves a big gap in provision for low-income or vulnerable consumers who cannot now afford to repair or replace existing gas boilers. What is his answer to that?
Jesse Norman
If the hon. Lady had attended closely to my opening remarks, she would have heard me acknowledge that the scheme has been reduced in size but that funding for more vulnerable groups has been increased. If we combine that with the wider support through the warm home discount, let alone the national living wage and other applicable measures, we see that the Government are doing a great deal in that area.
Mr Jim Cunningham
The Minister just said that funding for vulnerable groups has actually increased. By what does he measure that? What is the actual figure?
Jesse Norman
I have just covered that. I am embarrassed that my remarks should be so ill-attended. The regulations for the new scheme, which launches on 1 April 2017, represent an increase from £310 million to £450 million a year. Combined with the warm home discount, that gives £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable customers in 2017-18.
We have also taken steps to improve targeting. The eligibility criteria for the ECO scheme, which is proposed to run from April 2017 to the end of September 2018, will improve the targeting rate to 34%. We do not believe that is enough. The targeting rate can go higher, and the Digital Economy Bill, which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough mentioned, is currently going through Parliament and will enable greater data sharing and give the Government the opportunity to improve the targeting of the next generation of fuel poverty schemes, including the warm home discount.
When the regulations were made last summer, the Government stated that there is more to be done to target the schemes at those who most need them. That is still true, with the current targeting rate of fuel poor households at around 15%. However, Members should note that increasing that proportion in the current scheme, which is committed to 2021, would be at a cost to other low-income households. We will be mindful of that factor when making decisions on the future direction of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) criticised the Government, whom she regarded as presiding over stagnant real incomes. All I can do is direct her to the fact that, last year, full-time pay grew by 0.7% in Scotland, whereas it grew by 1.9% in the UK as a whole. According to Scottish Parliament numbers, it fell for the three years following 2012.
I yield to no one in my admiration for the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), and I was grateful for his support in being elected Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. He also comes from a nation I deeply revere and whose history I greatly respect, but I am afraid that he has embarrassed himself in this debate with an unworthy attempt to personalise a very serious set of issues. Mine was a response to the gap, which the stricture on unparliamentary language prevents me from describing as anything more than disingenuous, between his words and his deeds. The fact of the matter is that these matters are devolved. Even so, the Government have offered support, as I described, through the ECO, the warm home discount and a hydro benefit replacement scheme of £58 million to reduce energy distribution charges. Were network charges made universal across the country, as he desired, 1.8 million people in Scotland would face higher bills, and only 0.7% would see reductions. Does he really wish to add to the bills of 1.1 million Scotsmen and women?
Ian Blackford
It was the predecessor Minister who made the point that people should not be penalised because of where they live—nobody should pay more. It is a matter of fairness that there should be a universal market, as exists in many other European countries. We have such things in other areas in the UK. Why do we not have a universal market for electricity distribution?
Jesse Norman
I am grateful for the respectful nature of the hon. Gentleman’s question. The answer is simple: it would increase charges to an additional 1.1 million people in his country, and no responsible Government should look on that with favour.
Finally, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough referred rightly to the health effects of fuel poverty, and we, correctly, recognise that issue. She suggested that fuel poverty in homes had risen; I have explained how, in fact, it has fallen broadly since 2010—from roughly 2.49 million to 2.38 million homes. She invites the Government to tackle the root causes of fuel poverty, but that is exactly what we are doing.
Further to my comments about the last Labour Government, it should never be forgotten that the real wages of the bottom third of the population of this country stopped growing in 2003, not in 2008—it was a function not of the financial crash but of a whole series of factors and of bad government, and we should recognise that.
The hon. Lady said the Government need to be more ambitious, and we are being extremely ambitious. We have a transitional arrangement that runs through until September 2018. We then expect a further supplier obligation, on which we will consult later this year, to take us through to 2022.
We know that households living on low incomes are all too often left to live in the coldest and least efficient homes. We know that living in a cold home can have negative implications, to say the least, for health and wellbeing. The official 2016 fuel poverty statistics showed that, despite progress towards the 2020 milestone, with 88% of homes rated E or above in 2014, there remains a significant challenge if we are to make progress to the 2030 fuel poverty target.
The statistics show that only 7% of fuel-poor households were rated B, C or higher in 2014, which clearly shows that the fuel poverty target we have adopted, which was set in 2014, is ambitious, and rightly so. That legal target makes it clear that the Government do not accept the situation. [Interruption.] If I may respond to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is chuntering from a sedentary position, it also shows that we are committed to providing support to those households that need it most. Undeniably, that means there is a lot of work to do to ensure that the energy-efficiency of low-income homes is improved. We cannot now, in 2017, prescribe exactly which policies, regulations and innovation will be required to meet the 2030 target—we will consult next year on work to a target until 2022—but we can ensure that we continue as a nation, as a country, together to move forward and take action.
Parliament will, of course, continue to play an invaluable role in holding Government to account against this objective over the next decade, and I thank the hon. Members who have spoken today for their contributions to this worthwhile and useful debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered fuel poverty.
Business without Debate
Delegated Legislation
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 4 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Rating and Valuation
That the draft Non-Domestic Rating (Rates Retention) and (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.
Constitutional Law
That the draft Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017, which was laid before this House on 1 March, be approved.
Income Tax
That the draft Scotland Act 2016 (Income Tax Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
Electricity
That the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 20 February, be approved.—(Steve Brine.)
Question agreed to.
Baby Loss (Public Health Guidelines)
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
As my wife will testify, I am rarely early for things, so to be more than three hours early for something is a rare treat indeed. I know that both you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Minister will be pleased to know that I intend to take only about two and a half hours of the just over three hours available to me.
As the House knows, I am a passionate campaigner in the area of baby loss. Having unfortunately experienced it myself, I have always been clear that I want to use my position in the House to bring about change so that as few people as possible have to go through this absolute personal tragedy. In the latest year for which figures are available, there were 3,254 stillbirths in England and Wales, with a further 1,762 neonatal deaths shortly after birth. Every single one of those is a personal tragedy, yet perhaps the most galling aspect is that so many of these deaths—reportedly about half—are actually preventable.
I strongly welcome the Government’s plans to cut the stillbirth and neonatal death rate by 20% by 2020 and, furthermore, to reduce it by 50% over the next 15 years, but those are just numbers unless we put in the resources necessary to deliver on this. Trusts have received £4 million to buy better equipment and boost training to cut stillbirth and neonatal death. More than £1 million is also being provided to help develop training packages so that more maternity unit staff have the confidence to deliver safe care. It is hugely positive that the Department of Health has recognised the scale of the challenge and set aside this funding, but we need to focus as much on reducing the risks of stillbirth.
One significant risk factor remains one of the toughest to eliminate and, as a result, carries the greatest reward if we can address it: smoking in pregnancy. Let me be clear that this debate is absolutely not about criticising or demonising women and their partners who smoke during pregnancy. We all know that tobacco is highly addictive and it can be difficult to stop smoking. However, smoking while pregnant is the No. 1 modifiable risk factor for stillbirth. If I may, I will run through a few statistics: one in five stillbirths is associated with smoking; women who smoke are 27% more likely to have a miscarriage; their risk of having a stillbirth is a third higher than that of non-smokers; and mothers who smoke are more likely to have pre-term births and babies are who are small for their gestational age.
Maternal exposure to second-hand smoke during pregnancy is an independent risk factor for premature birth and low birth weight, yet only one man in four makes any change to his smoking habits when his partner is expecting a baby. If, tomorrow, every pregnancy was smoke-free, we would see 5,000 fewer miscarriages, 300 fewer perinatal deaths, and 2,200 fewer premature births every year. Were children not exposed to second-hand smoke, the number of sudden infant deaths could be reduced by 30%.
The previous tobacco control plan set targets for reducing rates of smoking in pregnancy. In 2015-16, the number of women smoking at the time of delivery had fallen to 10.6%—below the Government’s target of 11%—yet the fact that the Government’s target has been met nationally masks geographical variations. Yes, we are seeing rates of 2% in Richmond, 2.2% in Wokingham and 2.4 % in Hammersmith and Fulham, but rates of smoking in pregnancy are 26.6% in Blackpool, 24.4% in South Tyneside and 24.1% in North East Lincolnshire.
Of the 209 clinical commissioning groups, 108 met the national ambition of 11% or less, but that means that 101 did not. It is even more worrying if we look for improvements in the rates of smoking in pregnancy in CCG areas. Yes, 14 CCGs have improved significantly over the past year, but 182 have rates that are about the same and, even more worryingly, 13 have significantly worse maternal smoking rates.
The Government have committed to renewing targets to reduce smoking in pregnancy. Reducing regional variation in smoking during pregnancy and among other population groups is a high priority for the Minister, and I know the Government are focusing on it as they finalise the tobacco control plan. I was pleased to see the recent news that NHS England granted £75,000 of funding to the 26 CCGs that are most challenged on maternal smoking.
How do we achieve the Government ambition for a 50% reduction in stillbirth and neonatal deaths by 2030? First, we need to publish a new tobacco control plan. The previous tobacco control plan for England expired at the end of 2015. The Government have promised that a new one will be published shortly. The publication of the strategy is now a matter of urgency, so will the Minister kindly advise on how shortly “shortly” is?
The strategy needs to include ambitious targets for reducing smoking in pregnancy. The Smoking in Pregnancy Challenge Group—a partnership of charities, royal colleges and academics—has called for a new national ambition to reduce the rate of smoking in pregnancy to less than 6% by 2020. I know the Department of Health is sympathetic to that aim and hope it will be included in the new tobacco control plan.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a three hour and 53 minute debate on this important subject and thank him for all the work he does on baby loss. He may well address this issue later in his speech, but does he agree that the alarming figures for regional differentials also apply to stillbirth rates more generally? Another issue is cultural differences between different sections of our populations with very different outcomes. That, too, must be a priority for the Government, because wherever in the country someone is, surely they are entitled to the same level of support and the same health outcomes.
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He, too, has done a huge amount of work in this area and is hugely supportive of the work of the all-party group on baby loss. He is quite right to highlight the regional variation that exists, and to which the Department is very much alive. I had not intended to focus on the specific demographics, in terms of race, but the figures do show that certain demographics have a higher propensity towards stillbirth. The honest answer is that we do not really know why, so there is a huge need for research in this area. I am not going to discuss that issue, but only because I want to focus specifically on smoking.
My hon. Friend is quite right about that particular demographic, and the reasons behind higher stillbirth and neonatal death rates may well be a public health issue. I hope that the Minister and the Department will look into that independently of this debate.
Secondly, communication to pregnant women must be sensitive and non-judgmental. Qualitative findings from the babyClear programme found that pregnant smokers found the interventions unsettling, but they were receptive to the messages if they were delivered sympathetically. To do that, healthcare professionals must feel able to have conversations about harm and have clear evidence-based resources and support for pregnant women.
Thirdly, the Government should ensure the implementation of guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE guidelines recommend that referral for help to stop smoking should be opt-out rather than opt-in. Research published by Nottingham University in April 2016 on opt-out and opt-in referral systems found that adding CO monitoring with opt-out referrals doubled the number of pregnant smokers setting quit dates and reporting smoking cessation.
Further, a recent evaluation of the babyClear programme in the north-east of England found that it delivered impressive results. BabyClear is an intervention to support implementing NICE guidance on reducing smoking in pregnancy. Let me give some background. BabyClear began in late 2012. Since then, smoking at the time of delivery has fallen by 4.0% in the north-east compared with 2.5% nationally. That equates to about 1,500 fewer women smoking during pregnancy in the north-east than in 2012. The cost of implementing the core babyClear package over five years is estimated at £30 per delivery.
Fourthly, we should embed smoking cessation across the maternity transformation plan. There are nine workstreams altogether and smoking cessation is central to achieving success in most of those. As an example, the workstream, “training the workforce”, should include training midwives on CO monitoring and referral, but there is a risk that smoking cessation is siloed into the workstream focused on improving prevention. It is vital that that does not happen.
Finally, the Nursing and Midwifery Council is updating its standards in relation to nurses and midwives. This training must be mandated and have smoking in pregnancy as a key part. These are all steps that can and should be taken by the Department of Health to help maintain the momentum on reducing smoking during pregnancy rates. However, there is one other suggestion that I would like the Minister to take away and discuss with his colleagues in other Departments. All alcohol bought in the UK carries a warning sign making it clear that pregnant women should not consume this product, yet only one packet of cigarettes in six carries a warning about the danger of smoking while pregnant. It is not unreasonable or unrealistic for all tobacco products to carry a similar warning to that seen on alcohol. I would be grateful to the Minister if he looked into the feasibility of introducing such a scheme. I understand that it falls under European law and European regulation, but that may, in the very near future, not be a problem.
This debate is absolutely not about criticising or demonising women and their partners who smoke during pregnancy. I fully appreciate that tobacco is highly addictive and that it is difficult to stop smoking. We also know that all parents want to give their baby the best possible start in life. We want a message to go out loudly and clearly that no matter what stage a woman is in her pregnancy, it is never too late to stop smoking. Yes, that can be difficult, but smoking is much more harmful to a baby than any stress that quitting may bring. Most importantly, we and the Department of Health will give parents all the support and tools to help them to quit.
Sir Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing the debate? As an officer of the all-party group on smoking and health, I must congratulate him on the length of time that he has for this debate. Never in my wildest dreams did I ever think that we would get more than a one-and-a-half hour debate in Westminster Hall for such a matter.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out the dangers of smoking in pregnancy. I do not plan to fill up these three and a half hours—I can see some smiles of relief—but I will pick up one or two issues that he raised. The Minister knows that I and many other Members have been calling for the new tobacco control plan for quite a while, since the last one finished at the end of 2015. The word I would add to that, because things do move on, is “comprehensive”; it ought to be a comprehensive tobacco smoking control plan. There are areas where that could help very much indeed.
Smoking in pregnancy is a massive issue that is obviously caused by nicotine addiction. For many years, the only way that people could meet that addiction, other than with chewing gum and patches, was by using cigarettes. Hon. Members will know that Public Health England published a report on e-cigarettes in August 2015, saying that they were 95% safer than the tobacco in cigarettes as a means of taking in nicotine. It is pretty obvious to me that consumers are moving to e-cigarettes on a vast scale, and the Government are also moving towards e-cigarettes to look into how they can help in certain situations.
I recently tabled the following written question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what steps are being taken by (a) his Department, (b) the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and (c) Public Health England to encourage research into the use of e-cigarettes.”
Although the Minister may not have direct responsibility for this, I would like to tell him that I am very pleased with the answer, which I received today and which says that his Department is “working closely” with all the organisations
“to encourage research into the use of electronic cigarettes…and monitor the emerging evidence. PHE’s next updated evidence report on e-cigarettes is expected to be published before the end of the 2017. In addition to the publication…PHE have partnered with Cancer Research UK and the UK Centre for Tobacco and Alcohol Studies to develop a forum that brings together policy makers, researchers, practitioners and the non-governmental organisation representatives to discuss the emerging evidence, identify research priorities and generate ideas for new research projects, thereby enhancing collaboration between forum participants.”
I am sorry for going on about that, but it is a comprehensive answer that talks about identifying research priorities. We could not have a better advocate for such a priority than the statistics on the effects of smoking tobacco in pregnancy read out by the hon. Member for Colchester. The people involved, including PHE, which is doing a magnificent job, ought to be looking at whether smoking in pregnancy could be one area for comprehensive research. Perhaps we could replace the cigarette—a mechanism for satisfying nicotine addiction that we all know is very bad for us—and use something like e-cigarettes to satisfy the addiction in pregnant women without the risk to the individual woman and her child.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this up, and I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), on the answer I received today. We should be ensuring that we look into these areas in some detail to ensure that we can avoid the awful statistics that the hon. Gentleman read out.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I had not intended to speak in this debate—I just wanted to be part of it and perhaps to question the Minister—but you have tempted me, Mr Deputy Speaker, to add my three penn’orth. I, too, will not take up the remainder of the three hours and 50 minutes in making a few comments. I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing the debate.
The Government have made good progress on the smoking front, and that needs to be recognised, but 10.6% of people still smoke through pregnancy. That figure needs to be brought well down into single figures. My hon. Friend made a good point about the use of advertising messages with regard to alcohol. Of course, unlike alcohol, this issue affects only half the population. The graphic images on cigarette packets of diseased lungs, and those grisly television adverts with pus coming out of lungs and so on, really send home the message about the harm that any smoking can do. Making that clear to women who still take the risk of smoking during pregnancy would help to get the figure down further.
We still have a major problem in this country with high levels of baby loss through stillbirth as well as through the rather less quantifiable form of miscarriage, the true extent of which we do not really know. As I said earlier, it must be a priority for Government to work out why we have regional and cultural differences, and to extend and learn from best practice rather better than we do at the moment. Some of the pilots and experiments that have happened in Scotland are something for the rest of the country to look at and learn from.
Given the title of this debate, we could, strictly speaking, extend it well beyond just smoking, and I am going to take advantage of that. On drinking, there has been a very confused message for some time. I am an officer of the all-party foetal alcohol syndrome group. We produced a report that urged complete abstinence as the only safe way, and that must be the default position. For women who do choose to continue to drink in some form during pregnancy, there need to be very clear health messages, and perhaps lower-alcohol alternatives. If someone has to drink, there are ways of potentially doing less damage to their baby. The Government can be part of that through the differential pricing tax mechanism. We are rather bad at that in this area.
I remember going to Denmark some years ago and visiting a children’s home just outside Copenhagen that specialised in treating children who were the victims of foetal alcohol syndrome—particularly children of mothers from Greenland, where there is a particular problem with heavy drinking. Those children were born with all sorts of disabilities, some of which manifested themselves as the symptoms that we know of in ongoing conditions such as autism.
There may be an understating of the effects of foetal alcohol syndrome because it can appear somewhere on the autistic spectrum as well. We need to do more research into that. There is no more stark example than we see in Denmark of a direct correlation between excessive drinking and giving birth to a child who will bear the effects of that for his or her whole life, with the learning disabilities and other things that go with it. We have lessons to learn from that. We still need stronger messages to go out to women during pregnancy about the potential, and potentially lifelong, harm that can be done by inappropriate drinking.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Although a strong message is important, the delivery of that message is crucial. There is a good argument for saying that the shock-and-awe messaging used in advertisements about driver safety or alcohol, and on cigarette packets, does not have the impact that we believe it should. Many mothers might take cavalier decisions about themselves, as many of us do. I certainly do when it comes to food and its health benefits; I do not follow the guidance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that a mother would never want to damage the future prospects of her child? The sensitivity of the message, however strong it is, is the most important element.
Tim Loughton
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. We, as grown-ups, can make a conscious decision to be gluttonous or to over-imbibe. That does damage to our bodies and our bodies alone, although there may be a cost to the taxpayer through the national health service. If anyone should be more sensitive and sensible about the damage that could be done to another individual, it is a pregnant woman. A pregnant woman, or a woman considering pregnancy, should be more amenable to good health messages.
It is a question of horses for courses, and I take the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about shock-and-awe tactics. The AIDS adverts in the ’80s could be described as shock and awe, and they were exceedingly effective at the time. We still remember those tombstones. One can go too far, however; members of the public are smart, and they recognise over-emphasis for effect. It hits them in the face, and they say, “I do not need to take any notice of that.” We need smart messaging, which is credible and honed appropriately for its target audience.
That is why when we in the all-party group on foetal alcohol syndrome produced our report, we had a big debate about whether we should recommend complete abstinence or whether that was just not realistic for some people, who were still going to drink. I take the view that the default position must be that drinking harms a woman’s baby, but if someone absolutely has to drink, for whatever reason, there are less harmful—but always harmful—ways of doing so. We need to nuance that message appropriately for different audiences. Of course, different cultures have different attitudes to drinking, foods and so on.
I move on to a subject that is completely different, but still within the scope of this Adjournment debate: perinatal mental health. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party group for the 1,001 critical days, and as the chairman of Parent Infant Partnership UK, a charity that is all about promoting good attachment among parents and their children in the period between conception and age two. One of the biggest, most powerful and most effective public health messages that we can give is that effecting a strong attachment with one’s child, right from the earliest days, will have lifelong benefits for that child. That includes the time that the child is in the womb. A mother who is happy, settled and in a good place is much more likely to pass on those positive messages to a child than a mother who is stressed and suffering from perinatal mental illness or various other pressures.
At least one in six women in this country will suffer some form of perinatal illness. We know from the science, which is producing considerable data, that a child who is not securely attached—preferably to both parents but certainly to the mother, to start with—is much less likely to thrive at school and to be settled and sociable, and more likely to fall into drink and drug problems and to have difficulties with housing and employment. The first 1,001 days are absolutely critical, and we should be doing more. It is a false economy not to do so, and not to invest money early on.
The Government have quite rightly flagged up the importance of mental health. The Prime Minister absolutely gets the importance of mental health, and particularly of perinatal mental health. The additional money allocated is good, but it is still not enough. The problem, as we all know, is that that money is not making it through to the sharp end, so opportunities are still being missed to identify women who have some form of mental health problem—typically depression around the time of pregnancy—signpost them to the appropriate services and deliver quality and appropriate services in a timely fashion. That is why the charity I chair, PIP UK, has seven PIPs around the country, operating out of children’s centres, to which women can be referred, often with their partners, to get the support and confidence they need to effect the strong bond and attachment with their child.
The Maternal Mental Health Alliance has costed the problem of not forming such bonds at £8.1 billion each and every year. I repeat that, each year, the cost of getting it wrong is over £8 billion. The cost of getting it right is substantially less, yet too many clinical commissioning groups around the country still do not even have a plan for delivering perinatal mental health for women where and when they actually need it. On top of that, in our report “Building Great Britons”, the all-party group calculated that the cost of child neglect is over £15 billion a year in this country. By not getting it right for really young children and for babies, we are therefore wasting £23 billion financially, but far more importantly we are not giving those children the very best start in life socially, which we could do with a bit more, smarter and better targeted up-front investment.
I reiterate to the Minister and his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood)—she very kindly saw a delegation from the all-party group on the 1,001 critical days recently, and I know she takes this subject very seriously and has convened a roundtable—that we absolutely must come up with such public health messages and talk in this place about the importance of getting it right early on, but what matters at the end of the day is actually delivering the service to those women where it is needed, at the appropriate time and place.
Finally, may I take the liberty of mentioning to the Minister, as I think I did in a previous Adjournment debate, the question of the registration of stillbirths? It is a subject on which I have campaigned for some years in this place, and on which I have had a private Member’s Bill. This falls within the remit of baby loss, which is in the title of this Adjournment debate; I know you are scrupulous, Mr Speaker, about our not straying beyond the remit of a debate.
Following some very helpful responses from predecessor Ministers and officials at the Department of Health and having convened various roundtables—with the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and other key players, as well as various stillborn charities—I thought we had got to a place where the law could be changed to emulate what has been done in New South Wales in Australia. However, we still have a iniquitous and highly distressing situation: somebody who has gone through the trauma of carrying a child as far as 23 weeks and six days will find, if the child is, tragically, born prematurely and stillborn, that the child is not recognised in the eyes of the state, although a child born just after the 24-week threshold will be recognised as a stillborn child. I have previously raised the example of a woman who had twins either side of that threshold: sadly, they both died, but one was never recognised, while the other was recognised as a stillborn child, with a certificate being issued by the hospital.
For a woman who has given birth to a stillborn child, such a situation is one of the most sensitive and vulnerable of times. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester knows this so well, and other hon. Members have given their own very emotional accounts of going through such traumas. The fact is that the state has still, so far, failed to take the straightforward and fairly cost-free step of coming up with a simple registration scheme for those for whom such a scheme would help to provide some form of closure.
For a stillborn child born at under 24 weeks—what I am talking about is different from miscarriage, although I am in no way trying to underplay the trauma caused by having a miscarriage—to be recognised as a human being, rather than as a child who, sadly, was born before an artificial threshold, seems to me to be a sensible but humane thing to do to help the too many women who still give birth to stillborn babies. We need to bring that figure down, and we are doing so. In the meantime, we can at least give some succour and comfort to parents who have to go through this situation by saying that we appreciate and recognise what has happened, and sympathise and empathise with what they have gone through.
May I ask the Minister again whether there is any way that we can get this campaign going again? The issue has featured in one of our national soaps: an actress who went through it in real life re-enacted it in “Coronation Street”. There has also been a lot about it in the press. I ask the Minister to ask his Department to look at this issue again to see whether something can be done, because I think there could be a solution.
Mr Speaker, I have more than abused my privilege in this three hour and 50 minute debate, but these are issues on which there is a good deal of sympathy and empathy in the House. Yet again, we are greatly indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for bringing them back to the House, where we have the power to make a difference to our future constituents’ lives.
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) on securing this debate on public health guidance and baby loss. I also congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on scheduling it on a day when the other business, inexplicably, was so curtailed, thereby enabling some very distinguished Members on both sides of the House who chair directly relevant all- party groups to make unusually—I would not say unprecedentedly, Mr Speaker, because you would be better placed than I to say whether it was unprecedented—long contributions in an Adjournment debate, and very welcome they were too.
We know from families who have experienced baby loss that the silence that often surrounds the loss can make the experience much harder. For that reason, I join the tributes from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Sir Kevin Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for the work that he does in leading the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss and for bringing the experiences that he has suffered to bear on this issue a number of times.
Before I address the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester—I counted six challenges that he laid down in his speech, and I will try to address each of them—as I have the luxury of a little time, I will set the scene on the work the Government are undertaking to reduce adverse outcomes during pregnancy and the neonatal period.
My hon. Friend referred to the maternity transformation programme in England, which began a year ago. It provides an opportunity to shape services for the future. Improving women’s health requires a collaborative approach across the entire health system, including commissioners, primary care, maternity services, public health and local authorities, to meet the needs of women and their partners. The result of all that work is that England is a very safe country in which to have a baby. Sadly, a small number of babies are stillborn or die soon after birth but, according to the latest figures, stillbirths and neonatal deaths occur in 0.5% and 0.3% of births respectively.
We are absolutely committed to improving maternity care and recognise that every loss is a personal tragedy for the family concerned. As a result, it is our national ambition to halve the rate of stillbirths, neonatal deaths, maternal deaths and brain injuries that occur during or soon after birth by 50% by 2030. We are making considerable progress. The other day, I had the privilege of attending the Royal College of Midwives awards ceremony—one of the more enjoyable parts of my role in the Department of Health—where I was able to confirm that since 2010, the proportion of stillbirths is down by 10%, the proportion of neonatal deaths by 14% and the proportion of maternal deaths by 20%. Our plan is having some effect, which is very pleasing, but there is always more that we can do.
To support the NHS in achieving this ambition, we have a national package of measures with funding attached, including: an £8 million maternity safety training fund to support maternity services in developing and maintaining high standards of leadership, teamwork, communication, clinical skills and a culture of safety; a media campaign, “Our Chance”, comprising 25 animations and videos targeted towards pregnant women and their families to raise awareness of the symptoms that can lead to stillbirth; and a £250,000 maternity safety innovation fund to support local maternity services to create and pilot new ideas.
The fund was allocated in the past couple of weeks. One project that secured funding will develop a one-stop multidisciplinary care clinic for women with diabetes, hypertension, morbid obesity and epilepsy. Another project aims to develop a pathway whereby all women with high carbon monoxide breath test results—this was referred to by my hon. Friend—are referred for serial ultrasound measurements to provide them with more information about the potential impact of smoking on the child they are carrying. We are also investing £500,000 to develop a new tool to enable maternity and neonatal services to systematically review and learn from every stillbirth and neonatal death in a standardised way.
The Government are seeking to put in place infrastructure to improve maternal health, but clearly young mothers, partners and families have a role to play too. The evidence shows that the national maternity ambition cannot be achieved through improvements to NHS maternity services alone and the public health contribution will be crucial. It is vital that women and their families are made aware of and understand the lifestyle risk factors that can impact on the outcomes for them and their babies, and the changes they can make to increase their likelihood of positive outcomes. Hon. Members referred to a number of them.
As soon as a lady knows she is pregnant, she should be encouraged to contact her maternity service for a full assessment of health, risk factors and choices, so that a personalised plan of care can be prepared. Women with complex social factors, in particular teenagers and those from disadvantaged groups, do not always access maternity services early or attend regularly for antenatal care, and poorer outcomes are reported for both mother and baby. Maternity services need to be proactive in engaging all women.
Early in pregnancy, a midwife will provide a woman with information to support a healthy pregnancy. This will include information about nutrition and diet, including supplements such as folic acid and vitamin D as well as lifestyle advice, central to which is smoking cessation—on which my hon. Friend focused his remarks—the risks of recreational drug misuse and alcohol consumption, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham focused on in his remarks.
When starting pregnancy, not all women will have the same risk of something going wrong, and women’s health before and during pregnancy are some of the factors that most influence rates of stillbirth, neonatal death and maternal death. We know that a body mass index of over 40 doubles the risk of stillbirth. A quarter of stillbirths are associated with smoking, and alcohol consumption is associated with an estimated 40% increase to stillbirth risk. In addition, the MBRRACE-UK perinatal mortality surveillance report, published in June last year, showed that women living in poverty have a 57% higher risk of having a stillbirth. Women from black and minority ethnic groups have a 50% higher risk, and teenage mothers and mothers over 40 have a 39% higher risk of having a stillbirth.
Those striking facts are why the Department of Health will continue to work closely with Public Health England and voluntary organisations to help women to have a healthy pregnancy and families to have the best start in life. Last year, NHS England published new guidance that aims to reduce the number of stillbirths in England. Building on existing clinical guidance and best practice, the guidance was developed by NHS England working with organisations including the Royal College of Midwives, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, British Maternal and Fetal Medicine Society and Sands, the stillbirth and neonatal death charity. The Saving Babies’ Lives Care Bundle includes key elements intended to significantly impact on stillbirth rates through reducing smoking in pregnancy, detecting foetal growth restriction, raising awareness of reduced foetal movement and improving effective foetal monitoring during labour.
I now come specifically to the challenges posed by smoking in pregnancy. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester stole most of my thunder by declaring many of the statistics on the impact of smoking, but I am particularly pleased that he focused on the fact that the plan, as set out in the tobacco control plan for England in 2011, which set a target to reduce the number of women smoking in pregnancy to 11% or fewer, has now been achieved at the national level, with a rate of 10.6% for England as a whole. As my hon. Friend also pointed out, this masks wide geographical variations across the country, ranging from 4.9% across London to 16.9% in Cumbria and the north-east. There was an even greater difference at the level of clinical commissioning groups, from which I believe my hon. Friend collected his statistics. These range from 1.5% at the low end to over 26% at the higher end, which is clearly a totally unacceptable variation.
Although we have made progress in recent years, about 70,000 babies continue to be born each year to mothers who smoke—and more if we include exposure to second-hand smoke. My hon. Friend made an interesting observation about the impact of partners continuing to smoke while their partners are pregnant. My hon. Friend mentioned the figure of 25%, so for one in four pregnant women their partners continue to smoke. That is an area on which we need to focus our attention and seek to raise the awareness of the impact of passive smoking. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue.
Smoking during pregnancy is the main modifiable risk factor for a range of poor pregnancy outcomes. It is known to cause up to 2,200 premature births, as my hon. Friend said, 5,000 miscarriages and 300 perinatal deaths every year across the UK. It also increases the risk of developing a number of respiratory conditions, attention and hyperactivity difficulties, learning difficulties, problems with the ear, nose and throat, obesity and diabetes. Pregnant women under 20 are six times more likely to smoke than those aged 35 or over. Specialist stop smoking support, while available to pregnant women, clearly needs to be targeted on those higher-risk groups. That provides much of the challenge that my hon. Friend set for us in his remarks.
We are looking to take considerable action to advance the cause of reducing smoking. My hon. Friend asked in particular when we intend to publish the next iteration of the tobacco control plan. He asked me to define a well-used parliamentary term—“shortly”. I regret to say that it is way beyond my pay grade to provide closer definitions of that term. There are others, including someone who recently arrived in the Chamber, who might have some influence on the speed with which plans emerge from the Government. I very much hope that we will be able to progress with the next iteration of the tobacco control plan in the next few months.
My hon. Friend referred to the babyClear programme, which is about informing pregnant women about the risks they run from continuing to smoke. It is an important programme that has been evaluated by Newcastle University, which published some findings last month. We think that this is closely aligned with the NICE guidance, which is appropriate. It builds on the point made by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) about the sensitivity involved in giving advice to pregnant women. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to the mental health challenges that pregnancy can cause for some women. I think there is a sensitivity involved in the delivery of hard-hitting messages to women who find it impossible to shake their addiction to smoking. We must be aware, in conveying the message that persisting in smoking during pregnancy may lead to long-lasting damage to the baby, that there may be mental health implications to which we need to be alert.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester mentioned the possibility of introducing an opt-out, rather than an opt-in, for carbon monoxide testing of women who present as pregnant to their maternity services. That is an interesting idea, and I am certainly willing to discuss it with NHS England and the Department. If it is possible for such a test to identify pregnant women who are smoking, it would be foolish of us not to introduce it.
My hon. Friend referred to the maternity transformation plan. I will write to him giving a specific response to his ideas and explaining how they might be used to embed smoking cessation in the nine elements of that plan. I cannot give him a similar reassurance about the training programmes for midwives, because they are determined independently by the Nursing & Midwifery Council and it is not for me to prescribe what should be involved in such training, but the debate will doubtless be heard by the midwife trainers.
My hon. Friend’s final request was for a warning on cigarette packets that would specifically alert people to the risks of smoking during pregnancy. Again, I am afraid that that is not in my gift, but it is a very interesting idea. As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, there are already some stark and shocking images on cigarette packaging. We have just engaged in a major consultation that has led to the introduction of plain packaging. I suggest that my hon. Friend send his proposals to those who are responsible for monitoring the impact of plain packaging across Government.
I hope that I have addressed my hon. Friend’s points. Let me now respond to the requests from the right hon. Member for Rother Valley, who is the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, in relation to e-cigarettes. He suggested that, as a research priority, we should ask Public Health England to consider whether they are helpful or unhelpful in encouraging pregnant women to stop smoking, and also whether the nicotine contained in them could lead to foetal damage in the future. I think that that is potentially an interesting subject for research, and I should be happy to pose the question to Public Health England.
I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was able to contribute to the debate, because he is very knowledgeable about these issues. He welcomed the progress that is being made in reducing smoking, and I am glad he recognised that. However, he focused many of his remarks on another aspect of public health guidance, in his capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for foetal alcohol spectrum disorder.
Mr Dunne
I stand corrected.
Significant health messages are being sent about the consequences of continuing to drink while pregnant, and, again, progress is being made. I do not have the figures in front of me relating to the level of alcohol that pregnant women continue to consume, but the Government share my hon. Friend’s ambition. We must continue to bear down on alcohol consumption, because it has the potential to cause lifelong harm to babies.
My hon. Friend finished with a request that we consider once more the registration date for stillbirths, and his example of the twins falling either side of the 24-week definition puts the points very concisely and starkly. Again, I am not in a position to give him comfort on that issue here and now, but I will write to him, having consulted colleagues in the Department of Health on where we stand on it.
On that basis, I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester for securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to spend almost an hour, I think, discussing this subject, which is unusual and welcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. The order enables the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, the ECITB, to raise and collect a levy on employers in the engineering construction industry. We must equip people for the future, and there are acute shortages of technical skills: engineering and technology alone face an annual shortfall of 69,000 level 3 and 4 technicians. Established by the Industrial Training Act 1982, the core activity of the ECITB is to invest money it receives by way of the levy in skills training for the engineering construction workforce. The ECITB develops the skills of the existing workforce and new entrants to the industry by providing training grants and putting in place strategic initiatives that will benefit the industry in the long term and secure a sustainable pipeline of skills.
The technical education reforms are crucial to ensure that we enable people from every background to climb the ladder of opportunity. The first rung of the ladder is enhancing the prestige of the technical and professional education system. The ladder of opportunity’s social justice rung will give all those from disadvantaged backgrounds the opportunity to progress to skilled employment. All of that will combine to ensure greater job security and prosperity. The ECITB is well positioned to support and embed the technical education reforms in the engineering construction industry. We must ensure that the skills exist in the engineering construction workforce to deliver critical new infrastructure projects such as Hinkley Point C in Somerset, which I visited during national apprenticeship week.
Engineering construction is characterised by significant levels of project working, where demand can be unpredictable. Workers in the sector are often highly skilled and in high demand, both domestically and internationally. The ECITB works to retain those vital skills within the UK economy. The reforms to technical education will address the nation’s skills needs and ensure that people, whatever their background, have the skills they need to secure high-quality, fulfilling jobs that are fit for the future. The ECITB’s support of further education qualifications increases employment chances and wages and improves social capital.
The ECITB is led by industry and has a central role in training the workforce in the engineering construction industry. It provides a range of services, including setting occupational standards, developing vocational qualifications and offering direct grants to employers that carry out training.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I hope that the Minister will explain whether there is an overlap with the apprenticeship levy and how this long-standing industry initiative relates to the Government measures. I am all in favour of more training, but I want to know how it fits together with the public sector.
Robert Halfon
I am delighted to explain that. The apprenticeship levy is very different from the ECITB levy, which is used for a range of things—for example, it supports national colleges such as the National College for Nuclear, and it has special scholarship schemes and graduate trainee schemes. The other important thing to note is that 65%-plus of the ECITB’s members, who are levy payers, voted to have this levy. It is up to them to choose the levy. I will come on to that in more detail.
The ECITB also has a role in encouraging greater diversity and equality of opportunity across the engineering construction industry. Only 7% of the current engineering construction workforce are women, so I strongly congratulate the ECITB on its extensive careers programmes in schools, promoting female engineering role models. Also, 10.8% of apprentices in construction have a learning difficulty or disability. That is an excellent place to build from, and I know that the ECITB is investing in programmes to provide further support. The Department for Education is also investing £20 million in business mentors, to help disadvantaged and vulnerable young people to get the right information about skills and training and a fulfilling role that is right for them.
Industry support is fundamental to the success of the ECITB. The vast majority of employers in the engineering construction industry continue to support a statutory framework for the ECITB levy, and the order will enable those statutory levy arrangements to continue. The Industrial Training Act allows an industrial training board to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for the raising and collection of a levy on employers to ensure the effective provision of skills in the industries it serves. The order will give effect to a proposal submitted to us for a levy to be raised by the ECITB for the levy periods ending 31 December 2017, 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019.
People may ask, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham did, for more detail on how the order interacts with the apprenticeship levy. Given the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, the ECITB has reviewed its levy arrangements and made the decision to reduce its rates. The levy rate attributed to site employees will be reduced to 1.2% of total emoluments—by emoluments, I mean all salaries, fees and wages and anything else that constitutes earnings of an employee—plus net expenditure on subcontract labour; that is down from 1.5% of total emoluments in the 2015 order. The rate in respect of off-site employees, often referred to as head office employees, will be reduced to 0.14% of total emoluments plus net expenditure on subcontract labour, down from 0.18% of total emoluments in the 2015 order.
The proposal involves the imposition of a levy in excess of 1% of payroll on some classes of employer. In accordance with the provisions set out in the Industrial Training Act, we are satisfied that the level of the levy is necessary to encourage training in the industry. In line with the requirements of the Industrial Training Act and the detail of the ECITB’s proposal, the ECITB has taken reasonable steps to ascertain the views of the majority of employers that together are likely to pay the majority of the levy. The Secretary of State is satisfied that that condition has been met through an industry consultation. The ECITB’s proposal for the levy obtained the support of the majority of employers in their respective industries. The three major employer federations in the industry—the Engineering Construction Industry Association, the Offshore Contractors Association and the British Chemical Engineering Contractors Association—supported the levy. All 84 levy-paying members of the employer associations were deemed to be supportive. Of the 149 employers not represented by those federations, 41 did not respond and only 10 declined to provide their support. On that basis, 78% of levy-paying employers were supportive of the ECITB’s proposal, and such employers are likely to pay 87% of the value of the levy.
The Industrial Training Act also requires that the ECITB includes within its proposal how it will exempt small employers from the levy. The order therefore provides that small firms are exempt from the levy if their total emoluments are below a threshold that the industry considers to be appropriate. If the total gross emoluments and total gross payments are less than £275,000, no training levy will be payable in respect of site-based workers. If the total gross emoluments and total gross payments are less than £1 million, no training levy will be payable in respect of off-site-based workers. Employers that are exempt from paying the levy can and do still benefit from grants and other support from the board. Of all the establishments considered to be leviable by the ECITB, it is expected that around 32% will be exempt from paying the levy.
The order is expected to raise £78 million for the ECITB in levy income over three years and will enable the ECITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities alongside the apprenticeship levy. I commend the order to the Committee.
Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan. Since tomorrow is the Minister’s birthday, I offer him a rare and mild pre-birthday treat by saying that we do not intend to oppose the order—and for very good reasons.
I was about to say that the origin of this levy is lost in the midst of time, but considering I was 10 when it was introduced, perhaps that is not the best way of putting it. I looked at the date—1964—and wondered whether this was a final gasp of the 13 years of Tory misrule, as it was called at the time, or possibly the first fruits of Harold Wilson’s revolutionary white heat. Moving on from history, the point about the order, the ECITB and its associated board, the Construction Industry Training Board, is that they have been an excellent example over more than 50 years of bodies in the industry coming together voluntarily to work with Government to make progress. This arrangement and one or two others survived the potential culls of the Thatcher years, and so it comes back to us today for the latest iteration, reflecting what the ECITB wants to do or feels it needs to do in the context of the introduction of the apprenticeship levy.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Wokingham for intervening and thereby enabling the Minister to point out that the two levies are complementary. He will know, as I do—I am sure we have both had conversations with the ECITB and the CITB—that after the announcement on the apprenticeship levy, those bodies had certain questions about how the two measures would rub along. Indeed, they had to have fairly significant and useful discussions with their members. The question has been resolved, as far as I am aware, to their satisfaction and to the satisfaction of most of their members, as indicated by the participation rates that the Minister mentioned.
One might say that in some ways this was employer-led avant la lettre. It embodies some of the things the Government want to do to put employers in the driving seat. It is also important because it relates not simply to apprenticeship training but broader training. If there is one little thing that I want to say to the Minister, it is that in the full flush of waiting for the apprenticeship levy to kick off and for the new Institute for Apprenticeships to be launched—I know there is nothing he can do about this, but it is being launched on April fool’s day—it is really important that we do not regard training in this country simply as a one-trick pony that is for apprenticeships. There is all sorts of training to be done. As the Minister knows, and as we have talked about in previous engagements, the needs, particularly in adult skills, are very great indeed.
I welcome the order. As the Minister said, the construction industry has a very good record of taking on people from disadvantaged backgrounds; he gave figures on people with disabilities. I only have two questions. First, I see in the associated explanatory memorandum that the order is paralleled by an order for the CITB in 2015. I assume that both arrangements are triennial. I suppose the obvious question to the Minister is: does he anticipate that the CITB will be coming back in due course to have its levy order renewed? Since I notice that the order extends to England, Wales and Scotland, my second question is simply whether the appropriate and usual consultations with the devolved Administrations have taken place.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I can be brief because I agree with many of the points made by the Labour spokesman. I also welcomed the Minister’s comments about ensuring diversity in the engineering construction industry, but I wanted to ask him whether an equality impact assessment has been done—there is no mention of one in the explanatory notes. Also, how do the Government intend to measure diversity in the industry?
Robert Halfon
I welcome the thoughtful response from both Opposition spokesmen. The hon. Member for Blackpool South stressed that training is not just about apprenticeships and mentioned the Institute for Apprenticeships. He is absolutely right, and I hope that—it is subject to the will of the Lords—the institute will become the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The reforms to apprenticeships go alongside the Sainsbury reforms, the extra money announced in the Budget and much more beside. I was careful to say that the levy is not a stand-alone agenda, but part of our efforts to have widespread quality provision, helping those who are socially disadvantaged and making sure that we meet our skills needs.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the CITB. The ECITB has 330 members, whereas the CITB has thousands. The ECITB wanted to get its levy arrangements made, but I believe the CITB intends to wait until after the review is announced; then the usual procedures regarding its members will be gone through. I am reminded that the CITB will consider industry views on future levy arrangements in its field in October.
I welcome the strong support given the ECITB by the Scottish Government. I know they collaborate closely in the work the ECITB does in Scotland. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West will know that the instrument applies in England, Wales and Scotland—its remit covers the three nations. Some 40% of ECITB levy employers are based in Scotland, working primarily in the offshore gas and oil sector. Skills policy is devolved to the Scottish Government, so the ECITB needs to be responsive to both English and Scottish Government skills policy. Both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly have confirmed their support for the order.
John Redwood
The ECITB levy will raise less after 2018 than it does now. Is the amount of the reduction to take into account the apprenticeship element, which is now supplanted?
Robert Halfon
As I said, the ECITB recommended the levy it wanted to charge, and its members voted on that. Of course some of proposed levy reflects the apprenticeship levy. The ECITB is raising some funds itself—about £3 million—and it has £10 million in reserves, but it has decided to reduce its own levy rates and that has been voted on by the members.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West asked about equalities. We are reviewing both industry training boards. We will see how the levy rolls out over the coming year, but when we announce the review, hopefully in late spring or summer, we will be able to set out how we envisage the roles of the two organisations. As this is a tax arrangement, it is not subjected to the impact assessments given to other instruments.
The Committee will note that the ECITB exists because of the support it receives from the industry it serves. There is a firm belief that without the levy, there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the engineering construction industry. It continues to be the collective view of employers in that industry that the ECITB remains an integral part of meeting the skills challenges in the industry. Employers have demonstrated the continued role the EICTB has to play alongside the apprenticeship levy and its vital role in supporting the Government’s delivery of reforms in the skills sector.
Finally, the hon. Member for Blackpool South gave some historical context to the levy. I have been looking at some of the documents and I believe the history books will show that mainly it is Tory Governments who introduce levies. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
draft Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Dr Phillip Lee)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. The regulations apply to England and Wales and serve to reduce the fee for registering enduring and lasting powers of attorney. The current fee is £110 and it will be reduced to £82. The resubmission fee, paid when an application has to be resubmitted because of an error in the original application, will be reduced to £41 from £55. If Parliament agrees, we intend the changes to take effect on 1 April.
The new fee will be an enhanced fee, allowing us to cover the full cost of registering a power of attorney as well as to ensure the efficient and effective discharge of the Public Guardian’s functions. The power to charge an enhanced fee is contained in section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
There are currently more than 2 million powers of attorney registered, which comprise both lasting powers of attorney and their predecessor, enduring powers of attorney, which remain valid and may still be registered. In October 2017 we will celebrate 10 years since lasting powers of attorney were introduced. In that time, the Office of the Public Guardian, the body responsible for maintaining a register of powers of attorney, has registered nearly 2.5 million LPAs. The high uptake of lasting powers of attorney is an indication of the success of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They allow individuals to plan ahead for a time when they may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves and appoint someone they trust to make those decisions for them.
It is positive that so many more people are making powers of attorney, but that has led to a position where the income we receive from fees charged exceeds the cost of delivering the service. A detailed review of power of attorney fees together with an improved forecasting model for volumes of applications, taking into account the ageing demographic and the rise in dementia, has enabled us to take decisive action to reduce fees and bring them closer to the cost of providing the service.
As many more people have been registering LPAs in recent years, increased volumes coupled with greater efficiencies in processing applications have resulted in fees being charged above the operational cost of delivering the service without our having exercised the power provided by legislation to allow us to do that. Clearly, that situation must be remedied, which is what the regulations seek to do.
Furthermore, alongside the reduction in fee, we will also introduce a scheme for refunding a portion of the fee to customers who may have paid more than they should. Full details of the scheme will be announced in due course. We will take such steps as are necessary to ensure that people are made aware of and receive the refunds to which they are entitled.
The Government’s aim is to ensure that the Public Guardian’s functions are properly resourced. We consider that an enhanced fee will go towards funding vital wider functions carried out by the Office of the Public Guardian. The enhanced fee will allow the Public Guardian to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay still have access to the key services offered by the Office of the Public Guardian.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
How many people does the Minister estimate are likely to be affected?
Dr Lee
I do not have the number to hand. As I said, 2.5 million LPAs have been granted. The number will be less than that, but I am happy to get back to my hon. Friend with the exact figure.
The fee will also contribute to the cost of the Public Guardian’s safeguarding activities, including the annual cost of supervising deputies appointed by the court to manage the affairs of people who have lost capacity to do so for themselves. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
The Chair
Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I remind Members that, if they wish to take part in the debate, they should rise in their place to ensure that they catch my eye.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Flello. Matters of over-recovery and charges—reductions and otherwise—must be judged on a case-by-case basis. I thank the Minister for his explanation of the statutory instrument, which I confirm the Opposition will not oppose. The statutory instrument and the Minister’s explanation are a welcome step given that the Government had not exercised the power to over-recover from registration fees in relation to registering power of attorney. The Government’s position therefore no longer offends against that rule.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Flello, to debate these important regulations. The Office of the Public Guardian plays an important role in our society, and to my mind the need for people to take out lasting powers of attorney is good housekeeping, particularly as we have an ageing population. All families should look to ensure they have lasting power of attorney in place, should—heaven forbid—their loved ones become incapacitated in the future.
I welcome the fact that the Government are reducing the fees. Those of us who sat through the Budget and supported it heart and soul were still a little disconcerted by some of its measures such as the increase in probate fees, which will affect millions of people. I wonder whether the Minister has any reflections on why the Government have decided to reduce fees for this important matter, which affects many millions of people, while increasing them significantly for probate. I note that the regulations are due to come in on 1 April, but I think it is normal in such circumstances to have a period of 21 days between Parliament passing such a regulation and the fees coming into force, so will he enlighten us on why Parliament has been given such a short time to debate this important measure?
I wonder whether the Minister could widen his remarks, perhaps beyond the strict terms of the statutory instrument, and comment on the reason why so many more people are taking out lasting power of attorney. Is it anything to do with the Government Digital Service, the excellent service that the previous Government empowered? I think I am right in saying that lasting power of attorney is one of its most used services. For those of us who like to take part in pub quizzes, I was told that its least used service is for applications to be buried at sea—apparently, there are a dozen such applications a year. I will not ask the Minister to comment on the number of applications to be buried at sea, but I would like his reflections on whether the Government Digital Service has contributed to more people taking out lasting power of attorney.
It is now easy to take out lasting power of attorney digitally, but what measures are the Government taking to publicise it? Members who have listened carefully to my speech will have heard my opening remarks about how this is an important part of family housekeeping. I have never seen an advert on, say, the tube or a bus about lasting power of attorney. I wonder whether the Minister has any plans to publicise it further and wider.
I noticed that the Government explain in the explanatory memorandum that, even though the fees are being reduced, they will cover the cost of administering the lasting power of attorney, but I did not hear in the Minister’s remarks or see in the explanatory memorandum—I am sure that is entirely my fault—the overall cost to the Exchequer.
Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)
I shall be very brief. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. I declare an interest: I have been involved in arranging lasting power of attorney for a member of my family in the past 12 months. I am therefore slightly puzzled about how the Minister will alert people who may have overpaid to the opportunity to recover some of those fees, and I am still at a loss as to why the Government are actually making this change at this time.
Dr Lee
I thank hon. Members for their numerous questions. I view the establishment of the Office of the Public Guardian by the Labour Government 10 years ago as an indication of a civilised society. We recognise that, with increasing ageing and the consequent increase in dementia and various other ailments that impair function, we, as individuals, will have to take some really challenging decisions about advance directives on care and, indeed, our financial affairs. The Department was found to have failed—this was a shared mistake of Labour and Conservative Governments—in not predicting that society would age. In response to such an obvious and simplistic mistake, I have asked the Department to assure me that a similar situation is not developing with other Ministry of Justice fees.
To answer the question about awareness and uptake, the fact that 2.5 million LPAs have been taken out is an indication that people are aware of the provision. Despite that success, there was a campaign in 2015 to make people more aware. The details about refunds will be on the website and the Office of the Public Guardian will be responsible for administering the scheme. Those who are entitled to claim will be able to do so. We have estimated how much that might cost and expect to be in a position to fund it.
Ms Stuart
Thinking back to personal circumstances of making arrangements for someone, that member of my family is unlikely to go on the Office of the Public Guardian’s website to check whether the new arrangements mean that she is entitled to a refund. Surely the Office of the Public Guardian could write to affected individuals—the data must be available. Is there a practical approach?
Mr Vaizey
In my previous role as Minister for telecommunications, I was aware of how Government policy could have an impact on nuisance calls. Have the Government evaluated whether alerting people to the need to get a refund might encourage spurious companies to be set up to encourage people, by cold calling the vulnerable, to make such claims?
Dr Lee
My right hon. Friend makes a decent point. I take note of it and will pass it on to the relevant officials to ensure that such abuse does not ensue.
On timing and the 21 days, I was made aware of the issue shortly after becoming a Minister and we have been working extremely hard on finding the best way of putting in place a system for refunding when necessary. We have acted swiftly and I am not sure that the point about the 21 days is particularly relevant. The statutory instrument will come into force on 1 April, which means that it is unlikely that there will be 21 days between its making and coming into force. It is important for the lower fee to be brought into force as quickly as possible. In addition, the Department does not consider that the regulations significantly diminish rights, impose significantly more onerous new duties or require the adoption of different patterns of behaviour.
Clearly, there has been a rather basic error in the long-term projection analysis of demand in an ageing society. The accounting officer has reassured me that the forecasting model has been properly reviewed. Indeed, from now on, there will be an annual review of all the figures. The issue has arisen every year for four to five years and I have been reassured that that will not be the case in future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wantage and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston are right that communicating the change is important. We will do our very best to ensure that everyone knows that this has happened and that they can seek a refund when appropriate.
We have had an interesting debate. I thank members of the Committee for the points that have been made. The changes that the regulations introduce will bring about a welcome reduction in the fee for registering a power of attorney. I am sure we all agree that that is an important tool, of which we would encourage people to take advantage, while balancing that with the need to fund the important functions of the Public Guardian. I hope that the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Fifth sitting)
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome back to the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee. We resume line-by-line consideration of the Bill, which seems to have made very good progress last week under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan).
Clause 12
Smart charge points
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 12, page 7, line 38, after “security” insert “and provide safeguards against hacking”.
This amendment clarifies that smart charge points must have measures in place to safeguard against the risk of being hacked.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 7—Cyber Security and hacking of automated and electric vehicles—
“The Secretary of State must, within the next 12 months, consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on what steps will be required for the effective cyber security of automated and electric vehicles to protect those vehicles against hacking.”
This new clause would require the Government to consult on the risks of automated and electric vehicles being hacked and to ensure that measures are in place to address this.
Richard Burden
Before speaking to the amendment, may I thank the Minister for his latest letter about the Bill, which, as ever, is very helpful?
Clause 12 is quite broad. It allows the Government to impose requirements and specifications for charge points. We know from the policy scoping notes that the Government circulated last week that they do not yet know quite what regulations they want to introduce, but that the Bill will give them the power to introduce those regulations via the negative procedure. For the reasons we discussed last week, I do not expect Ministers to know, right now, all the regulations that they will need to introduce, but I question whether the negative procedure is appropriate. I will address that point in more detail when we debate further amendments today.
Amendment 14 and new clause 7 address cyber-security and hacking. Any element of data, digital infrastructure or digital function is incredibly valuable and increasingly involves a risk of being hacked, as we know. The data, infrastructure and digital function behind the charging infrastructure and its interface with electric and automated vehicles are no different. We need to address cyber-security and data protection in relation not only to charging, but to the electric and automated vehicles themselves.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will be interested to know that I had a great discussion last night with the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who drives a Nissan LEAF. He showed me an app on his phone that not only can tell him the current state of charge of his vehicle, which is parked up in Stafford, but—should he so desire—can turn on the heating in it while he is sitting in the Members’ Tea Room. Unfortunately, when we have apps like that, there are great opportunities for hacking.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That example from the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) makes the point very clearly: there is huge potential to communicate with vehicles—for people who own or rent them, but equally for people who we would not want to be able to communicate with them.
Amendment 14 relates to charge point cyber-security. Clause 12 contains a range of non-exhaustive specifications that a charge point must comply with, and it appears that that will involve a large amount of data being transmitted from the charge point. Measures are therefore needed to ensure that charge points and the data they process are protected against attempts at hacking. I think that is what the Government are getting at in subsection 2(e), but I ask the Minister to clarify whether that provision also covers cyber-security and the risk of hacking. I also invite him to clarify who the information that clause 12 refers to is to be shared with, and where.
New clause 7 is more broadly focused on the cyber-security of automated and electric vehicles themselves. The Bill does not seem to touch on that, but it will be a significant barrier that will need to be addressed if these vehicles are to be deemed safe, secure and reliable. The example that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West gave illustrates that point absolutely.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
When we talk about hacking, we tend to visualise a spotty youth on a computer in a bedroom, but it can also mean commercial hacking. The company that has provided the charging point may want the data of people who use its facility.
Richard Burden
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The nature of hacking is that it can come from anywhere if someone knows how to do it. As he says, that can be the individual spotty youth in a bedroom, but hacking can also be done for commercial purposes, which is equally a risk. That is why manufacturers invest millions of pounds putting systems in place to protect future vehicles from being hacked.
That is welcome, but the Government must also play a role, particularly if we are seeking to encourage development and uptake of such vehicles in the UK. Cars will also be particularly vulnerable when serviced. Somebody put it to me the other day that the nature of the information systems in our vehicles are becoming such that taking them to be serviced is a little like taking a laptop to be serviced and handing it over with all its passwords. We need safeguards. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that if those safeguards are not in place, information could be uploaded to or downloaded from an electric or automated vehicle being serviced that would allow hackers to obtain information or, perhaps worse, control safety-critical elements of the vehicle’s function.
In the case of an automated vehicle, the obvious risk is when driving. In extreme scenarios, people could find themselves going somewhere they do not want to go, travelling at a speed they do not want to travel at or, in the most dangerous case, not stopping when they need to stop. I would welcome an indication from the Minister whether his Department has discussed the issue, and what the assessed risk was of those vehicles being hacked. Furthermore, in line with new clause 7, I ask him to consult the industry on what steps might need to be taken to address that risk and whether Government action will be necessary as part of that.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend may be aware that there has already been a case in the United States in which a vehicle with high-level electronics—not a driverless vehicle, but a vehicle for sale on the road; I cannot remember the make—was hacked as part of a process, to show that an existing vehicle could be taken over through its electronics. It is already possible with vehicles that require drivers.
Richard Burden
I was not aware of that precise case, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. Once a vehicle generates that kind of data and information, it is always possible for it to be accessed and used in a whole range of quarters. It could be used for commercial purposes, as the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said, if a firm wants to know the individual’s driving habits and target them for marketing or other purposes. It could be used for malicious purposes, potentially causing harm to the driver or occupants of the vehicle. It could be used accidentally, to return to the example of spotty youths in their bedrooms, for something seen to be a bit of a laugh that could have severe and dangerous consequences. The technology and skills are out there now.
The point I am making in the amendment, and in particular in the new clause, is that once we move to the much more rapid expansion of uptake that we want for electric and automated vehicles, the scale of the risk becomes much greater. That is why it is important.
Rob Marris
It has just come back to me that the vehicle involved in the American experiment was a Jeep, and that it happened in July 2015, so it was quite some while ago. That case involved benign hacking to show that it could be done, but it demonstrates to us all the dangers if we do not have the kind of protection that new clause 7 would provide.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is right. It indicates that when we come to a decision later on new clause 7, it will be important for all Committee members to consider it seriously. This is not something that should divide us along party lines; it is something that we should all be concerned about. We have more issues and questions about some aspects of clause 12, but as the amendments relating to most of them have been grouped under clause 15, I will leave it there for now and keep the Minister and other hon. Members in suspense.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I want to make a few brief points. Cyber-security is clearly a huge issue in this day and age, so we should consider it as we go forward. We need to think about where the endgame is for us: it is the 2050 target of all vehicles on the road being low-emission. That is partly predicated on the roll-out of the smart charge point grid and the use of electric vehicles. If we are looking towards that 2050 horizon, we need to take as many steps as we can to ensure that there is a practical roll-out and a safe mechanism. This and neighbouring clauses are about certain roles, responsibilities and liabilities, so making the owners and suppliers of charge points responsible for their security, and setting out regulations that define that safety and security, makes sense. For that combination of simple reasons, I support the amendment and the new clause.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I am delighted to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Gray, and to continue our diligent scrutiny of this important legislation.
In a fallen world, it is not the existence or character of malevolence that changes, but its expression. The hon. Gentleman is right that the age in which we live, with its concentration of data, brings new risks through new vulnerabilities. The technology associated with vehicles is a good example of that, although by no means the only one. For those reasons, I am pleased that he has taken the opportunity to debate these important matters.
There will be a great deal of data in vehicles—indeed, a growing amount—as the hon. Gentleman describes. Some of those data will be accessed remotely—a point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West—some in real time and all potentially of value, and potentially vulnerable. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun is absolutely right that the security we build through the legislation, and beyond it, through the work he has invited us to do with manufacturers and others, will be critical. Its salience will grow as the technology develops and we become more dependent upon it.
I welcome the debate and the interest the Committee has shown in ensuring that vehicles and infrastructure are secure and safe from the kind of malevolence that manifests itself in the form of cyber-attacks. Protecting individuals by protecting the information about them and their vehicles is at the heart of what the Government intend. It is vital not only for its own sake but because it will build confidence if people know what they do is safe and secure. We need to build confidence to give the technology the support it needs if we are to build truly digital integrated transport networks—what a great phrase that is. I could just tell that you were hanging on it for a moment, Mr Gray.
Mr Hayes
Vehicle connectivity and automation and the decarbonisation of the vehicle fleet are separate issues, but like many commentators we expect to see an eventual convergence between trends in new vehicle technologies. I understand the relationship between those issues, but it might help the Committee if I dealt with them separately.
We strongly believe that connected and automated vehicles must be secure by design, with appropriate safeguards to ensure against cyber-attacks. That will necessitate exactly what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield called for. He invited us to consult the industry on what steps should be taken to guarantee that outcome. Much of this will be done at international level as well as locally. We are working with the United Nations to develop requirements for vehicle manufacturers on cyber-security.
I think that it is reasonable to say that the UK is in a strong position—I hesitate to say “leading,” but only out of personal and national modesty. I think that we can be an important player internationally in ensuring that those standards are fit for purpose. Officials in my Department are chairing this international work, so perhaps it is fair to say—you are the Chairman of this important gathering, Mr Gray—that we are leading.
Mr Hayes
No, but we look up to you; that is the point I am making.
We are also working with UK security agencies. When I was in my previous job as security Minister in the Home Office, I was heavily involved in consideration of cyber-threats and cyber-security. It is important for the Committee to know that this is something that has been discussed across Government, because some of these responsibilities are shared by different Government Departments and different Ministers. We are therefore working with other parts of Government on the new National Cyber Security Centre to engage directly with the industry to raise awareness and promote best practice. Using the Government’s approach to cyber-security, applying it to this area of work, engaging with the automated industry and those who are developing this technology is central to our purpose.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to go into some more detail. As part of that, we have set out for the industry the objective of developing a set of principles for cyber-security. As a result, our thinking is developing alongside that of the industry. It is important that we establish at an early stage the principles—many of which the hon. Gentleman touched on—that will underpin the safe and secure development that he and I seek.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Given that the foreign countries to which people are most likely to take their electric cars are going to be European countries, can the Minister tell the Committee a little about what co-operation he hopes to have with European partners, particularly on charging points? We know that the vulnerability in cyber-security is often at the point of connection. The telephone network—presumably a telephone network is linking them—and the charging points are going to be vulnerable.
Mr Hayes
The promotion of sharing good practice will be national; it will be between Government and industry; and it will be pan-national, pan-European and, beyond that, international. The establishment of an information exchange to share exactly those kinds of principles is part of what we are doing. That certainly includes work across Europe, for the very reason my hon. Friend gave, which is that people will want to travel beyond the boundaries of this country. They will also, of course, buy vehicles that are manufactured in other places—the nature of the automotive industry is that it is pan-national. It is critical that we can rely on digital standards, just as we expect mechanical standards to be reliable.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister mentions the United Nations and pan-national efforts. Does he understand that he is giving the impression of doing everything other than working with the European Union?
Mr Hayes
I always hesitate to mention the European Union in anything other than pejorative terms, but that is a personal foible rather than a ministerial position. Of course, we will work with the European Union. We remain members of the EU until the point at which we depart. In any case, our work with European nations and neighbours is critical in this regard. Much of the work that I am describing is not driven or governed by the EU itself. Many of the bodies involved are international, such as the United Nations, and the vehicle manufacturers have a footprint that extends beyond nation states. Of course, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that we will work with both the EU and other European countries, despite the foible that I was very honest to admit having.
Richard Burden
Before the previous intervention, the Minister was talking about the consultations that he is already undertaking with the industry, in particular discussions towards setting up a list of principles to govern cyber-security. Will he give a little more detail about who he is consulting? He referred to the industry: does that mean the manufacturers of vehicles or of charge points, or does it mean the broader industry beyond the automotive sector?
Mr Hayes
Actually, it means all of them, but it would be helpful for the Committee if I set that out separately. We could describe in greater detail some of the work that I have set out, including the development of core principles, the establishment of a dialogue and international work. I am more than happy to set that all out in detail and assure hon. Members that it is significant. It is right that the hon. Gentleman should seek greater clarity and I will happily provide it before the Committee ends its consideration of the Bill.
Rob Marris
When the Minister sets that out, will he also set out details relating to intra-national co-operation—I am sure he is doing this, but he has not mentioned it—including discussions with the Government in Northern Ireland, to which the Bill does not apply, and with the Republic of Ireland? If charging points in Northern Ireland are to mirror those in Great Britain, it would be helpful if those Hayes hook-ups could also have common currency with the Republic of Ireland, with which we share a land border.
Mr Hayes
That is an interesting point. I would not yet want to say how much we can establish uniformity of charging points across countries, for I would not want to suggest in Committee or elsewhere that a driver could be absolutely certain that, wherever he travelled in the world, he would find a Hayes hook—I just dropped the “up”, by the way.
It would be ideal if we could at least establish a set of principles that extended to the distance that people would be likely to travel. That is the reason for the United Nations standards and the international work that I have described. We have to get a good, well-established and well-founded connection between Government and industry. We then have to work, as I have said, pan-nationally.
I emphasise again that this is very much aligned with cyber-security, which is a high priority for both the Government and the nation. That is why we established a national security strategy, and the new National Cyber Security Centre is engaged in all of the work that I have set out.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield made a point about the electric charging infrastructure and so far I have talked largely about vehicles. The clause makes it clear that smart charge points must be secure against hacking, because the cyber-risk is not just to the vehicle or the data, but to the charge points themselves, so they also need to be safe and secure. Paragraph 39 of the explanatory notes explicitly mentions that the charge point will need to be resilient against cyber-attack.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the security is vital and, as the amendment suggests, consultation will be necessary. I am very happy to set out for him in writing the work we have already done to engage with various partners. I am also happy to tell him that that consultation will be ongoing; perhaps I can confirm that now, because essentially that is the information sought by the amendment.
The amendment compels us to consult. I am happy to commit to consulting, because it is critical that we consult people. We will continue to work with the security community, industry and other partners. However, I will go further, because I have been cogitating, as one does on one’s feet when one is capable of multi-tasking, as I know members of this Committee are capable of doing. I think we should publish and set out clearly the cyber-security principles of the connected and automated vehicle ecosystem that we will develop in collaboration with the security agencies in the coming months. I will make that commitment here. In addition to the commitment to consultation, it is important that we establish those principles very early. They will send a significant signal as to why and how this issue matters.
We will also take the additional powers that we need, as appropriate. The hon. Gentleman has said that that is implicit in the Bill, but I do not think it is right to take them yet. I would rather set out both the process by which we intend to consult and the principles, and then take the powers, as set against the principles at the necessary time. That is largely because charge point technology and vehicle technology are evolving rapidly and I do not want to prejudge their development. There would be a risk of doing so if we accepted amendment 14. Therefore, it would be preferable to set out the security requirements in regulations, and to do so having had the consultation that I have described.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps to save the stand part debate, Mr Gray, I will ask a brief question. The Minister says that security is vital and mentions the anticipated process. Clause 12 uses the word “may” in relation to regulations—it is permissive, not mandatory. Can he confirm that regulations will in fact be made?
Mr Hayes
Yes, absolutely: regulations will be made, as appropriate and at the right time. That was a perfectly fair question.
With that, I invite the Committee to reject the amendment. Better still, I invite the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield to withdraw it, so that we are not obliged to reject it. I do so having given commitments that I will follow through on as soon as possible.
Richard Burden
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. On the issue of process and the powers that Ministers will take, I fully accept his point that they are not yet in a position to know the exact regulations for which they will want those powers. We will discuss that issue of process when we consider the next group of amendments. Nevertheless, I accept what he has said, namely that powers are necessary and that regulations cannot yet be drafted.
I am also grateful to the Minister for the commitments that he has given today, first to the publication of the principles on which cyber-security will be addressed—that is really important—and, secondly, to consultation of the kind envisaged by the amendment and new clause 7, and, thirdly, to making the laying of regulations a mandatory issue, not simply a discretionary issue.
I get the impression that the Minister feels passionately about this issue; I think we transported him back for a moment to his previous job as the Minister with responsibility for cyber-security. I have absolutely no doubt that he takes the matter seriously. On the basis of what he has said, I will not press the amendment to a vote. We will reflect on what he has said and on whether to withdraw the new clause when we come to consider it, but for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Exceptions
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sir Greg Knight
Mr Gray, I know that you are more interested in horses than in brake horses. I always find the Minister intriguing, but I find what he is proposing in this clause particularly intriguing. In subsection (3), he is asking the Committee to agree that regulations may exempt a person or public charging point specified in the Bill. Can he give the Committee an example of the circumstances in which he envisages an exemption being applied?
Mr Hayes
I am always delighted to hear from my right hon. Friend on such matters. It might be helpful for me to set out the purpose of clause 14 and, in doing so, address the specific point that he made.
The purpose of the clause is, first, to provide the power to make exceptions to the obligation set out in the regulations and, secondly, to provide a safeguard against situations in which the requirements set out in the regulations flowing from the powers in the Bill have unintended consequences. These include where the regulations risk placing unreasonable requirements on businesses in order to comply, or where technological innovation advances in ways that could not have been anticipated at the time of drafting the regulations. Those are some of the reasons why the clause was drafted in this form.
The effect is to give the Secretary of State the ability to decide that the obligations contained in the regulations made under the Bill do not apply in particular or given circumstances. To ensure transparency, the Secretary of State will be required to publish any determination made using the powers. Being a veteran in all such legislative matters, my right hon. Friend will understand that the purpose of that is to ensure that the clause is used consistently and in a way that is open to scrutiny.
My right hon. Friend asked me about the types of situation in which the power might be used. They include where it would be unreasonable for a person to comply due to their particular circumstances—a good example would be a remote service station with very limited access to grid infrastructure—and where the aims of the regulation may be achieved by means that do not necessarily meet the exact requirements of the regulation—for example, where smart functionality is delivered through an innovation that could not have been anticipated at the point when the regulations were drafted.
Those are two areas where exceptions might be applied of the kind that I have described. Although, I am confident that I have satisfied my right hon. Friend with that assurance; maybe I have not, but that is for him to judge. At least, I hope that he will now understand the purpose of the clause as drafted.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 15
Regulations
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 15, page 9, line 1, leave out from “consult” to end and insert—
“(a) the National Grid,
(b) large fuel retailers and service area operators as defined under section 10, and
(c) any other such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult specifically with the National Grid, large fuel retailers and service area operators before introducing regulations.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 16, in clause 15, page 9, leave out line 14.
This amendment makes the first regulations made under section 12 subject to an affirmative resolution.
New clause 5—Review of regulations in Part 2—
“(1) Within 12 months, and once in each 12 month period thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament on the regulations made using powers granted in Part 2 of this Act.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the effectiveness of the regulations,
(b) the impact the regulations are having on public charge point operators,
(c) the impact the regulations are having on fuel retailers,
(d) the impact the regulations are having on the National Grid, and
(e) how the regulations are impacting on the uptake of electric vehicles.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament each year assessing the effectiveness and impact of the regulations in Part 2.
Richard Burden
The theme of the amendments and the new clause is consistent with the themes of so many of the amendments we have moved, in that it requires the Government to consult widely before regulations are implemented. One significant area that our proposals would deal with is the impact that the expansion of charging points may have on the national grid, which the Bill barely addresses, although it is mentioned in the policy scoping notes that were circulated last week. It occupied a good amount of discussion in the evidence sessions last week.
Rob Marris
I rise to speak to amendment 15, particularly in respect of the National Grid. I remind the Committee of an exchange that I had with Marcus Stewart, National Grid’s head of energy insights, in our evidence session on Tuesday 14 March. His role, as he puts it,
“is looking out into the future to determine what the energy future will look like”.––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 17, Q30.]
I had an illuminating exchange with him, which appears in column 24 in Hansard, about the amount of electricity that would be required—the electricity demand—if there were 1 million electric vehicles on the road. I stand to be corrected, but there are currently about 40 million vehicles on the road, including commercial fleets.
Mr Stewart said that having 1 million electric vehicles on the road and charging them with a 7 kW charger, which is a fairly standard charger, would require 7 GW of electricity demand. Hon. Members may know what that looks like, but, fortunately for me, he explained it:
“Total UK demand today is about 50 or 55 GW.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 24, Q44.]
The demand of 7 GW that would be created by 1 million vehicles all charging at the same time is about one seventh of that—about 14%. He helpfully said that 7 GW of electricity generating capacity was roughly equivalent to
“two and a bit very large nuclear power stations.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 24, Q43.]
Let us imagine that in 20 or 25 years’ time we get to the situation where half the UK vehicle fleet—20 million vehicles—are electric. If they are on 7 kW chargers and if the technology has not markedly changed—I realise that that is a very big “if”—the electricity drawdown if they all charged at once would be 140 GW. Today we are producing only 55 GW, so that could not happen. These are back-of-an-envelope figures, but if those 20 million vehicles sought to charge evenly throughout the day, that would mean just under 1 million vehicles charging every hour—say 6 GW an hour, which is 11% of current electricity production. In round terms, that is equivalent to two large nuclear reactors—and that assumes charging evenly throughout the day, which is unlikely to happen. Conversely, if we were so foolish as to allow a system to develop that allowed everyone to charge at once, that would require 140 GW, which is equivalent to 45 very large nuclear reactors, which come in at about £20 billion each. Clearly that would be unsustainable.
We need regulation—made in consultation with the National Grid, as amendment 15 says—to spread demand more evenly through the day and in the night when there is likely to be less industrial use, and to deal with the electricity generating capacity that we are likely to need. Working with National Grid, the Government need to forecast the take-up of electric vehicles, so that we know when that additional electricity capacity is likely to be needed. I would like some assurance from the Minister—I am sure he will be able to give it to the Committee with his usual fluency and competence—that the Government are seized of that, which the amendment would enable them to be by mandating in statute that National Grid should be a consultee. To me it is a frightening prospect that either we fry because CO2 emissions carry on as we continue with carbon-powered vehicles, or we have blackouts because too many people are plugging in their electric cars which they bought as an alternative to frying the planet. Neither is a happy prospect but, to cut that Gordian knot, it would help if we had regulation to even out during day and night the demand for electricity from electric vehicle owners and operators. It would also help if the Government gave some indication of their discussions with National Grid on extra electricity generating capacity.
Christian Matheson
The nightmare scenario that my hon. Friend is talking about is entirely plausible. Does he accept that our baseload electricity requirement at the moment would be hugely increased, in particular at night when I suspect most people would charge? That would have consequences for the way in which we manage the electricity system in this country.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is right. I am not an expert but, intuitively, I recognise that solar power generation is likely to be less efficacious at night, although I appreciate that the wind blows at night and that, if we continue with nuclear reactors, they produce electricity all the time. That is why electricity is cheaper at night through Economy 7.
Tom Tugendhat
I think we have spoken in Committee about the fact that some charging capability will also be fed back into the grid. The hon. Gentleman is very much describing a nightmare scenario, in much the same way as in the 1800s some of those Manchester cotton workers described the spinning jennys as a nightmare scenario. The truth is that technology evolves and human practice evolves with it, so I feel that he is being a little bleak for this stage of the Bill.
Rob Marris
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that technology develops. I made a caveat at the beginning of my remarks about how I was projecting a scenario 20 or 25 years down the road, but we have a responsibility as legislators to look at that, including all the uncertainties of course.
I think it was Quentin Willson who talked about people in the States using their Tesla cars as repositories of electricity and feeding it out, but said that electricity had to get into the car in the first place, so we had to be a little careful about some sort of perpetual motion machine approach. It is true that if consumers used solar panels during the day to charge their car and dumped the electricity at night when other people were charging their cars, that would be a helpful process for evening out demand. However, it is precisely the sort of thing, I hope encouraged by amendment 15, that Her Majesty’s Government would be working on with National Grid. Trying to forecast human behaviour bedevils all of us as politicians, but it behoves us all to try to do so.
Sir Greg Knight
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regulation is not the only way to deal with this? It can be dealt with by incentivised pricing. In the 1970s, many households were encouraged to have night storage heaters in their properties because such units took electricity when no one else wanted it and the consumer paid less for operating one.
Rob Marris
I entirely agree. Amendment 15 would give the Government a statutory duty to consult on such matters with National Grid. Assuming that the amendment is accepted, the result of such consultations might indeed be a market-led mechanism. I am not prejudging the outcome, but we need to face up to some facts. I am sure that the Minister will assure us that Her Majesty’s Government are not doing this, but for them simply to sit back and say that because of CO2 emissions and so on we want lots more people to be driving electric cars—with that already public policy, incentivised in purchase prices, with rebates and so on—and to assume that there will be sufficient electricity generation without actually talking to the National Grid about it, would be very foolish.
A regulatory solution may be required, or part of the solution may be regulatory and part not, but simply hoping, as some might do, that the market will sort it out is a triumph of hope over experience, given for example the vast cost of nuclear reactors and the very long lead time in building them. Nuclear reactors are not the only source of new electricity generation, and there will be technological developments as well, but we need to take that factor into account, and to think about it now.
Mr Hayes
What an interesting short debate. Amendments 15 and 16 and new clause 5 deal with consultation on and approval and assessment of new regulations made under the powers. One might say that that theme has underpinned the approach taken by the Opposition in the Committee so far. It is a theme with which I have considerable sympathy—indeed, were I in their place I think I would make the same argument. When Governments take powers that by necessity are unspecified—in this case, for the very reasons that I and the hon. Gentleman have articulated—it is important that they are checked by a commitment to consult and consider properly before, during and after their application. That, essentially, is the argument that the hon. Gentleman has made.
Amendment 15 would require the Secretary of State to consult with National Grid and large fuel retailers before making regulations. G. K. Chesterton said:
“To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.”
The powers that are given in the Bill confer on the Government a right to do things, but we need to ensure that we are right in doing them. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it will be important to consult a wide range of stakeholders in relation to making regulations under the powers, including those we are discussing.
That gives me the opportunity to say a word or two about the contribution of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, which, I have to say, I anticipated. He raised these matters, as he described, in the evidence sessions—I have the Hansard report before me. There is an appropriate range of questions to be posed about the impact of charging on the grid, which is why we heard from those we did in those evidence sessions. Without wishing to exhaustively repeat what was said, it might be instructive to draw attention to Mr Marcus Stewart’s remarks:
“By applying smart charging, you can accommodate a lot of electrical vehicles without necessarily having to increase that overall total capacity at a total system level. If you have clusters of demand at a local level, you would expect there to be local reinforcement to accommodate that—fast charging, for example, can provide heavy loads at certain points on a system, but you would connect that to a slightly higher voltage tier to ensure sufficient capacity. The system has the capability to deal with it if the type of charging is smart.”
Then he said—[Interruption.] Mr Gray, I could tell you were beginning to tire of my exhaustive account of the evidence. Mr Stewart then said:
“The provisions put forward in the Bill make total sense to us.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 24, Q46.]
They make total sense to me too, because it is absolutely essential that we continue to consult for the reasons offered in the evidence sessions and highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who drew attention to the fact that a great deal of this will be about the co-operation leading to demand management, which will smooth demand and by so doing change assumptions about supply.
The Committee has to some extent enabled me to recall my time as a Minister in the Home Office and as the Minister for Energy. When I was the Minister for Energy I became convinced that demand management was a vital tool for ensuring that there was adequate capacity to meet changing patterns of demand. I suspect that successive Governments have put too little emphasis on energy demand management. The debate about energy has usually been about different kinds of supply, by volume and kind, but Governments should think more creatively about demand management. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned the charging mechanisms that allow for that and, as I said in the evidence sessions, there is some history of using charging and tariffs creatively, but we could do a lot more in that respect. The Bill will catalyse fresh thinking. If we can change the orthodoxy about where and how people charge their vehicles, and rapid and smart charging is central to that change, as Mr Stewart described, we can look forward with confidence to the group responding in the way he suggested it would. It will require that challenge to the orthodoxy and that degree of creativity and imagination about how we can incentivise and encourage certain kinds of behavioural change.
One of the things the House of Lords Select Committee recommended when looking at automated vehicles, which could be applied to this part of the Bill as well, was a greater emphasis on behavioural change and our analysis of what people might do as a result of the new technology’s availability. We need to put more emphasis on that and my Department will do so. We are engaged in work with the academic sector and with others to test the behavioural changes that may ensue from these quite radical alterations to what people drive, how they drive and where they drive. The lesson we have learned in recent years is that economists should have spent more time thinking about behaviour and less time thinking about statistics. We will not make that mistake this time around. We will think about behavioural changes, including the way people charge their vehicles and the impact that has on the grid.
As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield said, we have included in the Bill, in clause 15(3), a broad obligation to the relevant parties, which definitely includes the stakeholders he mentions in the amendment. It would therefore not be appropriate to start specifying exactly which organisation should be consulted at this stage. I said earlier that I am committed to consultation, and I will reinforce that in writing to this Committee, as well as saying it now.
Amendment 16 would require regulations made under clause 12 relating to smart charge points to be approved under the affirmative procedure. As I am sure you, Mr Gray, and the members of the Committee are aware, I am a great believer in Parliament having the opportunity to debate secondary legislation when necessary, but there is good reason for having regulations made under clause 12 using the negative procedure. I will explain why.
The electric vehicle charge point market is innovative and fast-growing, which may require the Government to intervene quickly if the market does not develop as we expect. Moreover, these provisions will be largely about the technical functionality of smart charge points, shaped by consultation and engagement with industry experts, with whom we already have strong and broad requirements to consult. In summary, I do not anticipate any further debate on the principles, so it could be regulated for as a matter of technical detail. If there were a fundamental change to the principles associated with the Bill, it would be perfectly reasonable for us to come back to the House, but I do not anticipate that happening.
New clause 5 relates to the post-regulatory review. The argument is made that we should look at these matters periodically. Part 2 of the Bill will give rise to secondary legislation, so let me assure the Committee of the value I place on reviewing the effectiveness and impact of all regulations. The essence of the argument used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield is correct: we will need to look at these matters and review them regularly, for the reason that I have given. I do not think that one can make an argument that this is a highly dynamic area of work and then claim simultaneously that we are not going to review it or consider it closely. He is right to make the case.
Section 28 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 already places a duty on a Minister of the Crown to make provision for a review when making secondary legislation—the hon. Gentleman will know that well, but I have a copy should any Member want to look at that. So yes, we should review, and that is already in law. I do not think it needs to be in the Bill. I hope hon. Members will be reassured that I will fulfil the existing duties in relation to secondary legislation, that I will consult widely and thoroughly before any regulation, and that the approach to its publishing and scrutiny set out in clause 15 is proportionate.
I am back to where I began. It is right that the Government show that the application of the regulations and powers is proportionate, necessary and fit for purpose—that it responds to the dynamism that I have described. That absolute assurance is the reason that I am asking the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Richard Burden
As the Minister identified, the amendments and new clause cover three areas. The first is consultation. Amendment 15 would try to ensure the right level of consultation on the pressure on the grid. Amendment 16 deals with the nature of the parliamentary scrutiny of any regulations that come from that, or from other consultation; that is the second area. The third is the willingness to review and to make sure, in a dynamic situation, that we have got this right as time goes forward—and to be prepared to change where that proves necessary.
We have had a particularly interesting debate on amendment 15, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West for his contribution. If the expansion of electric vehicles takes place on the scale that we want it to, we are potentially dealing with major pressures on the grid. There is the nightmare scenario that my hon. Friend talked about, but it does not have to be that nightmare. There is also potential for demand management, which the Minister has talked about. There is the potential for using electric vehicles as repositories for power that can be fed back into the grid—a point made by Quentin Willson in our evidence session.
As yet, we do not know what the right mechanism will be to try to ensure that there is not the pressure on the grid that could lead to the nightmare scenario. It could be regulation; it could be market mechanisms; it could—and I suspect it will—be a combination of the two, but we are not yet in a position to know what is right. That is why consultation with all the relevant stakeholders is absolutely necessary. We felt it was important to put that in the Bill. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that the Government are seized of that, and his agreement to write to members of the Committee with more details of how he envisages that consultation taking place.
Mr Hayes
I am following the hon. Gentleman’s argument closely. There is an additional point: the more places that people can charge for more of the time, the more intrinsic—or implicit, if we like—the smoothing of demand will be. In a sense, if we concentrate charging, we risk the kind of spikes that he described, so as part of the Bill, there is a beneficial effect on demand of the kind that I have set out.
Richard Burden
What the Minister has said is right. To be absolutely clear, I think that the opportunities presented by the expansion of the use of electric vehicles and the move towards a zero-emission, low-carbon future in personal mobility far outweigh the risks, but there are risks, and it is right that we address them in our scrutiny of the Bill.
Rob Marris
I sense that my hon. Friend is considering whether it would be appropriate, in the interests of democracy and accountability, to press amendment 16 to a vote. May I suggest that he might like to consider the position between now and Report, rather than dealing with the issue today?
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Clearly, there is a great deal for us all to consider between now and Report. The Minister put forward various issues and said he would consider various issues and get back to us. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West may be right that the precise wording of the amendment is not as good as it should be, but the Minister has not convinced me of the merit of the argument that regulations should be introduced by means of the negative procedure. I will not press the amendment to a vote now, but I give the Minister notice that we wish to return to this issue. I hope that, as the Bill continues its progress, he will reflect on that. Perhaps by the time we get to Report, his position will have changed, and we could look at having the affirmative procedure.
New clause 5 is about review, and I am pleased by what the Minister said about it. He was absolutely clear that Ministers have to be prepared to reassess, review and change if necessary. I welcome that assurance. Again, in the same spirit in which we have approached these matters elsewhere, I do not intend to press the new clause to a vote.
I simply say to the Minister that we have shown ourselves to be very reasonable in withdrawing our amendments. He, in turn, has shown himself to be very reasonable in the clarifications and assurances he has given to the Committee, but sometimes it is important to put things in the Bill. Some people do spend hours poring over Committee debates, but the law will be what is in the Bill, and sometimes we need to be clear in the Bill exactly what we are saying. That is why we tabled the new clause. I hope the Minister will reflect, before Report, on whether some kind of review mechanism could be put up in lights in the Bill. I certainly hope that he will consider the point about the affirmative procedure in relation to amendment 16. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr Hayes
On a point of order, Mr Gray. I have listened to what has been said and, for clarity and the record, I reinforce that I will write to the Committee on a range of the matters that we have spoken about this morning. I will oblige my civil servants—I know they like me being strict with them—to produce that letter as a matter of urgency, so the Committee can consider it before our next sitting. I hope that it will be, to use the hon. Gentleman’s term, expressed in the spirit that has underpinned our scrutiny thus far.
The Chair
The Minister is most courteous and considerate, and he has kept the Committee as informed as he possibly can, but he will understand that that is not, of course, a point of order, grateful though we are to him for it.
Clause 16
Licensed air traffic services: modifying the licence and related appeals
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 16, page 11, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Within five years of this Act receiving Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of the process for appealing against modification of licence conditions.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to review the modification appeals process within five years.
I apologise for my tardiness, Mr Gray. My head was still in electric vehicle mode. I was sitting in a car when I should have been boarding the aircraft. I have now got myself on to the runway and am in civil aviation mode for part 3 of the Bill. The amendment would require the Secretary of State to review the appeals process for the licence changes within five years of them taking effect.
There is a great deal of support from industry stakeholders, including the Civil Aviation Authority and NATS, for the modification and modernisation of the licence regime that we are talking about today. During the evidence session, we heard that these proposals are similar to measures in place for Heathrow and Gatwick, and that the changes envisaged by this Bill would be welcome and helpful to both the Civil Aviation Authority as the regulator and NATS as the operator. We Labour Members accept that.
The basis of this amendment and the review we are calling for is that in the evidence session, when I asked the Civil Aviation Authority about the frequency of new appeals, the answer we received was that nobody really knows yet what the impacts of these changes will be. Indeed, in its impact assessment, the Department has forecast between 16 and 36 possible modifications of varying significance relating to issues around price controls, financial resilience and service continuity. It concedes that, in the example of service continuity, historically, there have never been any modifications to the licence. The impact assessment recognises that the assumptions on the number of appeals are highly uncertain in one section, but then notes that changes brought about by the new pan-European single European sky air space reform could lead to a number of major changes for NATS in the coming years. Despite the uncertainty of the impact, the Government’s impact assessment says that there will be a post-implementation plan in the form of a “light touch”—their words—review of the new arrangements after five years and a full review after 10. That is welcome, but nowhere does the Bill reference that commitment.
I want to make it clear that we do not oppose any of the bases that the Government have put forward for the need to make changes to the licence modification regime, but with such uncertainty about what changes they are going to make, how many modifications may be sought and what their impact should be, we think that a scheduled review after a period of time would make rational sense.
In the Committee’s evidence session, the Civil Aviation Authority agreed that it would make sense to review the powers that had been introduced. I would welcome the Government’s looking sympathetically at the amendment and reassuring us that the kind of review that we seek, which the impact assessment assumes will take place anyway, will be taken on board by Ministers.
Mr Hayes
We now move to a very different and equally important part of the Bill. The proposal is a relatively small but significant change to the arrangements to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. He mentioned the importance of reviewing regulations. Again, we fully agree with that sentiment. It is the practice of the Government to review regulations, and I hope that is reflected in how we develop the regulatory changes that we are making in the Bill. Licence qualifications are not a regular occurrence, and appeals against licence qualifications are rarer still. For example, in the four years since the establishment of a similar review for airport licences, there have been no appeals. It is therefore unlikely that there will be enough appeals in five years to warrant a meaningful review of the process.
I am sympathetic to the idea of a review, but I am not sure that the amendment’s five-year timescale is appropriate. I also think that the scope of the review is defined too narrowly to warrant a meaningful evaluation of the changes to the regulatory regime. I am arguing for a review of a more fundamental kind over a longer period. These changes reflect the broad direction of travel as successive Governments have learned lessons on how best to regulate monopoly industries, to ensure a focus on safety, efficiency and efficacy. Any review that we conduct must consider the effectiveness of the licensing framework as a whole, looking at the impact on its customers and the lessons learned in other sectors. I hope to be able to provide assurance that the framework for regulating our air traffic control provider will be reviewed through such a review process, which will encompass all aspects of the regulatory regime, as appropriate at the time, and not just the appeals process, given what I said about appeals being rare in the past and likely to be so in the future.
The hon. Gentleman is right that we will need to look at this when it is changed. We should do so comprehensively over a meaningful time period. The post-implementation review will be carried out with the corporation review of the entire licensing framework, rather than specific aspects of it. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Richard Burden
The basis of this part of the Bill and the clause that the amendment relates to is uncontentious. At the moment, if the Civil Aviation Authority wishes to review NATS’s licence and there is an objection by NATS, there is a potentially long and complicated process with reference to the Competition and Markets Authority to try to unscramble it. The basis of the clause is right in saying that the Civil Aviation Authority should have much clearer powers to suggest a modification, and NATS should have the right to appeal. It is a simple change and it makes sense. NATS agrees with it and the CAA thinks it is a sensible change. There is not a big difference between the parties in Committee on that.
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 29, page 22, line 17, schedule 1, at end insert—
“(3A) An owner or manager whose interests are materially affected under subsection (2)(c) may be defined by regulations made by the Secretary of State following consultation on and publication of the criteria used to determine whether such persons are deemed materially affected.”
This amendment would require the Government to clarify what other persons or parties they intend to permit to appeal, who are not directly affected by licence modifications but may be considered materially affected.
The amendment is not only about the procedure by which NATS as the operator can appeal against proposed licence modifications by the CAA, but about who else will be in a position to appeal. The Bill refers to the Secretary of State’s power to give “prescribed aerodromes” a right of appeal. The amendment would give the Secretary of State power to prescribe proper scrutiny. We recognise that one of the benefits of the changes in the appeals process is the value of bringing in other parties to appeal, including owners or operators of aircraft, such as airlines. The extension to parties financially affected is clear, but what is less transparent is the permissions to parties materially affected by licence changes and the right of the Secretary of State to prescribe which operators can appeal on that basis.
The question we really want to ask the Minister is this: why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to have such power, other than to risk excluding some parties who may have reasonable grounds to lodge an appeal? Surely the Government could leave that to the Competition and Markets Authority.
Otherwise, if the Government are to decide, it is only fair that they should publish the criteria that they intend to use to prescribe who else will have the right to appeal against license modification, and to define who is materially affected by any such modifications, so that we can be assured that the power the Government are taking for themselves will be exercised reasonably.
Mr Hayes
Edmund Burke said that:
“Good order is the foundation of all things.”
The hon. Gentleman seeks in his amendment to ensure that the arrangements in the Bill are properly ordered, and that the powers are exercised through the proper channel. The effect of the amendment, as he describes it, would in part be to duplicate the proposed power to define through regulation which airports are considered to be materially affected by a licence condition, and to oblige us to consult on exercising the power. Once again, I assure him that such consultation is already standard practice and will continue to be so.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I think that there is little difference between us; this is a matter of exploring the application of a change introduced by the Bill that we all think is necessary. I am grateful to him, therefore, for the amendment, which provides me with an opportunity to clarify the Government’s intent in relation to aerodromes being able to raise appeals against licence modifications.
For absolute clarity, there are five airports at which the licence holder serves as a monopoly provider, in the particularly complex airspace in the south of England. As the purpose of the licence is to provide economic regulation, it is appropriate for those five airports to have access to the appeals mechanism provided in the schedule. Therefore, the Government intend that the regulations introduced under the power will list the five relevant airports, as the licence itself does. I would expect the regulation to remain in line with the licence in that respect.
Our approach has been determined through consultation prior to the Bill—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with that consultation. As I said, it is certainly standard practice to consult when the Government make regulations of this kind, and I would expect to do so if anything were to change that approach in future. The consultation was clear, as he implied, that the change is a necessary improvement to existing licensing practice. The five airports—for the record, they are Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Luton and Stansted—are particular for the reasons that I have given. Elsewhere, the service is provided commercially either by NATS or another company, or in-house by the airports themselves. The complexity of the airspace requires no further explanation —it is self-evident.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Competition and Markets Authority. In addition to the Government’s role, that authority, which is the body that will determine appeals under this regime, must determine on a case-by-case basis whether the materially affected test has been met by a complainant, even if eligible to raise an appeal. The Government should therefore not seek to duplicate that role by further defining “materially affected”. We can rely on that body in the way he described. The changes in relation to those five particular places are necessary and, the consultation suggests, desired. With that, I hope that he might withdraw his amendment.
Richard Burden
I am afraid the problem is that, if there is a danger of duplication, it is in the Bill, which gives the Secretary of State power to define a prescribed aerodrome—in other words, the power to define which airports or, indeed, other operators will or will not be able to appeal. Our nervousness is about what criteria will be used.
The Minister may be right that it would over-complicate things to ask Ministers to replicate the decisions that could come from the Competition and Markets Authority, and to define narrowly in advance what being materially affected means in relation to a licence modification. However, I am not sure that it is unreasonable to say that, if the Government are going to take the power that the Bill gives them to prescribe who can and who cannot appeal in particular cases before we get to those cases, they should publish the kinds of criteria that they will use when making those decisions. That is what the amendment tries to get at.
I do not insist that amending the Bill is the only way of achieving that, but I hope the Minister will be able to reassure us by accepting that it is reasonable for us to ask the Government to publish at least the criteria they will use to decide which airports or other operators they prescribe and which they do not prescribe, without at this stage asking them to identify those airports or other operators.
Mr Hayes
The hon. Gentleman, being an experienced Member of the House, knows how to provoke an intervention, and he has done just that. The Bill and regulations will define who is eligible. We are clear about that. The CMA will apply the test. As he said, those are separate functions, but I am inclined to agree with him that it is not unreasonable to make clear the criteria that he describes. I will think about how we can do it, but it is not necessary to do it in the Bill. He would not expect us to do that anyway, of course. I will reflect not on how we can establish the criteria, but on how we make them known. That seems perfectly reasonable, and I will go away and think about it.
Richard Burden
I am grateful to the Minister for that entirely spontaneous intervention. As ever, he has been very helpful. He has grasped what I was getting at. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 18
Air travel organisers’ licences
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 18, page 13, line 20, at end insert—
“(4) The Government must publish a review within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent the impact on UK consumers using EU-based companies affected by changes to consumer protection introduced by this section.”
This amendment requires the Government to regularly review the impact of the new regulation to ensure that it is working and not adversely affecting UK consumers using EU-based companies.
We moved from cars to licence modifications for NATS and its relationship with the Civil Aviation Authority, and we now move seamlessly to the air travel organisers’ licence. Essentially, the clause will update ATOL to ensure that it is harmonised with the 2015 EU package travel directive. As with other parts of the Bill, many of the changes that this part of the Bill envisages will be covered in regulations, but broadly it will extend ATOL to a wider range of holidays and protect more consumers.
UK travel companies, we are told, will be able to sell more seamlessly across Europe, as they will need to comply with protection based not in the country of sale but the country in which they are established. Those are the objectives that the Government seek to achieve. As with other parts of the Bill, there is no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter. Indeed, it is a result of that package travel directive that it has been necessary to put such a provision in the Bill. However, we seek clarification on some issues, which is why I tabled amendment 22.
Alan Brown
I support the hon. Gentleman’s principle. The amendment states:
“The Government must publish a review within one year”
of Royal Assent, but the explanatory statement says that the Government must “regularly review the impact”. By stating only that there must be a review within one year, that is asking for only one review. As we move into the post-Brexit world, would a review after one year be appropriate? We may need to look at the wider consequences as we go forward.
Richard Burden
The hon. Gentleman is right that the amendment talks about a year, which is because we want to get that ball rolling. As with so many other things, the environment is changing—that is particularly the case in relation to Brexit. ATOL will still be there post-Brexit, although when we discuss the next group of amendments we may explore possible changes.
The package travel directive will no doubt still be there for the states that are still members of the European Union. What is uncertain at this stage is what the interface will be between those two things post-Brexit. The Government must address that. As I said, we ask them to get the ball rolling within a year of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, but the hon. Gentleman is right about the need for regular review, particularly in the light of Brexit.
Mr Hayes
There are many reasons to be proud to be British and to be subjects of the United Kingdom—I think all members of the Committee would agree with that. One of them is that we have done rather well in respect of protecting those who book holidays. The regime we have developed over a long time has afforded considerable protection to people who book holidays and then, through no fault of their own, find themselves in some difficulty. There is nothing worse than a much hoped for and anticipated holiday being spoilt by an eventuality over which one has no control.
However, it is important that we also recognise that the way in which people book holidays is changing. Essentially, the purpose of this part of the Bill, and the consultation that preceded it, is to bring the arrangements up to date, to take account of those different patterns of behaviour and those different business models. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield is right to probe these matters in the way he has, because although we have consulted widely—I will refer to the consultation in my response—we are making changes that will have an important impact; otherwise, we would not be making them. It is essential that we do so with care.
I fully support the purpose of the amendment. Indeed, the relative level of protection offered by European economic area-based companies was one of the concerns about which the Government sought views in the consultation. Our conclusion was similar to that expressed by John de Vial of ABTA in the evidence session. Members of the Committee will remember that he drew attention to the issues that we have begun to consider, namely that the changes proposed through the package travel directive will improve the position for UK consumers. That directive will raise the bar across the board, which he said
“can only be a good thing.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 64, Q147.]
However, I fully agree with the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment that we must keep the situation under review.
It is fortunate, therefore, that the current legislative framework already requires the Government to review the impact of any regulation made under the Bill within five years of its being laid. I mentioned earlier in our consideration the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. It is one of the few Acts of Parliament that I did not take through Committee, and is notable for that fact alone. It is also an important protection of the kind sought by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield. That Act requires the Government to conduct and publish reviews of any secondary legislation.
Perhaps the Committee will allow me to say one or two more things about the consultation that we have conducted. Consultation documents are available to the Committee—both the consultation and the Government response; but I shall highlight one or two aspects of it. We held a number of workshops to seek views, and they were attended by a large number of insurers, airlines, online travel agents, credit card and transaction systems operators, accredited trade bodies and consumer groups. I shall not read out the list of consultees as it is very long, but it includes all the relevant people that one might expect, from consumer groups, business organisations, airlines, travel organisations and so on.
One of the key considerations was the protection, Europe-wide and beyond—worldwide—for travellers. Given the consultation, we asked questions of the kind that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has put, and received the encouraging view from consultees that it was very important to move the scope of ATOL protection from a place of sale to a place of establishment. That is to reflect the change I have described in the way in which holidays are sold and, therefore, the way in which they are bought. It is important to update the regulations, which means continuing to review them in the way the hon. Gentleman set out. It may be that the change is a trend change, and the way people book holidays will continue to alter over time. I personally—rather like you, I suspect, Mr Gray, although I do not know—go along to my Co-op travel agent in Spalding and book my holiday by conventional means. I find that most satisfactory; but there are people who prefer a more modern approach to these things, and, while modernity is not always to be recommended, it is, however sadly I say it, a reality. As a Minister, I have to deal in reality, whereas in my private life I can indulge in all kinds of magic.
Moving quickly from magic to fact, we will continue to review things as the market develops, in precisely the way the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has recommended to the Committee. It is worth noting that these changes will come into effect across Europe only from 1 July 2018, which, 12 months after Royal Assent, will mean that at most we will have seen only nine months for the changes to take effect. I doubt whether any significant volume of people will have bought holidays from EU-based companies over that time. Most companies will be very likely to stay within local arrangements that their consumers know, at least for the time being—because, of course, the reason I go along to the Co-operative travel agent is that I know and trust it, and most people who are booking holidays want that kind of reassurance.
Those who do, however, want to take advantage of flexibility, will be likely to take time to assess how the new arrangements bed down before they change their own practice. Given those uncertainties about pace and scale, which will of course only be added to by what we do not yet know about the outcome of Brexit negotiations, I suggest a flexible timetable for further review; five years seems appropriate, which is why the Government are legislating accordingly. That is also what we are currently in the process of for the 2012 changes, by the way, because we are now considering a set of changes that were obviously made in 2012.
Rob Marris
I am grateful for your indication that you might consider stand part remarks to go along with this, Mr Gray; the Minister, also with your permission, cast his remarks rather more widely. I have sympathy with the Minister when he does his private magic and pops along to the Co-op travel agency and trusts it. When I book my holidays, I book my rail tickets using a credit card; that is a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement of more than £100, so I am protected there. Since I do not fly, and have not flown for a decade, I do not do this ATOL stuff, but I understand, as does the Minister, that people live their lives differently and that many people fly.
He has given us some background, but I hope that the Minister will say a little bit more on the change from place of sale to place of establishment to which he referred. On internet sales more generally, we have a problem, for example, on tax measures, which I realise do not yet fall within the Minister’s remit. Companies such as Google book all of their sales in Dublin to avoid paying tax that they otherwise would were they to book their sales here. That may be happening with those offering travel arrangements—flights, accommodation and so on.
If he catches your eye, Mr Gray, I hope that the Minister will address this a little more widely on the Brexit issue. The package travel directive 2015 is due to come into force on 1 July 2018. In the light of recent legislation, it is within the Prime Minister’s gift, but on current indications, on 29 March 2019—nine months after that directive comes into force—the United Kingdom will no longer be a member of the European Union. In terms of some carry-over protection, a consumer booking a holiday in April 2019 for that summer or winter, for example, will need to know what their protection is, given that, at the point they take their holiday, we will no longer be in the European Union.
Paragraph 62 on page 12 of the explanatory notes, says:
“Once the Directive is in force, any business established in the United Kingdom and licensed under ATOL for sales within scope of the Directive, will no longer need to comply with the different insolvency protection rules of other EEA States”.
That suggests to me—I hope that the Minister can set my mind at rest on this—depending on what is in the great repeal Bill, that the directive will no longer be in force nine months after having come into force in the United Kingdom. We might, for example, be seeking to reassert our membership of the EEA, but it appears that clause 18 will see us stepping outside of that directive, therefore potentially leaving consumers with less protection than they might otherwise have. I appreciate that that is not the Minister’s or the Government’s intention, but in relation to clause 18 and the following clauses relating to flight providers, will he tell the Committee a little more about how he envisages continuing protection under ATOL and ATOL-like arrangements unfolding after the United Kingdom leaves the European Union, both in the case that we remain in or reassert our membership of the EEA and the case that we do not? What will the protection regime look like?
Mr Hayes
Mr Gray, I will try to respond in certainly no more than seven minutes, and ideally in less time.
Consumers are clearly a priority for the Government. In December 2016 the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy chaired a roundtable of representatives of a range of consumer bodies, charities and academics to discuss, among other issues, the impact of EU exit on consumers. As I said at the outset of this short debate, British consumers enjoy strong protections, and there is an effective consumer regime to help them to get the best deal. Sometimes markets fail and competition is not strong and consumers suffer, and it is important that the Government do not hesitate to step in and strengthen competition and/or protect those affected. In that regard, there is absolute clarity in my mind about the purpose—and, by the way, the efficacy—of the Government. It has now become fashionable—once again, thank goodness—to recognise that Government can do good. That is something I have always known and believed, and it is now back in fashion, as are so many of my long-held views.
So why is the legislation needed? The new travel package directive, which was published in December 2015, was introduced to ensure that consumer protection kept pace with modern travel habits and the modern market. The UK Government will need to transpose it into UK law before 1 January 2018. Primary legislation is needed to amend the powers of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 to update the ATOL scheme and align it with changes to UK and EU regulations, but a perfectly reasonable question, as asked by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West, is: how is all that affected by Brexit?
Until the negotiations are complete we, of course, remain a member of the European Union. The new EU package travel directive was agreed, as I said, in 2015. The measures in the Bill will ensure that the ATOL regulations and the revised package travel regulations are properly aligned in the short term, but retain the ability to adapt the scheme when the UK leaves the EU. In any event, the Government believe that the changes brought about by the new directive will have a positive impact on UK businesses and consumers, raising consumer protection standards across the EEA. That view was reflected in the consultation, with the majority of correspondents believing that the proposals will allow greater harmonisation of protection against the European market, which will ultimately benefit the consumer and businesses. To put it bluntly, I think that this is an example of where something has been agreed across the European Union for good reason and with good purpose. Although I cannot anticipate the negotiations, my view is that incorporating the provisions into British law will provide a baseline of support, which we would hesitate in any way to undermine.
I hope that I have satisfied all members of the Committee about the Government’s absolute determination to protect the interests of the consumer and to make the regulations fit for purpose in the modern age.
Richard Burden
Although the Committee might be remembered for the term “The Hayes hook-up”, it certainly will not be remembered for referring to the Minister as “Skyscanner Hayes”.
The Minister has spotted the inadequacy in the amendment, regarding the request for a review after one year. The timeframe is out of kilter because of when the package travel directive comes in and the Bill receives Royal Assent. On that basis, I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there are still issues that the Government need to consider. I am grateful to the Minister for committing to a review of the provisions. I am pleased about that, but the fact is that none of us really knows what the impact of Brexit will be.
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Sixth sitting)
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
Welcome back to the Chair, Ms Ryan. When we adjourned for lunch this morning, we were concluding discussion about the possible impact of Brexit on the clause relating to ATOL— air travel organisers’ licence—and its relationship with the package travel directive 2015. The simple fact is that we do not know how Brexit will affect the issues covered by the clause. We do know that ATOL will still be here and that ATOL protection will be extended wherever holidays from companies established in the UK are sold abroad. We do not know how sales into the UK to UK holidaymakers by companies that are established in other EU member states will work.
We do not know precisely how that is going to work before Brexit, because they will be covered by the insolvency and other equivalent ATOL regulations that apply in that member state, but at least there will be the overarching framework of the package travel directive that we will be part of. After Brexit, who knows what will be the case? It may not be a problem, but we simply do not know.
That is why it is really important that, as part of the Brexit discussion, the UK Government look at this issue and try to look forward to what will happen to our relationship with the package travel directive. That could affect many thousands of UK holidaymakers. That is why it is important that the whole operation of ATOL and parallel protection regimes, with which we may or may not have a relationship such as the package travel directive, are reviewed properly at an appropriate time after the Bill is enacted.
Our amendment was inferior in some of the timescales it envisaged to that, so I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that there will be a proper review of these regulations. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Air Travel Trust
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 19, page 14, line 5, after “unless” insert “a full impact assessment and consultation is published and a”
This amendment requires the Government to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through an affirmative resolution.
The clause relates to the Air Travel Trust, which is the legal vehicle that holds the money that is then used to refund consumers under ATOL protection. It would give the Secretary of State the power to define separate trust arrangements to reflect different market models, prefiguring some of the changes in the holiday package market, referred to by the Minister.
Amendment 23, following a theme, would require the Government to undertake a full and proper review and public consultation before bringing in any of the changes that would be enabled under the powers in clause 19.
Unlike clause 18, as discussed with the previous amendment, clause 19 does not seem directly relevant to harmonising EU and UK regulations. Instead, it is a dormant power that the Government will hold in order to make considerable changes to ATOL, in particular to the Air Travel Trust. That is where Brexit perhaps does come in, because were such changes to happen, they would most likely be in the event of leaving the European Union.
During one of our evidence sessions, we heard from Richard Moriarty of the CAA, a trustee of the current Air Travel Trust. He recognised the possible merit of separating up the trust to reflect variations of products and changes in the market, so I do not rule out further reforms having potential merit. The point is that we are simply not there yet, and I think it would be wrong of the Government to use this Bill as a way of giving themselves the power to make wholesale changes without due consultation. Granted, the Minister has made it clear in a letter to the shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, that changes will be made only by affirmative resolution—I welcome that—but the Bill still does not allow for any further consultation as part of the measure.
The impact assessment that the Government have undertaken for the Bill explicitly states that it
“does not consider proposals for ATOL reform, beyond what is required in”
the package travel directive. It would therefore be rather inappropriate for Ministers to go beyond that without providing assurances at this stage that proper consultation and scrutiny will take place if they are minded to go beyond the changes currently envisaged.
During the evidence session, Mr Moriarty of the CAA said that he hoped that the Government would
“follow the practice that they have followed today”—
I think he meant through the Bill—
“consult with” regulators,
“consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 65, Q150.]
This amendment is purely saying that. It is fair and reasonable and guarantees scrutiny of further changes that may come down the track in relation to ATOL protection.
The Chair
Before I call the Minister, I point out—to save people’s blushes, I will not mention any names—that it has been suggested a number of times that phones should be switched off. Even text messages and emails should not be making what I would describe as a pinging noise. That is not acceptable and is unfair to other hon. Members.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
Quite right, Ms Ryan. I am going to ensure that I do not ping, and that my Parliamentary Private Secretary does not ping on my behalf.
This morning we had a long discussion as well as a debate about the areas that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has once again this afternoon articulated: consultation, continuing consideration, dialogue and a willingness to listen and to change where necessary. Those themes have percolated throughout our consideration so far and seem to me to be part of the critique, led by the hon. Gentleman, that the Committee has offered of the Bill.
As with the preceding amendment, I start by saying that I fully endorse, and indeed support, this amendment’s purpose. It is absolutely right that the Bill, throughout its content, requires detailed further consideration as its measures find their effect. When we introduce reforms of this kind, of course it is important that they are reviewed, but I agree that although that might be regarded as axiomatic by some, it can never be said too often. The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise it in articulating the amendment’s purpose.
We need carefully to craft our policies and regulatory framework. Doing so is the key to good governance. With respect to this clause, I can explain that I have no plans to change the current air travel deed. The system works well. The changes that we are introducing in the Bill are very much built on those elements of the system that we know are effective, time honoured and well tested. I feel that as Mr Gray has benefited from the wisdom of Edmund Burke, you should be able to also, Ms Ryan. Burke said:
“A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my standard of a statesman.”
Even I would not claim to be a statesman, but I am more than happy to pay tribute to the statesmanlike way in which the hon. Gentleman has debated the Bill so far, and to his additional emphasis on those elements that I set out as necessary to ensure that we continue consultation and review the effects of what we do.
In the light of responses to our consultation last year, however, the Government propose to take the power to establish trusts, with the flexibility to make separate provision for different types of risks and different business models. That is very much in tune with what I said earlier about the evolving character of the market. It is an important change that needs to be reflected in an amended though not radically different regulatory regime. That regime should build on, in Burke’s terms, what we should preserve, but equally be fit for purpose in that it responds to changing conditions. An example would be the new, looser type of package arrangements called linked travel arrangements. We do not know how the industry will react to the innovation, or whether riskier products will result, requiring us to separate the trust arrangements. At our evidence session, Richard Moriarty from the Civil Aviation Authority said:
“it would be prudent and sensible for Government to have the flexibility to respond to that”—[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 65, Q150]
By “that” he meant those kinds of emerging trend changes.
With regard to consultation, I am content—indeed, more than that, I am enthusiastic—to give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that the Government will conduct a thorough impact assessment and consultation before implementing the powers. That is a binding assurance, and I am more than happy to support that in writing. It seems absolutely right to consider those matters in that way.
We have a good track record—I would never want to say that it speaks for itself, because then I would have no need to speak to it—and we can be proud of the fact that we have gone about the review thoroughly and diligently. I have already drawn attention to the workshops, the roundtable discussions, the extensive consultation and the response to it. By way of amplification of what I said earlier, we have also, against the background of the changes made in 2012 and as part of the consultation, asked again how the changes made affected business and changed practice, and whether they were right. It is important for the Government to ask such questions, to be self-analytical and, where necessary, self-critical. Moreover, the Civil Aviation Act 1982 places a requirement on the Government and the Civil Aviation Authority to consult under section 71A, so as well as my commitment there is a good legislative foundation on which it is built.
We also want to discover whether what we changed in 2012 better reflects market practice. Therefore, in our call for evidence on our long-term review of the ATOL scheme, when we consulted on the changes to be given life by the Bill, we were prepared to learn from any criticisms or suggested further changes that resulted. Each stage of the work has been subject to impact assessments and consultations, and the Civil Aviation Authority and the Association of British Travel Agents have commended the Government’s approach to reform, highlighting the diligence to which I have drawn the Committee’s attention.
At last week’s evidence session, Richard Moriarty said that he hoped the Government would
“follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 65, Q150.]
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned that in his speech.
Richard Burden
I thank the Minister for that response and for his kind words. He has responded to our debates in a thoroughly statesmanlike and quick-witted way—rarely have I seen such a well-timed point of order as I saw this morning, when I managed to get myself stuck in an electric vehicle when I should have been piloting an aircraft. He has also approached the Bill with a great degree of confidence in his position, which has allowed him to compromise. That is an important sign of confidence and strength. He knows that compromising and giving assurances when they are requested, and when they are appropriate, do not weaken his position, and I thank him for that.
He is absolutely right about our three-pronged approach to the Bill: seeking dialogue and consultation, the right kind of scrutiny and a willingness to review. Given what he said about the amendment, he has demonstrated that he is prepared to apply those three prongs in future.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
On the three-pronged approach, can I say that on the Labour Benches we do support Trident?
Richard Burden
I am waiting for an intervention from the Scottish National party. The Minister has made some good points. I hope he will put that assurance in writing. It is easy for us to hear that and to read it in Hansard, but if he puts it in a letter to members of the Committee, it will be in the public domain, which would be helpful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Provision of information
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Rob Marris
I have just a brief question for the Minister. The explanatory notes say that the provisions relate to
“European airlines that have an air service operator’s licence from another EU Member State”.
That is in paragraph 66 at the bottom of page 12. It comes back to the issue I raised earlier about Brexit. The context for part of clause 20 seems to be the relationship we currently have with the European Union, but which we are unlikely to have in another 105 weeks. I am seeking reassurance that, under clause 20, we are not constitutionally locking ourselves into something that will not be part of our constitution in 105 weeks’ time.
Mr Hayes
I never want to be locked in anywhere—I do not know how the hon. Gentleman feels about that—but he is right. As he implies, there is a balance to be struck between getting the absolute protections that we want for our consumers who travel overseas, and allowing our businesses to move forward with certainty in planning their growth and development. To clarify, when I described my occasional visits to the Co-op travel agents in Spalding, I rather suggested that I journeyed abroad recreationally a great deal, but most of my family holidays are actually spent on the east coast of England. I do not really like moving far from the east coast—from Northumberland down to Kent. That is quite sufficient for me. I am a man of simple tastes. None the less, there are those who travel widely and regularly, and it is important that they are protected by the Government supporting the industry by underpinning an already strong system. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is our intention.
The Civil Aviation Act 1982 already confers a power on the Civil Aviation Authority to obtain information from persons, businesses and practice to determine whether there is a need to hold an ATOL licence. This is based around the existing scope of the scheme, which focuses on holidays offered to consumers in the UK. Clause 20 will extend the scope of the information powers to bring in the new scope of the ATOL scheme introduced through clause 18. Essentially, clause 20 reflects clause 18 in those terms, and is certainly consequential to it. In effect, the Civil Aviation Authority will have the power to obtain information from all businesses that are selling flight holidays in the UK, which is the existing scope, and UK-based operators selling to consumers in Europe, which is the extended scope. The practical effect of the clause is to make it easier for the Civil Aviation Authority, as the regulatory authority, to ensure that businesses selling holiday packages have the required consumer protection in place.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West is right to say that, as we go through Brexit process, it is important that the improvements that we believe will come from the new European approach to these matters are not compromised. In a way, the improvements bring other countries in Europe up to a standard that we have enjoyed without any diminution of the protection offered here. That will probably be the net effect of that new regulatory environment. It is important that our departure from the European Union does not compromise that.
It would be well beyond my pay grade and outside my orbit to anticipate what the negotiations we are about to enjoy with the European Union will mean in respect of Brexit, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield and others on this Committee would not expect me to do so. However, it is clear to me that there is strong mutual interest across the European Union in maintaining a system that is consistent, reliable and comprehensible. Those seem to me to be the things that underpin the regime that Europe has been working to try to bring about and that Britain has long had. While I cannot anticipate the outcome of those negotiations, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield mentioned in his opening remarks, I can stress our determination to ensure that, for us and others, those protections will remain in place. Certainly we would not want to be in a circumstance where any holidaymaker from the United Kingdom was worse off than they are now.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Powers to designate premises for vehicle testing and to cap testing station fees
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 21, page 16, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) must be accompanied by an assessment of how the designation would affect existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.”
This amendment requires the Government to review and report how any new designated premises may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Ryan. We move seamlessly to the issue of vehicle testing, and in particular the testing of lorries, buses, coaches and heavy goods vehicles, and the proposed move from centres under the control and ownership of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency to authorised testing facilities, with independent examiners remaining in the employ of the DVSA. That is the context, and I am assisted in that regard by the explanatory notes. I noted during the debate on the previous clause that, at the bottom of page 12, we have a paragraph 66 and then another paragraph 66—too many sixes. I wonder whether the devil is in the detail.
The Labour party does not have an issue in principle with the contents of the clause. However, we have concerns about the effects on existing DVSA testing facilities and staff of the increased movement from Government-owned testing facilities to privately owned sites. Our amendment therefore would ensure that the Government reviewed and reported on how any new designated premises or authorised testing facilities may adversely impact existing DVSA testing facilities and staff.
I am grateful to the Minister for writing to me specifically about this and for providing a reassurance that the Government will not close any DVSA sites unless other suitable local testing sites are available; that tests will continue to be conducted by DVSA examiners; and that the DVSA will still employ the examiners who deliver vehicle tests at private sector sites. However, that is not the entire story. We have been in contact with Prospect, the union that represents DVSA vehicle testing staff. Prospect supports our amendment, and it shared with us its members’ concerns about the Bill. It is clear that industrial relations have been far from perfect. Matters came to a head at the end of 2015 when industrial action was taken in a dispute about terms and conditions. Prospect states that the way in which the DVSA has conducted negotiations with staff working in vehicle testing centres has had
“an impact on existing staff and the attractiveness to potential new entrants”.
In the light of the Government’s intention in the Bill to migrate towards a new system, I urge the Minister to take those issues on board, because they have depleted staff numbers and resulted in the DVSA’s technically qualified staff being diverted from their roadside enforcement work to cover annual testing of heavy vehicles.
Peter Hearn, the DVSA’s group service manager for vehicle and testing services, explained to the Transport Committee in November 2015 that DVSA staff members working in vehicle testing had been forced to work overtime to manage workload while maintaining standards. Since the agency ended the practice of diverting roadside technical enforcement staff away from their work at the beginning of this year, the staff shortage has reached what Prospect calls a “critical point”, which has resulted in staff in northern areas of Great Britain being redirected to undertake annual testing activities in the south.
It is Prospect’s belief that, despite its members’ extraordinary efforts, the DVSA is paying authorised testing facilities compensation on account of failing to meet its contractual obligations to provide them with the staff to carry out testing. Accordingly, there is some concern that, in order to deal with the shortfall in staff numbers for ATFs, the DVSA is considering allowing delegated testing. There is a concern as to where that might lead. As was stated in the Transport Committee report into the work of the Vehicle and Operators Service Agency, the DVSA’s predecessor:
“The UK’s HGVs and PSV road safety record is testament to the high standards of VOSA’s testing staff and we would not like to see this undermined in any way”.
Rob Marris
The amendment is designed to foster consultation and more information. Paragraph 72 on page 13 of the explanatory notes refers to authorised testing facilities—ATFs—which are privately owned sites where most but not all of the testing goes on. As the Minister may know, I have a personal interest in this, having worked for three years as a bus driver, driving these sorts of vehicles. Paragraph 72 says:
“To complete the move from Secretary of State owned vehicle testing sites (i.e. DVSA sites) to private sector owned sites, the other specialist testing schemes conducted by the DVSA will be moved into an ATF type arrangement”.
The provision relocates site testing from DVSA facilities to ATF facilities, and refers to “other specialist testing schemes”. Will the Minister say what those schemes are?
Secondly, the amendment would amend proposed new section 65B(5) which deals with designation and says:
“(5) A designation under this section—
(a) is made by giving notice in writing to the person in charge of the premises designated;”
Will the Secretary of State be giving notice to himself under that provision on DVSA sites?
Mr Hayes
I am grateful to hon. Members for their comments during this short debate. This is an important change. It is not in any sense designed to alter those things to which the Select Committee referred and to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield drew our attention. I, too, have read that report. He is right in saying that the Select Committee was supportive of the quality of what is offered. That is something we value too and certainly would not do anything to dilute.
The other thing to say at the outset, before I move to the substance of my remarks, is that we have consulted on these matters, before introducing the Bill, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West will know. We consulted in the motoring services strategy in 2012 and again in 2016 as part of the DVSA business plan. Many private sector premises such as haulage firms or bus depots have facilities from which they carry out vehicle maintenance. Some have invested in premises to provide these facilities.
To date, we have 581 private sector sites and around 96 DVSA sites. To deliver vehicle testing services from those premises could save the DVSA a great deal of money in reservation costs, because some of the DVSA sites are quite old and require further work. To give an illustration for the sake of clarity, the cost of renovating DVSA properties in 2007-08 was £25 million. That was 10 years ago, and many of them are due a refit. This measure would mean that they would not have to have one, so there are good reasons for doing it, and we have consulted on it before doing so. However, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough posed important questions, which I want to deal with one by one.
First, delegated testing would require primary legislation, and we do not intend to bring it in—the hon. Gentleman can be confident about that. Secondly, as he said—and it deserves repeating—all tests will continue to be carried out by authorised examiners. The number of examiners has increased slightly over the past few years—there were 27 new posts in 2016-17—to reflect demand. I know, because I asked many of these questions when we were considering the Bill, that it is true that we sometimes move people around to deal with local demand. As demand percolates through different parts of the country there is some peripatetic use of inspectors, because the supply of tests has to meet local demand.
I take what the hon. Gentleman said about recruitment and staff terms and conditions very seriously. As a result of what he said—this is not pre-planned—I will meet representatives of staff such as trade unions and others, to discuss those queries. As he well knows, I am an enthusiastic trade unionist and a strong supporter of the trade unions. If there are concerns, it is right that they are aired and that the Minister hears them personally and directly; I will do that as a result of what he said today.
Let me now go through this matter in greater detail, and address the amendment in particular. All Governments set out their ambitions at the outset, and establish strategies for the Departments that comprise their whole. The agencies of the Department for Transport, including the DVSA, were missioned to make savings as part of that future strategy. The whole Government took a view that the Department might benefit from being examined and reviewed, with a view to making savings where we could do so without compromising the quality of what is provided to the public in the Government’s name. That clearly involved opportunities to work in partnership with the private sector and to utilise local facilities; the use of local facilities for the delivery of vehicle tests is a good example of that.
As I said, this approach was considered and consulted on in 2012, and more recently in 2016, so planning has been under way for some time. The partnership approach, where the DVSA provides vehicle examiners to deliver tests but the private sector provides facilities, has worked well. It is now well established and popular, with some 581 private-sector premises delivering local vehicle-testing services across the country. Many more sites than the original 96 DVSA ones allow for quicker, more convenient and easier access for those who need to get vehicles tested; however, the hon. Gentleman is right that that needs to be married with the availability of people to do the tests. It is all right, but we need the people to carry out the inspections. I think I have assured him that we are aware that demand can sometimes be patchy. It is stronger in some places than in others, with seasonal variations to cope with, too. However, he can be certain that the measures in place to ensure that vehicles are tested properly, reasonably speedily and conveniently will continue to underpin our approach, notwithstanding what I said about agreeing to speak to staff and their representatives.
My ambition for this part of the Bill is to build on existing, well-established good practice, to reflect the advice we have had from the consultations, to maintain the standards necessary to guarantee proper safety and so on. It is therefore not clear that we need to include in the clause the requirement set out in the amendment. It might be too restrictive for the Government and might duplicate work that has already taken place on the future planning and strategy of the direction of the DVSA, given, as I have said, that it has been planned for a long time, strategised and consulted on.
Again, not for the first time, I repeat that I understand why the amendment has been tabled and I appreciate the spirit of the arguments. As previously, I am in accord with the objectives the hon. Gentleman set out. I am happy to consider any further steps that need to be made as a result of discussions with staff. I want to make it categorically clear that there are certainly no plans for compulsory redundancies or reductions in staff numbers of the kind that it was perfectly reasonable for him to ask about. I think the change can therefore be said to be reasonable, sensible, measured, properly planned for, and in the end, efficacious.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
I have a few short thoughts for the Minister. I heard about the ambition to maintain standards, but we are concerned about the selling off of state-owned facilities if the primary aim is to save costs—particularly when looking at the acknowledged high standard of the work carried out by the existing facilities. I am seeking further assurances from the Minister that, when it comes to the work done by DVSA examiners and the very high standard applied by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, those standards will be maintained in future, and we will see some evidence that that will be regulated and maintained.
Mr Hayes
I will happily give that assurance. We will absolutely maintain those standards; there is no intention or suggestion that we will drop them. There is a regulatory mechanism for ensuring that the standards are as they ought to be. I am happy to include that in my next missive, which will be dispatched to the Committee without delay.
To offer the hon. Gentleman further reassurance on his first point, and to repeat what I said in my letter to him, the DVSA will not close any of its own sites until suitable local private sector provision is found; there will be no obligatory closure of sites. I know what he might be thinking—I do not want to put words in his mouth—but we certainly would not want to find parts of the country where people currently enjoy the ability to have their vehicles tested bereft because of the absence of an appropriate site. That will not happen. The use of private sites has so far enabled us to find a better spread. I imagine that is important for areas like his; it certainly is for areas like mine.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments and reassurances. I am curious about the capital receipts that may flow from the disposal of 96 DVSA sites; they will be considerable. There will also be a saving on renovation costs, which seems eminently sensible. I am reassured by what he said about delegated testing requiring primary legislation and, furthermore, about the Government having no intention of bringing that forward.
The Minister commented on the peripatetic use of inspectors; that underpins my remarks about the good will that has been deployed, in terms of the staff’s willingness and ability to go the extra mile—literally, because they have been deployed around the country. I am not entirely enthusiastic about seeking leave to withdraw my amendment, but I have heard a great deal from the Minister. He has reassured me that the issue has been properly considered in DVSA’s future planning and strategy, and perhaps more importantly, he has given his undertaking to meet with staff, and if they and he jointly conclude—or one or other concludes—that this sort of mechanism is worthy of reconsideration, we could revisit this, if it were thought necessary.
Mr Hayes
Having sent a minor shockwave through my officials—they did not know that I was going to offer to meet the staff—maybe they need another one: I think we should do that before the passage of this Bill is concluded, as it is absolutely right that the hon. Gentleman and the staff should be aware that the engagement we have with them on these changes is meaningful. I happily commit to that, too. I do not want to meet them at some distant future point; we want to do so in the context of these changes.
Andy McDonald
I am extremely grateful, and that tips it: with those reassurances and remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22
Offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle
Andy McDonald
I beg to move amendment 25, in clause 22, page 16, line 39, leave out from “and” to end of the subsection and insert
“or
(b) he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a fixed installation involved in traffic control.”
This amendment would ensure the act of shining a laser itself is the offence without the need for explicitly proving persons with control of a vehicle were dazzled. The replacement lines also ensure that it is an offence for persons shining a laser at traffic control towers.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 10, in clause 22, page 17, line 9, leave out “five” and insert “ten”.
This amendment would increase the maximum term of imprisonment from five years to 10 years for conviction on indictment for the offence of shining or directing a laser at a vehicle.
Amendment 26, in clause 22, page 17, line 17, after “take-off,” insert “including during taxiing”.
This amendment clarifies that shining a laser at a plane while it is being taxied around an airport is covered under the offence.
Amendment 27, in clause 22, page 17, leave out lines 19 to 23.
Consequential amendment following amendment 25 to Clause 22.
New clause 15—Power of constable to stop and search: lasers—
In section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, after subsection 8C insert—
“(8D) This subsection applies to any article in relation to which a person has committed, or is committing or is going to commit an offence under section 22 of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill.”
This new clause would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that have been, or are intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle.
Andy McDonald
Labour is fully supportive of the aims of this clause and welcomes Government action to tackle laser attacks—a crime that could have absolutely catastrophic consequences, and that has unfortunately become increasingly prevalent in recent years as access to lasers has become easier. We have tabled a number of amendments, which would clarify certain definitions, increase the scope of the offence, and grant enforcement officers powers to enable them to tackle effectively the perpetrators of laser attacks.
In amendment 25, we seek to delete subsection 1(b) and in its place insert a new subsection concerning the shining of laser beams at fixed installations involving traffic control. As has been seen in the written evidence provided by the British Airline Pilots’ Association, and as we heard last week in oral evidence from BALPA’s Captain Martin Drake, it is not only drivers of vehicles but those working to control vehicular traffic in fixed installations who are vulnerable to laser attacks. As BALPA’s written evidence puts it,
“a laser attack on an Air Traffic Control Tower could cause substantial disruption and could even result in a major airfield being closed for the duration of an attack. The financial and commercial implications of this type of event would be significant.”
I thought it was important to widen the provision, given the evidence that we heard, because such an installation is of course a ready-made target for any mischievous individual.
It should be noted that the amendment does not restrict the offence to laser attacks on air traffic control towers; fixed installations involving traffic control of modes of transport other than aviation could be subject to a laser attack. Clear examples are the port of London’s vessel traffic service control centres on the River Thames and in the estuary. These two centres—the Thames Barrier navigation centre in Woolwich and the port control at Gravesend—oversee maritime navigation in one of the largest and most diverse vessel traffic service areas in the UK, covering some 600 square miles of waterway, spanning 95 miles, from Teddington to the North sea. A laser attack on one of those fixed installations could have catastrophic consequences for safe navigation on the Thames.
The new paragraph that would replace subsection (1)(b) would ensure that the act of shining a laser at a vehicle in the course of a journey, or at a traffic control installation, was itself an offence, regardless of whether the driver or drivers of the vehicle, or the person or people controlling traffic in the fixed installation, were dazzled by the laser, whereas under the Bill it is a requirement that they be dazzled; Opposition Members think that is restrictive and could cause difficulties. We believe that an attempted laser attack in which a perpetrator shines a laser at a vehicle or traffic control installation but is not successful in dazzling a potential victim should be considered an offence in any event, and that the offence of committing a laser attack ought not to be restricted to those occurrences in which the perpetrator is successful in dazzling a victim.
On amendment 10, tabled by the hon. Member for Wycombe, Labour is satisfied with the current maximum term of imprisonment of five years following conviction for the offence of perpetrating an attack, so we do not agree with the amendment. We do not believe that doubling the maximum term of imprisonment is the correct approach, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me as I explain why. In our interpretation—unless we are guided otherwise—the perpetrator of any laser attack that can be proven to be attempted murder or manslaughter will receive a sentence appropriate to the crime. As we set out in new clause 15, which I will speak to shortly, the emphasis should be placed on enforcement and the policing of laser attacks, but I look forward to hearing what the hon. Gentleman has to say.
Through amendment 26, we seek clarification of what constitutes an aircraft’s first movement. It will not have escaped your attention, Ms Ryan, that a person
“commits an offence if…he or she shines or directs a laser beam at a vehicle which is in the course of a journey”.
That is causing us—well, not concern, but we would like clarification. What constitutes the first movement for the purpose of take-off? We want to ensure that a laser attack on an aircraft that is taxiing to take off, or indeed to its position for passenger disembarkation, is covered by the legislation. This is our anxiety. The Bill as it stands could be construed as stating that a laser attack on an aircraft would be an offence only if the laser aimed at an aircraft in the air, or on a runway in the process of taking off, but not if it was taxiing towards a runway or on its post-landing journey to its parked position.
We believe that aircrafts taxiing—that is, in the stage between being in a position of rest and take-off—should be explicitly included in the definition of aircraft that are in flight, as should those on the post-landing journey to the parking position. The amendment was tabled to include that in the definition, and to avoid any confusion or ambiguity, which could be exploited by a defendant; we can imagine a scenario in which they, interpreting the Bill to the letter, say, “I don’t fall within that description.” The amendment would cover a scenario in which someone outwith the airport perimeter, for mischief and mayhem, seeks to cause disruption in this way, because they consider a taxiing aircraft to be the easiest of targets, as it travels at a much slower speed than one in the air.
Amendment 27 is a tidying-up exercise; if amendment 25 is accepted, lines 19 to 23 become superfluous. Finally, new clause 15 would give the police the power to stop and search persons who they believed were carrying lasers that had been, or were intended to be, used to commit an offence of shining or directing a light at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control. BALPA’s written evidence stated:
“We strongly believe that this new offence”
of laser attacks
“must be accompanied with appropriate stop and search powers for the police. Without it we doubt the deterrent effect will be enough to deter attacks.”
BALPA went on:
“This is the one area that we believe must be addressed to enable law enforcement officers to bring the perpetrators of laser illumination offences before the courts. We would strongly urge the committee to amend the Bill to cover this point.”
Without the insertion of this new clause, a police officer who responds to a report of a laser attack but does not catch an offender in the act of shining a laser will not be in a position to carry out stop and search and, accordingly, will not be able to arrest the offender. We therefore think it is critical that this new clause makes its way into the Bill, so that the police are given these stop and search powers and, crucially, the offence of shining a laser at a vehicle or fixed installation involved in traffic control can be properly enforced.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
In tabling amendment 10, my intention was to probe the Government’s position on the seriousness of this offence, and to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss the same. Very simply, the amendment doubles the sentence from five to 10 years. In oral evidence, I picked up the issue of the seriousness of the offence, and in replying to me, Richard Goodwin talked about the difficulty of proving a person’s intent:
“if somebody shines a laser and a plane crashes, there is a lot of injury to a lot of people; the consequences at that end are obviously catastrophic.”
I picked that theme up and asked BALPA whether it is possible that an attack with a laser could cause the loss of an aeroplane. Martin Drake replied, “Oh yes, absolutely.” He went on to explain that laser attacks happen during finals for aeroplanes, when pilots are carrying out essential and, in some cases, obvious checks, such as checking whether the wheels are down. He said:
“The vast majority of these strikes happen at night, and you are using all lights. Your instruments are lit up. We have mostly cathode ray tube or LED instrumentation on the flight deck; there are very few aircraft still flying around with the old-fashioned dial-type instruments. The potential for a pilot to confuse whether he is looking at the centre line or a side set of lights—particularly in a crosswind, when you are canted over to deal with that—is huge. It is quite conceivable that if both pilots were affected by the dazzle effect at a critical stage of flight, they could attempt to land down the side of the runway, rather than down the centre of it.”
I asked him to remind us of the maximum capacity of the largest aeroplanes, and he said:
“You could end up with about 520 on an A380.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 74, Q171-173.]
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, not least because my attitude has always been to be tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that anybody would wish to shine a laser at a plane, save for mischief, devilment and malfeasance. A thief might claim financial improvement and recompense from stealing cash, but lasers are simply about damaging equipment and putting people in harm’s way. I have a lot of sympathy for the hon. Gentleman, but my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough made a good case about other offences on the statute book, so I will go with that.
I also want to speak in support of amendment 26. Clause 22(6) mentions when the aircraft
“first moves for the purposes of take-off”.
That sounds as though it means the beginning of take-off, rather than at the start of the runway. As my hon. Friend has said, that precludes taxiing and the aircraft being moved around an airfield or airport, when it might be being taken to a maintenance-hangar, for example, but is still moving along and in a dangerous position. I hope that the Government will take those suggestions on board.
I want to look at clause 22(1) and float a scenario for the Minister to consider. It is not a likely scenario, but as we know there are Mr Loopholes out there who might wish to exploit the law. If I am speeding along and a police officer directs a speed camera at me, there is a fair chance that the camera might be laser operated. The laser itself might not be in the visible spectrum, but the camera may be laser operated. Seeing a police officer shining a laser gun at me to check my speed—I would, of course, be within the speed limit, as always—might distract me and cause me to drive inappropriately or perhaps to crash the car. I hope that the Minister will consider the wording of subsections (1) and (2) and ensure that the measure does not provide scope for malfeasance in directing it at police officers doing their duty using laser equipment to assess the speed of a vehicle. The duty of such officers might be undermined by the wording of the clause.
Rob Marris
I take my hon. Friend’s point: it is a bit far-fetched, but far-fetched things do happen. When I annotated the Bill for myself, in clause 22(1)(a) after “he or she” I put “without good reason”. I think that would cover the kind of scenario my hon. Friend is talking about.
Christian Matheson
My hon. Friend is a parliamentary Mr Loophole, not in the sense that he exploits loopholes, but in that he spots them for the rest of us. It may sound like a far-fetched scenario, but the purpose of the Committee is to go through the Bill in detail and to establish scenarios that might happen. Perhaps the Minister will take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I am worried because I do not want our police, whose important job might involve using laser equipment, to be undermined.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I think we are all agreed. I support clause 22, notwithstanding the hon. Gentleman’s comments about a possible loophole regarding the police.
I will quickly talk to amendments 25, 26 and 27, which are very sensible. Amendment 25 confirms that the offence is the intent or actual action of pointing a laser at a vehicle. That is important because we do not want the argument to get hung up on proving whether someone has dazzled somebody or caused a distraction. The offence should be the attempt to point a laser at somebody, and that should be made much clearer in the Bill. For that reason, I support the amendment.
Clause 22(2) states that a person has a defence if they show that they pointed a laser completely accidentally and without intent. The clause also includes a defence for somebody acting in a reasonable manner.
The amendments confirm the offence of pointing a laser at traffic control and, as we have heard, planes. Planes get moved about, not just on take-off but when they are taxiing around the runway. That is also sensible and I would like to hear the Minister’s response.
In Scotland, there have been 150 incidents in 18 months, with 24 at Glasgow airport in February alone. That shows how serious and prevalent the issue is, which is why I welcome the Government’s action in clause 22, but I think it would be strengthened by the amendments.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I live about 15 minutes’ drive from London Luton airport. Indeed, the planes come in to land one side of my house and take off on the other, so I can picture the scenario on a regular basis.
I absolutely support clause 22 and I understand what members on both sides of the Committee are trying to do with the amendments. Indeed, I have some sympathy for the creation of a new offence. However, I worry about the practicality of hard-stretched police forces being able to deploy officers at night around airports in order to apprehend people who are up to no good with lasers. Has the Minister had any discussions with other Government colleagues about whether it is practical or possible to restrict the supply of these powerful lasers for illegitimate uses?
Such lasers are put to proper use in eye surgery, as we heard during oral evidence. On restriction, however, there is precedent. The Government restrict the supply of dangerous knives. We limit our freedom as citizens to buy what we want in order to provide for the safety of our fellow citizens. A knife attack is terrible. In a knife attack, one person could be killed or grievously injured. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has said, if someone takes down a whole airliner, possibly hundreds of our fellow citizens would lose their lives. This issue has crept up on us and I therefore understand that the Government’s thinking on it is developing, but it is much better that we proceed on a precautionary principle rather than some terrible tragedy happens.
The Chair
The discussion of these amendments has been quite broad, so I do not intend to take a separate clause stand part debate. If any Members wish to speak on stand part, they should say so now.
Rob Marris
I want to make a minor point to the Minister about the wording. Line 41 in clause 22(2) states:
“It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section”.
Why do we need the words “charged with an offence”? Surely one often gives the defence before one is charged. It might happen afterwards, but it could also happen before they are charged, so it is kind of circular. We do not need that wording. It does not add anything but it subtracts, so I suggest to the Minister—I know he likes his wording to be exact—that the words “charged with an offence” be removed.
I repeat what I said in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester. I think that clause 22(1)(a) should read, “he or she without good reason”, to give flexibility. Scenarios that we cannot yet envisage could develop. Besides the scenario mentioned by my hon. Friend, there might be another good reason, such as traffic control technology, so we should have that flexibility.
Mr Hayes
This has been an interesting, short debate on an important subject. The Government are responding to a threat by legislating. It is not yet clear how extensive the threat is, but it is certainly serious and probably growing. A small number of people have been convicted thus far under existing legislation.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the existing powers, which deal in part with the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe about aircraft. It is already illegal to cause risk or endanger safety or life in respect of aircraft. The existing legislation allows the forces of law to apprehend anyone who does that by whatever means, including through the use of the technology under discussion. However, the Government clearly feel that we need to go further, which is why we are introducing the new provisions.
Before I move to the substance, the semantics matter and I will consider the points made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West. Those would be small, technical drafting changes, and I will make further inquiries about whether they are necessary. My inclination is that his second suggestion is probably not necessary, but I will look at both of them. He is always diligent and assiduous in concentrating on such matters, and that deserves a reasoned and reasonable response.
On the business of taxiing, I want to be clear that the wording of the proposed legislation mirrors that in the Air Navigation Order 2016, which includes taxiing. The reference to
“a vehicle being in the course of a journey”
includes taxiing aircraft because that is part of the course of its journey. We are advised that the application of the provisions would not be in doubt.
Andy McDonald
I hear what the Minister says, but will he turn his attention to clause 22(6)? It states:
“For the purposes of subsection (5)(a) an aircraft is in flight for the period…ending with the moment when it next comes to rest after landing.”
As we heard in evidence—right hon. and hon. Members will correct me if I am wrong—there are various moments in the aircraft’s journey when it has landed that it can come to rest. Many of us will have experienced sitting on an aircraft when it has first landed, waiting for a gate to be made available. We need to be precise about that. I want to ensure that when it comes to rest after landing, the aircraft gets safely to its berth at the point of disembarkation, and that it does not just sit on a landing strip or, having taxied so far, still have a journey to make. If that is the existing definition, I respectfully suggest that it requires some thought and attention, because it is not clear to me. We are here to try to make things crystal clear.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Presumably the Minister could make clear that the Government intend the word “rest” to imply that the engines are turned off and that the entirety of the journey is, therefore, complete.
Mr Hayes
That is also a good point. I want to reflect on those semantics. It does not seem unreasonable to be absolutely clear about that. I need to speak to parliamentary draftsmen and others about it, because we need to get it right. I can see why hon. Members are raising the issue. It is not a matter of substance or policy, but one of the application of the detail of something that we all agree needs to be done.
Christian Matheson
I do not wish to detain the Committee much longer. In support of the position of my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, my concern is that primary legislation trumps secondary legislation so, irrespective of what might be said in the Air Navigation Order, even if the language of the Bill is a bit woollier, that will take precedence. I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment to speak to his draftsmen.
Rob Marris
I am grateful because my point marries with his. May I suggest that at the end of subsection 5(a), the final word “flight” is replaced with “movement”? Then we would not need the other stuff. The subsection would cover not only passengers disembarking after waiting on the apron and being moved on but the aircraft being moved into a hangar.
If someone shone a laser at a pilot driving an aircraft on the tarmac, that very big vehicle could do a lot of damage to other people, even if all the passengers had disembarked and there was only one pilot on board. It is not simply a matter of the passengers getting off; aircraft taxi into hangars and so on. If the Minister changed “flight” to “movement” and junked the rest, I think he would be all right.
Mr Hayes
Yes. I do not want to examine this matter exhaustively. Those are all well-made points. Our desire is to ensure that, whatever we do, the provision works in concert with existing law, is fit for purpose, does what it is supposed to and takes account of a range of eventualities in which mischievous or, more worryingly, seriously malevolent activity may take place. I will think about the exact semantics and speak to parliamentary draftsmen. I hope hon. Members will bear with me while I do so.
This is a new area of work, though it builds on good existing practice. I have mentioned the legislation, the navigation orders and so on, and the Aviation Security Act 1982, to which I referred when I spoke about the existing offence of any person unlawfully or intentionally endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight. By the way, I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that the penalty under that Act is life imprisonment. It is, of course, a very serious offence, for the very reasons that several hon. Members have offered. Its consequences could be dire. All crime is serious and violent crime more so, but this could be a crime of catastrophic proportions. It is important, therefore, that we give it serious attention and concentrated and diligent scrutiny, which this Committee has.
Let me now speak about the amendments. I can tell by the way they are written and have been spoken to that they are designed to improve the legislation. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We all understand that this matter requires the Government’s and Parliament’s attention.
Amendment 25 creates two freestanding offences. First, it would make the act of shining or pointing a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself. Secondly, its subsection 1(b) would bring into the scope of the clause a new offence of shining a laser at fixed installations, such as traffic control towers. The effect of amendment 25 would be that prosecutors did not need to prove that the person in control of the vehicle had been dazzled or distracted; it would make the act of pointing or shining a laser at a vehicle an offence in itself.
I offer this not to be excessively critical but to be analytical about the amendment. The amendment might inadvertently capture the directing of lasers at driverless vehicles, such as with automated light meter systems. In such a circumstance, it would be difficult to prove harm because the person would not physically be at the controls of the vehicle. A further effect would be that the amendment captured those who did not seek to cause harm. I qualify that by echoing what the hon. Member for City of Chester said—I have rarely known him contribute to a Committee of this House without doing so sensibly. It is hard to imagine a circumstance in which someone would shine a laser at a vehicle without at least mischievous intent. That is why I chose the word that he used. Whether they would be intending to do harm is, from a legal perspective, a slightly different matter but, as he suggested, it is certainly fair to say that they would not be there to do good.
I can understand why the amendment has been tabled, but I want to emphasise that, in introducing this provision, we are mindful of the need for clarity in terms of enforcement. To some degree, we are breaking new ground—albeit on a base of good legislative foundations—and I want to be confident that we could enforce the measure. There can be no room for anything that is not tightly drawn or carefully directed.
Andy McDonald
The Minister describes a circumstance in which the amendment would inadvertently draw people into this offence. Is the answer to his query not in subsection (2), which states that it is a defence for a person charged under this section to show that they did not intend to commit the offence?
Mr Hayes
If we imagine that someone is using a laser to attract attention in a way that is not designed to be malevolent, it is not inconceivable that, if we drew up the legislation in a broad way, they might be captured by its scope. There has to be proof of malevolence at the heart of what we do. That is why the proposals are—
Rob Marris
The Minister is overlooking the concept of recklessness. It is not simply malevolence; it can be recklessness—reckless endangerment. One has to take that into account.
Mr Hayes
That is true, but the example I gave of someone trying to attract attention in distress would be neither malevolent nor reckless. One thinks of laser flares, for example, which could be used for both reckless and malevolent purposes but are not designed for that, any more than a handheld laser is. We are not in the business of creating legislation that could be misapplied, or the enforcement of which was compromised by the breadth of definition.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving way. He says that he wants the regulations to be enforceable and practical, but in clause 22(1)(b) we read the phrase:
“the laser beam dazzles or distracts a person with control of the vehicle”.
I would suggest that that is going to be hard to enforce. It is a question of proving that the owner or the person in charge of the vehicle was dazzled or distracted. To me, taking that out makes the regulations more practicable and more likely to be enforceable.
Mr Hayes
As we were enjoying this interesting debate, I wrote that to learn to speak takes a couple of years for most of us, and to learn to listen takes a lifetime for almost all of us. I am inclined to share this with the Committee. Listening to other people’s perspective on this will help me to frame my own. That is how Committees should be. I have always taken the view that in this House, the purpose of democratic exchange is to help shape the thinking of Ministers and governments. Governments who fail to know that fail to learn it over lifetimes, and one might say that their lifetimes are the worse for it so I am, of course, mindful of the sense of what has been said.
Andy McDonald
I will be as pithy as I can possibly be. I am trying to help the Minister here. With the reintroduction of the concept of dazzling, we are back in the conundrum that existed in previous legislation, with the concept of endangerment. That was the difficulty; commentators were saying that the offence is committed by simply doing it. To have to establish endangerment is a bar too high, and it removes the very scenario that I am trying to describe. Hence my suggestion of the removal of the concept of dazzling.
Mr Hayes
Yes, but there are two things to say about that. I will move to the substance. By the way, the dividing line here can be shortened as a result of the length of my own introductory remarks. The dividing line is where there is a real potential for harm. We do not want to capture instances in which harm is not likely to arise, whether as a result of malevolence or recklessness. We have not heard evidence that police find it difficult to show that someone has been dazzled or distracted. Indeed, the opposite is true. The police are clear that they can identify when someone has been dazzled or distracted, almost ipso facto.
I will now move to the amendments. If there is time at the end then I shall be more than happy to take further interventions, but my generosity has been proven by the number that I have taken so far. I do not need to re-prove it. This group of amendments relates to the offence covering the misuse of lasers, as we have said. I will now speak directly to amendment 25 because it speaks to the principal focus of the clause, which is to protect transport operators and the public. The Government’s priority is, I have made clear, to ensure that we maintain high levels of transport safety across all modes of transport in the UK, and that is what we propose to do. Clause 22 addresses an important gap in legislation, and seeks to improve the ability of police and prosecuting authorities to investigate and prosecute the misuse of lasers. That much is clear.
Article 225 of the Air Navigation Order 2016 makes it an offence to
“shine any light…so as to dazzle or distract the pilot”.
The police are concerned that this provision does not provide the necessary power to tackle and adequately investigate an offence. I will explain further. As a summary offence that is triable in a magistrates court, it provides the police with powers of arrest only. It does not provide the powers to search a person or property after arrest, nor enter a property for the purposes of an arrest. Together with the fact that there is no specific offence covering the use of lasers against other modes of transport, those are the gaps that we are seeking to address here. This both extends the police’s powers in a measured but what seems to me apposite way, and covers other modes of transport. We have heard about some of those. They can be almost as wide as there are modes of transport.
The offence that we are creating gives police the powers needed to investigate an offence, enabling them to use powers to enter a property for the purposes of arrest and to search a person or property after arrest. The Government believe that, while amendment 25 seeks to address the problem, it goes further than is appropriate. The offence we are creating would specifically address the risk of harm—that is the point I made a few moments ago—as a result of shining a laser that dazzles or distracts the person physically operating a vehicle. The British Airline Pilots’ Association, which we heard from in evidence, said that in the case of aviation, the illumination of a cockpit from the act of pointing or shining a device, and by dazzling or distracting a pilot, creates the risk of an accident.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister. We have made some progress and we might simply have a different approach in amendment 25, because, as I said at the outset, we are not talking simply about shining a laser and dazzling pilots and other people. This is principally a strict liability offence. Paragraph 76 of the explanatory notes says that it will be a strict liability offence, and that is repeated in paragraph 77. I am in difficulties in that regard in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 27 ties in with amendment 25; one follows inevitably on the other.
On amendment 26 and definitions of taxiing, I am greatly reassured by what the Minister had to say. He has given an undertaking to look at the exact wording and very sensible observations have been made by a number of Members on both sides of the Committee. I recognise that there must be consistency between what we say here and what is in the air navigation order.
As for new clause 15, the Minister has explained that powers are currently available to police in pursuit of those in possession of offensive weapons, but I think he entirely understands the point and the representations that were made in evidence and has given an assurance that the consideration of the matter will include Home Office colleagues and the police. I shall not press new clause 15 or amendment 26 to a vote, for the reasons I have outlined, but in the circumstances I do want to proceed to a vote on amendment 25.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
There is no need, Mr Baker, because there is only one question before the Committee at a time.
Clause 23
Courses offered as alternative to prosecution: fees etc
Richard Burden
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 23, page 18, line 22, at end insert—
“(6A) The Secretary of State must collect and publish quarterly statistics relating to fixed penalty notices and diversionary courses, including—
(a) the number of persons issued with a fixed penalty notice after attending a diversionary course,
(b) a breakdown of the number of persons under subsection 6A(a) by police and crime commissioner geographical area.
(6B) The Secretary of State must publish a review into the diversionary courses in place of the issuance of fixed penalty notices, which includes—
(a) effectiveness in improving driver education,
(b) impact on road safety and incidents.”
This amendment requires the Government to collect and publish statistics about reoffending rates for persons issued with fixed penalty notices after a diversionary course and to review the impact and effectiveness of diversionary courses in place of fixed penalty notices.
We now come to yet another subject area in the Bill, which is that of courses offered as an alternative to prosecution. The clause makes a change to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 that would provide the legal basis for policing bodies to charge a fee to a person who enrols on a course offered in England and Wales in relation to a fixed penalty notice.
The amendment seeks to achieve two reasonable things. First, it would require the Government to collect and publish statistics about reoffending rates for persons issued with fixed penalty notices after a diversionary course. The second purpose is to review the impact and effectiveness of diversionary courses in place of fixed penalty notices.
I start from the premise that all members of the Committee, the Government, the police, the crime commissioners and all chief constables want our roads to be as safe as possible. We have some of the safest roads in the world, but as the Transport Committee and road safety campaigners—unanimously—and the Labour party will recognise, progress has stalled rather worryingly since 2010. The latest rolling figures show that there has been no reduction in total road deaths and a 2% increase in serious casualties in the past 12 months alone.
Clause 23 is simply a technical change that will clarify existing practices of policing bodies charging a fee to a person who enrols on a course offered in England and Wales as an alternative to a fixed penalty notice. The amendment does not waste the opportunity critically to consider the effectiveness of diversionary courses and fixed penalty notices within the context of our stalled progress on road safety. By publishing reoffending rates statistics by police and crime commissioner area, we will be able to see for ourselves the effectiveness of different practices across different regions. That would in no way encroach on the operational independence of any police force but would allow a route to finding best practice. It would also go some way to help the second aspect of our amendment, which would require the Government to review the effectiveness of diversionary courses.
It is imperative that there is some founded basis on which to establish whether these courses are worth while and, if so, how much. I recall that at a recent Westminster Hall debate on road traffic law enforcement, the Minister’s transport colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) assured us that fixed penalty notices are
“an effective way to proceed.”—[Official Report, 23 February 2017; Vol. 621, c. 493WH.]
However, a subsequent written answer, which I received from the same hon. Gentleman, made two very interesting points. First, he clarified that the Department for Transport has
“no record of how many participants have since reoffended”.
That is, since taking such a course. Secondly, the answer went on to say that the Department is commissioning research with the Road Safety Trust to
“look at a number of aspects of the speed awareness course, including the impact of the courses on reoffending rates”.
Can we assume from that written answer that collection of such statistics will start promptly? Does the Minister know whether the collection of those data has started? Otherwise, what is the value for taxpayers of commissioning research when we simply do not know the reoffending rates for people who have been on diversionary courses, nor whether the rate at which drivers involved in serious road incidents attended a course?
I will end my argument by accepting that collecting such data would by no means be a silver bullet to kick-start the stalled progress that has been made towards safer roads. The Government could take on board our call to reinstate national road safety targets, which coincidentally were scrapped at the same time as road safety stagnation. Perhaps that could be considered at a later stage of the Bill.
The Government might also want to heed the warnings about the capacity we have these days to enforce our laws effectively. According to the response to my written question on 1 February, official figures show that since 2010 the number of police officers outside the Met who have road policing functions has fallen from 5,337 to 3,436. That is a cut of around a third. If forces do not have the resources to do their job effectively, all too often it is the road traffic policing that falls off the end of the list of priorities. As the Institute of Advanced Motorists has summarised perfectly, falling levels of enforcement risk developing a culture in which being caught is seen as a matter of bad luck rather than of bad driving.
If we want to return year-on-year falls in road casualties, it would be worth while approving the amendment today, so that we can have a clearer evidence base on which to make decisions about how far fixed penalty notices or diversionary courses should be used. We also need to consider what more can be done on the enforcement of our existing laws, so that we can ensure that the Bill exploits the opportunities it has to improve the situation, rather than waste them.
Mr Hayes
It will come as no surprise to the Committee to hear that I have always believed that what we imagine is more important than what we know, for it is in our dreams that we create. For those reasons, I am inclined to a largely emotional view of the world, but there are matters that require an evidential approach of the kind the hon. Gentleman recommends, and this is one of them. It is important that we evaluate the effectiveness of these courses. The case was made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough on Second Reading, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has repeated that case today. I have exciting news for them both and for the whole Committee. I will refer to my notes in a moment, but I do not want to be constrained by them too much.
The Department, in conjunction with the Road Safety Trust, has commissioned an evaluation of national speed awareness courses. As the hon. Gentleman will know, this is only one of several courses offered, but it covers about 85% of those who offend. The evaluation methodology will be suitable for the future evaluation of other schemes. Because the hon. Gentleman will ask me, I will tell him in advance that the research is examining course impact, including reoffending and reconviction rates and collisions. That will therefore provide analysis of the data requested in new subsection (6A) of the amendment. In fact, the amendment suggests a one-off basis, but I want to do this on a continuing basis. I expect the final report to be presented to the project board no later than the end of this year.
The project board overseeing the work includes representatives from the Department for Transport, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the Road Safety Trust, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety and the RAC Foundation. The project team has worked hard to ensure that appropriate and rigorous data processing arrangements are in place to enable data transfer between the police, the DVLA and Ipsos MORI, which is the organisation we have commissioned to do the work with those organisations.
So the data reflect the proper enquiries of members of the Committee, including Opposition Members, about how we test the effectiveness of these approaches, and, as a result, negate the need for proposed subsection (6B). On proposed subsection (6A), I agree with the underlying premise that we should be as open as possible in publishing statistics about public sector activity. There is always a balance to be struck between the publication of such material and the administrative and bureaucratic burden placed on agencies, including the police and associated bodies, because the task of recording the issue of a fixed penalty notice to someone who has previously attended a diversionary course will fall to the police.
Although figures on fixed penalty notices are already collected and published by the Home Office, data on diversionary course attendance are not. Precisely because forces divert people away from the criminal justice system, data on course attendance are compiled and published by UKROEd Ltd, the organisation that approves and co-ordinates course delivery. It is thus not clear how we will be able to satisfy the requirements of the proposed amendment without increasing the burden of data collection.
We have also at the present time not considered whether the police’s current IT systems will be able to capture and record the information being requested. Further work will need to be done to determine whether that can be done and how much it would cost. I further note that the Home Office currently publishes police powers and procedures statistics that include data on fixed penalty notices annually. Proposed subsection (6A) calls for quarterly statistics, which would place us in the odd position of publishing quarterly details on a subset of offenders who had previously taken a course and only publishing annually the overarching group of those issued with a fixed penalty notice. I know that is not the intention of the amendment, but that would be its effect.
So the addition of subsection (6A) would, as explained, have an unspecified and so far uncalculated cost effect on the police. It would require recording a great deal more information, and its publication in the form proposed in the amendment would create—I accept that this is not its intent—an anomaly. Therefore, given that we have committed to evaluating the effectiveness of courses, and that we are concerned about the detail of subsection (6A), I do not think that it would be unreasonable to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
I want to go further than that, however, because I have some doubt anyway about the business of maintaining in perpetuity a database of people who have been on the courses. Many people who receive a fixed penalty notice go on a course, and there would be questions to be asked about whether those data should then remain on record in perpetuity. That would be a very significant step to take and not one that I think would be universally welcomed. There are some data protection issues that we would need to explore at some length were we to go down that road.
Drew Hendry
It is very important to remind people of road safety and the consequences of driving behaviour, so we welcome the approach to alternatives. I am delighted by the fact that the Minister has confirmed that he will bring forward assessments and reviews of the effectiveness of those alternative measures. It is important to have evidence to prove their effectiveness or otherwise so that everyone can learn from the process and benefit from improved road safety in order to save lives. In that context, will the Minister consider existing evidence that road safety would be increased and lives would be saved by lowering the drink-driving limit, as has happened in Scotland? As part of his further discussions on road safety, will he consider introducing that revised limit in England?
Richard Burden
I hope that I can set the Minister’s mind at rest about the collection and holding of data. The data that I am referring to is anonymised; it is not data that will identify individuals. I am grateful for his comments about proposed subsection (6B) and the commissioning of research in conjunction with a number of road safety bodies. That is not new, because his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), confirmed in an answer to me that research would be done on the effectiveness of diversionary courses, including reoffending rates.
The nagging question for me is: how do we reach any conclusion on the effectiveness of diversionary courses on reoffending rates unless we collect the data on those rates? I simply do not see how that research can be done to achieve any results unless those data are collected. If the proposal created an administrative burden on police forces, and I do not believe that it would be hugely onerous, it would be in terms of the collection of the data rather than their publication. We need to know how good those courses are at stopping people from reoffending and thereby getting fixed penalty notices. To me, that is a basic requirement of the information required to assess the effectiveness of diversionary courses. That is the purpose of the amendment. It is a simple request, and for that reason I want to press the amendment to a vote.
Mr Hayes
Let me make one final attempt to persuade the hon. Gentleman that we are in the same place on this matter. I am grateful for his assurance about anonymised data, but it is hard to know how we could analyse data until course and penalty data had been married up, and of course the fixed penalty will precede the course. I entirely agree with him about the measure of effectiveness, which is why we have commissioned the work. Of course that is right, and I am very surprised that it was not done before, because such diversion courses have been going for a very long time, as he will know. It seems absolutely sensible that we should check whether they are having an effect; it would be odd not to do so. We will therefore do that, and people can tell from what I said earlier that it is a thorough and studious piece of work, engaging organisations of a range of types, all of which have both expertise to bring to bear and an interest in these matters.
I do not think that there is much difference between us here. It may well be that the research necessarily samples data in the way that research into this kind of thing does. That is quite different from routinely collecting the data, in a way that proposed subsection (6A) would necessitate. I understand the principle and the intent, but the collection of these data on a routine basis with systems that may not yet be capable of marrying all the material together, and at an uncertain cost, is not something that I could commit to now, and I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would do so if he was standing in my shoes.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Rob Marris
May I ask the Minister briefly to give us a bit of an explanation of schedule 5, because I cannot see it in the explanatory notes—maybe I have overlooked it—and it runs to nine pages, covering various things such as limitation periods, which are rather important? Can he briefly talk through the nine pages of schedule 5, which of course come under clause 24?
Mr Hayes
Why be brief? The Bill introduces a new framework for the Transport Act 2000 governing the new licensing regime for regulation of the provision of air traffic services. Without making the “minor and consequential amendments” detailed in part 2 of the schedule, we would not have a coherent new licensing regime.
With one exception, all the consequential and minor amendments are made to provisions of the Transport Act 2000. Most of the amendments amend the Act to ensure that the nomenclature is aligned and compatible with the new legislative framework. A couple of the amendments introduce specific aspects of parallel modern licensing frameworks, for example to ensure that the regulations can make anti-avoidance provision in the event that there are attempts by a regulating entity to avoid proper oversight. Part 2 of schedule 5 also amends a single provision in the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, to ensure that the Competition and Markets Authority can properly determine appeals against civil aviation authorities’ licence modification decisions.
Without making these minor and consequential amendments, we would not have a coherent limitation regime in effect across Great Britain, for example, regarding automated vehicle accidents. Inserting provisions into the Limitation Act 1980 provide a clear new time limit on actions regarding automated vehicle accidents. Automated vehicles bring together two existing limitation regimes: product liability and personal injury. Although the measures do nothing to change those regimes, they could potentially conflict with each other or cause confusion where automated vehicle accidents are concerned. The amendments will avoid uncertainty arising from the difference between the existing limitation periods relating to product liability and personal injury.
Rob Marris
The Minister is much more expert than me, but the way I read it, it seems that the wording of schedule 5 means that the existing personal injury limitation periods take precedence over the consumer product liability limitation periods. There is a clash and it has to be resolved one way or the other. My understanding is that schedule 5 resolves it in favour of the personal injury limitation period, rather than product liability. Will the Minister confirm that, or perhaps tell me that I am misunderstanding it?
Mr Hayes
I think that that is right. If it is not, I will correct that in writing. That is how I read it too. I will double-check and if that is not the case, I will correct that point subsequently.
Similar changes are being made to the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 to take account of specific limitation powers in Scottish law, calibrating the measures across Great Britain. Schedule 5 will also insert provisions into the Road Traffic Act 1988, which extends the compulsory motor insurance requirements for third party risk to cover automated vehicles. That will include the disengaged driver, where the accident takes place when the vehicle is in automated mode. Without that change, our new liability framework could not function properly.
With that brief, but I hope sufficient, explanation of the first and second parts of schedule 5, I hope we can move on with alacrity and in the spirit that has prevailed so far.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 accordingly agreed to.
Clause 25 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to new clause 1. As neither of the signatories to the new clause is present, that new clause falls.
We now come to new clause 2, with which it will be convenient to consider new clause 8. However, the signatories to new clause 2 are not in the room, so that falls, and we will take new clause 8 in order after new clause 7, as that has been tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench team, who are present. We now move on to new clause 3.
New Clause 3
Strategy for encouraging uptake of electric vehicles
The Secretary of State must, within 12 months, lay a report before Parliament setting out a strategy to further encourage the uptake of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a broader Government strategy to address the issue of encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles in the United Kingdom.—(Richard Burden.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Burden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.
We are back to electric vehicles. I am sure the new clause will find agreement on both sides of the Committee for what it is trying to get at, because we all want to increase the uptake of electric vehicles—and, indeed, zero-carbon and ultra low emission vehicles generally. To me, it is important that the Government have a strategy to encourage that uptake across the board, but it must go further than what is in the Bill. That is important not only to future-proof our economy and society but to assure the industry and consumers that investing in that new generation of vehicles is the right thing to do. We must make electric vehicles and other low-emission vehicles more widely available and affordable to kick-start a shift in thinking about car ownership and, perhaps most importantly, to address the air quality crisis that is choking towns and cities in the UK, with all the public health implications that it involves. I will come on to that issue in the next few minutes.
Kit Malthouse
I am slightly confused. Is the hon. Gentleman attempting to legislate for what is essentially a political decision? [Interruption.] It is for the Government to decide to have a strategy, but he is attempting to legislate for that decision, which is surely within the Minister’s ambit. I am confused. This is presumably, as far as I can see, a political decision.
Richard Burden
Call me old-fashioned, Ms Ryan, but I do not think it is the job of anyone other than Parliament to make that decision. If a political decision is a decision based on what Members of the legislature, in their judgment, think is the right thing to do, there is nothing wrong with that.
The Chair
May I just say that the new clause would not have been selected if it were not in order for the Committee to be debating it?
Richard Burden
Thank you, Ms Ryan.
If the hon. Member for North West Hampshire is suggesting that we should not encourage the uptake of such vehicles, he is entitled to that view, although it is not one that I share. Throughout our debates on the Bill so far, there has been consensus across the Committee that, whatever else we do, encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles should be part of the picture.
Kit Malthouse
I completely understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I agree. I am a convert to electric vehicles—hydrogen electric vehicles, as it happens. I just think it is for Ministers to put out a strategy, and they take their chances with the House if they do or do not.
On a point of order, Ms Ryan—forgive my legislative inexperience—as I understand it, under the Standing Orders, amendments and new clauses have to satisfy the notion that they are not vague, and I find this very vague. It does not lay out what form the strategy should be in—is it one side of A4? It does not say what the sanction is if the Minister does not do it. There is all sorts of vagueness in it. We are making the law of the land, but it seems to be bound up in the idea that we are legislating for what is essentially a political decision.
The Chair
The Chair’s selection is final. If the Chair rules the new clause or amendment in order, it is in order.
Richard Burden
I would certainly defer to your judgment about the fact that the new clause is in order, Ms Ryan.
May I take the hon. Member for North West Hampshire back to something he himself said, which is that he thinks that bringing forward strategies is the job of Ministers? I agree, and that is exactly what the new clause says: it asks Ministers to bring forward a strategy for encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. The reason we are suggesting that is that the Bill, as it stands, deals with one element of the picture, which is the question of the charging infrastructure. That is important, but it is only one element of a larger picture. As the Government impact assessment says, it is part one of a rolling programme of reform. In future waves, they will need to expand the infrastructure beyond the scope even of what is in the Bill. That is why we have been talking a lot about how we can future-proof it. They will also need to address barriers to uptake and concerns and uncertainties of the kind that we discussed in the evidence session, such as capital cost, residual values and battery ranges; encourage more active procurement of ultra low emission vehicles, including electric vehicles, by public authorities; and introduce an active industrial policy to ensure that the UK is in pole position to develop and make electric vehicles in the future.
I have to say that the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Green Paper, “Building our Industrial Strategy”, is a good document. There are some very worthwhile things in it, including proposals for meeting the challenge of increasing our involvement in the research, development, commercialisation and manufacture of these vehicles. I absolutely welcome all that, but the point of the new clause is that the relationship between that industrial strategy and the transport strategy that the Bill is concerned with needs to be much clearer. We also need to assess all the existing and potential incentives for consumers and business. The Government regularly reference those, but—this has come up several times in debates—it is difficult to reconcile what they say about the importance of consumer incentives with their cuts to grants, plug-in vehicles and so on.
Home charging is a logical and important place to start but, as we have heard, in urban areas, which are potentially one of the most fruitful markets for electric vehicles, that is not always simple or practical. We need some innovative thinking and new ideas to encourage and incentivise uptake. I am sure the Minister is brimming with them—we know that it is only a matter of time before the Hayes hook-ups hit our streets. We need to consider the kinds of issues that Quentin Willson urged us to look at when he gave evidence: wireless on-street charging, possibly using street lamps, and exploring other options in urban areas where private parking areas are simply not widely available. It is also important to address how the charging infrastructure can be extended to places such as supermarkets, shopping parks and workplaces, where there is natural dwell time and less inconvenience for electric owners charging their vehicles.
It is important that the Government are seen to be leading the way on electric vehicles. I broadly welcome the actions of the Minister and the Government and the keenness that the Minister has brought to the subject in our deliberations. Like him, we all want to ensure that the UK is one of the world leaders in manufacturing and supporting infrastructure for electric vehicles, but we also want it to be a leader in their uptake, moving towards a new transport system and a different contribution to our economy. That all goes well beyond the Bill, but it is important that the different strands of Government thinking on industrial strategy and transport strategy are brought together.
The new clause would encourage and require the Government to think ahead, and think creatively, about putting a strategy in place to confront the inhibitors of uptake and gear the UK towards a new economy and a new kind of transport system. As I have acknowledged, the Government’s aim is to address the inhibitors to widespread uptake of EVs, but the Bill’s focus is narrow. It addresses only the charging infrastructure and the information available, not the wider challenges that I referred to—capital cost, wider infrastructure, residual value, battery technology and so on. I think the Minister recognises that—he has said that this is step one on a journey of many steps—but I would like him to assure us today that the Bill will kick-start an active and innovative Government strategy to make EVs and other ultra low emission and zero-emission vehicles the go-to vehicles for the UK. He is well versed in overcoming the barriers to uptake, but we need to know how he and the Department for Transport will confront them.
Alan Brown
Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, I agree that we hope that the Government will set out a strategy to kick-start the roll-out of electric vehicles. Whether a report about the uptake of vehicles is a political decision is, I think, semantics. All Government decisions are political in one way or another. A Government make a political decision and then implement policy, and that is a political decision and then policy making by that Government at that moment in time. Any subsequent Government can change the legislation to suit their politics, their decisions or their changes in policy. So this might be a political decision or it might not be, but it is about implementing policy.
Clearly, the Government support the roll-out of electric vehicles. Part 2 of the Bill is about the electric charging network, so why would they invest in such a network and have provisions in the Bill to extend it if they were not going fully to support the roll-out of electric vehicles? I would, therefore, welcome a report. The Government have a 2020 target of 1.6 million electric vehicles and we are 1.5 million short at this moment. I would welcome, therefore, seeing how the Government think they will achieve that target.
Recently, there have been cuts in the grants available for purchasing electric vehicles, for hybrid vehicles and for home charging, so some of the political or policy decisions have been contrary to increasing the uptake of the vehicles. Therefore, it would be good if the Government came back with a report that clearly outlined how they were going to increase uptake of electric vehicles and meet their 2020 target and the long-term 2050 target. We have heard on Second Reading and in our Committee sittings that other countries are much further ahead in increasing the uptake of electric vehicles, so I would like to think that a Government report could look at what those countries are doing and incorporate that into their strategy as part of a look ahead. Coming back with a report has merits, and would allow everyone to see the clear direction from the Government.
Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)
I am grateful, Ms Ryan, for your permission to say a few words to encourage the Minister not to be persuaded by the well-meaning nonsense being peddled by Opposition Members, with this re-bubbling commitment to the all-seeing omniscience of Soviet or socialist planning that ascribes to Government powers that, I think experience has shown, are well beyond their ambit: to foresee, invest and direct the resources of the nation in the direction of what might, today, be the most inspired strategy but tomorrow might be ashes around the Minister’s feet.
Mr Hayes
Perhaps I can begin where my hon. Friend concluded. My admiration and, I might say, deep affection for him has never allowed me to be persuaded more than I need to be by the argument he makes for unbridled freedom. We have known each other for a long time and he is right that the Government should not go too far, but I think I disagree with him on the margin, in the context of that deep affection. The Government sometimes need to go a little further when change of the kind we are envisaging brings with it an immense opportunity but also risks. Where the Government are mitigating the effect of those risks on the people we represent, they need to get involved. I look, therefore, to form a middle road between the Opposition and my hon. Friend because, as is well known, I am an extremely moderate man.
My dream—at the heart of all men’s existence, is a dream, as Chesterton said—translated as my political mission, which began in infancy, is to prevent many things from changing but, when they do, to help to shape them and, when they must, to help to ensure that they have the most efficacious and virtuous possible effect. So it is with this technology.
My hon. Friend is right—I must not flatter him too much—that this market will develop in ways that we can barely now envisage. To have too clearly defined a plan would not be wise; it would be just about possible, but it would certainly not be right. None the less, we would not be bringing this Bill forward if we did not think that Government had a part to play, not only in facilitating beneficial change, but also in ensuring that what we do does not constrain it. For example, the amendments deal with the difference we are trying to make in respect of charging infrastructure for electric vehicles. The Bill is designed to allow the market to be the best it can be, rather than to dictate the future in a way that my hon. Friend and I would not wish to do.
Mr Baker
I would like to apologise to the Minister and the Committee for not being here to move new clauses 1 and 2. They were only probing new clauses to explore those subjects, and I am grateful to him for referring to them now. If it is at all possible, I would be grateful if he might consider returning to their substance on Report.
Mr Hayes
I think we can go further than that. I try to be helpful to the Committee throughout our proceedings and I, too, am disappointed that we have not had a chance to debate those new clauses in more detail. Perhaps I can drop a line to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire to offer a summary of what I would have said in Committee, had they been here to move their new clauses. That will both keep me within order and abbreviate my remarks so that I can move quickly to new clause 8.
The Chair
To be helpful to the hon. Member for Wycombe, when we get to new clause 8 it will be in order for him to make the remarks he would have made for new clause 2, as they are on the same topic.
Rob Marris
On new clause 3, am I right in deducing from what the Minister has said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that, broadly, Her Majesty’s Government are keen to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles, whether hydrogen-electric, pure electric, automated electric or whatever, and that they will publish some pointers as to how they anticipate making the market, pushing it in that direction and encouraging market developments in that direction?
Mr Hayes
I spoke about that yesterday at one of the House’s all-party groups, and as I said, I am happy to orate further on demand. If there is popular demand for me to perform more regularly, I would be remiss not to rise to that. That seems to have been the message broadcast from the Committee—I see nodding heads around the Committee—so it is important that I set out the context of what the Government intend. In essence, Government can do three things. We can bring legislation forward, and that is what we are doing. We can promote and stimulate the market through spending money, and we have done that—I could consider that at exhaustive length but it would tire the Committee if I did—and we can make the argument. I want to go a bit further than that, which is why I mentioned the further research we intend to do. As I said, steps can be taken without the rather limiting, dictatorial approach that I know is feared, and understandably so, by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford.
On new clause 8, our transport networks are becoming increasingly digital—
Mr Hayes
Sorry. On new clause 3, it is important that the Government take a strategic approach, as has been said, on the take-up of low-emission vehicles. Hon. Members will know that the Government have published a series of documents, including “Driving the Future Today” in 2013, but much has changed since then. For instance, about 10 times as many ultra low emission vehicles were registered in 2016 as in 2013. While the aims of the 2013 strategy remain relevant, we are considering how our approach needs to change in the light of developments in the sector and beyond.
In addition, I am able to announce that we plan to publish an updated strategy for promoting the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles and that we will do so, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield requests, within 12 months. As I said, I will set out some of our thinking before Report. We will continue to consult the sector and be informed by its thinking, because the investment it is making in this technology is considerable. I will also be informed by the Committee’s observations about further changes that can be made to the infrastructure. The Bill does important things in that respect, but relevant comments have been made about on-street charging. We need to think carefully about how we can take the emphasis in the Bill to the next stage of development, and we will continue to do that in policy. As hon. Members know, I am keen to explore the issue of design, but I think I have made that point fairly clearly already.
Rob Marris
Will the publication that the Minister has just generously promised encompass aspects of air pollution?
Mr Hayes
As a separate matter, I am personally associated—“associated” is a rather slight way of putting it, actually—with the production of the Government’s new air quality plan. We have committed as a Government to produce that plan by the summer and will present a draft very shortly—this spring. I work with Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs alarmingly regularly. Indeed, I said the other day to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), that I see her more often than my family. It is important that that plan is consistent with our strategy for promoting ultra low emission vehicles. It must be—they are an important part of achieving what we seek, which is that, by 2050, all vehicles are low-emission vehicles, with a consequent effect on emissions and air quality. New clause 4 deals with air quality anyway, so I have no doubt that we will debate that at greater length.
I do not want to go too much further at this juncture, except to say that the money we are spending on electric vehicles needs to be emphasised. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield raised this, so I want to be crystal clear. During this Parliament, we will invest well over £600 million to support low-emission vehicles. That includes subsidising the purchase of new vehicles by consumers; £80 million for subsidising the cost of the charging infrastructure, with grants of £500 off the cost of home installation and similar support for charge points on streets and in workplaces; £150 million to support the adoption of the cleanest buses and taxis, and more than £100 million to fund research and development of new zero-emission technologies, building on the UK’s well-regarded scientific and automotive sectors. That is on top of the £270 million industrial strategy fund that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield referred to, some of which will support the development, design and manufacture of the batteries that will power the next generation of electric vehicles. That adds up to a comprehensive package of measures—as comprehensive as almost any Government’s—but I accept that money alone is not enough, and I do not say that it is. Advocacy and legislation matter, too, which is why we introduced the Bill.
I think that that probably is enough—[Interruption.] I think it is. I do not want to disappoint any of my admirers—[Hon. Members: “Name them!”] There are some on this side of the Committee, too; I want to be absolutely clear about that. I think we are on the same page.
Richard Burden
I thank the Minister for his really positive response. He gets what we are talking about. We are dealing with a potential revolution in our relationship with personal mobility—in the way we think about cars and how they connect with one other and with us. Are we moving into an era where we have not so much vehicles with information systems attached, but information systems with vehicles attached? That presents profound challenges for us, but also profound opportunities. That is why we suggest in the new clause—I am really pleased that the Minister said the Government would do this—that there needs to be strategic thinking, not only by the Government, who have responsibility for developing those ideas, but by all of us, about how we rise to those challenges.
Christian Matheson
Does my hon. Friend share my view that that might not be about prescribing for the industry what steps it needs to take, but about ensuring that all parts of Government are aware of what their role might be as the sector develops?
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are talking about joining the dots within Government to ensure that those three elements—the Minister got it right about where the three elements of Government crystallise—can be put to best effect. Part of that is legislative, whether that is primary legislation or the regulations that we have debated a great deal in Committee.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
Given that the Minister has conceded that there will be a strategy, may I urge the hon. Gentleman to do as little strategising as possible and perhaps to include corporates as much as possible? My experience of watching Governments strategise, whether in the military or the civilian field, is to see what is charmingly known as a cluster emerge from the ideas of Whitehall and get thrust on corporations and individuals who then have to untangle whatever came out. I urge him as much possible in our process to act simply as a receptacle of ideas, rather than as a preacher of doctrine.
Richard Burden
In many ways, I think that is what we are getting at. Throughout Committee we have emphasised the importance of consulting stakeholders, and listening to and involving them. The corporate sector, particularly in the automotive industry, is central to that. Automotive is one of those areas in which partnership between Government and industry has been at its most successful. The Automotive Council, established by the previous Labour Government—but I am pleased to say continued by the coalition and this Government—has been held up as a beacon for a non-bureaucratic way to bring Government and industry together to lay out where we want to go and the kind of road map needed to get there.
Rob Marris
On where we want to go and a road map to get there, Conservative Governments in the 1950s laid the groundwork for our motorway network in the United Kingdom—built by the state to a plan.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Whether those Conservative Governments got everything right about the motorway network in everyone’s point of view, who knows, but his point is well made.
I will not labour the point at this stage, because there is a consensus among most Committee members about what is required. The Minister has said that he will bring forward a strategy, updating the previous one and joining up the dots in Government so that we can know how the legislative road may best be taken, how we can best stimulate the market for electric and other low and zero-emission vehicles and how we can make a case for that step change in personal mobility that we have the chance to achieve in not too many years. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Air pollution and vehicle technology
‘The Secretary of State must, within 12 months, lay a report before Parliament setting out a strategy for using vehicle technologies, including electric vehicles, to contribute to meeting Government ambitions relating to air pollution and the UK’s climate change obligations.’—(Richard Burden.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a strategy for using vehicle technology to address the issue of air pollution in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Burden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am asking for another strategy—I am absolutely on a roll—and it is on the very issue that we began to talk about in relation to the previous new clause. This one goes by a name that is very popular among Opposition Members in that it is new clause 4. It is, however, on a matter that is really serious. Air pollution and air quality have often been perceived as matters for the future, but they are matters for the here and now. While this Bill indirectly addresses the issue of air quality, I would like to press the Minister to be a little more explicit on how it can contribute to tackling the air quality challenge.
I cannot help but feel that the Government have missed an opportunity in this Bill to be more proactive and perhaps a bit more innovative in confronting one of the biggest issues facing our country. Air quality is nothing short of a crisis, and air pollution is choking our towns and cities. It is a widely recognised public health issue; it contributes to approximately 40,000 premature deaths in the UK every year. We also know that it is affecting people’s daily lives, particularly the lives of those with lung conditions and other respiratory conditions, and we know that unless we take action things will not get better on their own. Brixton Road in south London breached annual air pollution limits for 2017 just five days into the new year.
The Minister will not need reminding that the Government are under pressure to produce—at the third attempt—a revamped air quality plan next month, after a High Court judge described their previous two plans as wholly inadequate. The Minister has talked about the meetings he has already had with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to produce that plan, but at the moment it appears that we are dangerously on course to fail to meet not only the standard that has been set for us on air quality but our own renewable fuels target.
I am not being unreasonable about the difficulties and challenges that exist in confronting these kinds of issues; I am simply stating the facts. Currently, we are failing to meet the air quality challenge that faces us. Clean air should not be a privilege; it is a right. Reducing harmful emissions must be a priority for public health, the environment and for future generations, and the Government have a central role to play in rising to that challenge.
The scale of this issue is great and dealing with it will require ambitious, innovative thinking. Decarbonisation of vehicles is widely seen as a critical component in helping the UK to meet its own obligations and targets. That is why the electrification of transport is vital, in any equation, for achieving the 2050 targets. Electric vehicles themselves, whether they are “conventionally” electrically powered or powered through hydrogen, are obviously an important part of that process.
However, it is not only decarbonisation of vehicles that matters but decarbonisation more generally—of industry, the economy and society. That means not just patting ourselves on the back because we are encouraging the uptake of electric vehicles. If that is not backed up by further change, the switch to electric vehicles could end up shifting emissions elsewhere to power plants, rather than getting rid of the emissions.
This process is not just about cars. Most of our discussions in this Committee, including in our evidence sessions, have focused on private cars, but equal if not more attention needs to be paid to commercial vehicles—HGVs, vans and buses. There are also great opportunities with buses and taxis; we should ensure that public procurement is geared towards stimulating the uptake of zero-emission vehicles.
The transition towards a low-carbon, low-emission and sustainable future is a journey in itself, but the Government can do a lot more on that journey. That is why this new clause would require the Government to place the Bill within a broader strategy for using electric vehicles and other ultra low emission vehicles, in order to address the crisis we face.
The Minister knows, from what we have said so far, that we welcome the Government’s action on this Bill and the spirit with which that action has been taken. However, he also knows that the Bill must be about more than that. He says he has talked to his colleagues in other Government Departments about the air quality plan, and we hope within the next month to see an ambitious plan for confronting the air quality crisis. For now, without giving too much away about what that plan will involve, will the Minister at least give us an indication of what further action the Government will be taking to tackle the air quality crisis and how they will seek to use the emerging markets for electric vehicles and for ultra low emission vehicles more generally as part of that strategy?
Drew Hendry
We support the new clause. A lot more needs to be done to encourage the uptake of electric and low-emission vehicles. So far, the contribution that has been made by alternative vehicles to reductions in carbon and CO2 emissions is inadequate; 1.2% of vehicles are ULEVs at the moment. Any kind of increase in that has to be more substantial than we have seen over recent years. It is essential that there is a proper update and that the Government are required to bring forward a strategy to ensure that these vehicles make a serious contribution to improving air quality.
Andrew Selous
New clause 4 deals with vehicle technologies—not only electric vehicles. What part does the Minister believe liquefied petroleum gas can play in the Government’s plans to improve air quality?
While I do not think anyone sees it as a longer-term solution, an LPG-converted taxi—as I am sure the Minister is aware—produces 99% fewer particulates, 80% less nitrogen oxide and 70% less carbon, and an LPG-converted van produces 99% fewer particulates, 12% less carbon and only 5% of Euro 6 nitrogen oxide emissions.
There are two actions that the Government could take to expand the use of LPG as an interim measure to deal with air quality issues. The first is on the fuel duty escalator, and the second is to have conversations with some of the major vehicle manufacturers and van manufacturers such as Ford and General Motors, which already produce right-hand drive LPG vehicles for overseas markets but do not produce a left-hand drive version for the UK. The Minister may not have been briefed on that area by his officials so far. If he wanted to write to the Committee to explain the Government’s thoughts on how LPG might help in this area, I would be amenable to receiving a letter rather than a response from him now.
Alan Brown
I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire on looking at the alternative fuels framework altogether, which is now 14 years old, in particular the escalator and the possible benefits of using LPG as a transition to decarbonising transport.
I know that some Government Members are against another strategy or another possible aspect to regulation, but there is merit in this. We need joined-up thinking from the Government on air quality and energy policy in general. The new clause ties that together, which I support. We need to look at the odds of unintended consequences, which strategic thinking helps with. Otherwise, as we have heard, we could have a switch to electric vehicles that causes an increase in electricity demand, which then causes dirty energy to be created, meaning there is no net benefit.
We need a strategy and joined-up thinking across the various Government Departments. That ties in with the fact that the Government have passed the fifth carbon budget. If we are going to achieve that and hit the 2050 emission targets, we need a coherent, joined-up strategy. I will leave my comments there, in support of the measure.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
DVLA and Private Car Parking Companies
(7 years, 1 month 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
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the relationship between the DVLA and private car parking companies.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I thank my colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for allocating this slot for the debate. I was pleased to be joined in my application by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), who I can see in his place. I am sure that he will follow my remarks with his usual alacrity.
I want to be clear that this debate is not about what is charged in a car park. Normally when we talk about car parking and parking fees, we talk about local councils and the balance between how much is charged for an hour’s parking and the trade that a town centre may receive. This debate is not about that. This is very much about the relationship between a body of the state—the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency—and private companies that seek to enforce parking contracts.
If we own a car, we are all required by law to supply the details of the keeper of the vehicle to the DVLA; it is a criminal offence not to. To be clear—because it certainly is not clear in many of the letters that go out if someone is not a lawyer or conversant with this area—this is not about people committing offences, but about when people are deemed to have breached a parking contract. The contract can be on a sign on a wall with quite a lot of small print. Those of us who are skilled in the legal world may be able to understand it—I am sure you would easily read through it all, Ms Dorries—but for most people it is not an easy or digestible read. When people drive in, they are unlikely to see the sign and to read the terms and conditions before they get in the parking space, but they have already been caught on the camera systems that are used to enforce car park contracts, which is what has brought the issue to my attention.
I hope that over the next hour and a half we will consider what we as Members feel about the current system and its relationship with the DVLA and how we think it should change. We must be clear that, if it were not for that relationship and the DVLA’s ability to get hold of the keeper’s details, many of the issues brought to me, and I am sure to other right hon. and hon. Members, would not exist, because it would not be possible to enforce this in the way it is being enforced now.
I also want to be clear that the next hour and a half is not about portraying every private car park operator as a rogue operator. Most, but not all, operate good-quality car parks at a reasonable price and use methods of enforcement that are perfectly fair and reasonable. However, some need to be tackled.
What first brought the issue to my attention were two car parks in my constituency: the Crossways shopping centre car park in Paignton and the Marina car park in Torquay. The Crossways car park is managed by Premier Parking Solutions of Newton Abbot and the Marina one is managed by a different company, Premier Park. Since my election as a Member of Parliament, I have received complaints about enforcement practices in both car parks. I accept that people are not happy when they receive a fine if they have not paid or for whatever reason, but what stuck out about those two car parks was that the number of complaints I was receiving about them far exceeded the number of complaints I was receiving about the entirety of Torbay Council’s parking enforcement. Given Torbay Council’s parking enforcement covers 39 car parks and all on-street car parking violations, it was noticeable that the two car parks were generating far more complaints than I was receiving about the council’s entire operation.
Issues raised with me included everything from unclear signs to bad lighting. There was a day when a particular letter or number was not working on the keypad, which meant that everyone with that particular letter or number in their registration found themselves getting a letter a few weeks later. Also, I started to get letters from colleagues complaining about the car parks concerned when their own constituents had visited Paignton or Torquay on holiday, looking to enjoy themselves, and had had a nasty surprise that would encourage them not to come back.
Parliamentary privilege is a great right, but also a responsibility, so we alert individuals or companies when we are thinking of referring to them. I wrote to both the companies concerned. To give Premier Parking Solutions of Newton Abbot, which runs the Crossways car park, its due, last Friday, I had its managing director, general manager and business development manager come to see me to discuss the various issues that had been raised about their car park. They listed a range of things that they feel will deal with the matters raised and complained about. I will obviously look for the proof in the pudding and see whether complaints decline. I accept that there will always be the odd one, but I certainly hope that we will see the back of some of the complaints and issues that I have seen so far.
The other company, Premier Park, decided not to give any form of detailed reply. Given the sheer number of complaints I have had about the Marina car park, which is a car park you drive into without realising exactly what you are entering, suspicions have been raised. Even when told that it was likely to be discussed under parliamentary privilege, the company was not particularly interested in engaging, and also did not engage with BBC Radio Devon this morning, so that creates real suspicions that it is looking to run a business model based on catching people out as much as on what it charges in the car park. That gives rise to suspicions that this is not a genuine parking enforcement operation intended to stop people chancing their arm—I accept people will do that, so there needs to be some enforcement—but that this is an operation looking to enforce and act in a way that no one would see as conscionable. It therefore says a lot that, even when given a chance to offer a final explanation before being named today, the company did not wish to do so.
If it were just a couple of car parks in Torbay, I would probably view the matter as a constituency campaigning issue and something I could pick up with the local trading standards department. Yet it was interesting to see the number of other issues that started to be raised as I talked to colleagues. I can see colleagues nodding in the Chamber now. I am sure that we will hear more examples during the debate. I looked at the Library and RAC Foundation figures on how many transactions there are between the DVLA and private parking companies. It is estimated that they will exceed 4 million in this financial year, which is a very large increase compared with the position in 2012. When private wheel clamping was banned under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the impact assessment suggested that there would be 500,000 extra requests, which is not a surprise given the change in enforcement techniques, but there has been an increase of nearly 3 million, which highlights the issues.
The DVLA charges companies £2.50, and some information suggests it costs DVLA more than that to process each application. Perhaps the Minister will cover whether the DVLA is losing money in this area, because it would add insult to injury if taxpayers were helping to subsidise the operation.
We have to be clear that these are not fines. However, it is the DVLA’s information—something is sent out that looks like a fine, probably for about £100, which is the maximum, but far above what councils charge. There is no suggestion that councils outside of London need to charge such a fine when people do not pay in the car park. However, that supply of information makes people think it is much more official than it is, and of course it makes it look as though the state supports what is being done. Ultimately, the only source of the information could have been the state, the DVLA, given that there is no other way of getting hold of the registered keeper’s details.
When I started to look into this issue, many Members wrote to me, and I still get letters today about how the system works. Many of them cover the suspicion that automated number plate recognition systems are used as an opportunity, first, to fine people after they have left and, secondly, to make the process easy. For example, someone who drives in, waits to see if there is a space, drives out and ends up getting a fine would not get that fine if there were manual enforcement, because someone enforcing tickets would see that that person was waiting. Likewise, barrier systems do not let a car in the car park unless there is a space. This system is a kind of invisible barrier that can become a nasty trap that the driver finds out about later.
I am clear that there does need to be enforcement. If someone goes into a privately owned car park and plonks their car in a disabled bay, I have no problem with the idea that they receive a significant fine for such antisocial behaviour. However, there are real issues emerging from the system of enforcement that has grown up over recent years.
I have particular questions for the Minister; I will give him time to note them down. Is he content that the current relationship between the DVLA and private parking enforcement companies is appropriate? Does he believe that there should be a single standards setting body? In my investigation of the subject, one aspect I found quite interesting is that there are two such bodies, with similar sounding objectives and appeals processes. Is that a sensible system or should there be one single standards-setting body, over which the Government have more oversight? I would suggest, however, that it is probably more sensible that that be based in and funded and organised by the industry, rather than an “Ofpark”-style body set up directly by the Government.
Does the Minister believe that enough action is being taken to deal with rogue actors and offenders in the industry? Many Members will probably give examples of where they think not enough action is being taken. Although some rogue actors and offenders have been removed, the presence of two different bodies as the accredited trade associations that a company needs to be part of to access the DVLA breeds confusion in the public eye.
Is a response to the 2015 consultation likely to be published? Would we be better to conclude that the Government may take the view that, two years on, it may be better to look afresh at how the DVLA works with private parking companies?
There are some good operators out there providing reasonable car parks at a fair price and some operators charge a premium for a slightly better service. That is a matter for them and for their business. What we need to take action on is the growing scandal where more and more people receive these invoices, which look official and which are able to be issued only because of the active co-operation of a body of the state that gives the information for them to do so. There needs to be a change in that relationship. There need to be clearer and stronger standards and much more transparency in how those standards are set, in exchange for information from the Government.
We got rid of the cowboy clampers in the last Parliament. The suspicion is that the cowboy clampers have now become the cowboy finers and cowboy invoicers. Although they may wish to leave their spur marks on car parks across the country, I hope the Minister will be clear what action will be taken to ensure that they have to ride off into the sunset for good.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this debate.
I speak from the perspective of the consumer and the tourist who visits the south-west on a regular basis, rather than as a Member of Parliament dealing with complaints submitted by the public. The car parking in my constituency is run by Sandwell Council. Although I am sure that there are plenty of residents who have had issues over the years, I cannot honestly say that I have received the volume of complaints in my postbag that would justify me taking up the issue. However, I have had personal experience as a tourist in the south-west with a private parking company, which I would like to bring to the hon. Gentleman’s notice. That experience raised concerns, and I considered taking exactly the same actions as he has. I will not mention the company concerned because I have not informed it—as he said, there are issues around parliamentary privilege that should not be exploited—but it is legitimate to mention my experience.
As someone educated at Exeter University, and whose ancestors on my father’s side all hail from the Falmouth and Penryn area, I have an enduring affection for the area and love to visit it, which I do on a regular basis. However, as a tourist, I have had two experiences there that were exceedingly off-putting.
The first was when I parked at Falmouth quayside car park and left the car. It was very windy. I went back, picked up a coat and then came back later to find that I had got a parking notice. What had happened in the meantime was that my ticket had blown off the dashboard and was on the floor. I appealed to the company and got a response offering to halve the fine. I was still indignant, but thought, like many people in my position, “Oh, what the heck; I will accept it as a compromise,” and paid up. That was a couple of years ago.
Last year, I parked at Perranporth. On that occasion it was pouring with rain, and I decided it was not immediately appropriate to go for a walk on the beach. I joined my wife for a cup of tea in a nearby café, leaving the car window open because we had the dog in the back. We came back and took the dog for a walk, returned to the car and found that, yet again, I had got a parking ticket. I was quite astonished because my ticket was on the dashboard, but then I realised what had happened. I have a Honda Civic and the dashboard is split-level: the ticket had slid under the ledge at the front and was not visible from the front. Well, I took the ticket and very indignantly went to the attendant, who said, “Oh, you can appeal.” So I did.
Within four hours, I was appealing online. I got a response and some photos, which basically dismissed everything I said. There were two photos—one taken from the front of the car, in which the ticket was not visible, and the other from the passenger-side window, in which where the ticket was could be seen with difficulty. Had that photo been taken from the driver’s side, the ticket would have been perfectly visible and readable. I was furious. I have dug my heels in and not paid the fine. To date, I have received three debt collection notices; I am collecting them and waiting to see what the company does about it.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My constituent, Steve Mostyn, parked in the Clarkston car park. He paid his 50p and was a bit surprised to receive a penalty charge. It appeared that he had keyed in a digit wrongly; the number he had keyed in did not actually appear in the DVLA database—that registration number did not exist—but the company still fined him. He found that completely unacceptable. He thinks that the model that Smart Parking is operating is corrupt and unethical, and is particularly concerned that those who are more vulnerable and those who can perhaps least afford to pay are those who will not feel able to appeal and will just cave in. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is simply unacceptable?
Mr Bailey
I have heard similar cases. I have detected a difference in the way in which local authority-run parking systems are reasonably responsive to that. The private car parking operators are not. Again, it points to a culture and philosophy that is designed to catch people out and make the most money out of perfectly human mistakes, despite the fact that an individual on every other criteria will have demonstrated that they not only accept the principle of paying, but have done their personal best to conform to the conditions that preside over the process.
From my experience in the south-west, there are a number of issues that have to be looked at. First, there is the issue of organisations that employ private car parking companies to exercise this activity. After my experience at Perranporth, I complained to the organisation that employs the private car parking company, but it just dismissed my complaint and said that it had contacted the company concerned and that I could appeal—we were going round in circles.
Any organisation in an area such as the south-west, which is hugely dependent on the tourism industry, has to take a degree of responsibility for the way in which the company it contracts to operate its car parks behaves. Tourism is a highly competitive industry, and if anybody who goes on holiday to those areas has such an experience, their abiding memory will be the injustice that has been inflicted upon them, despite the fact that they tried to be law-abiding, civil citizens and tourists. They not only feel that personally, but recount it to other people, which deters would-be visitors to the area. Those companies do no service to their area or their tourist industry by having such a system.
As the hon. Gentleman highlighted, this raises legal issues, because by and large tourists are not lawyers and do not know about the legal vacuum in which those companies operate, so they assume that the companies have to conform to laws that do not actually exist. There is a wider issue of educating the public, and I think there is a very good case for tightening up the regulation to ensure the companies that operate private car parks are licensed and subject to an agreed set of standards. There should be an appeal process that is totally independent of the industry to adjudicate when there are genuine disputes, as there always will be in such circumstances.
I fear that areas that make the mistake of employing that sort of company could damage themselves and the industry to the detriment of the perception of the area and to the benefit of the most sharp-practiced operators—the hon. Gentleman described them as cowboys. I ask the Minister to look at the issues that the hon. Gentleman and I raised, and those that I am sure other hon. Members will raise, with a view to looking at how the regulation of the industry can be tightened up to the benefit of the affected individuals and the economies of the areas where such practices operate.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing this important debate on an issue of particular interest to the area I represent.
I am privileged to live in the most beautiful part of our country, and I have the honour of representing the great people of St Austell and Newquay. It is because of our stunning scenery, our beaches, our wonderful heritage and our excellent food that 4 million people a year come to Cornwall on holiday. I am delighted to learn that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) is one of those who comes to enjoy all that Cornwall has to offer. An additional 14 million people a year come to Cornwall for a day visit, and the vast majority of them come by car. That is where we start to get into some of the issues.
One of the jewels in Newquay’s crown is the very special Fistral beach, which is the surfing capital of Cornwall, and indeed of Europe. The beaches of north Cornwall attract many people to the area. In the summer, we can see more than 10,000 people on our beaches in north Cornwall, many of whom go into the sea to catch the waves on nice days. It has even been known for Prime Ministers to come to catch the odd wave in the Newquay area, which is always very welcome.
People come and park their cars. On their journey home, they battle through the roadworks on the A30 at Temple, which are soon to be completed thanks to the Minister’s support. When they eventually get home, they unpack their car with their hearts full of happy memories from their time in Newquay, and open their front door to find the inevitable pile of brown envelopes. In among the envelopes, there is a sinister-looking one, which they open to discover it is a penalty charge notice from a private parking firm that has issued it as a result of their stay in Newquay—it is an invoice masquerading as a fine.
As the hon. Member for West Bromwich West pointed out so well, that becomes people’s lasting memory of their time in Newquay. It ruins their memory of that holiday, because they feel they have been unjustly billed. That is very often the case. The reasons why penalty charges are issued are often spurious. It can be for overstaying for very few minutes. It can be, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) said, because when they put their car registration number into the machine they got one digit wrong. I have been told that people sometimes go into the car park, find that there are no spaces available, wait a few minutes to see whether one becomes available, and then after some time give up and decide to move elsewhere, only to find that they have overstayed the grace period and that their car has been clocked by the camera. They then receive an invoice as a result.
As has been said, that situation damages the reputation of Newquay and many other holiday areas where such parking firms operate. I believe we need to take action. Many of the hard-working businesses in places such as Newquay are owned by families who go out of their way to welcome tourists. They go the extra mile to look after them well, which is why tourists keep coming back to those places. Those parking firms damage the reputation of those areas and other people’s businesses. They do not damage themselves, because they hide behind anonymous PO boxes. They are faceless organisations that do not face the public.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Gentleman is making an incredibly important point. Our town centres can ill afford to have their business impacted by parking operators that act against the interests of the people who park there.
Kirsten Oswald
They often act very inappropriately when they deal with people who try, as we do, to put forward the interests of our constituents.
Steve Double
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Absolutely—the whole point is that those parking firms are not damaging their own reputation. In fact, a cynic might say that their whole business model is built on being able to issue extra charges. Their businesses are profitable because they charge people extra money. It does not damage their businesses; it damages the many other businesses in our coastal areas and town centres that rely on people coming back and being able to park. The action of those firms puts people off.
Some hon. Members have said that they are inclined not to name the parking firms. I am going to name two, and there is a very good reason why I am going to do so. I would like the Minister’s help. My office has received many pieces of correspondence, both from local people from Newquay and tourists who have gone to Newquay on holiday, complaining about those companies’ actions and the unfair way they believe they have been treated. Despite numerous attempts by my office to contact those firms and open some constructive dialogue with them, not once have they responded. They have not got back to me or even given me the courtesy of sending a letter saying, “Please leave us alone. Go away. We don’t want to talk to you.” Never, not once, have they responded, despite my many attempts to contact them.
I am therefore more than happy to name ParkingEye and Smart Parking as the firms operating in Newquay in that way. They deserve to be named because of their refusal to respond to me as the local Member of Parliament. I ask the Minister what more the Government could do to make such firms engage—to force them, if necessary—and have a constructive dialogue when issues arise, so that we as Members of Parliament may represent our constituents and the businesses in our constituencies to resolve some cases so that the image of our towns is not tarnished.
We need to look at the relationship the firms have with the DVLA. In my view, they are abusing their privileged relationship and their access to drivers’ information in order to issue penalty charges. When we have unfair practices and firms operating in ways that damage other businesses, it is right for the Government to look at the situation carefully and to introduce regulation or, if necessary, legislation in order to stop those unfair practices and protect other businesses, which rely on people being able to park. I am delighted that we have been able to have this debate, and I hope that as a result we will see some positive and constructive action.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak, having received several heavy mailbags from constituents about private car parking companies in my area. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for securing the debate and for all his work on the subject. He gave an excellent speech.
For too long, cowboy private car parking companies have operated with impunity. Many have reasonable practices, but a considerable number operate in a way that is not conducive to holiday resorts, as several hon. Members have said, or to town centres, as the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) mentioned, and that is certainly not in the best interests of motorists or the community in general. Without any substantial legislation or regulation, those companies have been free—to be fair—to rip off car park users and charge bogus fees. In my view and that of the British public, it is time to act. The reality for far too many motorists up and down the country is that people are duped into false charges and harassed by firms that, as has been mentioned, somehow manage to get hold of personal information, whether through the DVLA or other sources.
A considerable number of constituents have written to me asking what can be done to tackle private parking companies, because they have found themselves powerless. Presented with a process that is not transparent but opaque, people have no clear way to resolve problems. I will draw attention to examples from my constituency before suggesting what to do to tackle the scourge. I, too, will name some of the companies involved, but that is because they have been named every week in the Accrington Observer and the Lancashire Telegraph, so I am not bringing anything new to the public that has not been said previously. I am repeating it for the benefit of the House and the Minister.
Eastgate is a big retail park in Accrington. Back in 2012 much anger and frustration was caused for hundreds—I mean hundreds—of people when its private car park operator, Excel, misled them about its parking charges. I recall having to deal with that as the local MP for week after week. Excel changed the three-hour parking limit to 90 minutes without any clear warnings. The firm announced its new policy on signs hidden behind trees on the edge of the car park. It then issued hundreds of fines to shoppers, with demands for immediate payment or even higher fines once they had understandably failed to spot the notices. Some disabled people were also caught out by the changes, and they threatened court action with the help of the National Motorists Action Group, which was very helpful—I would recommend the group to anyone fighting pernicious private parking companies which operate such voracious policies.
The National Motorists Action Group, the local councillor in charge Clare Pritchard and I had a running battle with Excel about changing its policy. The issue was a difficult one and it bounced around the press for weeks and weeks, before the company finally changed—in fact, Excel was fired by the management company. One of the complications was that the retail park owners had not only let some of the units on the site to businesses, but let the parking contract to a management company which had sublet it to the private car parking company.
After that battle, we ended up with Excel deciding that anyone who had not paid was to be let off—the fines were rescinded, and there was no need for people to pay—but it refused to give refunds to those who had done the right thing and paid the fine, even those who had been threatened multiple times. Excel got away with that. I ask the Minister, how can some people have their fines rescinded because they have not paid and others pay but never receive a refund? What does that say to the British public? That is totally unacceptable.
Another car parking company operates at the Accrington Arndale shopping centre. I receive dozens of complaints about some of its practices, with people being fined for whatever little reason, such as being even an inch over the line or five minutes past the time limit. I draw the Minister’s attention to that—surely under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and so on some latitude is allowed to some of our constituents in such a position—and to how the appeals process does and does not work. Going back to Excel, NMAG and a disabled constituent of mine had to go through the courts to seek redress, which is unacceptable.
Another cowboy private company has already been alluded to by Members, and a more recent issue is that of the new buttons on the machines in some car parks. I have had several complaints about a company operating such machines. For example, an elder constituent told me that he had been fined and he had lost his appeal. He is fortunate that he has an appeals process, although he did not win it. He is 81, I think, and he had to bend double to see the buttons. The screens and buttons are at a low height and, on a sunny day, he was unable to bend down sufficiently to enter the information accurately. He tried and, most of the time, succeeded, but on the occasion in question he put the wrong digit in. He explained that he had paid for his time in the car park—he had the ticket—but the company was not interested. He was forced to pay the fine.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that had the car parking operation been a public one, an honest mistake would have been a complete defence? That has been established at the High Court in relation to the congestion charge.
Graham Jones
I appreciate that valid point. We are talking about private car parking companies in private car parks, and not about statutory or public car parks, which are not part of the debate. We are talking about the practices of some companies outside any firm regulations or guidelines. I will address the point about that difference in a minute.
One lady could not buy a ticket from the machine at that car park because it was broken. She still ended up with a fine, even though she left a note on her windscreen to say that the machine was broken. The company has been mentioned already, so I will do so again—I have no shame in naming such companies, because they need to be shamed. ParkingEye was also mentioned by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and it operates that particular car park on the edge of my constituency. I find that practice abominable. She put a note on her windscreen, which should be sufficient if the machine is broken. That £1 parking charge quickly became £100 because of the firm’s own administrative incompetence and failure to fix the machine.
As I say, other constituents have come to see me about that particular car park. One was an elderly gentleman who could not bend down to see the screen and, on one occasion, entered a wrong digit. Giving a fine for that is totally and utterly unacceptable. Members on both sides of the Chamber who have spoken, and probably all Members of the House, are well aware of such scandals in their constituencies. This issue is not unique to my constituency or coastal constituencies—it seems to happen in all our constituencies all the time, up and down the country.
Although private car parking companies were barred from wheel clamping by legislation, they seem, as other Members have intimated, to be in the game of trying to find new ways to extract money from motorists, perhaps to make up for some of their old practices having been barred. One gripe that all Members have mentioned is that, under the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations 2002, the DVLA provides information to those car parking companies. Actually, I believe that they can purchase it—according to NMAG, the DVLA sells information, which is worrying. That practice should end, and there should be better regulation. Those companies access that information and then pursue motorists. I am deeply concerned about that relationship, and the Minister ought to look at it, because it is not right.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making some good points. Citizens Advice Scotland highlighted in its briefing on this subject that many companies still issue tickets whose appearance mimics those issued by the police or the local authority, have difficult-to-read signage in their car parks and, at times, charge fees of more than £500. Does he agree that it is time that the British Parking Association and the International Parking Community strengthen and properly enforce their supposedly strict codes of practice, or ensure that rogue companies lose their right to the release of vehicle owner information?
Graham Jones
I was going to come to the two parking organisations that the hon. Lady mentions, which seem to have no transparent processes. One of them—I think it is the BPA—has a very opaque appeals process, if it has one at all. Not every private car parking company is actually affiliated or associated with either of those organisations.
Passing off is a massive issue. People turn up at car parks run by private companies to see a yellow and black zig-zag all the way around a cellophane or plastic envelope stuck to their windscreen that is simply passing off as a statutory notice. It is not a statutory notice, and it is not a fine—it is a charge. There is no clear distinction. The Minister ought to look at that, because those little yellow and black bags that appear on people’s cars intimidate them and do not give them the necessary legal information.
Kirsten Oswald
The hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. Does he agree that the Minister should also tell us when we will see proposals to stop companies continuing to receive personal data from the DVLA when they have a track record of abusing it by sending out legally incompetent frighteners to people and charging inflated fees for overstaying?
Graham Jones
I was going to say that the third point raised by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) was inflated fines. I said that, in one case, a fine had gone from £1 to £100. I hear that fines go even further in other constituencies. That is totally unacceptable. I return to the point that there is a lack of regulation in this field. There is no transparency—there is opaqueness. It is the wild west, and there are real concerns—first about passing off, secondly about the process when people are fined, and thirdly about the DVLA’s relationship with private parking companies. The Minister ought to reflect on Members’ concerns. I am sure that if I asked the 635 or so Members who are not in the Chamber—I do not know how many are here—they would agree. It is time for the Government to act.
Mr Bailey
Does my hon. Friend agree that something else that needs to be looked at—I believe that this is actually illegal, but it is commonly exercised—is the threats that these companies send to people subsequently, either through debt collection agencies or by putting notices on their credit ratings? By so doing, they undermine people’s credit ratings and convey to them the belief that they will have financial penalties in the future.
Graham Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. When I said that the process is not clear, I meant the process all the way down the line, from passing off and someone picking up a fine to that person opening their fine and then quickly—after a fortnight, not a month—getting a doubled demand or losing their discount. That process is threatening, intimidating and misleading, and the appeals process is not transparent. If someone contests a charge or has been away on holiday for a fortnight or three weeks, before they know it, the charge is higher, and it escalates from there. These are charges and they are contestable, but if people contest them or simply do not pay them, as they are encouraged to do by some organisations because of the issues around some of these ticketing practices, they escalate, which frightens some of our older constituents. They get worried about it. They see some of these charges—£500 has been mentioned, and I mentioned £100 in my constituency—and get very frightened by them.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Mr Jones, may I just say that two other people are waiting to speak, and we will not be able to get them in if you do not wind up soon?
Graham Jones
Okay. In summary, I ask the Minister to look at the three points that I have raised. He must take this issue seriously. The British people want something to be done about it.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Ms Dorries? I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) for bringing it forward, because many of our constituents have complained about what is going on in the parking field. I also thank the Minister and his predecessor for their many courteous replies to the letters that I have written.
The DVLA is at the heart of this issue, not the Department for Communities and Local Government or other bodies. It is the DVLA giving out information that begins this whole unfair process, so the buck stops with the DVLA and the Minister, not with other people or regulations. It is the DVLA that has decided that it will accept accredited trade associations and give out information to them, subject, apparently, to audits that it carries out. It would be useful to hear about what audits have been done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned Premier Park. I have no qualms about mentioning businesses without telling them in advance. There is no convention that we should be expected to do that, and we should be wary about limiting our right of free speech in this House. Premier Park behaved quite disgracefully to a constituent of mine and has a reputation for doing so at a place called Popham Diner, which local newspapers have written about. Has the DVLA audited that company? Has it looked into it? Has it, in response to complaints from Members of Parliament, gone beyond the accredited trade association to see what is going on?
The Government are at the heart of this matter, because it is about the principles on which our society is founded and what the Government are there to do. One of the great roles of the Government is to ensure justice and make it impossible for the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless, but the DVLA is party to helping the strong and the powerful to bully the weak and the powerless. It just says that these accredited trade organisations are, broadly, enough, but those organisations have a vested interest in approving the bodies that sign up to them, because that is where their revenue comes from. The last thing that one of those bodies wants to do is to penalise a parking company that is signed up to it, because if it does, other companies will not sign up and its revenue stream will be threatened. There is a clear conflict of interest.
To my mind, that is where the DVLA is not doing its job, because it is not protecting individuals against those who are more powerful. That is where it should change, and that is where the answer to the problem is. The DVLA should do its own approval of organisations and have its own code of conduct. The fee it charges may cover all of that—it is not unreasonable to charge a fee if you are doing the job properly and there is no vested interest. That work should be done properly by a Government body.
The law is there to protect us. This is essentially a system that is outside the law but to which the Government are party. It is not a legal process, but, as other Members have said, it appears as if it is. It appears to be the same as a fine from a local authority, but it is not. In my experience, the local authorities behave much more reasonably than the private companies. Yesterday, I had a letter from Bristol City Council, which is behaving extremely well to a constituent of mine, erring on the side of leniency to someone who made an honest mistake. The private companies do not seem to do that because their business model is otherwise, and the DVLA is party to that.
Steve Double
Does my hon. Friend agree that, where local authorities lease car parks to private operators, the local authority should take a more active role in insisting that those operators work in a way more similar to that of local authorities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. We want fairness in the process. We must understand that the DVLA has the information in the first place as a legal requirement so that the police may know to whom cars belong. That is why, by law, we are obliged to register our cars. We are not obliged to register them for the benefit of a subsequent private contract, which is a subsequent activity beyond the initial purpose of the DVLA. It was to be there for public interest, not for private contracts. Because of the way in which parking has developed, the DVLA has got involved in this private parking aspect. It earns fees from that, although apparently it is loss-making, which if true seems extraordinarily silly.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
indicated dissent.
Mr Rees-Mogg
If it is not true, that is very reassuring; I am glad. However, the fact that that is not true is worrying in another direction, because the DVLA ought not to be affected in its judgment by its revenue streams. If we have an accredited parking authority that gets revenue from the car park, and the car park pays money to the DVLA to get information, there is a chain of money going through, which seems to be overriding the chain of justice and the right of the state, the duty of the state and the obligation of the state to protect the individual.
The DVLA has the solution in its hands, as do the Government. The situation requires not changes of legislation but changes by the DVLA in how it gives out information. I will carry on banging on about this until we know that companies have been suspended, that companies have been audited, that companies are not getting the information any longer and that the DVLA is taking proper charge to protect our constituents.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is a real pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) and the compelling points he made. I thank my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for securing the debate. In the short time left, I will touch on unreasonable practices and appeals and make a few further points following on from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset.
There are highly unreasonable practices going on. We have heard many Members give examples. In my area, Premier Parking Solutions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay referred, has a particular problem with its machines, which is affecting many individuals, particularly when number plate recognition is used in combination with a requirement to enter the vehicle’s number plate manually. In many cases, the machines do not record the first number of that registration plate.
The issue is that, because number plate recognition is being used, individuals do not receive a notification until about 10 days to two weeks later, by which time most reasonable people, having parked legally and paid the correct amount, will have discarded the clutter from their windscreen—I do not take much joy in tidying my car, so that would not affect me. Even if individuals have retained their ticket and can clearly prove that there has been an honest error, they find their appeals are not being upheld.
The other problem we have is the disincentive to appeal, because those who appeal have to pay a higher charge if their appeal fails—and fail it will. I have a series of clear cases from individuals who can demonstrate—I suggest to the Minister it is beyond any reasonable doubt—that they have legally parked, fully paid the correct amount and left within the required time, but who are still being hit. If they carry through the appeal process, they find they get nowhere. If they then refuse to pay, they are hit with a series of harassing letters and ultimately receive letters from debt recovery agents, which has an impact on their credit rating. That practice is wholly unacceptable, and intervention from Members of Parliament does not make any difference, either.
I am afraid that our constituents are being caught, and that has consequences. I will read from part of a letter from one of my constituents, which sums up the problem:
“I am an honest lady in my late 60s and I have never had an experience like this before. I live in rented accommodation on a limited income—I am not financially secure. It will cause me hardship to pay this fine when I fully believed I was doing everything legally and correctly.”
The letters go on. Another pensioner wrote to me:
“I am a pensioner and all this angst really upsets me…I will do as everyone else has done and pay the £60 within the allotted time and try to forget it—but I have to say the injustice really riles me.”
That is the injustice to which my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset referred. He is right that the role of Government is to stand up to help those who are powerless against such practices.
It is not just pensioners—I hear this from across a spectrum of individuals—but we should ensure that particularly those who may have difficulty in entering details via these machines have their interests protected. I agree with hon. Members who have said that at the root of the problem lies the DVLA and its complicity in the process. Will the Minister use every power he has to ensure that it takes its role and responsibility seriously? It has a responsibility to ensure that such practices are not allowed to continue. I hope that in responding he will inform all Members here, and constituents following the debate closely, what the Government will do to ensure that justice is done for all our constituents.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on bringing the debate to the Chamber. It has been one of those pleasant debates where everyone agrees that something needs to be done and it is in the gift of the Minister to do something about it. I look forward to hearing his remarks.
I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in a moment, but I will preface that by saying a few words about how this issue affects all the nations of the UK, despite some small variances in approach to regulation. We only have to look at the amount of times it has been raised in the UK Parliament to see that it is as much of an issue in Ipswich as it is in Inverness and across the rest of the isles. Having already discussed the practices of some private operators with Scottish Government Ministers, I am encouraged by their response in terms of what they can do. I welcome the work of the Business Services Association and others to improve the regulation of parking, and that of those seeking changes at Westminster.
However, the debate is about the relationship between private parking companies and the DVLA. While parking legislation is in the main devolved to the Scottish Government, the ownership and control of DVLA data is not. The current system has been built on the flawed premise of industry self-regulation, enabled by the provision of data from the DVLA. We are sharing DVLA data with companies whose practices, as we have heard from hon. Members today, are simply outrageous. I agree that it is right to call out companies such as Smart Parking, which has been mentioned several times and operates in my constituency too.
People are being charged excessive fines, and the tactics used to collect the debts are intimidation and threat, albeit through the written word. That is still intimidation and it is still unacceptable. I and my hon. Friends believe that access to our data is a privilege. I have asked the UK Government to put regulation on a better statutory footing. I know that operators must pay for access to the data, but I was displeased to hear that the cost of providing data to private parking operators is in fact subsidised. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about that. The research from the Library says that the cost to the taxpayer of making up the shortfall was £612,000 in 2015—if the Minister is going to take on the might of the House of Commons Library, I will be delighted to hear what the data are. If that information is right, it means enabling what is tantamount to threatening behaviour.
The hon. Member for Torbay spoke in a measured tone; many of us feel more passion on the subject. I could tell that the passion was there, but he was holding back his anger. Certainly people hit by fines and chased for them would be unlikely to use such a measured tone. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the small terms and conditions. There are also machines that are difficult to use for reasons of height, and so forth. Perhaps when it is dark, or because it is necessary to bend down or conditions are not good, people press a zero instead of an “O” or vice versa. The hon. Gentleman talked about what reasonable behaviour would be, and it is certainly not reasonable behaviour to impose unreasonable fines without a real appeal process. I have had a similar experience to other hon. Members of writing to parking companies; Smart Parking was one that refused to acknowledge an MP wanting to act on behalf of a constituent. The hon. Gentleman also made a point about taxpayers subsidising the information, and I reiterate that I look forward to the Minister’s response to that.
Kirsten Oswald
The UK Government have undertaken a consultation on the matter. Last year I received written answers that made it clear that they were aware of public concern, but they had not discussed it with the companies or the DVLA. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister whether those discussions have happened yet, and if not, why not?
Drew Hendry
My hon. Friend is right. The Minister is a reasonable man, and I look forward to his response. It is clearly something that he can deal with.
The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) made an important distinction, in a phrase that is worth repeating: he said that people got an invoice masquerading as a fine. That is exactly what people get. He talked about people waiting, to look for a space, which is a common occurrence, and getting fined. He, too, had had the experience of failing to get a response from Smart Parking and the other company that he mentioned.
The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) mentioned someone making an honest mistake. Surely there is room in our society for people to be able to say, “Look, I just got it wrong; I didn’t know I was in there,” if it is a reasonable and honest position. The hon. Gentleman also underlined the fact that responsibility lies with the Minister. I was struck by his comment that when the DVLA allows the data to be used by the companies in question, it enables them to bully people. That is something that clearly must be addressed.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) was right when he spoke about people paying the fine even though they feel it is wrong. Many people just pay because they feel they have to. It is a point of honour for them, even though it is their honour that has been unfairly besmirched by the company that fines them—or, I should say, gives them the invoice. Dismissed appeals are common. Little attention is paid to what is said, and there is no agreed set of standards, or licensing or appeals process. That, too, needs to be addressed.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) rightly mentioned that often it is the most vulnerable people—the ones who cannot afford to pay—who end up paying high fines, which puts them in difficulty. Those people are used to trying to make ends meet, and if they get a bill, they feel a sense of honour about paying it. Also, they rarely have the opportunity to go elsewhere to seek advice.
Kevin Foster
I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Does he agree that the fines are far higher than those that are legislated for in public car park enforcement?
Drew Hendry
That is an important point. It is not just a question of the unreasonable behaviour and bullying—because that it what it is. The fines are also disproportionately large compared with what might be imposed through a public sector car park, for example. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, among others, said, that damages the reputation of our towns and cities, and areas that people visit for enjoyment.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about problems when fines come through late, when people have discarded their tickets. People clear out their cars and get rid of evidence before they receive the letters, and that is a difficulty. If there are set times for the administering of statutory fines imposed through the DVLA, that should be mirrored when fines are imposed by companies—if they are still allowed to do it. Personally, I would not allow them to do it, but in any case, speed should be a consideration.
The hon. Lady also mentioned people being hounded, even though they had paid for a ticket. I thought she was correct when she talked about “harassing” letters, because that is what they are. They are designed to harass people into paying. That is simply wrong and should not be allowed. She raised another point that is a common theme—and the Minister should listen: a message should be sent from this place to the operators that they should not be able to ignore MPs when they seek information on their constituents’ behalf and forward a reasonable case for appeal.
Some of the letters that the hon. Lady received from people were telling, because those people were saying, “Look, I’m an honest person.” That came through in the letter from the “honest lady”. That is important. People are having their honour taken away in such cases. They feel that they have done the right thing. They have tried to make things work and to do everything correctly, but they are stopped at every opportunity, by a company that would be deeply suspected by most people of trying to make money from errors. That is clearly not correct. Another of the hon. Lady’s constituents commented “I’ll pay anyway”—how unjust to have to pay anyway, even though they were not at fault. They should not have to pay those amounts.
I am keen to hear what the Minister will say, including about cost to, or profit made by, the DVLA, and whether that contradicts the information I have had from the House of Commons Library. I hope he will listen to hon. Members and make sure that there is action to hold the DVLA to account for the information it gives to Smart Parking in Inverness and all the other companies we have heard about that indulge in similar practices.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on bringing forward the debate, which has enabled many hon. Members to give accounts of dreadful experiences. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) powerfully explained from his experience how this works, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones) described how powerless people can feel when they are treated so outrageously.
I want to concentrate my comments largely on what the Government have or have not done. In March 2015 the Department for Communities and Local Government published a consultation, “Parking reform: tackling unfair practices”. That came at a time when the Government chose to move responsibility for off-street parking to DCLG. The then Secretary of State clearly saw regulation as a problem rather than a civilising solution. I note in passing that there is still some confusion about where responsibility for parking policy lies. We will hear from a Transport Minister today, but there is clearly a lot of crossover with the Department for Communities and Local Government.
DCLG’s consultation concluded in May 2015, and the Government have still not responded. In December that year, I asked when we were likely to see the response and was told that it would be in the new year. It was not clear which new year was being referred to; we went through 2016 and are now in 2017. Just last month, I asked what reason the Government had for not publishing their response, and was told:
“We have set out a clear manifesto commitment to tackle aggressive parking enforcement and excessive parking charges, and are taking steps to tackle rogue and unfair practices by private parking operators.”
They also said they were
“considering responses to the discussion paper, and options for reform.”
However, there was no mention of when those considerations might conclude.
The responses to the initial consultation clearly show just how many problems exist, and they are very much along the lines of what we have heard from hon. Members. The summary of responses was published in May 2016, and the consensus was a stark indictment of the current situation. The majority of respondents—78%—indicated that there were problems with either how parking on private or public land is regulated or the behaviour of private parking companies. So 78% think there is a problem, yet the Government show no urgency in dealing with it. The majority of respondents considered there to be significant issues with how parking on private land currently operates, and the majority of organisations concurred. Issues raised by individual respondents included the lack of a private parking regulator to protect the interests of motorists, problems with the current appeals process, unclear signage, which we have heard about, and a general lack of clarity and information.
As the Government fiddle and tarry, a further problem has arisen. Back in 2012, the British Parking Association set up an appeals service, as the Government had requested. One of the Government’s key requests was that the service be independent, so the BPA set up the Independent Scrutiny Board for Parking Appeals on Private Land—ISPA. It may be easy for hon. Members to get confused by the acronyms, but please stick with me. More recently, the other major parking organisation, the International Parking Community, established a competing scheme.
As hon. Members have said, both schemes have access to DVLA data, without which neither would work. However, because the BPA feels that the IPC scheme has no independent scrutiny element, BPA members feel that they are being put at a disadvantage because they have to meet the cost of funding ISPA. They feel that the IPC should not have access to DVLA data without that independent scrutiny element. Because the Government have completely failed to sort all this out, the BPA will cease funding ISPA from the end of this month. The voluntary regulation system for the private parking sector is falling apart, so I am bound to ask the Minister what he and his colleagues are doing about that.
Let me say a little bit more about the relationship between the DVLA and private parking companies. On the one hand, individuals who responded to the consultation felt that the DVLA was failing to properly scrutinise private companies before releasing driver data, and many felt that it should not profit from the release of those data, as hon. Members have suggested. In turn, parking organisations said that companies already have to be governed by the code of practice, to which I have already referred, in order to access DVLA data. There are real concerns that the DVLA profits from the sale of the data that it holds on drivers. We have already heard that there are views on whether the DVLA is making or losing money, and the evidence I have seen is contradictory. I would rather welcome some clarity on that from the Minister.
The actual test for who can access those data is
“any person who can show to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that he has reasonable cause for wanting the particulars to be made available to him.”
“Reasonable cause” is not defined in the legislation and seems to take precedence over the Data Protection Act 1998. However, since 2009, the release of that information has been limited to members of an accredited trade association, which goes back to the point I have just made.
In 2015, the Government said that the DVLA
“takes the protection and security of its data very seriously. A comprehensive set of safeguards is in place to ensure data is disclosed only where it is lawful and fair to do so. Individuals may write to the DVLA to request that their personal information is not disclosed if it would cause unwarranted and substantial damage or distress. The DVLA does not operate a blanket opt-out process but considers each such request taking into account the individual's particular circumstances.”
That comprehensive set of safeguards is vague. When pressed on the specifics in a written question, the Government answered:
“The safeguards that are in place to protect information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) vary depending on the channel used and sensitivity of the data processed through the service.”
All of that shows that the situation is a mess. There is a complex set of trade-offs between the role of data held by the state, the privacy of individuals, the rights of landowners and the obligations of operators, but in essence, the poor old driver, who just wants to park, is left dazed and confused. The British Parking Association has made a strong case for a single standard-setting body with an independent scrutiny board. It would deliver a single code of practice and a single independent appeals service for consumers. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that proposal. Ultimately, we need to see the Government finally respond to the consultation. It has been almost exactly two years now, which is surely enough time to consider the responses and come up with a plan to clarify this mess, which is pleasing no one.
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I ask him to please leave a few minutes at the end for Mr Foster to wind up the debate. That would be much appreciated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) on securing the debate on the disclosure of DVLA data to private parking companies. I welcome the opportunity to discuss a matter that is clearly of concern to him and to his constituents; there is a slight bias towards the south-west, but this is clearly of concern across the UK.
Although the policy on disclosure of DVLA data is of long standing, it is true that management of parking companies and the release of vehicle keeper data frequently generate significant concern. Of course, that is entirely understandable. No one likes to receive a parking ticket, and motorists become annoyed when they are the subject of enforcement action. Many examples have been shared of inappropriate and heavy-handed enforcement action. Motorists often disagree with the principle that DVLA vehicle keeper data can be provided to private companies for such purposes. I should point out that the private parking sector is not regulated by the Government. The Department for Communities and Local Government consulted on this issue in 2015 and is currently considering the approach to any future Government intervention. I am afraid I cannot give the House a detailed time as to when that will be finished.
As it stands, the private parking industry is an unregulated sector in which common law on breach of contract or trespass applies in the relationship between the motorist and the landowner. Drivers who choose to park their vehicles on private land do so in line with the terms and conditions, which should be clearly displayed on signage at the entrance to and around the car park. Those conditions may relate to the need to pay a fee to use the car park and to display a valid ticket, to observe the maximum permitted time for parking or possibly other conditions, such as a stipulation that parking is not permitted at all.
Parking control is necessary to ensure that landowners are able to exercise their legal rights and gain the benefit they are entitled to from the use of their land for that purpose. The use of wheel clamping used to be widespread in the sector as a means of parking enforcement, but was banned in England and Wales by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, meaning that that method of enforcement is now effectively outlawed. I am sure that colleagues will agree that, without any form of control, errant drivers could park as they like, breaching reasonable terms and conditions without fear of recourse arising from their misuse of the land. That would obviously have a detrimental effect on the availability of parking spaces for more compliant motorists.
Kevin Foster
To be clear, no one is arguing that there should be no ability to control. Does the Minister agree that the issue is about the heavy-handed enforcement, and the fact that the fines are far above those that local authorities find are perfectly adequate for management and enforcement in their own car parks?
Andrew Jones
I do indeed recognise that. I was just trying to clarify the legal position. My hon. Friend made his case extremely well and has now clarified it again.
The law allows for the release of DVLA vehicle keeper information to those who can demonstrate that they have reasonable cause for requiring it. That provision has been in law for several decades. To receive data, a requester must show that their need relates to the use of a vehicle following incidents in which there may be liability on the part of the keeper or driver. Where a parking infringement may have taken place, it is considered reasonable to provide the vehicle keeper’s contact details, so that the matter can be taken up with the person responsible. Despite the unpopular nature of that process, it is a well-established principle in case law that such enforcement is lawful, as confirmed by the Supreme Court in late 2015.
Despite this being an unregulated industry, and while the law provides for the release of information, the DVLA has strict conditions in place in relation to the disclosure and use of data. The DVLA will only disclose vehicle keeper data to parking companies that are members of an accredited trade association; I will come on to that in more detail in a moment. Such trade associations have codes of practice that are based upon fair treatment of the motorist and require their members to operate to high professional standards of conduct, while allowing reasonable action to be taken to follow up alleged parking contraventions. The codes of practice contain requirements on clear and prominent signage, appeals processes and information that should be provided to motorists on parking tickets. They also contain requirements on the use of automatic number plate recognition cameras, which are expected to be in good working order.
There should be no hidden charges or ambiguity for the motorist as to what is and is not permitted on the land. The codes of practice require that contact with the motorist is not threatening and that parking charge notices are issued promptly, so that the driver can recall the circumstances surrounding the event. A reasonable amount of time must also be given to the motorist to allow payment to be made before any escalation of the matter occurs.
Mr Rees-Mogg
These codes of practice are marvellous, but the problem that has been established in this debate is that they are not followed, and the DVLA is complicit in that.
Andrew Jones
I am coming to that. I recognise entirely what we have heard this morning.
A further requirement in England and Wales, where additional liability for parking charges exists for vehicle keepers, is that access to an independent appeals body is provided. That independent appeals service must be free to the motorist. The outcome of the appeal is binding on the parking company but not on the motorist, who can continue to dispute the charge. Companies that do not comply with the codes of practice can face expulsion from the trade association, resulting in the right to have DVLA vehicle keeper data removed.
Andrew Jones
I am running out of time, so I will not.
I want to answer the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay about whether there is enough enforcement action. Bad practices are tackled. The DVLA can and does suspend the disclosure of data to companies that have not been compliant. However, there is clear concern from Members that we need to go significantly further. I have been working to ensure that we get the balance right.
Let me reassure the House on how we control the data. We have had lots of debates in this House about the right to privacy of our personal data. The trade associations have a code of practice, which includes access to DVLA data being tightly controlled. Companies with an electronic facility to request DVLA data have to sign up to a detailed contract that lays out the requirements on the use and security of data. The DVLA undertakes remote checks on parking companies.
In addition, the Government Internal Audit Agency carries out detailed audit visits on the DVLA’s behalf and undertakes more in-depth checking of individual cases to provide further assurance that requests have been submitted for genuine reasons and there is reliable evidence to back up the request. Non-compliance can result in sanctions, including the removal of the right to data.
The DVLA’s controls around the disclosure of data to parking companies were subject to a detailed data protection audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office last year. I can confirm that the Information Commissioner awarded the DVLA the highest rating for the controls it has in place surrounding the disclosure of data.
There have been a few questions about costs. I can confirm that this is priced on a cost recovery model, so it is neither subsidised nor run at a profit. The DVLA charges a fee for providing vehicle keeper details. In the cost recovery model, the fee is £2.50, which is designed to ensure that the cost burden is met by the companies involved and not the taxpayer. There are significant volumes of requests; we are looking at potentially 4 million in the course of this financial year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay highlighted. However, the Government are not seeing either a profit or a loss.
Many Members have mentioned constituents’ complaints regarding bad practice and motorists who feel they have been unfairly treated by parking operators. There are several routes for redress should an operator fall short of the standards expected. The first is the company’s initial appeal process, which it is required to offer under its code of practice. There is also the independent appeals service, which is free to motorists. I have already mentioned the need for an operator to demonstrate compliance with the code of practice in order to retain its membership of an accredited trade association. If there are breaches of the code of practice, the trade association is there to investigate and ensure that action is taken. Without membership, there is no access to DVLA data.
Consumer protection laws also apply here. Those laws are designed to protect consumers from unfair practices. Trading standards officers are there to investigate complaints and can take action against a particular company. Consumer protection legislation applies to individual cases and the actions of the company in individual circumstances. Breaches can result in prosecution.
I hope that colleagues will recognise that the DVLA has gone through significant controls to ensure that the data are handled correctly and that there are controls and audits. There was a question about responsibility. The DVLA is the responsibility of the DFT. The parking companies and on-street and off-street parking sit with the DCLG. We have to work on this issue together because, without car ownership data, accessed through the DVLA, this industry would stop.
Colleagues have raised issues with me in writing previously and today, and there is clearly a significant issue to resolve. The Government are most concerned about the matter, which is why the DCLG launched its consultation. I will ensure that DCLG colleagues are aware of concerns and the content of this debate. I will also arrange a meeting with the trade associations, to highlight the concerns we have in this House about their members’ practices and to review exactly what enforcement action they take. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) that this is a little bit David and Goliath. Our job is to stand up for the Davids, not the Goliaths. That is completely fair.
I have been asked whether there should be a single standard-setting body for the industry. Competition between industry bodies is generally quite good. Competition can improve services, so I do not think we necessarily need to have just one body. I was also asked whether the relationship between the trade associations and the DVLA is appropriate. It is legal, and it is controlled and audited. The information provision is managed. The concern lies in the code of practice and its enforcement. That is where the next actions will be, and I will take those actions forward from today’s debate.
Kevin Foster
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate. It has been interesting to hear so many examples from across the length and breadth of these isles. This issue is not localised to Torbay.
Competition is good where it is about services, but we would not suggest having competing magistrates courts. Once upon a time, we did that for the civil courts, and it did not produce a good outcome. The concern of many is that the industry is able not only to mark its own homework but to choose the marker. We need to look closely at that. There are more than 4 million of these transactions. Given the debate we have had today about the cost and the comments made in a House of Commons Library document, based on a Transport Committee report in 2014, I suggest that the Minister places a letter in the Library. It would be helpful if he clarified that point.
Kevin Foster
I thank the Minister for that positive reply and the courtesy he has shown. This issue will continue, and further action is needed. We cannot stand aside and ignore the key role the state plays in handing over details that it compels its citizens to provide to the DVLA and in allowing some of these practices to continue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the relationship between the DVLA and private car parking companies.
Treaty of Rome: 60th Anniversary
(7 years, 1 month 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
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the 60th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.
It is good to be here today under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I think this is the second time that I have had the opportunity to do this. This week, as you will be aware, leaders from around Europe will gather in Rome to mark the 60th anniversary of the signing of the treaty of Rome. I thought that regardless of whether people voted to remain in or leave the European Union, it would be opportune for us to reflect on the 60th anniversary, and I thank the Minister for taking the time to come along today. It is a momentous event this weekend, and I think it right that we mark it with this debate.
For more than 60 years, European nations have worked together to create our continent’s longest ever period of peace, freedom, stability and prosperity. In place of conflict, the European Union has allowed member states to find consensual solutions to problems through dialogue, diplomacy and democracy. It can be easy, in the day-to-day of politics, to lose sight of the achievement that there has been in the 60 years since the signing of the treaty and more generally in the past 70 years. As Winston Churchill once said:
“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.”
We should always reflect on that in this place and elsewhere.
As a result of the treaties, all member states, no matter how big or small, are represented in the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the institutions, in which the emphasis is on seeking compromise and consensus among those nations. It is little wonder that the EU was awarded the Nobel peace prize in 2012 for its achievements to date. That is worth reflecting on as well.
This weekend, there will naturally be the elephant in the room of European cohesion, given that the anniversary comes just before the triggering of article 50 by the UK Government. I am sure that that will be in people’s minds. I think our European partners should be mindful of the events and circumstances that led up to the UK’s voting to leave the European Union. The EU has never been afraid of reform or debate, and I hope that it will take on board the lessons that need to be learned from the UK’s experiences of the past few years, regardless of what the future might hold for these islands.
Nevertheless, that should not preclude us from reflecting on the EU’s extraordinary achievements and successes. At a time of rising instability and economic uncertainty, it is worth bearing in mind that our closest neighbours politically and economically remain countries such as Ireland, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the other member states. Those are and will remain our closest partners economically, politically and, of course, geographically.
The Minister would be surprised if I did not raise the fact that Scotland voted overwhelmingly—it had the biggest gap between leave and remain—to remain part of the European Union. Every single local authority area in Scotland voted to remain. Even those that voted against membership of the European Economic Community, as it was, back in 1975 voted to remain part of the EU. We voted to retain the benefits of EU membership and remain an open, inclusive and tolerant society that seeks to build economic partnerships with all those closest to us, be they in these islands or elsewhere in Europe.
We voted to remain in the EU—this goes back to the success of the treaties—because it makes our country safer. The European project has cemented peace in a historically unstable continent, not just after the second world war but in later years, when the EU had a positive role to play in areas as diverse as Northern Ireland and the western Balkans. We owe a debt of gratitude to our European partners for the positive role that they played in Northern Ireland and the successes of the peace process to date, but of course that is ongoing. The Minister will perhaps reflect on the fact that the carrot of EU membership and the norms associated with the European Union have been crucial to securing peace in the western Balkans, but I recognise that that important process is ongoing, and I hope that he will reassure us today of the UK Government’s ongoing commitment to that part of Europe even in the aftermath of our leaving the EU. My ideal has always been that the EU would become—indeed, it is—a soft superpower, serving our domestic interests and of course complementing the work of NATO.
In those areas the treaties have made us safer, but we also voted to remain in the EU because it makes the UK wealthier. Access to the single market has brought considerable benefits to all of us, and not least to small and medium-sized businesses. It was interesting to see the work that the Federation of Small Businesses Scotland has done on this of late. It shows that our annual exports to EU countries outside the UK are worth more than £2,000 per person.
In Scotland, we also voted to remain part of the EU because it makes the UK fairer. Many fundamental rights have come from Europe. The right not to be discriminated against on the ground of age, race or gender and in many other ways comes from Europe, as does the right to parental leave, paid holidays and other benefits.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech about the benefits of the EU. It is clear that the EU has been instrumental in moving forward individual rights, including the rights of women. We should celebrate the fact that European women have the world’s highest average score in the personal freedom index. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is important?
Stephen Gethins
My hon. Friend always makes excellent points, and she makes a particularly good point on this issue, on which membership of the EU has complemented those rights. I would be encouraged if the Minister reflected on our continued commitment to the rights that we enjoy as European citizens.
We also benefit from the EU because it makes the UK greener. EU legislation is having a direct impact on us right now. The clean air directives of the 1980s were a result of acid rain, as we will all remember, and we are benefiting from them right now—those who survive the debate will continue to benefit from them. We have also seen ambitious climate change targets, which are working because we are working in partnership with our European neighbours. In recent times, Scotland has had world-leading climate change targets, which it has met ahead of schedule. We have often found more common ground with our partners in Brussels than here at Westminster. It is important that we reflect on that in considering our environment.
Scotland also voted to remain in the EU because it makes the UK smarter. The EU provides our students with life-changing opportunities to study abroad through Erasmus, which I personally benefited from. Will the Minister tell us today about the future of those opportunities? Today, I have the great pleasure of welcoming people from the University of St Andrews to Westminster. That university gets one quarter of the funding for its world-leading research from European sources. It is the largest employer in my constituency, and a large number of jobs are associated with that relationship with Europe. Some of the work that the university is doing will benefit us for generations to come. There is of course concern about Horizon 2020 and other sources of funding, but there is also concern about the freedom of movement. A large number of academics and students in St Andrews and elsewhere make their institutions better places in which to work and study and make those areas better places to live, given the greater pool of talent that can be drawn on. That comes from freedom of movement. I benefited from the opportunities of freedom of movement, and I would be encouraged to see others benefit from that. We should not take opportunities away from young people, which is why so many young people voted to remain part of the European Union.
We respect the decision of people in England and Wales to leave the EU. We think it is a pity, because the treaty of Rome has delivered so many benefits to us over the past 60 years, but we accept it. However, after taking office, the Prime Minister assured the country that she would not invoke article 50 until she had secured a “UK-wide approach”, and the Scottish Government produced a compromise proposal that would have respected the decision across the UK but maintained our place in the single market. It is a shame that the UK Government do not appear to be taking forward that compromise. Will the Minister reflect today on that compromise proposal put forward by the Scottish Government? It is regrettable that the UK Government have not entered into the spirit of compromise.
The treaty of Rome set up a partnership of equals; it is increasingly clear that the treaty of Union has not. The EU, which started 60 years ago, is not at all comparable with the treaty of Union—that is like comparing apples with oranges, or les pommes avec les oranges. The EU would never have blocked a referendum on the UK making a choice on its membership, could not foist a Government on the less than 15% of the electorate in Scotland and just over a third who voted for them in the UK, and could not place nuclear weapons on our soil against our will.
We have a choice of two futures. One is with a UK that, I am afraid to say, looks increasingly isolationist, and where there are concerns in our key industries such as education, food and drink and the energy sector about struggling outside crucial EU markets. The other is as an independent member state, working with our European partners in the same normal way that other similar states do. Scotland would be a medium-sized member of the EU and a net contributor that has met the acquis communautaire and enjoyed more than 40 years of membership already.
At this time of uncertainty in our relationship with our European partners, it is easy to lose sight of the major contribution that EU membership has made for all of us. The bloc is by no means perfect; building co-operation between 28 independent and sovereign member states is always going to be difficult. Necessary compromises will need to be made, and sometimes they will be a bit messy, but overall we are better within the EU and in a better place because of the signing of the treaty of Rome 60 years ago.
The EU has been a success for all the reasons that I have set out, and also by respecting the independence of its members and having political flexibility. It now has a thorny issue on its western flank. How it reacts to the UK leaving the EU while Ireland remains and Scotland possibly sets its own path will be tricky, but at the heart of the treaty of Rome, and at the heart of Europe’s strength, lies its flexibility. Frankly, it has solved more difficult problems than that one. As we are set for years of navel-gazing in the UK while we undertake the momentous bureaucratic task of trying to leave the EU, it is worth reflecting just for a moment—for this half-hour today—on the unprecedented success, 60 years on from its signing, of the treaty of Rome, which has touched and benefited each and every one of us. Thank you, Ms Dorries, for this opportunity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) on securing this important debate and his thoughtful comments.
The six founding members of the European Economic Community—Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and West Germany—signed the treaty of Rome on 25 March 1957. The treaty built on the pre-existing European Coal and Steel Community, which was founded in the aftermath of the second world war as a project for peace. Its primary aim was to ensure that the European continent would never again suffer the blight of war that it had seen, generation after generation, in the run-up to that period. In that regard, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the legacy of the treaty of Rome is one of great historical achievement, and its anniversary marks the longest period of peace in Europe’s written history.
The treaty was a major step in the journey of European integration. It was followed by the treaty of Maastricht, which established the European single market, and then the treaty of Lisbon, which established the European Union as we know it today—an organisation that is dramatically different from the European Economic Community, which the UK joined under a Conservative Government in 1973, against the opposition of the Scottish National party. This weekend, not only the six founding member states but 27 European nations will meet to celebrate those achievements and to reflect on the next steps in their journey. To that end, the European Commission recently published a White Paper on five future scenarios for the EU. Those range from reducing the EU to nothing but the single market, to a major push towards greater integration. It is a matter for the remaining members of the EU to decide which course they choose to follow, but whatever they decide, we know that it will be a future where the United Kingdom is not a member, but a partner. It would therefore not be appropriate for us to attend the treaty of Rome celebrations or to speculate about the future direction of the European Union, but as the EU approaches its 60th anniversary we wish them well.
It remains overwhelmingly and compellingly in Britain’s national interest that the EU should succeed both politically and economically. Let me be clear: as the Prime Minister has said, while we are leaving the European Union, we are not leaving Europe. We are seeking a new, strong and constructive relationship with the European Union—a partnership of friends and allies, interests and values.
While the institutions and remaining 27 member states of the EU consider their future, we are of course focused on the future of the United Kingdom. As a Minister at the Department for Exiting the European Union, I know well the strength of feeling that surrounds our withdrawal from the European Union, and many of the complicated issues—some of which the hon. Gentleman touched on—that it throws up. I made the case to remain in the European Union during the referendum, but I always committed to respect the result and I understand that we required the consent of the British people to remain a member of the EU. Now that we are focused on implementing the result of a UK-wide referendum, we should all focus on delivering the best possible deal for the whole of the UK.
Leaving the EU offers us an opportunity to forge a new role for ourselves in the world—not isolationism, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, but negotiating new trade agreements and being a positive and powerful force for free trade. Britain’s economy is one of the strongest in the world.
Stephen Gethins
I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful and thoughtful comments. Will he take this opportunity to reflect on the education sector in particular? As I mentioned, the principal of St Andrews is visiting, along with a number of colleagues, and the university sector is important across the United Kingdom. It is an area of particular concern, and I would be grateful if the Minister addressed it.
Mr Walker
Absolutely. I was going to come to that issue later in my comments, but I am happy to address it now. From having a large and growing university in my constituency, meeting people at universities around the country and attending the higher education councils of the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Joseph Johnson), I recognise the importance of some of these issues for the university sector. I was glad to see the commitment in the Government’s White Paper to continue research collaboration with the EU, to be forward-leaning in our approach to making sure that Britain remains a scientific superpower and to building on our excellent record. I recognise that Scottish universities play an important part in research collaboration, and hope that through negotiations we will be able to agree to an approach that secures the benefits of it.
This is one of many areas where we in the UK Government agree with elements of the Scottish Government’s White Paper that set out the benefits of areas where we can continue to work with European friends and allies. While we accept that we are leaving the EU, there are still areas where we will want to be able to work closely together. I recently visited the University of Glasgow and spoke to academics there about the importance of EU funding and structures for them. I recognise those issues, and we are certainly taking them on board as part of our negotiating strategy.
As I was saying, Britain has a strong economy and we are well placed to face the future. We will remain the bold, outward-looking nation that we have always been, and being a scientific superpower and a research leader in the world is an important part of that. Global Britain will be more than just a trading nation; we will continue to play a significant role in defence and security, promoting and protecting the interests of our people around the world. That will not change. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the peace process both in Northern Ireland, which we are absolutely committed to continuing and made a prominent part of our White Paper, and in the western Balkans. I recognise the important role that the European Union and NATO have played in that, and that the UK can continue to play in supporting peace in Europe. We should certainly continue to lean in and play that role, and we are able to do that partly as a result of our investment in defence as well as in soft power. The European Union will continue to be an important partner as we do that, as will many of its member states. The negotiation is not just about what is good for the UK; it is about what is good for the remaining European Union as well.
As the European Union considers its future and the UK builds its new role in the world, we will also redefine our relationship with the EU. We will approach the negotiations as friends. A constructive and optimistic approach to the negotiations is in the best interests of both the EU and the UK. The Prime Minister has now set out the Government’s plan to achieve a new positive and constructive partnership between the UK and the European Union. We have set out our objectives to give as much certainty as possible throughout the process. Now, the overwhelming majority of people, however they voted, want us to get on with it, so that is what we will do.
We will negotiate and leave as one United Kingdom, seeking the best possible deal for the whole of the UK as we do so. We are not trying to cherry-pick aspects of EU membership. The Prime Minister has been clear that she respects the position taken by European leaders that membership of the single market would mean accepting all four freedoms. As the Prime Minister has also stated, being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations to implement those freedoms, but without having a vote on what the rules and regulations should be. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it have direct legal authority over our country. To all intents and purposes, it would mean not leaving the EU at all. We are leaving the EU and seeking a bold and ambitious partnership with the EU from the outside. Such an agreement will be in the interests of both the UK and the EU.
Stephen Gethins
The Minister will be aware from visiting the University of Glasgow, where I suspect he met Professor Anton Muscatelli, that there has been a debate among academia and the business community, and on a cross-party basis in Scotland, about having differential immigration systems in the UK. That could help to bridge the gap between England and Scotland on this issue. What consideration has his Department given to the differential immigration systems in other countries around the world?
Mr Walker
We are carefully considering all the elements of the White Paper that the Scottish Government presented to us. On immigration, we are aware that we have to meet the needs of the whole of the UK, including all its industries and all parts of the United Kingdom. I did indeed meet Professor Muscatelli and had a very useful conversation with him. That is part of the stakeholder engagement process that our Department has been undertaking throughout all the parts of the United Kingdom to make sure that we are looking at the opportunities of EU exit, as well as the risks.
We are looking for a mutually beneficial deal. In our future relationship with the EU, we want clarity and certainty. We want to take control of our laws.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Walker
In one moment. We want to control immigration but recognise that that means meeting the needs of our economy, as well as the desire of the British people to see greater control. We also want to secure the rights of EU nationals in the UK and UK nationals in the EU, to ensure free trade and to co-operate in the fight against organised crime and terrorism. As we have discussed, we see significant opportunities for continued co-operation on education, science and research. Would the hon. Gentleman like to intervene?
Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)
Order. Absolutely not. Mr MacNeil, if you wish to intervene in a debate, you should arrive at the beginning, not halfway through in order to do nothing other than make an intervention on behalf of the gallery. I am not allowing it.
Mr Walker
We seek a mutually beneficial relationship of friendship and co-operation. Our future as the United Kingdom is one where this Government will continue to protect and strengthen our precious Union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That will continue to be true as our whole Union and its constituent parts withdraw from the EU.
There has been significant intergovernmental engagement between the four Governments since the referendum result. The Prime Minister’s first visit following the referendum result was to Edinburgh, followed quickly by Cardiff and Belfast. She recently spoke in Glasgow and was in Swansea with my Secretary of State only on Monday. We are committed to continuing to engage fully with the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive as we move forward into the negotiations and prepare for a smooth and orderly exit from the EU for all of us.
We will absolutely continue with our commitment to workers’ rights, which the hon. Member for North East Fife referred to. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has often pointed out that many aspects of UK law go well beyond EU law in terms of those commitments. We also want to continue working with our friends and neighbours to meet our environmental commitments well into the future.
At this momentous time, it is more important than ever that we face the future together, taking forward our shared interest in the UK being an open, successful, global nation in future. As member states of the European Union meet this week to discuss the history and future of the European project, we wish our EU partners well. At the end of the negotiations, the UK will no longer be an EU member state, but it will be a close ally and friend. A strong partnership between the UK and the EU is in the interests of both, and we congratulate all the EU’s members on this important anniversary.
Question put and agreed to.
UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(7 years, 1 month 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
Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
I am pleased to be having this debate on the day that the United Nations has declared an international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. The theme this year is racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration. I wonder whether the UN had any particular person in mind when it came up with that theme. I hope that, if Donald Trump is watching, he might send us a tweet.
Why this day? On 21 March 1960, at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa, police turned their guns on protesters and started shooting. They killed 69 people and injured hundreds more. Therefore, each year, the international community comes together to observe this day. In South Africa, it is human rights day, a public holiday to commemorate the lives lost in the fight for democracy and equal human rights. Until now, Parliament has not fully and formally acknowledged this day. As the MP for Brent Central, the most diverse constituency in Europe, I am pleased to be leading this debate.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbouring MP for bringing this important debate to the House. She mentions the diverse constituency that she is proud to represent here in Parliament. Our constituencies are close to each other and share areas such as Kilburn High Road, where there is a lot of racial profiling of black men. I am sure that she will come to this in her speech, but does she agree that something must be done about the racial profiling of young black men in the Kilburn and Brent area? It is adding to the disillusionment of many in our society.
Dawn Butler
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Racial profiling is not a good way to police communities; in fact, it builds resentment and adds to the problem. On this day when we acknowledge and try to eliminate racial discrimination, that issue should and must be addressed.
It is important that our Parliament marks this day. Until we live in a post-racial world, we must be vigilant. I am sure that that world will happen, but I am also sure that it will not happen in my lifetime. Our UK Parliament is the mother of all Parliaments, and we are at our best when we lead the way. While I am talking about leading the way, I thank Mr Speaker for allowing us to acknowledge this day in the state rooms at a wonderful reception last week.
I hear people say all the time, “I’m not racist; I have black friends. I haven’t got a racist bone in my body.” We need to wake up. I am not sure how many people watched ITV last night, but I did. It showed an undercover sting against a right-wing terrorist group that, although banned from the UK, still exists. We must be careful. Given the imminent triggering of article 50 and the election of President Trump, whom I mentioned earlier, this day is becoming extremely important.
We are witnessing a surge in intolerance, lack of understanding of different communities and dehumanising of individuals. Dehumanising a person makes it easier to justify inhumane actions towards them: “They’re not like us. They’re different. They have different colour skin. They have an accent. How can we trust them?” We should be embracing differences; they make us stronger, not weaker. We should be fighting poverty and global warming, not other human beings.
I sometimes wonder what UKIP expected when it published that awful “Breaking Point” poster depicting a crowd of brown-skinned refugees. Yes, UKIP’s side won the referendum, but racist views have increased, along with hatred and violence. Sexism, racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-refugee sentiment—all the tools of hate are on the rise.
Tulip Siddiq
My hon. Friend is being generous with her time. Does she agree that the Government should be doing more to take in refugees, that the abandonment of the Dubs amendment, under which we were meant to help unaccompanied children around the world to come to our country, should be condemned and that we should be doing more?
Dawn Butler
I agree with my hon. Friend. The thing about hate and racism is that it will stop only when we stop it. The Dubs amendment was important. It gave hope to people fleeing circumstances that we too would flee if we were faced with them. Rowing back on that commitment was hugely disappointing.
We must stand up for the rights and dignity of all. An attack on one minority community is an attack on all communities. Every person is entitled to human rights without discrimination. Protecting somebody else’s rights does not in any way diminish our own. Last week, I asked a question on the Floor of the House using British Sign Language. I did it to raise awareness for deaf and hard of hearing people, so that their language could have legal status. That in no way diminished my rights; it only enhanced theirs.
Next week, when the Prime Minister triggers article 50, Parliament will close for two weeks for Easter. During that two weeks, it is even more important that we are vigilant for signs of the aftermath. We must look out for our friends, our neighbours and people we do not even know. We must not forget that we are all a minority at some point, and we should treat people as we would like to be treated.
Angela Davis said that
“it is not enough to be non-racist; we must be anti-racist.”
Hate crimes have spiked since 23 June 2016. Reported hate crime rose by 57%. Seventy-nine per cent. were race hate crimes, 12% were sexual orientation hate crimes, 7% were religious hate crimes, 6% were disability hate crimes and 1% were transgender hate crimes. However, those are just numbers, which do not tell the full horror of those hate crimes, so here are a few examples of incidents that have occurred over the past few months.
Anti-Semitic stickers were plastered on a Cambridge synagogue. Three young males racially abused a US army veteran on a Manchester tram, telling him to go back to Africa. A British Muslim woman was grabbed by her hijab as she was having dinner in a fish and chip shop. A letter was sent telling Poles to go home as a fire was started in their Plymouth home. An Edinburgh taxi driver from Bangladesh was dragged by his beard. A 40-year-old Polish national was killed because he was allegedly heard speaking Polish. A 31-year-old pregnant woman was kicked in her stomach and lost her baby. On Valentine’s day, a gay couple were attacked by five men for falling asleep on each other. I could go on.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this critically important debate. She will know that, in Newcastle, we are celebrating Freedom City 2017, marking 50 years since Martin Luther King came to Newcastle to accept an honorary doctorate and spoke about the three great evils: poverty, racism and war. The examples that she has given show us, if we did not know already, that we must embed the legacy of Martin Luther King’s work and continue the struggle, because we are far from living in a country where people are judged by the content of their character rather than the colour of their skin.
Dawn Butler
I absolutely concur. Martin Luther King was a great orator. He also said:
“I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be...this is the interrelated structure of reality…all mankind is tied together…in a single garment of destiny.”
Until we realise that, we will never live in the post-racial world that we hope for and that was Martin Luther King’s dream.
Some racial discrimination is from unconscious bias, but some is overt. There are elected people who hold overtly racist views, such as the councillor who argued that she was not racist—even after proclaiming that she had a “problem” with “negroes” because there was “something about their faces”. You could not make it up! Racial and ethnic discrimination occurs every day, hindering progress for millions of people around the world. Racism and intolerance take various forms, from denying individuals the basic principles of equality to fuelling ethnic hatred. At their worst, they can turn people to violence and even genocide. They destroy lives and communities and poison people’s minds. The struggle against racism and discrimination is a priority, not just for us in the UK but for the international community.
For anyone who has experienced racism, not much of what I have said today will shock them, but it highlights just how far we still have to go and the importance of educating the young and facing the uncomfortable truth so that history does not repeat itself. Sometimes we have to fight a new, mutant strain of racism, so we always have to be aware of what is going on around us and stand up for other people as well as ourselves.
My parents were migrants who came to this country and suffered racism. Actually, I like to call them expats, because they left their home in the warm, sunny climes of Jamaica to come to cold England, full of smog and fog, to help the country to rebuild after the war. When we speak to our elders, we are acutely aware that racism and hate are not necessarily new. There are pictures of racists here on the walls of Parliament. I remember my first office; I had to look at Enoch Powell’s face every time I walked in, because it was right there at the entrance. Sometimes I would make a rude sign at the photo when I walked in, but in general it upset me. I decided that I did not want to start my day by being upset, so I insisted that the picture was moved. If the House authorities had not removed it, I would have removed it permanently.
We must also remember Britain’s part in the slave trade, which is the foundation of much of our national prosperity. It was justified by the empire and the language of racial superiority, but that is not what defines us. It is a part of our shameful history, but surely there must come a time when it stops—when it no longer matters that a person is different from us and when we appreciate what we have in common. The Mayor of London has spoken about choosing
“hope over fear and unity over division”.
When we see only hate, that hate becomes so great that it transforms into something else, where the problem is not just the colour of someone’s skin, but their accent or the fact that they are committed to fight for someone else’s rights.
At the height of the xenophobic atmosphere, an MP and leading migrants advocate was murdered. The murderer gave his name in court as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. That MP, Jo Cox, was my friend and the friend of others in this place and beyond. Even after the hateful, despicable crime by that terrorist, her family wanted us to “love like Jo” and repeat her mantra that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 674-75.]
That is why it is important to acknowledge this day with the rest of the international community. We must unite together with one voice and build bridges, not walls. As William Shakespeare wrote:
“If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?”
My theme tune when I face discrimination is a song written and recorded by the British singer-songwriter Labi Siffre. It was inspired by a television documentary on apartheid in South Africa that showed a film of police killing black people. It is “(Something Inside) So Strong”. These are the words:
“The higher you build your barriers, the taller I become
The further you take my rights away, the faster I will run
You can deny me, you can decide to turn your face away
No matter, ’cause there’s something inside so strong
I know that I can make it, though you’re doing me wrong, so wrong
You thought that my pride was gone—oh no
There’s something inside so strong
The more you refuse to hear my voice, the louder I will sing
You hide behind walls of Jericho—your lies will come tumbling
Deny my place in time, you squander wealth that’s mine
My light will shine so brightly it will blind you
Because there’s something inside so strong.”
I hope that the Government commit to marking this day each year, so we never forget to remember those who gave their lives for equal rights and to celebrate the beauty of our diversity. After all, we have only a short time on this earth.
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
Colleagues, we have about eight minutes for each Back-Bench speech.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for bringing such an important debate to Westminster Hall today. Her speech was delivered so eloquently and with such high emotion, which is only right, given the topic. It will be remembered in Parliament for years to come.
Rights to equality and non-discrimination are cornerstones of human rights law. Today, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is asking people to “Stand up for Someone’s Rights Today”, which is an important step that I believe we should all be taking. I will speak briefly about three main issues today: the impact of discrimination on the individual, the impact on refugee communities, which are extremely vulnerable, and why we must learn lessons from the past and never forget them.
Racial discrimination is surely toxic, not only for the individual who experiences it, but for society. It has an impact on people’s self-esteem and it can even lead to mental health issues, such as depression, loneliness, isolation or feeling ostracised. Discrimination closes us to experience, rather than opening our appreciation for diversity, culture and religion. It is an unhealthy position to take: it undermines the self-worth of those who experience it, but it is also unhealthy for those who discriminate, because it closes them off from experiences of culture, religion and tolerance that would enhance their own being.
Education is key, particularly for younger generations at school and beyond. The internet can widen our horizons, but it can also be a place where people experience discrimination and intolerance. Surely we should be looking at the UK Government’s policy on that and at how they work with providers. The internet can help us to connect. It can be positive; it can help us to speak to people from different nations, understand their experiences and learn about their lives. It can be a doorway to understanding, but it must be used appropriately. It can be very important in the future, given the way in which we can link with people from right across the world in an interactive manner.
Secondly, racial discrimination can impact upon disenfranchised communities, particularly refugee populations. It is not helpful to ban particular races from entering countries, and I implore the President of the United States to reconsider his actions in that regard, because his policy has no actual basis in risk assessment or risk management. Such a heuristic measure does nothing to promote understanding, tolerance or integration, and in the long run it does little for security.
We must understand that often refugees are fleeing conflict, torture, starvation, malnutrition or other significant life-impacting situations—things that we would never want ourselves or our families to experience. As a member of the International Development Committee, I was privileged to visit the refugee camps in Jordan and Lebanon at the end of last year and to meet and speak with refugee families and their children. I was able to interact with the young children in their schools, including those who were traumatised and had not been able to speak for days or even weeks, and needed mental health care—those needed expert help and assistance. I was told about the difficulties that host communities experienced in integrating large numbers of refugees, and the strains that Governments felt were being placed on local jobs and on education and health systems. Both Jordan and Lebanon have done much to address these issues, but there is much more to do.
When Governments do not allow refugees to live, work or engage properly in local communities, it creates a “them and us” attitude. It reduces tolerance and understanding. Integration, tolerance-building and learning from each other, are key to the way forward. We should encourage Governments to progress in this manner, but we also need to look at our own role, particularly over the Dubs amendment, and our attitude to refugees. Lone children in Europe; those who need our assistance; those who are vulnerable; those who may be disabled; those who have no parents to help to look after them—surely we must be able to open our hearts to those children and, more importantly, offer them refuge.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
One thing that severely worries me is that I get many letters from constituents who say that the matter of children coming into this country is of deep concern to them. I write back and say, “I have not had one constituent who has said to me, ‘I will take a child into my house’.” That really worries me, when we compare it with what happened in 1938-39 with the Kindertransport. We have changed in the way we approach this sort of thing.
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We must open our hearts and our homes to lone children. It is incumbent upon us as a progressive society to do so, and I know that local authorities in Scotland are keen to accept more children and more child refugees.
Dr Cameron
I know from speaking to Save the Children that those children are very much in need. Many of them are going missing; we do not know what has become of them. As a country with a responsibility in the world, surely we must take that very seriously.
Thirdly, learning lessons from the past is important. If we cannot learn lessons from the holocaust and ensure that such dehumanisation of a race never occurs again, then there is little that we can learn in this world at all. It is incumbent upon us to challenge discrimination wherever it occurs—in schools, colleges, the workplace and beyond. Political leaders must lead and ensure that anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination are challenged in all of our systems.
We all have a part to play, from the nursery teacher teaching our toddlers to the university lecturer to politicians. We must challenge discrimination at all levels of society. Only then will we achieve true equality: when we stand up, stand together and ensure that we are no longer divided but that we celebrate diversity.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate. Her powerful words made me emotional. This debate is so timely. This day gives us an opportunity to reflect on the past, the present and the future, and to address the stark discrimination that so many people in this country face. While we have made some strides to improve opportunities for those of all races, we have to recognise the challenges and the disparity that remain. We have so much more to do.
The past has been marked by successes—individual successes, like the police chief superintendent from West Yorkshire police, Mabs Hussain, who is one of only two officers from a black and minority ethnic background to attain that rank in Yorkshire. I recently held an event to celebrate him, but he said then that he hopes to see a day when there is no longer a need to celebrate the success of individuals from BME backgrounds and when people like him are just the norm, but sadly they are not. He is an exception to the rule. He has overcome more difficult odds than those faced by his white counterparts. The truth is that although we see individual successes that can inspire, they are sadly only a footnote to the systematic failures that we see. That is a harsh truth and a harsh reality.
Chi Onwurah
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On the success of some and the lack of success of many, does she agree that the loss of potential and achievement from which the United Kingdom suffers because of the challenges faced by this generation and particularly by the previous generation—the generation of the parents of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler)—means that the UK suffers economically as well as socially? It is in our economic interests as well as our social interests to ensure that everyone can realise their potential.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I absolutely agree with her sentiments.
It is a harsh reality that many young black and Asian children, and children of other ethnicity, grow up in this country without the same opportunities as their peers. It is a harsh truth for those who will work just as hard but will be paid less—those who have their chances stifled from birth because of the colour of their skin.
Tulip Siddiq
Is my hon. Friend aware of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission report from last year that showed that BME people with degrees are two and a half times less likely to have a job than their white counterparts, and are more likely to be paid less—an average of 21.3% less—than their white counterparts when they enter the employment world?
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I will mention that later in my speech—I am very much aware of it and I agree with her.
Sadly, what I have described is a well-evidenced truth, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out. We only need to look at the House of Commons research on representation in public life from June 2016 to see the scale of the challenge before us. Those from BME backgrounds are severely under-represented in all the professions—not only here, in both Houses, but as judges, teachers, in local government, in the armed forces, and particularly as police. BME representation in police forces is 5.5%. Twenty-four years since Stephen Lawrence and 18 years since the Macpherson review, we are no closer to having a representative police force. That is not progress. BME representation in public life shows marginalisation at best and pure discrimination at worst.
In August 2016, the EHRC published a major review of race equality in Britain. It revealed a post-Brexit rise in hate crime and long-term systemic unfairness and race inequality, including a justice system where black people are more likely to be the victims of crime while also being three times more likely to be charged and sentenced if they commit a crime. Race remains the most commonly recorded motivation of hate crime in England and Wales, at 82%. That is not equality.
Despite educational improvements, black, Asian and ethnic minority people with a degree are two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than their white equivalents, and black workers with degrees are likely to be paid 23.1% less than their white equivalents. That wage gap exists at all levels of education, but it increases as people become more qualified. That is not equality, and it shows that the challenge is increasing. Since 2010, there has been a 49% increase in unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds from ethnic minority backgrounds compared with a fall of 2% among those who are white. White workers have seen an increase of 16% in insecure work, while the rise among black and Asian workers has been 40%. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and black adults are more likely to live in substandard accommodation than white people. Black African women in the UK have a mortality rate four times higher than that of white women and are seven times more likely to be detained under the Mental Health Act 2007. That is not equality; it is systematic failure.
While we stand here today and mark the UN’s international day for the elimination of racial discrimination, we must be mindful of the challenges. We must remember the reality that people of ethnicity face, even in developed countries such as ours. In February 2017, Baroness McGregor-Smith’s review of race in the workplace was published. It demonstrated how unequal our workplaces are, how the chances of those from BME backgrounds are stifled and how over-qualified BME workers are less likely to be promoted than less qualified employees. The review makes 26 recommendations, all of which I call upon the Government to implement.
Leaving the EU gives us an opportunity to decide what kind of country we want to be. A report by the Women and Equalities Committee considered the need for strong equality legislation after we leave the EU and made key recommendations, which, I would argue, the Government are morally obliged to enact. [Interruption.] I am not sure of the time of my speech.
Naz Shah
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is no longer in his seat, mentioned constituencies, and it is important to touch upon that issue before I close my speech. He said that we in Britain have changed regarding refugees, in that families do not want to take Syrian refugee children. I am very proud to come from Bradford. It is a city of sanctuary. We have held events in Bradford specifically aimed at people taking refugee children, and families are coming forward. I have had numerous messages from individuals asking how they can take in children from Syria and play their part. Why has it taken so long? I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and we have taken evidence from councils that say they have spaces. Regarding the Dubs amendment and how Britain has changed, I feel there is a venomous narrative, created by the likes of parties such as the UK Independence party, but we as Britain are greater than that. We as people are greater than that. Post-Trump and post-Brexit, we must concentrate even more on ensuring that we build those bridges.
I call on the Minister to consider all three of the reports I have mentioned, as a stepping stone which, if followed through, could help to steer us on a different path—one of real, not just imagined, equality. As Baroness McGregor-Smith wrote in her review, the time for talking is over; now is the time to act. That will require a concerted and sustained effort from us all, but the solutions are already there, if we choose to apply them.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Streeter. I am very pleased to contribute to the debate, and I join others in commending the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on her passionate and deeply personal speech.
I still vividly remember when I first discovered what race discrimination was. At the age of eight or nine, I was watching the TV in my granny’s house and I realised that there was a lot of stuff in the news about something called anti-apartheid protests, which at the time I could not even pronounce. I asked my mum what it meant, and she explained that it was about a system in which black children and white children were not allowed to go to the same school or play against or with each other in football matches, a system in which black people and white people were not allowed to go on the same bus or to the same shops. Basically, they were supposed to live their entire lives without ever interacting with each other, except, of course, where black people were working as domestic servants, or near-slaves, for white people. Even as a wee boy—I was not an angel; I was still telling the kind of jokes in the playground that we now try to persuade children not to tell—I could not imagine anyone wanting to live in a society like that. Where I grew up there was not a big ethnic minority population, but I could not imagine wanting to see people divided by barbed wire fences because of the colour of their skin, and almost 50 years later I still cannot understand that. I cannot imagine why anyone would choose that as a way to run a society.
Sometimes it is not even anything as much as the colour of someone’s skin. Another clear memory I have, again about South Africa, is that as a teenager I was watching a TV documentary about a wee girl whose parents were white Afrikaners. She was born with white skin, but somehow manged to get facial features that meant she was classed as a negro under the South African system. Her parents refused to let her mix with the blacks, but other white parents did not want their children mixing with her because they thought that she was a negro, so the poor wee soul went to about five different schools as a result of the outcomes of court cases and education board appeals. I could not understand why the parents did not see that as an indictment of the apartheid system under which they lived. The case even led to a change in the race laws in South Africa, not to let black children and white children play together in the playground—that would never have happened—but to say that if two parents were certified white Afrikaner, their children could not be classified as anything else. That completely destroys any shred of credibility that the argument that people are somehow born to be superior or inferior ever had. It is a bit like Crufts having to pass a law saying that it is not permitted to breed two pedigree springer spaniels and call the offspring an Alsatian or a poodle. So even as almost a young man, I was aware that people were trying to put some kind of scientific justification on racism, and I could also see that anything approaching common sense said that that just did not add up.
Something else I saw in that documentary helped me to understand not where racism comes from but how it can be perpetuated. A teacher of a class of white six-year-olds was explaining why the blacks were inferior, talking about how the “funny” shape of their eyes, ears, mouths and noses, and the unclean colour of their skin, meant that they had clearly been made to be inferior. Today, that would, I hope, horrify even white South Africans, but at that time it was how one of the wealthiest and supposedly most developed countries was bringing up its children. It is not surprising that it is taking a long time for those children to realise the error of their ways.
Of course, we do not do that these days, we do not bring up our children to support racial prejudices—except that we do. Perhaps we do not do it in the same way, by getting teachers to teach the creed of racism to our children, but we do it through what we print on the front pages of our newspapers. If we look back through the past year or two of front-page headlines in some newspapers, the word “migrant” appears more than almost any other word, and never in any context other than to create fear and hatred and continue to paint the myth that if someone is an immigrant they are somehow a danger, rather than a benefit, to society. I have even heard Members of the House of Commons speaking in debates in the Chamber in such a way that makes an explicit assumption that we have to vet every single Syrian refugee because the fact that they come from a predominantly Muslim country somehow makes them more likely to be a danger to us than the criminals we are quite capable of growing among the white working-class and middle-class populations around the UK’s towns and cities.
It is that kind of assumption that has been identified as the main theme of this UN international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. The UN talks about racial profiling and incitement to hatred, including in the context of migration, and as someone said earlier, there are one or two people who could do with heeding those words very carefully indeed. I do not think it is a mistake to link racial profiling with incitement to hatred, because I cannot see any purpose behind such profiling other than racial discrimination, and I cannot see any way that racial discrimination can ever avoid going towards incitement of hatred, racial violence and even worse.
Somebody has already mentioned the New York declaration for refugees and migrants. It is worth reminding ourselves of what that says:
“We strongly condemn acts and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against refugees and migrants, and the stereotypes often applied to them...Demonizing refugees or migrants offends profoundly against the values of dignity and equality for every human being, to which we have committed ourselves.”
Those are very fine words. Sadly, too many of the Governments whose heads signed up to those words show something different by their actions. Imagine if every child in America was asked to recite those words as well as singing the “Star-Spangled Banner” at the start of the school day. Imagine if every politician in these islands or elsewhere had to recite those words as part of their oath of office. Imagine that as well as—some people would say instead of—a brief period of communal prayer in the Christian tradition in this Chamber, we all stood on camera and recited those or similar words each and every day before we set about our deliberations. That would at least send a message that what we are here for is to promote the equality of human beings and not to promote inequality and discrimination. Why can we not do something like that?
The horrific statistics that the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced in its report last year have been mentioned. Although the statistics are based on research in England and Wales, it would be foolish and complacent to suggest we would find anything significantly different in most parts of Scotland or in most parts of the rest of the United Kingdom. For all the fine words, and for all the length of time that we have been claiming to be an equal society, we are not.
I want to finish with some personal comments from Baroness McGregor-Smith in the foreword to the document that was referred to earlier. She says:
“Speaking on behalf of so many from a minority background, I can simply say that all we ever wanted was to be seen as an individual, just like anyone else.”
There is no reason on earth why that simple dream should ever be beyond the reach of any human being on God’s earth.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
It is pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Streeter. I also commend the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate and for her truly excellent speech today.
I was interested to read that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has reminded Governments around the world that they have a legal obligation to stop hate speech and hate crimes, and has called on people everywhere to
“stand up for someone’s rights.”
He said:
“Politics of division and the rhetoric of intolerance are targeting racial, ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities, and migrants and refugees. Words of fear and loathing can, and do, have real consequences.”
The hon. Member for Brent Central spoke eloquently about those killed in Sharpeville, South Africa, when they demonstrated against apartheid laws. In recognising that and then proclaiming the international day in 1966, the UN General Assembly called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. But here we are, 57 years on, with so much to do. This issue affects everything. For so many people all over the world, the spectre of racism and discrimination looms large over their daily lives.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
On that point, in a 2016 ruling the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination asked the UK Government to facilitate the Chagossians’ return to their islands home and also to properly compensate them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must respect the rights of the Chagossian people? The Government must uphold international law and take proper action to allow them to return home.
Kirsten Oswald
I thank my hon. Friend for that useful intervention. I entirely agree with her point.
For many more people racism is an occasional concern, but that concern still has the potential to destroy their lives. It stifles their potential and that of their children. It causes people to live in fear and despair. How can it be that after all these years, so many people today still have such cause for concern here and around the world, and such starkly different life chances, simply because of their race, their religious beliefs or where they came from?
I make no apology for repeating today the concerns that I highlighted in another debate in this Chamber recently. I said I was worried and fearful in a way I had never been previously for the future of my children, who are mixed-race. That speech resulted in my receiving my very own racist abuse, but that is absolutely nothing to how people must feel when they are routinely treated differently and unfairly, and abused, because of their racial or religious background.
Let us be quite clear. Here and now there is a feeling bubbling away that it is somehow becoming more acceptable than it has been in my lifetime to treat people differently because of the colour of their skin, because they are seen as different. That needs to be acknowledged and addressed. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the way to address it is for Governments and people in our position in Parliaments all over the world to stand up and speak out, and, as the hon. Member for Brent Central put it, to be anti-racist. The silence of politicians and the lack of concern and action is exactly what is needed to let racism and discrimination grow and take hold.
The politics of Trump and the politics of UKIP are sleekit, and there is a huge danger that we will allow their nasty racist nonsense to creep into our daily lives. It is absolutely our job here to push against that and to make sure that people know that we will always do so.
The more irresponsible political language and discourse becomes, the worse the impact on anyone who appears different or who can so easily be stereotyped and put into somebody else’s makey-uppy box. As the UN has made clear, such issues face people all over the world and, as we have heard, people who are fleeing across the world. Imagine fleeing persecution, war and terror and meeting with hostility, suspicion and discrimination. Is that really what we are all about?
Every time we turn our backs on people who are being treated badly or fleeing for their lives, we make the situation worse for many people, even beyond those directly affected. What about the child refugees, all alone, whom the UK Government cannot bring themselves to let in? Turning them away sends a very powerful message: if you are different, you are not wanted. Thank God they are not my children.
Every time a politician who should know better—who does know better—uses race as a political tool, they are not only failing themselves, but failing so many other people who deserve for all of us to be focused on fighting discrimination. Yes, Sadiq Khan, that is you. I wish that he would hear the eloquent words of the hon. Member for Brent Central.
Maybe it would be easy for me to say, “Look at Scotland; look at the Scottish Government.” It is true that one of the big things that attracted me to join the SNP was the focus on diversity and inclusion. It is true that the Scottish Government have done much to foster a positive sense of diversity and to welcome those fleeing, and I am proud of all of that. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, this is not an area where we can have any degree of complacency. For all the important work that has been done, there is always more to do and there are always more issues to be addressed. So we work hard at that all the time because it is important, and because it is the right thing to do for all of us.
In concluding, I want to reflect on someone who made a big impression on me, who I was delighted to hear our First Minister quote in her welcoming and inclusive speech to our conference on Saturday. The late Bashir Ahmad MSP was a truly inspirational man. He embodied much of what is best about our modern, diverse, open Scotland. Born in Amritsar, he came to Scotland from Pakistan and was elected as our first Asian MSP in 2003. He campaigned tirelessly to give a voice to communities that had been little heard from, and we all benefit now from the steps he took then. When he launched Scots Asians for Independence, he gave a speech saying:
“It isn't important where you come from, what matters is where we are going together as a nation.”
Now more than ever that should resonate with all of us here and give us pause for thought as we go about our jobs.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on making me cry twice in a week. Thanks very much for that. The first time was last week at the beautiful event held at the Speaker’s House to mark this day. Today, it was understandable that there were few dry eyes in here.
On 21 March 1960 an 82-year-old stonemason in Pretoria, South Africa, wrote a poem in Scottish Gaelic with a Swahili refrain condemning the bloody massacre in Sharpeville of 69 black South Africans, many of them shot in the back. Originally from the Isle of Mull, Duncan Livingstone was a Boer war veteran who had worked and lived in Glasgow before emigrating to South Africa and spending the rest of his life there. What was clear to that Hebridean Glaswegian, whose work is still visible in the city today, was clear to right-thinking people across the world, and in 1966 the UN declared 21 March the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination.
While we seldom see such blatant and violent racism on such a scale in developed countries, at least today, pernicious racial discrimination remains in most if not all societies. Just because most of us will never experience it and most of us will rarely witness it, that does not mean it does not happen. Some of it is in a blatant form. I did not want to intervene on the hon. Member for Brent Central, because the point she was making about race hate crimes was too important, but I will say that the increase in Scotland was very much less. I say that not to say “Scotland good, England and Wales bad”; I say it because I think it has an awful lot to do with the difference in political rhetoric from each Government. It does make a difference.
We have not eliminated racism in Scotland. Far from it. Let me fast-forward to Glasgow, 50 years on from when Duncan Livingstone wrote that Gaelic-Swahili poem. About eight years ago I accompanied a Sudanese friend to the housing office, because I could not understand why, as a homeless person, he had not been offered accommodation—anything at all—one year on from becoming homeless, which happened as a result of his refugee status being granted. The housing office informed me that he was not classed as homeless because he was staying with a friend. “But he’s sleeping on a yoga mat on the living room floor, and has been for a year,” I said. What did they say in response? They told me that that did not necessarily constitute homelessness—actually it does—because “lots of Africans are used to sleeping on the ground. They like it.” That is blatant. He was denied his legal rights. It was only eight years ago. That is racial discrimination.
I think the really dangerous racism, other than institutionalised racism, is that which is under the radar. It is so subtle that unless you are the recipient, you probably would not pick up on it. It is not always intentional—most people do not want to be racist—but I have heard people speak about black friends of mine not in critical terms, but saying how they are quite aggressive and forceful, when they are nothing of the sort—they are simply expressing themselves. We all need to be honest with ourselves about it, because confronting our own thinking is the best way to change it. I am not excluding myself from that. My partner is black and I have had people telling me that therefore I must not be capable of racism; but that is such a dangerous way to think. I am subjected to media images and propaganda the same as anyone else. None of us is immune to thinking or acting in a racially discriminatory fashion, but we are all capable of challenging our own thoughts and monitoring our actions, and morally obliged to do so.
When I say none of us is immune, I primarily mean none of us who are white. I sometimes read comments from white people who say “But black people are just as racist”. I keep saying we need to learn and educate ourselves, and I am going to share something about my education around 20 years ago when I would hear people say that. I did not really agree with the statement, but I was not sure why. It did not sound right to me, but I would have agreed at the very least that there was racism from some black people towards white people. Then a good friend—a Mancunian Pakistani with a bit of Glaswegian thrown in—explained that while there might be prejudice from a black person to a white person, as that black person probably is not as propped up by the levers of power, as embedded in the UK’s institutions, as immersed in the establishment of the UK, it cannot be called racism. It is simply an opinion that ordinarily has little impact on the white person’s life. Racism—I am not trying to define it here—is about the desire and ability to exercise power over someone because of the colour of their skin and the colour of one’s own skin. The world is still weighted in favour of white people. The UK is still weighted in favour of white people.
That brings me to the biggest problem as I see it, which is institutionalised racism. Who runs the judiciary? White people. Who runs the Government? Primarily white people. The civil service, Churches and media? White people. As for some sections of the media and the responsibility they have, we can talk about the irresponsible way they behave—most Scots will remember when every drunk person in a TV drama series or a film had to be Scottish. We hated that, unless it was “Rab C. Nesbitt”, of course, but at least we had positive role models too. Black children growing up rarely had positive black role models. It was not that they did not exist, just that they never got to see them. Just as importantly, neither did we. Instead, when black people were on TV it was generally a negative portrayal. My partner Graham—he is Jamaican, and his mother is from Grenada—told me that when Trevor McDonald came on the news, it was an event. There he was, a black man being listened to and taken seriously. Now, he says, it does not even register with him when a black person is on TV and being taken seriously. He did add, however, that it is absolutely right that the next step has to be for them to get parity in their industry.
I was going to talk about increasing income disparity between people of different ethnicities as they become more qualified, but the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) covered that for me, so I shall take the time instead to respond to a comment from the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) about letters he gets telling him that child refugees should be brought here; he said none of the letters offers to give them a bed. Who would write to their MP to go through that process? That is not what people do. No one writes to me offering to give a bed. It does not mean that those people are not out there. As we have heard, local authorities and Governments across these islands have said that they have places available, and people available to take children in.
Peter Grant
I cannot give any personal constituency experience, but I have good friends in a neighbouring constituency who wanted to offer their entire house to Syrian refugees. At that point the reason they could not was that the Home Office was not planning to let in enough Syrian refugees for Fife’s quota to fill one big house in North East Fife. That may be why people have not offered to provide houses—because there simply were not enough refugees being allowed in to need the houses in the first place.
Anne McLaughlin
I sometimes do not know whether to laugh or cry in this place.
Tulip Siddiq
In my constituency lots of people want to take in children, but the sad truth is that the Government have said no more children are allowed in. Does the hon. Lady agree that perhaps the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) needs to have a word with the Government about the Dubs amendment before he starts talking about how people have changed in this country?
Anne McLaughlin
I agree. I wish that the hon. Member for Beckenham had stayed to listen, but perhaps we shall encourage him to read Hansard.
To return to the hiding of positive black role models, it is obviously worse for those who are not just black but women as well. I want to tell the story of Mary Seacole, in case hon. Members do not know it. She was a Scots Jamaican nurse who raised the money to go to the Crimean war and nurse war-wounded soldiers. What she did was not hugely different from what Florence Nightingale did, although some argue it was a lot better; I am not one of them. However, they were remembered differently. Mary Seacole finally got a statue last year. It sits outside St Thomas’s Hospital facing the House of Commons. MPs will remember getting letters from the Nightingale Society saying “Seacole was no nurse. Fine, give her a statue, but not there—not in such a prominent place. Hide it away somewhere.” I thought, given that she was the first black woman in the UK to be honoured in such a way, that that behaviour was an absolute disgrace. What is also disgraceful is the fact that in 2016 she was the first black woman to have a named statue in her honour. The history books are full of white people—men, mainly, but white all the same—but history itself is full of inspiring people of all ethnicities.
I want us to be able to look back in not too many years’ time and be horrified at some of the subtle racism we have heard about today. I want us to be embarrassed that only a tiny percentage of the Members of this House were from BME communities in 2017, and to ask how on earth we allowed our great institutions to be so white. If future generations look back at us and shake their heads in disbelief, so be it, because at least they will be living in a better time—a time when, I hope, discrimination based on someone’s ethnicity will have been completely eliminated.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and on setting the scene so beautifully and eloquently, as always, and so passionately as we observe this day. It is of course important to mark this day. She said that we should be united together with one voice. In turbulent political times, it is wonderful to find any kind of platform where we can join together in one voice, so we should embrace that. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) rightly spoke about education being key, as it can widen horizons, but there is an increasing propensity for discrimination online. We should be concerned about young people’s exposure to that.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) spoke about black, Asian and minority ethnic representation in public life. It is absolutely clear that we need to address that face on. She also gave some shocking statistics on employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) gave an international perspective and said that we clearly are not an equal society. We are not, unless women are given their due and rightful place, are paid accordingly and have equal representation across society.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) always speaks out on these issues. She faced abuse when she spoke out for people suffering racial abuse. Unfortunately, that is what happens when we raise our voices—we find ourselves also the subject of abuse. She rightly expressed concern for her children, but she also spoke, rightly, of the need to help those in need, wherever they may be. She also spoke of the late Bashir Ahmad, who was my friend and a friend of my family. He is greatly missed, and his words ring true today, just as they did so many years ago.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), while stealing some of my time—I am always happy to give it to her—gave her personal insight, as usual. She has fought for equality all her life and has never been afraid to speak out. I say to all those who speak out that it means so very much to us as members of the BAME community that people are prepared to do so. I make that point as a BAME MP. I am proud to be standing here with my fellow parliamentarians from the Scottish National party, who are all non-BAME parliamentarians but are happy to raise their voices and speak up for what is right.
I often face the question, “Where do you come from, Tasmina?”, which is followed up with the question, “No, but where do you really come from?” I want to take a couple of minutes to speak about the impact of racism on young people and children, because it endures and lasts a lifetime. You may not have considered this to be so, Mr Streeter, but as a child in Edinburgh—I was one of the first children of mixed marriage, which started to take place a number of years ago—I faced an awful lot of racial discrimination. I was called many names: golliwog, black Sambo, Paki—you name it, I got all of it. I was bullied at school, beaten up and so on, and I did my very best to keep it from my parents. My late father was from Pakistan, and the last thing I wanted as a young child was for him to feel guilty that it was because of him that I was facing that abuse. There are young children who feel the same way today.
What is of even greater concern in relation to my children and those of Members in the Chamber and those listening in to the debate is that, as well as that racial discrimination based on where someone comes from or the country someone’s parents are thought to come from, there is religion discrimination, too, which is of great concern to us all. Discrimination makes people feel inferior. What is the impact on later life? Women spend their whole lives working doubly hard to show they are good enough—triply hard if they are from the BAME community. They feel they have to do so much more than anyone else to earn their stripes. That is certainly something that I feel.
Women who have chosen to wear the hijab have experienced much discrimination, which is unacceptable. As we have heard from Members from all parties, it is a woman’s right to wear what she wants, when she wants, whatever that might be. We should always stand up for women in that respect. Racial discrimination and racial profiling do exist. I have been on international trips with fellows MPs, and it might horrify you to learn, Mr Streeter, that the only person who gets stopped at immigration is me. I get taken away for questioning, and it is embarrassing. Let us be honest about what exists. My colleagues, including one who is sitting with us in Westminster Hall, have watched it happen.
In her conference speech at the weekend, our First Minister asked:
“What kind of country do we want to be?”
She has asked that on many an occasion, and a Member here today asked that. We should continually ask ourselves that question: what do we want our country to look like? What kind of impression do we want people to have of us, whether that is us in the UK or from our perspective in Scotland? I hope that we want to be an outward-looking country. We in Scotland pride ourselves on that. At our conference at the weekend, we had a fantastic session where we highlighted and profiled our BAME candidates who are standing in the forthcoming council elections. That was not a sideshow or a fringe event; it was main stage, because that is where BAME people should be in public life. I hope and trust that they found it as fulfilling as I did to watch. I am sure those in the audience enjoyed their contribution, as well.
The UK Government have allowed an obsession on immigration, targets and toxic rhetoric to develop. The phrases have become all too common. Those with power have tremendous platforms, and they should use their words to impact positively on people’s lives. If they do not do that, they impact negatively. They have to talk about being an inclusive, welcoming society on all the stages and at every opportunity they have. If they fail to do so, it is the people from BAME communities who face the consequences—our children, their children, refugees and people who are fleeing conflict and war to make this country their home—not them. We are so much better than that. If we are in a society where people are questioning whether we should be taking in refugees, we have to take a good look at ourselves and wonder, “What kind of platform have we created? What kind of society have we created that people even think they can say such things?”
There is much work to do, and I hope we can work together across the House on that. I ask the Minister to implore his colleagues in Government to use every platform they have to engage positively on the importance of immigration and how people from different backgrounds contribute not only to the economy, but to tradition, culture and all the things that should be making Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom great.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
I thank every Member who has contributed this afternoon, but most especially I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). Sadly, this debate is more important than ever before, as we try to eliminate that which divides us and celebrate that which unites us.
I had the privilege of being born and growing up in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in Willesden Green. The first 19 years of my life were spent there. Even in the 1960s, it was one of the most multicultural parts of Great Britain. It was something that we celebrated. Growing up there in the 1960s, it was normal to see people of all backgrounds, faiths, skin colours and religions, whether that was in my street, my school or my home, where my father operated his office as a local solicitor. It was a shock to go to the University of York in 1974, where I seemed to be the blackest person in the city.
My father’s experience in fleeing Europe in 1934 and coming to this country unable to speak English was very important in my upbringing and my understanding of what discrimination is about. He was fleeing an increasingly Nazi Europe, increasing intolerance towards Jews and increasing violence against Jews. He came to this country seeking sanctuary, which he was given. After school, he joined the British army. He had become a British citizen, and by then of course he spoke very good English. Fighting in occupied France was a lesson for him in why a united Europe was important and why racism and discrimination must be eliminated. He never spoke of that time in France, but he helped to set up the Willesden Friendship Society in the 1960s. People from all backgrounds and from all over the world came to our house in Jeymer Avenue and talked about how we could make our community much more multicultural and less discriminatory.
I am proud to now represent one of the most multicultural constituencies in Yorkshire, apart from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), of course. In north-east Leeds, we have perhaps a greater diversity, if not a greater majority of people from different backgrounds. Chapeltown is historically the place where people have come to seek refuge from other countries and from persecution to make a better life in Great Britain. They include Jews escaping the pogroms of the nineteenth century and people coming from parts of Africa to escape persecution today.
I was chair of the Leeds City Council race equality committee for six years and learned how we could adopt policies to try to bring our citizens together to share what we had in the great city of Leeds, my adopted home, and to create a better society for everybody. Chapeltown has the oldest West Indian carnival in the country; I am glad to say it is older even than that in Notting Hill, by one year. We celebrate our 50th anniversary this year. It is a coming together of people from all different backgrounds to celebrate carnival among ourselves, even if we have never visited the Caribbean.
A middle-aged woman, originally from the Philippines, came to see me shortly after the referendum campaign. She was in deep distress. This will echo a lot of the contributions made this afternoon: her distress was based on the fact that her next-door neighbour came up to her the day after the referendum, 24 June, and said, “Have you packed your bags yet?” She explained that she was British and had lived in this country for 20 years; she works as a nurse at Leeds General Infirmary. He said, “But have you packed your bags yet?” She said, “Why? I am not European.” He said, “No. We voted yesterday for all of you lot to leave the country.” That is the kind of division that we are seeing up and down our nation, from Scotland right down to Cornwall, and it is something that I know everyone in this room and in this House would agree is entirely reprehensible.
The struggle against apartheid, which many have referred to this afternoon, galvanised many of us in the ’70s when I was growing up and when I was at university and becoming politically aware—many of my friends and family were, too. South Africa and the struggle against apartheid brought many people into the Labour party and many other political parties—I would say all political parties represented in this House today. It was the struggle against the blatant discrimination and injustice that we saw on our TV screens that galvanised many of us into political action. It was certainly my political awakening.
We have heard some excellent contributions today. I was also almost in tears listening to the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central. I thank her very much for that. She said enhancing other people’s rights does not diminish our rights. That should be a motto for all of us. Enhancing other people’s rights does not affect us—it makes and helps to create the better society that we are all here to try to create.
In her typically gentle way, my good friend— I hope she will not mind my calling her that—the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made a powerful point about her visit to the refugee families in Jordan and Lebanon with the International Development Committee. I have also made such a visit: I went to Azraq in Jordan in January, as a member of the Front-Bench team. She also said something important that relates back to the holocaust: that we must learn the lessons of the holocaust, to celebrate the diversity of our society. Just last Sunday, I was with the holocaust Survivors Friendship Association, in my constituency in Leeds, meeting with men and women now in their 90s—the youngest was 88—who survived the holocaust and still live today to tell the stories and to share the experience that they suffered. That is something we must never forget.
We heard excellent contributions from, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, who always speaks so powerfully, on this subject and many others. We heard from the hon. Members for Glenrothes (Peter Grant), for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) and for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). We heard an intervention from the gallant Member, the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart). I am sorry he is not in his place. I have had many dealings with him. He is someone I admire enormously for what he has done in his military career and since he has been here in the House. He said something interesting about Syrian children. He said that not one of his constituents pleading for Syrian children to come and be looked after here by his constituents or anyone else has actually offered their home. One contribution this afternoon pointed out that people would not write to their MP to offer their home for a Syrian child or family, but I can tell you that I have received those letters. I am sure many of us have.
Fabian Hamilton
Many of us have had constituents saying, “I have spare bedrooms; come and use my bedroom. I am offering it to those families.”
Let me conclude so that the Minister can answer the many excellent points that have been made this afternoon. We have heard condemnation—rightly so—of Nigel Farage’s infamous “Breaking Point” poster, which was, of course, incredibly offensive to all of us, so I will not say any more about that, but I would like to ask the Minister about the lack of support for the rights of EU nationals living in the UK after we leave the European Union. Can he can say something about whether he believes that that has contributed to an increasingly hostile environment for EU nationals still living in the UK? What are the Government going to do to ensure that a message of zero tolerance towards racially motivated crimes in general gets broadcast? I know that the Minister is committed to that, but I would like to hear more about what he is going to do.
We have heard that the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, has adopted, like Donald Trump, vitriolic rhetoric towards refugees and migrants, threatening to refuse entry to any non-Christian, while also putting up barbed wire fences and using tear gas to disperse crowds of refugees and migrants. Yet Hungary is still in the European Union. I hope the EU is able to do something about that.
It is worth remembering that, in many Western societies, it is still often the case that racial and religious minorities are one and the same. We need to adopt an approach to foreign policy challenges such as the refugee crisis that is based on a fundamental rejection of religious bias as well as racial bias.
Finally, I press the Minister to set out in more detail how the Government plan to co-ordinate with the European Union after Brexit on major foreign policy issues and potentially on asylum reform. Those should be key issues in the article 50 negotiations, but to date the Government have said next to nothing about them—a concern that was highlighted last week by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, among others. In our society, there is no place for racism. We believe—I am sure we all believe—that there is one race: the human race.
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate. I genuinely commend her for the moving way in which she presented her case and the words of her song—I have to say there was a moment when I thought she was going to sing it.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) mention the great Mary Seacole. It is right that we remember her contribution. We remember her in Government too. The Home Office building in Westminster is made up of three buildings—one is named after Robert Peel, one after Elizabeth Fry and the other after Mary Seacole—so Ministers and officials are reminded of her every day as they go about their work, much of which may well be on the issue we are debating today.
On the international day for the elimination of racial discrimination—a day on which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made a very definitive statement—we also remember what happened in the township of Sharpville in South Africa in March 1960 and those who died in what was supposed to have been a peaceful protest. We express our total solidarity with all victims of racism and reiterate our determination to challenge discrimination in whatever form it takes, at home and abroad. Combating all forms of racism remains an important part of this Government’s international human rights policy. I would like to set out some of the work that we are doing around the world.
The UN convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination underpins international co-operation to prevent, combat and eradicate racism. Effective implementation of the convention is essential if we are to achieve its aims. That is why the UN General Assembly reviews that implementation through a UN resolution. As a co-sponsor of the resolution, the UK takes a leading role in the United Nations’ work to counter racism worldwide. Through the UN, we work to ensure the international community focuses on strengthening national, regional and international legal frameworks to make a reality of the protections contained in the convention. During the current Human Rights Council session in Geneva, we are working very hard to build international consensus about the importance of fighting racism and the best ways to do it.
The UN is not our only channel for that work. We are also working through other key international institutions. For instance, through the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe we are supporting countries with a disaggregation of hate crimes data. It is fair to say that the UK has become a world leader in this area. Furthermore, last year we co-hosted, with Poland, an OSCE event in which we shared the lessons learned in our response to the absolutely unacceptable spike in reported hate crime following the EU referendum.
We are also supporting projects that tackle anti-Semitism. For example, we are funding the translation into Polish and Romanian of the “Police Officer’s Guide to Judaism”. That guide to Jewish religious practice is published by the Community Security Trust to help police officers to effectively and sensitively investigate anti-Semitic crimes. As part of our continued commitment to fight anti-Semitism, we remain an active member of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.
The UK is also represented by our independent expert, Michael Whine, on the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. That organisation monitors racism, xenophobia and other forms of hate crime, and prepares reports and issues recommendations to Council of Europe member states. Having the UK represented by an expert ensures that the UK’s approach to race equality issues is heard and properly understood in the Council of Europe.
The UK’s strong international reputation in the fight against racism is underpinned by our long and proud tradition as an open and tolerant nation. Although work remains to be done, we can credibly claim that Britain today is a successful multi-ethnic country. Members of our African, Caribbean, Asian and other ethnic minority communities are represented in every area of British society—in business, academia, sport, the arts and politics.
The UK also has some of the strongest equalities legislation in the world, but we know that on its own it is not enough. We have to recognise and challenge racism and discrimination whenever they occur. The Prime Minister has made clear her determination to do just that. One of her first acts in office was to launch an unprecedented audit of public services to reveal racial disparities. That audit is being conducted right across our public services, from health, education, employment, skills and criminal justice. It may reveal difficult truths, but we should not be apologetic about shining a light on any injustice. It is only by doing so that we can make this a country that works for absolutely everyone.
As has been mentioned today, the despicable rise in racist incidents after the EU referendum highlighted even more strongly the need to tackle the scourge of hate crime. That is why in July we published a new hate crime action plan that focuses on reducing incidents, increasing reporting and improving support for victims. It was accompanied by an additional £1 million for prevention work. We will review the plan next year to ensure it is delivering on its commitments. In January, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government announced a further £375,000 of new funding to tackle hate crime. The new package will support a range of organisations working with faith and minority communities that have historically faced challenges in reporting hate crime.
As part of the Government’s continued commitment to building strong, united communities, we have spent more than £60 million since 2010 on our integration programme to bring communities together. We have provided more than £5 million since 2010-11 to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust as part of our ongoing commitment to holocaust remembrance and education, and just under 6,000 local commemorative events took place in January. We are also proud to fund Tell MAMA—Measuring Anti-Muslim Attacks—the first service to record anti-Muslim incidents and support the victims. So far, we have provided more than £1 million to fund it. In the coming months, the Government will bring forward plans for tackling the issues raised in Dame Louise Casey’s report into integration and opportunity in isolated and deprived communities.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Brent Central for initiating this debate. I and the Government believe that every individual, regardless of their racial or ethnic origin, should be able to fulfil his or her potential through the enjoyment of equal rights, equal opportunities and fair responsibilities. The Government reiterate our commitment to stand up against injustice and inequality wherever it occurs. As the Prime Minister said, it is by tackling the injustice and unfairness that drives us apart and by nurturing the responsibilities of citizenship that we can build a shared society and make it the bedrock of a stronger and fairer Britain that truly works for everyone.
Dawn Butler
It has been a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Streeter. I am disappointed that the Minister has not committed to ensuring that we mark this day every year in our calendar in the UK. The Government have some programmes, but I can tell the Minister that the audit will find that the system is flawed, and Government legislation is compounding the situation for people from minority communities. The cost of tribunal fees is stopping people getting justice when they deserve it. I can also tell the Minister that most of the laws for promoting equality were passed under a Labour Government.
I thank the Minister for agreeing that we will mark this day—the Government are willing to mark it—every year. I may have missed it, but I hope he will write to me at a later date to confirm that the Government are indeed committed to marking this day as the UN international day for the elimination of racial discrimination. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate. Their excellent contributions show that there is a deep understanding of the issue and what needs to be done to work towards achieving our goal of fairness in society.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the UN International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
All the protagonists are here for our next debate, so we can start a minute and a half early.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry.
I have been seeking to secure a debate on pensions in the nuclear decommissioning industry for some months, as I am deeply disturbed by the way workers have been treated and betrayed by the UK Government. I speak on behalf of those in my constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran who work on the Hunterston A site, but this matter is of material interest to all workers across the United Kingdom who share the sense of betrayal and treachery at the fact that their pensions have been treated as if they were of no account.
[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]
The betrayal that those workers feel should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed events since the nuclear estate was privatised by the Thatcher Government in the 1980s. Guarantees were made requiring the new private sector employers to continue to provide pension benefits for those employed at the time of privatisation
“at least as good as those they were receiving in the public sector”.
Those guarantees and legal protections have now been abandoned.
That situation was made starkly clear by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and other employers consulting on reforms to two final salary schemes, seeking the views of members on changes such as moving to a career average, revalued earnings arrangement and a cap on pensionable pay. The UK Government decided that because the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is classified as public sector, those schemes should be reformed under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. Clearly, however, those pensions are not public sector ones, as I shall go on to make clear.
The erosion of decommissioning workers’ pensions is unacceptable. Radical reform of those pensions has already taken place in the mid-2000s, when they were closed to new entrants, who now have inferior defined-contribution pensions. Public sector reform takes no account of the fact that decommissioning sites are now in the private sector, nor that, unlike for other public sector workers, redundancy is an inherent part of decommissioning workers’ employment.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Pension rights in the event of redundancy are particularly important for workers undertaking decommissioning at Trawsfynydd power station in my constituency because of the timescale for closure and the age profile of the workforce. I hope she agrees that we need a commitment from the Minister in her response that a solution will be found for employees of Magnox Ltd and other companies affected by the Enterprise Act 2016.
Patricia Gibson
I very much concur with the hon. Lady. We are seeking a response from the Minister that will show fairness and an understanding of what such workers have already gone through and of the assurances that were made. All future action should take full account of that.
As I said, redundancy is an inherent part of the employment of decommissioning workers, since cleaning nuclear sites is time-limited. The prospect of redundancy is therefore written into the job in a way that does not apply to any other. The job of a worker at a nuclear decommissioning site is highly technical, skilled and sometimes even dangerous. The prospect of redundancy being in-built in people’s jobs is bad enough, but to have their pension eroded at what increasingly looks like regular intervals is simply unacceptable. It creates disincentives for workers to enter or stay in the industry, and it is extremely bad for morale.
The uncertainty created by that erosion of pensions affects not only the workers, of course, but their families and their financial planning for their retirement, and it shows with crystal clarity that any legal protections offered by Governments to workers mean nothing when they can be ripped up and disregarded when convenient. I raised that very matter at Treasury questions two months ago and was told by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that
“it is necessary to have terms and conditions that reflect the modern situation that applies across the economy as a whole.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 769.]
Will the Minister tell me how that response squares with the cast-iron guarantees made to workers when the nuclear estate was privatised? Were the workers told that those so-called cast-iron guarantees were actually written on water?
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Is that not a constant theme? People take out pensions in good faith, whether state or private, to plan for something that might happen 20, 30 or 40 years later, but by the time they get there the goalposts have been moved.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely, and I will discuss that later in my speech. There is indeed a chilling wider pattern and a broader narrative becoming increasingly apparent as each day passes.
Those workers are classed as public sector workers, but their terms and conditions are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament as they are for other public sector workers. Indeed, Scottish nuclear workers still have their severance and early retirement terms dictated by the UK Government. The goalposts are clearly being moved when it is deemed financially beneficial for the Government or the industry, while the pensions interests of the workers are a secondary consideration.
The Office for National Statistics classified Magnox as a public sector organisation, which means that the pensions of its workers are in scope of reform by the UK Government, despite the fact that they work on sites that have been privatised. The UK Government have proposed to reform IR35 tax arrangements for contractors working in the public sector or for public authorities. Draft guidance from the Government uses the definition of a public authority contained in the Freedom of Information Acts, which includes bodies specifically listed in schedules to the Acts, publicly owned companies and any other body designated as a public authority by the Secretary of State. Interestingly, Magnox is not listed in the schedules, and that is because it is a privately and not publicly owned company. Consequently, the Freedom of Information Acts do not apply to Magnox except where stipulated in employee contracts with the NDA, and so neither do the IR35 reforms.
Nothing but confusion and concern can be caused by the use of different definitions of the public sector in different legislation and UK Government proposals. That is a matter of concern to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority as well as to nuclear decommissioning workers. The reason it matters so much to the workers at Hunterston A and other sites throughout the United Kingdom is the adverse financial impact such definitions will have on the employees of Magnox. The goalposts must not be moved and definitions must not be manipulated by the powers that be to the financial detriment of those who work on such sites day in, day out.
I wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on that very issue, asking for the apparent confusion to be clarified. I sent my letter on 7 February but, to date, I have had no response—presumably the Secretary of State himself is trying to work out the apparent contradiction. I hope he is able to do so soon, because the workers in Hunterston A and the rest of the industry are waiting on tenterhooks for him to dispense his wisdom about such a bewildering state of affairs.
All of that comes hard on the heels of the punitive exit payments cap, which will have a hugely detrimental impact on the pensions and redundancy payments of over-55s made redundant after years of service. As I have pointed out, those workers are caught up in the problem because they have been classified as public sector workers, even though they are employed in the private sector. The only fair and reasonable thing to do would be for the UK Government to announce that those workers are to be exempt from the exit payments cap under the Enterprise Act 2016.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. She is right to talk about the double whammy faced by nuclear workers. During the passage of the said Act, reference was made to their pensions not being touched. The Government, however, broke their word, which had been given not only at the time of privatisation but last year as well. I hope that the Minister will take note of that and respond, because it is unfair to those dedicated workers and their dedicated communities.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. My only disagreement with the hon. Gentleman is that, taking into account the reforms to those pensions in the mid-2000s, as well as the new exit payments cap reforms, we are actually talking about a triple whammy. I very much hope that the Minister will have something to tell us about the cap.
The exit payments cap for nuclear decommissioning workers was pressed to a vote in the Commons during the passage of the Act, but the Government voted us down. I hope—perhaps blindly optimistically—that the UK Government will be willing to reconsider. Talks have led to a new Nuclear Decommissioning Authority proposal, but the trade union consensus is that more must be done to put pension provision on a par with the public sector, including improvements for new starters in the defined-contribution scheme so that their pension is protected on any outsourcing.
Clearly, despite significant pension guarantees in the 1980s, the major pension reform in the mid-2000s and the exit payments cap, workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry are in the firing line. As has been mentioned, the fact is that this is part of a broader narrative from the UK Government, who are taking action to reduce public sector pensions across the board. We saw it with the way the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—women had their feet cut from under them as they approached what they thought was their retirement age, and we now see it with this catalogue of broken promises and betrayal of nuclear decommissioning workers, as everyone who is present would acknowledge.
It is clear that this Government, despite protestations to the contrary, see a pension not as a contract but as a benefit. To be clear, a pension is a contract, not a benefit. It is paid into, and people have reasonable expectations that what they can expect at the end of their working life should be clear and that they can depend upon it. Public sector workers, the WASPI women and now workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry have discovered to their cost that that is no longer the case. Those contracts can be torn up at will—or so it would seem. Assurances apparently mean nothing. Years of service and paying in mean nothing. If that is the case, what does it say about the relationship between the governing and the governed? What can one put faith in if not a contract with one’s Government?
These moves have to be resisted. Workers in the nuclear decommissioning industry are currently considering an offer from the Government. I do not know the details of that offer, but sadly, I am pretty sure that it will mean a further erosion—to some degree—of those workers’ pensions. That is simply not acceptable, for all the reasons that we have heard. I say to workers who are not directly affected by this measure, “Next it may well be your pension.” That is why this issue should matter to us all. Who knows what group of workers will be next in the firing line? I urge the Minister and this Government to think again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) on securing this important debate and her passionate and informative speech. The Government understand the concerns of the workforce across the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority estate, including employees working at the Hunterston A power station in her constituency, about public sector pension reform. It is good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) in her place, representing the interests of her constituents who work at Sellafield.
We recognise the vital decommissioning work that the NDA and the wider workforce across the estate deliver, while prioritising safe and secure operations in a difficult environment, and we remain firmly committed to supporting the nuclear decommissioning programme. The NDA was allocated £11 billion of taxpayer funding for the 2015 spending review period. However, in line with the challenges that the UK faces to balance the deficit, the NDA was set a proportionate programme of efficiencies and savings for that period of around £1 billion, and it was agreed in the spending review that some of those savings would come from reform of the two defined-benefit final salary pension schemes in the NDA estate.
Approximately 10,800 employees are members of those final salary pension schemes, which, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, closed in the 2000s. The aim of the NDA consultation is to reform those schemes into career average revalued earnings schemes, in the spirit of the recommendations made by Lord Hutton in his 2011 review of pensions. Since 2006, new starters have been offered membership of a high-quality defined-contribution pension scheme, which is out of scope for reform.
The Government acknowledge that CARE reform would require amendments to statutory pension protections that were put in place at the time of the privatisation of the electricity sector in the 1980s and by the Energy Act 2004, when the NDA was established. Those protections sought to provide pension benefits for existing scheme members that were at least as good as those they received prior to those reforms. That is why the Government have worked with the NDA to consider how best to implement pension reform.
As a first step, the NDA held discussions with the trade unions about the potential for non-legislative options as an alternative to CARE to realise the required savings. As a result of those discussions, the NDA launched a consultation document on 9 February setting out details of two options—the CARE option and a non-legislative pensionable pay cap option. The consultation was due to end on 10 March.[Official Report, 23 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 12MC.]
During those discussions, several concerns were raised, which the Government and the NDA actively listened to and sought to address. Following a meeting in February between the NDA, national trade union representatives and the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), who has responsibility for energy, the NDA and trade unions reached agreement to table a third option for consultation with the workforce that better reflected the circumstances they face—a revised CARE pension reform proposal.
That option was announced by the NDA and the trade unions in a joint statement on 2 March. The consultation period has therefore been extended until 21 April to allow the NDA workforce to consider that new option. The trade unions have committed to hold consultative ballots on the proposal, described as the best achievable through negotiation, and support implementation if their members accept the proposal. Those ballots are due to take place in April and conclude by early May.
Albert Owen
The Minister is making an important point. I, too, welcome the progress that has been made on the pension, but will she deal with the exit payments cap? No discussions were held about that. An exemption was given to the Royal Bank of Scotland, to give one example. She is a reasonable person. Nuclear workers have been caught up in this. Will she agree to look into this serious issue and come up with a reasonable response?
Margot James
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point, which was also raised by the hon. Members for North Ayrshire and Arran and for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). My Department and the NDA will continue to meet trade union representatives regarding the cap on exit payments. My hon. Friend the Energy Minister is listening to the important concerns of workers in the NDA estate about that cap and is in discussion with the Treasury.
Patricia Gibson
I wonder whether I may hurry the Minister along and raise the question of the apparent confusion in legislation about whether these workers are public sector workers or private sector workers. Why do the goalposts apparently change when it is convenient that they should—but not to the workers’ advantage?
Margot James
I understand that point, which the hon. Lady also made in her speech and which I took note of. I gather that she wrote to the Secretary of State about that very point in early February and is still awaiting a reply. A reply will be forthcoming. I am very sorry that I am not able to be definitive today, but I can assure her that Ministers in my Department take her point and the point made by the hon. Member for Ynys Môn very seriously indeed. We are listening to the concerns of the workforce she represents, and, as I said, my hon. Friend the Energy Minister is in discussion with the Treasury to try to clarify the point, so that the workforce know where they stand. I absolutely sympathise with a workforce who do not know where they stand—it is an unsatisfactory situation, but I assure her that it is one that is approaching a remedy.
We recognise that nuclear decommissioning is a closure industry and many workers have devoted careers to the industry knowing that their sites may close before they retire. We are actively exploring the potential impact of the cap on workforces at sites that are being actively decommissioned and are on the path to closure, such as Hunterston A in the hon. Lady’s constituency. I will pass all hon. Members’ comments on to my hon. Friend the Energy Minister.
Once the consultation period on the pension issue has finished, the NDA will take account of the consultation responses and make proposals for Ministers to consider after that. The Government will not take a final decision before the consultation has concluded. However, we believe that the revised CARE proposal offers a fair and sustainable solution.
As the debate draws to a close—the hon. Lady will have a further say—
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) does not have a further say as this is a half-hour debate. The Minister has 10 minutes left, so there is plenty of opportunity for Members to intervene if they wish to do so, but the debate must finish no later than 4.30 pm.
Margot James
Thank you, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry, I thought the proposer of the motion had two minutes at the end. The hon. Lady may take advantage of your offer of further interventions; I would be delighted to give way. While I am on my feet, however, I will continue.
I reiterate that the Government recognise the concerns that the hon. Lady and other hon. Members have raised about the workforce across the NDA estate and pension reform. I emphasise that the aim of pension reform is to balance the legitimate concerns of taxpayers about the present and future costs of pension commitments with the workforce’s concern about maintaining decent levels of retirement income, to which they have contributed and which they have earned. It is right that we debate that important issue and I thank all Members for their views.
Albert Owen
I heard what the Minister said and appreciate that she will take this issue back to the appropriate Minister. Will she or the Energy Minister agree to meet a delegation of cross-party representatives from the nuclear workers’ areas? She will know about early-day motion 915, to which there are 120-plus signatories. This is an issue across the country. Can we meet to have further discussions? This debate is helpful, but we need further discussions.
Margot James
I will certainly pass on the hon. Gentleman’s kind invitation to meet to my hon. Friend the Energy Minister. He is gainfully employed at the moment, meeting the Treasury, with the interests of the NDA workforce very much near his heart. I am sure that he will consider the invitation proffered.
Dr Philippa Whitford
We had a debate regarding Hewlett-Packard’s takeover of Digital Equipment’s workforce. At that time, the Minister responding said that nothing could be done because it was a purely private company. However, in this instance, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, the goalposts have been moved in the definition of public and private and back again, so the Government can do something for these workers.
Margot James
The hon. Lady makes a good point about the difference in the nature of the public-private definition. The industry has had £15 billion of Government and taxpayers’ support, so it sits where it sits. My officials will reflect on the views that all Members have given today, as we consider further the options for NDA pension reform. The Government will set out the next steps following the NDA consultation on pension reform.
Question put and agreed to.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
Order. At this point I would have gone on to the next debate, but the rules of engagement are that the Minister has to be present as well as the proposer of the motion. I intend to start the debate as soon as the Minister walks into the Chamber. The sitting is suspended until that point.
Stoke-on-Trent City of Culture 2021
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
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Stoke on Trent City of Culture 2021.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and it is an honour to have this opportunity to discuss the extraordinary heritage and culture of my great city of Stoke-on-Trent: the centre of our country, the centre of my universe, and the centre of a cultural renaissance that is breathing new life into an industrial heartland that has been overlooked by too many for too long. An oft-forgotten jewel nestled between the larger, gaudier baubles of Birmingham and Manchester, Stoke-on-Trent is a friendly, welcoming city with a rich heritage and an attitude and outlook all of its own. With its upcoming bid for city of culture 2021, Stoke-on-Trent is finally stepping out of the long shadow of its neighbours and showing the world what it is capable of. We are a hidden gem that will be hidden no more.
Our city was one of the launch pads of the industrial revolution and, from the opening of Josiah Wedgwood’s factory in Etruria in 1769 to the present day, the Potteries has quite literally made its name as the birthplace of the modern ceramics industry. Wherever we may be, whether in the furthest corners of the world, in the Minister’s Department, or even in our Tea Room, we are likely to find ourselves dining from tableware made in Stoke-on-Trent—made, in fact, in my constituency.
I was privileged to be present at the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) only last week, during which he told the House about the turnover club—those loyal ceramic enthusiasts who flip their plate, wherever they might be, to discover its origins. As a proud member of that club, I can tell hon. Members that our excitement upon discovering that all-important back stamp is entirely understandable, because the undeniable truth is that Stoke-on-Trent produces the finest ceramics in the world; we always have and we always will.
Ceramics is not just our history, it is our heritage. It continues to shape our culture and drive our economy in the most creative and innovative ways. Nowhere is that better demonstrated than in Middleport, in the heart of my constituency. The original home of the iconic Burleigh Ware pottery, opened in 1888, the factory has been fully restored thanks to the dedicated work of the Prince’s Regeneration Trust and now stands as a tribute to our industrial past and a driving force for our economic future. Today, it is best known as the location of the BBC’s “Great Pottery Throw Down”; a fabulous showcase for Stoke-on-Trent and the ceramics industry, it is now in its second season, and I am delighted to announce that it is about to be commissioned for a third.
It is wonderful that our city’s extraordinary heritage is being recognised in shows such as that, but let us be clear: as proud as we are of our ceramics industry, there is so much more to us than that. As well as being a fully operational pot bank, Middleport serves as a gallery and exhibition space for local artists, as a community hub and as a development centre for a host of bespoke ceramic and design businesses. From the Clarice Cliff-inspired works of Emma Bailey to the textural experiments of Libby Ward and the photography of Richard Howle—whose Potteries-themed railway posters I have proudly displayed in my living room—Middleport is an incubator for the talent and creativity of Stoke-on-Trent. Elsewhere, we are home to Staffordshire University, a respected higher education institute with an admirable record in art and design.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you for allowing me to speak, Mr Hollobone. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are multiple bids to be the city of culture, including some from Wales. On my two recent visits to her great city of Stoke-on-Trent, I was particularly impressed by the city’s commitment to education—specifically around the infrastructure and investment in both the further and higher education sectors. Does she agree that that reinforces the strength of Stoke-on-Trent’s bid to become the city of culture?
Ruth Smeeth
Of course there are other bids, but none so great as that from Stoke-on-Trent; no one will match my constituency. However, I agree that education is at the forefront of our bid, which is to ensure that not only my own constituents, but the entire country are educated about how much Stoke-on-Trent has to offer. We will lead that role from Staffordshire University.
My city is the birthplace of Reginald Mitchell, the inventor of the Spitfire, and Arnold Bennett, the great literary icon of the Potteries. Captain Smith of the Titanic was also born in Stoke-on-Trent, and while his ship’s maiden voyage may not have gone quite according to plan, its name lives on in the form of the award-winning Titanic Brewery. Its plum porter is particularly good; I am not just saying that because they occasionally let me brew it—they also let me taste it.
Our musical heritage is also long and varied. Connoisseurs of northern soul made pilgrimage to the Golden Torch in Tunstall in the early ’70s, while Shelley’s Astrodome was a national hotspot for the acid house scene in the ’80s and ’90s, helping to launch the careers of DJs such as Sasha. Stoke-on-Trent can also lay claim to two rock and roll legends: Slash from Guns N’ Roses was born in Burslem—the mother town of the Potteries—before moving to LA, while Lemmy from Motörhead also hailed from the area. A bronze bust of the bourbon-swilling frontman can be found in our wonderful Potteries Museum and Art Gallery in Hanley.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
That’s in my constituency.
Ruth Smeeth
Yes it is—never mind. Our most well-known son in recent years is, of course, Robbie Williams—my former constituent—whose song-writing team continued to ply their trade from Burslem for many years. His mother is well-known for her charitable ventures in the area, supporting schemes such as the incredible Ruff and Ruby project, which supports some of our most vulnerable young people.
This year marks the fourth anniversary of the Stoke-on-Trent literary festival, which will be hosted at the Emma Bridgewater factory in the heart of Stoke-on-Trent, which is also not in my constituency. Our former colleague and “Strictly Come Dancing” star Ed Balls will be attending this year. Ours is a city fizzing with energy and creativity. Every week I meet someone who is breaking new ground and creating something extraordinary.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. As the Member for Stafford, I support Stoke-on-Trent’s bid to become the city of culture; what is good for Stoke-on-Trent is good for Stafford and the whole of Staffordshire. Does she agree that Stoke-on-Trent is at the centre of a region—Staffordshire—that has many literary figures? Not only was there Samuel Johnson from Lichfield, but there was Izaak Walton, from Stafford; the current poet laureate, Carol Ann Duffy, who went to school in Stafford; Richard Sheridan, the former MP for Stafford; and, indeed, J.R.R. Tolkien, who lived in two places in my constituency. There is a variety of literary talent centred on Stoke-on-Trent to draw from for the city of culture.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank the hon. Gentleman for both his intervention and his support for this important bid. I could not agree more. We are blessed with the number of cultural icons across our great county, and I look forward to being able to celebrate them with both the country and the world should we be successful in our bid to be city of culture 2021.
More and more young people are finding the opportunity to harness and shape their creativity, just as their ancestors shaped the clay beneath them. However, one of the great frustrations for me and many others is that that is not the image of Stoke-on-Trent that so many people have, and that it is all too often not the way our great city is portrayed by the national media. Those who watched reports of the recent by-election in Stoke-on-Trent may have been left with the impression of a city in decline. Journalists posed by abandoned shop fronts or derelict bottle kilns, talking down our city and, disgracefully, its people. They did not bother to mention that the abandoned shopping centre they stood in front of is scheduled for demolition, or that it is just yards away from a growing city centre and a thriving cultural centre. If Michael Crick had thrown a stone from the Labour party’s campaign office, he would have had a better than average chance of hitting one of our great theatres.
Given the coverage, is it any wonder that, when people come to Stoke-on-Trent, they always express their surprise at how green a city we are? We have beautiful, award-winning Victorian parks in Burslem, Tunstall and Hanley—and apparently some in the south of the city, too. We have magnificent lakes and gardens, and we have more miles of canals than any city in England. Stoke-on-Trent has its problems. We accept that, and we are working hard to remedy them, but nothing will be fixed by talking down the city or ignoring the progress it has made. In fact, it is precisely our heritage and our culture that hold the key to fixing some of those problems, regenerating our city and inspiring the next generation.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
As one of three Members who represent the current city of culture, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and wish her and her city very well. There is something to say about legacy. In our few short months as the city of culture, we have already seen that things are changing; there is a spring in the air, people are happy and money is being spent. Investment is coming into the city, which is very important for the legacy. I wish my hon. Friend well.
Ruth Smeeth
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I look forward to visiting Hull this year to experience his city of culture. I think that is the key point: even at this stage, we have to commit to ensuring that the bidding process leaves a legacy, not just that we manage to secure the award. Hull is an inspiration now and I hope it will also be an inspiration at the end of the year.
Returning to my great city, I will this week be visiting the wonderful Portland Inn Project, which is working to turn a disused public house into a thriving community centre. Such projects do not just regenerate a building—they create the space for communities to come together. It is about improving our physical space, but it is also about creating something more meaningful. Culture is not just about what we do; it is about who we are. At the heart of our city’s ceramic history is not just the objects we produced; a whole community was shaped by shared struggle and fired by shared injustice—a fact highlighted as we commemorate the 175th anniversary of the pottery riots later this year. Those events shaped our industrial and cultural landscape, placing the labour movement at the heart of our community and our culture, and they continue to do so today.
Throughout our history, people have been brought together by pride in their work and the heritage of the city they built together—a city that has so much to offer today. The city of culture bid is an opportunity for people to see the other side of Stoke-on-Trent, and it is already happening. Just a couple of weeks ago, The Times ranked us 11th in its list of the top 20 cultural places to live in the UK.
Matthew Rice, the managing director of Emma Bridgewater, wrote an excellent book titled “The Lost City of Stoke-on-Trent”, exploring the hidden architectural gems of the six towns. It is a fine book, and I am sure everyone in the room has read it; if they have not, I recommend it. I always felt that its title struck a pessimistic note—a lament to a city whose best days are behind it. I hope that this speech and our wider debate will offer Members an insight into the hidden city of Stoke-on-Trent and the marvels that can still be found there, just beneath the surface.
It is a city shaped by 1,000 hands, just like the clay that made its name, and fired by the hopes and passions of its people. It is a place with so much more to offer than it is given credit for. I believe we can demonstrate that to the rest of the country and to the world by making Stoke-on-Trent our next city of culture. I urge the House to support our bid.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
The debate can last until 5.30 pm. Two hon. Gentlemen are seeking to catch my eye. While I would normally call the most experienced Member first, I will call Gareth Snell first because he is a recent by-election victor. I am sure Mr Flello will not mind.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this debate, as we seek to showcase the very best parts of the city that my hon. Friends and I represent. You will have already seen, though, that parochialism among the three constituencies is very much alive and well.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate. She mentioned, albeit briefly, one of Stoke’s historic sons, Arnold Bennett. This year marks the 150th anniversary of Arnold Bennett’s birth in Hanley, in my constituency. His tales of Turnhill, Bursley, Hanbridge, Knype and Longshaw provide a witty and pithy account of life in the Potteries at the turn of the last century. Whether in stories about Anna of the five towns or the Clayhanger family, he illuminated the real-life problems facing society at the end of the Victorian era through his application of what we would now call the creative industries.
While the wealth of Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire was derived from our heavy manufacturing, ceramics and mining, Arnold Bennett also knew the value of arts and culture. He once said:
“Am I to sit still and see other fellows pocketing two guineas apiece for stories which I can do better myself?...If anyone imagines my sole aim is art for art’s sake, they are cruelly deceived.”
That is potentially the benefit that my city can derive from its bid to be the city of culture in 2021. It is not just a financial but a social benefit. We understand the added benefits that can be derived when we go above art for art’s sake, and how it can help to heal some of society’s greatest wounds.
The Potteries is rich in culture. I cannot hope, in the time available to me, to do it justice, but I will do my best. For theatre lovers, we have some of the finest boards that have ever been tread—the Regent, the Victoria Hall, the Mitchell Memorial Theatre and the New Vic, which is a purpose-built theatre in the round. Each not only provides a brilliant night out but works with young people, older people and those who feel left behind to use culture and creativity as a conduit for tackling problems in their communities. Those who wish to eat and drink will find some of the finest breweries and restaurants in the west midlands. For those who wish to continue their festivities, an array of clubs and night-time venues will provide many a happy—if blurry—memory.
Our cultural contributions run deep. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned the distinguished careers of music legends Slash, Lemmy and Robbie Williams, but I am afraid to say that she neglected to mention that of Jackie Trent, who is well known as the composer of the theme tune to “Neighbours” and can trace her roots to the Potteries.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I cannot allow this opportunity to pass by without mentioning Gertie Gitana.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend, as always, shows his experience in matters that are above me. Given that my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) are present, and that my other neighbour, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), is the Culture Secretary, it would be remiss of me not to point out that everybody needs good neighbours, and that with a little understanding, you can find the perfect blend.
Stoke-on-Trent’s historic contributions to cultural advancements are not limited to music, food, theatre and ceramics. We have a rich scientific heritage too. Sir Oliver Lodge, born in 1851 in Penkhull, was a physicist and inventor who identified electromagnetic radiation independent of the work being carried out by his contemporary, Hertz. His work gave the world the spark plug. The fact that that is not better known is shocking. Thomas Twyford, born in Hanley in 1849, may have bequeathed to our society one of the greatest cultural advances ever: the single-piece ceramic flush toilet. In doing so, he performed a public duty for public sanitation.
Our city’s industrial heritage is well preserved at the Etruria Industrial Museum. The Potteries Museum and Art Gallery, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned, is also home to part of the Staffordshire hoard. The Wedgwood Museum in Barlaston has kept a real and tangible link with the historic family, who made their name in Stoke-on-Trent. The Gladstone Pottery Museum in Stoke-on-Trent South ensures that skills from our past are being passed on to our children for their future.
Jeremy Lefroy
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the name Wedgwood. He may also know that one of the Wedgwood family, Emma Wedgwood, married Charles Darwin, who has an extremely strong connection with our area. I do not think one needs to say more about Charles Darwin, but I am sure that if Stoke-on-Trent were to be city of culture, we would celebrate that connection.
Gareth Snell
Absolutely. The Wedgwood family are still very much active in civil society in Stoke-on-Trent today, in a number of ways, and I am sure they will lend their support to our bid.
In recent years we have seen Appetite Stoke run public art exhibitions to demonstrate that culture is part of Stoke-on-Trent’s everyday existence and not simply something that happens at weekends. It has been successful in bringing forward plans for young people to be more actively involved in how Stoke-on-Trent celebrates its heritage and past, and it encapsulates what we can do going forward.
Thinking of the past, it would be remiss of me not to mention that Philip Astley was born in 1742 in neighbouring Newcastle-under-Lyme and spent most of his formative years in the Potteries. He, of course, is known as the father of the modern circus. Stoke-on-Trent has another famous adopted son in the form of Neil Baldwin—or Nello the Clown, as he is known to us—who was Stoke City’s kit man but has also been a great advocate for the circus industry; he still performs, even though he is in his early 70s.
I cannot participate in this debate without mentioning Staffordshire University. It is one of the finest universities that can be found—a modern university that has taken all that modernity gives and made the most of it. It has a thriving ceramic art department. It has a world-renowned gaming department that is now at the forefront of developing digital technologies. Its performing arts are well received, and it is difficult to get tickets to some of its events, although I figure I might have a slightly better chance now. The university is also at the cutting edge of scientific advancement, which participates heavily in the cultural identity of Stoke-on-Trent.
Finally, it would be wrong not to mention professional football, which is a great part of our city’s cultural identity. Stoke City is one of the oldest professional football clubs in the world. It has been at the forefront of community work across Stoke-on-Trent, and its current chairman, Peter Coates, does much to help and support the city.
Ruth Smeeth
I could not agree more about the role of sport in terms of my city’s culture—or our city; I might share it. As wonderful as Stoke City is, does my hon. Friend agree that the only true football club is Port Vale, in the north of the city, which happens to have the Wembley of the north as its stadium?
Gareth Snell
I most certainly do not agree. There is but one team in Stoke, and that is Stoke City. My hon. Friend should look at the name, although I appreciate that she has her own loyalties.
Jeremy Lefroy
Perhaps I can cool things down a bit. To be serious, is it not true that Stoke City is a fine example of a local family—local investors—putting money into their local club and taking a long-term view? Would that most other premiership teams followed that model.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. This is not even about the football club. Peter Coates and Stoke City have demonstrated that there is a role in communities for professional football clubs that wish to make an investment with their fans. It is not simply about providing a game mid-week or at weekends. There are multiple examples across Stoke-on-Trent of families, young people and schools benefiting as a direct result of the commitment that the Coates family and Stoke City have shown to Stoke-on-Trent. Without them, our city would be all the poorer.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city where people can eat and drink, laugh, dance and sing, learn, love and live. We are artists, educators, innovators, engineers, potters, miners, toilers and industrialists. Ours is a city of culture born out of labour, and a city that has contributed so much to so many. It is a privilege to support the motion this afternoon.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I will need to start calling the Front-Bench speakers no later than seven minutes past 5.
Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
It is, as ever, a delight to see you in the Chair, Mr Hollobone. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate—although my colleagues have stolen most of my lines—because for me, no city is more suitable than Stoke-on-Trent to be the UK city of culture 2021.
I am proud to call Stoke-on-Trent my home and to serve as one of the three ambassadors from within the city—there are also ambassadors more widely—here in Westminster. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate on our behalf.
As has been mentioned, during January and February this year we saw Stoke-on-Trent subjected to an unprecedented level of media and public attention as a result of the by-election. We should have seen a showcase for the progress that has been made. Let me pause here and just note that much of that progress started under previous, Labour-run councils over the past decade. The by-election should have been a showcase for the progress in our city by the high-tech industries that have sprung up and for the incredible work ethic, industriousness and, above all, creativity of the people of Stoke-on-Trent. Sadly, tragically, what we saw was anything but.
My colleagues and I have spoken time and again of our disappointment with the way that Stoke-on-Trent was portrayed by the media, who were more interested in a good story than a true one. We saw images of disused bottle kilns, crumbling derelict buildings and expanses of disused land. The latter two are the sort of thing that any city possesses, and the reason for the former, in many cases, is that the kilns are protected as a symbol of our city’s rich heritage. In Stoke-on-Trent, those images in particular were used to feed into the UK Independence party’s narrative of a city on its knees—a false narrative.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
Is not the real message from the by-election a tribute to the people of Stoke, the vast majority of whom voted for parties other than UKIP?
Robert Flello
Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because his point leads nicely to the next paragraph of my speech.
We saw off UKIP last month because of a fantastic campaign, the excellent candidate we had and that positive message, as my hon. Friend has just noted, but also, I think, and as he also said, because the people of Stoke-on-Trent know deep down that our city is better than we were told we were. They are proud of where they live, and if people had taken the opportunity to find the true Stoke-on-Trent, they would have known exactly why. Yes, of course Stoke-on-Trent has its problems, and we could debate for hours where they stem from, but there is a responsibility on journalists, commentators and politicians to paint a fair picture, not one that matches their agenda or preconceptions. Long after they have returned home, the hard-working people of Stoke-on-Trent are doing all they can—all we can—to make our city a better place.
Culture can mean many different things to different people. In many ways, it is what you make it. It is easy for people to compare their city with another and see what it lacks. We are pretty good at self-deprecation in Stoke-on-Trent, but it is less easy to wax lyrical about the things that perhaps we see every day. We have the immediately obvious cultural examples that have been mentioned. We have fantastic museums, such as the Gladstone Pottery Museum in Longton, as well as less well known but equally superb things such as Appetite Stoke, the small art galleries across the city and groups such as B Arts. As has been mentioned, we have theatres attracting some of the biggest names in music, comedy and theatre, as well as smaller productions put on by amateur groups as varied as Five Towns theatre, North Staffs Operatic Society, the All Woman choir and Trentham brass band, to name just a few. There are dance groups such as Steelworks in Fenton and the Kaytelles in Blurton. Their sessions are attended by hundreds of youngsters every week.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North mentioned Titanic Brewery, but there are microbreweries across our city producing, quite frankly, Mr Hollobone, the sort of brew that would make you not want to set foot out of Stoke-on-Trent and travel down to London—they are that good.
We have wonderful parks and fabulous green spaces. In my own area, we have Longton’s Queen’s Park, and Fenton boasts both Fenton Park and Smithpool. There is also a huge array of residents’ associations doing sterling work on behalf of the communities that they represent. There are the fabulous waters in and around the city, which are looked after by groups of volunteers who give their time freely and happily to cherish the areas that we have.
As has been mentioned, Stoke-on-Trent has the fantastic premiership club Stoke City and the wonderful bet365 stadium. We do tease our hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North about Port Vale. I remember that when I first spoke to someone in Stoke-on-Trent about football—which seems like many hundreds of years ago—they said to me, “Of course, there are two teams in Stoke-on-Trent: Stoke City A and Stoke City B.” But we will move quickly on from that.
Ruth Smeeth
As wonderful as Stoke City are, and they do wear the right colour strip, it is fair to say that Port Vale have done so much for our city, not least in bringing back one of our cultural icons, Robbie Williams, at every opportunity, and therefore they will be a core part of our bid, not least by building on our city of sport status, which we had such great success with last year.
Robert Flello
I thank my hon. Friend. There is nothing I can add to what she has said, but I will just say that I am a trustee of the community fund of Stoke City and never cease to be impressed by the outreach work done by the club. I, too, pay tribute to the Coates family and the investment that they have made in our city.
What I have not mentioned but cannot be ignored is the ceramics industry. Stoke-on-Trent is much more than ceramics, but the area is still known as the Potteries for a very good reason. Yes, the industry was decimated, but it is on the up. Gone are the days of a skyline dominated by bottle kilns, but now the industry is at the cutting edge of technology, supplying a mind-boggling array of sectors as well as supplying more traditional products. The work done by small independent potters, such as one of my favourites, Anita Harris Art Pottery, is of the highest quality, and similar-quality producers seem to be springing up all the time. It is amazing, Mr Hollobone, that you can go and speak to someone and in their back kitchen they will have a kiln, where they will be producing work of the finest quality.
Middleport Pottery has become the face of “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, but the mighty Wedgwood, perhaps the biggest name of all, still has its factory in my constituency. It has recently undergone major renovations to improve its facilities and expand its shopping and, of course, its museum offering. Tristram Hunt, the previous Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, described the Wedgwood collection as
“perhaps the most compelling account of British industrial, social and design history anywhere in the world”—
anywhere in the world.
Jeremy Lefroy
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this is not just about the history, vital though that is? Even today, the ceramics industry is a net contributor to our trade balance: we export far more than we import. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said previously, the products can be found all over the world, even in the European Parliament and the World Bank.
Robert Flello
Indeed, and long may that continue, and long may I continue to be a member of the pot turners club as well. I say this just as an aside: we need to ensure that that industry gets the best possible deal out of Brexit.
The fact that the campaign to save the Wedgwood collection was the fastest fundraising campaign in the 111-year history of the Art Fund tells us everything we need to know about its importance. Josiah Wedgwood was the pioneer of so much that has shaped modern Britain, from marketing to distribution and the division of labour. He was one of the fathers of the industrial revolution, not to mention a prominent abolitionist, and is yet another reason to be proud of our city.
It should not simply be the volume that decides which city is successful in its bid to be capital of culture, as the guidance for the bid acknowledges; it should be the quality and diversity of the offer. If it was about sheer volume, London would be capital every time. However, if we want to see a wide range of projects covering a multitude of different categories, engaging all ages and ethnic groups and being truly and properly inclusive, there is nowhere better than Stoke-on-Trent. We have a truly ambitious and wide-ranging series of projects that will absolutely do justice to the honour of the title.
I believe that Stoke-on-Trent City Council was right to bid for city of culture 2021. If I may delicately suggest, those in power now may have been a little slow to back the previous Labour Administration’s plans for the city, but I am delighted to provide my support now and to give the bid truly cross-party support. When it comes to improving our city, there is no place for party politics.
Gareth Snell
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. It is worth noting—I am sure he was going to get to this point—that every local authority in Staffordshire, irrespective of political hue, backs this bid, which has got genuine cross-party consideration locally across Staffordshire and across the Members of Parliament as well.
Robert Flello
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that the bid has that backing from across parties and across Staffordshire. City of culture status for Stoke-on-Trent has the potential to inspire, to build pride in our city and to showcase our true face, not the impression that has been built up through decades of cheap shots and uninformed criticism.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to intervene on my hon. Friend before he finishes, because I have been waiting throughout all the speeches for some mention of one of the greatest things I discovered on my recent trip to Stoke: the Staffordshire oatcake. After an evening in one of the lovely pubs that have been mentioned, there is nothing greater than having a cheese and bacon oatcake to finish the evening.
Robert Flello
Absolutely—I have a feeling that my hon. Friend will be receiving a packet of oatcakes before too long.
I can absolutely guarantee that no other city that has bid for city of culture 2021 will embrace it like Stoke-on-Trent will. Residents of our great city have always embraced the opportunity to highlight all that makes Stoke-on-Trent a fantastic place to live and, as many of my colleagues will testify, anyone who has ever visited will say that there are no friendlier people anyone could possibly meet. They are warm, they are generous, they are proud and they deserve the opportunity that city of culture status can bring. Liverpool, Derry/Londonderry and now Hull have enhanced the title of city of culture and been enhanced by it, and we will do the same.
To finish, I want to mention my, sadly now deceased, mother-in-law June Clarke. She was a paintress, like so many others, at Spode. She was walking past a shop a couple of years ago and stopped and said, “I painted that,” as she pointed through the window. Of course, as might be imagined, her comment was met with a little hilarity at the time, because she was pointing at a plate high up on a shelf in the shop. She described that, on the back of the plate, there would be a unique mark—her mark—that she had put on it many decades earlier. After going into the shop, lifting the plate down from that high shelf and turning it over, we saw that there was indeed her mark on the back. The level of skill involved meant that she could still recognise her own brushwork on that plate, which she had painted more than 40 years before. In many ways, that for me is the culture of Stoke-on-Trent: huge quality with a humble modesty—cultural excellence then, and cultural excellence now.
Stoke-on-Trent city of culture 2021 will be a perfect marriage of the historical excellence of our city and 21st-century creative genius. I am backing my city.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
I know that both Opposition spokesmen are going to exemplify quality and humble modesty as well. The guideline limit for Opposition speeches in a one-hour debate is five minutes. I call John Nicolson.
John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you very much indeed, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing this debate.
The role that the city of culture competition can play in re-energising and regenerating a city should never be underestimated. Back in 1990, Glasgow became the first UK city to be named European capital of culture, and it relaunched our city to an international audience. Glasgow is now known for its creativity and dynamism throughout Scotland, Europe and the world.
It was after the success of Liverpool’s year as European capital of culture 2008 that the UK city of culture competition was established. In a short period, it has captured the imagination of cities throughout the UK, with 14 applying for the inaugural award. Hull fought off competition from 10 other candidates to be named UK capital of culture 2017. Stoke-on-Trent also faces stiff competition, not least from both Paisley and Perth north of the border, but today’s debate has illustrated just how strong a bid Stoke’s will be.
Last September, I was delighted to visit Stoke-on-Trent with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, as part of our inquiry into “Countries of Culture”. While there, we were given a fascinating tour of the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery. My personal highlights were the national ceramics collection, which included famous frog cups and dinner plates made for Catherine the Great, and the extraordinary 7th-century Anglo-Saxon Staffordshire hoard. Other attractions included the Spitfire that we have heard about. During a roundtable discussion with local representatives from the arts and heritage sector, it was clear that Stoke has so much to offer.
Yet despite that, and as we have heard, Stoke is often characterised as a rundown, post-industrial city. During the recent by-election, it was referred to as the “capital of Brexit”—an image that conjures up angry provincialism. Stoke does not deserve such a moniker. My image of Stoke is very different. Its cultural offerings are not limited to museums and fine old buildings. It has a track record of delivering world-class art events through the Appetite arts programme. Since 2013, it has brought vibrant and varied events to the city, from large outdoor circus spectacles in parks to intimate folk gigs in bus stations.
It is clear that Stoke-on-Trent might have had all the qualities to be named the UK city of culture 2021 were it not for two words: Perth and Dundee. My hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) would not forgive me if I endorsed Stoke-on-Trent’s bid, so alas I cannot—Paisley and Perth are two other able contenders in the competition. After Derry/Londonderry in 2013 and Hull this year, it is surely only fair that the UK capital of culture now comes to Scotland, since we are still in the UK, at least in the short term.
As the Prime Minister embarks on her tour of the nations in an attempt to turn us all into born-again Brexiteers ahead of triggering article 50, and as the love-bombing of Scotland begins ahead of our next referendum on independence, maybe those who wish to show just how much the UK cares about Scotland can show some appreciation for Paisley or Perth and name one of them the city of culture as a farewell present.
Ruth Smeeth
While the hon. Gentleman spoke a great deal of sense about our great city—
Ruth Smeeth
For that I am very grateful, but does he agree that being part of the Union means celebrating everything that makes up the Union? Surely he would not want to be bribed to stay in the Union in order to get this. In fact, if he wants the city of culture 2021, he should stop campaigning to leave the Union.
John Nicolson
I cannot believe the hon. Lady managed to shoehorn a bit of British Unionism into a question when I was giving such a politically neutral speech. We are proud members of the European Union and intend to stay a European country.
It might just be a coincidence, but in November 2013 the city of Dundee lost out to Hull in its bid to be named UK capital of culture. Less than a year later, Dundee recorded the strongest vote in favour of Scottish independence in the country. Dundee, always one step ahead when it comes to trends in Scottish politics, has now set its sights on becoming the European capital of culture in 2023—perhaps an indication of where it believes its future to lie.
Applying to be named city of culture is an important opportunity for many towns and cities throughout the UK. The competition allows people to rediscover and better understand the culture and heritage of the place that they call home. It inspires self-confidence and a sense of pride in community. It provides a platform to showcase the best of any given city to the rest of the country.
All of us who have listened to and participated in this debate will have learnt something new about Stoke-on-Trent. Each of us will also have taken something away from the debates we have had on the other applicant cities— Paisley, Perth, Sunderland and Swansea. I take this opportunity to wish all the applicants for UK’s city of culture in 2021 the best in the months and years ahead.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am afraid that the shadow Minister for culture, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), is otherwise detained, so you are stuck with me, his far-less cultured colleague, responding from the Front Bench today. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) and to my other hon. Friends on their contributions. Stoke could hardly ask for better advocates for the city or for its bid. With the breadth of support, ranging from Charles Darwin to “Neighbours” via the circus industry, it is hard to see how the bid can fail.
In January 2009, the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham)—announced that the Labour Government would commission a working group to report on the feasibility of establishing a UK capital of culture competition. The aim was to build on the success of Glasgow and Liverpool as European capitals of culture in 1990 and 2008 respectively. In both cases, those post-industrial cities demonstrated huge talent and initiative, which helped to regenerate communities and solidified a lasting legacy. To this day, both cities retain an excellent reputation for the arts, enhanced by that year in the spotlight.
The Labour Government—working with Phil Redmond, who first proposed the competition and went on to chair the working group—created a UK city of culture programme that recognises, in the words of my right hon. Friend, that
“culture and creativity should be viewed as part of the answer to tough economic times and not as a distraction or a luxury”.
We are certainly still experiencing tough, if not tougher, economic times, and the Government have been too slow to recognise the role of arts and culture in economic regeneration, so I am pleased to see that the UK city of culture programme continues to thrive and to demonstrate that creativity and culture are central to the economic and social successes of our communities.
At the heart of the UK city of culture venture is, to paraphrase the working group’s report, the desire for culture to act as a catalyst for social, economic and civic agendas. Rather than imposing a prescriptive checklist, the programme gives a platform to local identities and promotes existing talent and initiative for all the world to see. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) said in 2009:
“excellence and innovation in the arts does not begin and end inside the M25”.
Given all that, it is obvious why so many UK cities are keen to bid for the 2021 title. As convincing as my hon. Friends have been, I hope they understand that I cannot back a particular bid from the Front Bench. However, it is clear that Stoke-on-Trent is an excellent candidate for city of culture, not least because that programme is built on recognition of the economic importance of the arts. That connection is particularly clear in Stoke, where ceramics are unquestionably both an art and industry that remain at the heart of that community. Stoke’s bottle ovens are testament to the intersections between technology, science, art and aesthetics. We must learn to harness that force to regenerate our economy.
As we have heard, there is so much more to Stoke than the potteries. Museums, theatres, breweries and businesses all contribute to the city’s cultural identity and pride, and to the cultural renaissance that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North spoke so passionately about. Regardless of the outcome of the next round of bids, Stoke is an excellent example of a creative community, and its bid alone will show those who rarely look beyond the M25 exactly what they are missing. The city of culture programme has been extremely successful and I hope that that will continue with whichever city wins next.
When Derry/Londonderry was the first UK city of culture, it was plain for all to see how that city had changed. On the day that we have heard the news of the death of Martin McGuinness, it is appropriate to acknowledge how his home city changed from being the crucible of the troubles a few decades previously to being a venue for the peace process to flourish and for subsequent regeneration. The title drew attention to a side of the city that was already thriving, but was previously seldom seen.
Likewise, Hull—the current title holder—is enjoying widespread media coverage and public engagement. The regeneration has already begun, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) made clear. The online media outlet, Insider Media Ltd, reports that the restaurant industry in Hull is already benefiting from the city’s cultural status. With events ranging from Comic Con to film screenings, the hard work and commitment of the people of Hull to their city and their culture is getting the praise and attention it deserves. It is also fitting to pay tribute to the work of Councillor Stephen Brady, Labour leader of Hull Council, for championing culture as an agent of change for economic regeneration.
Stoke, or any other bidding city, does not need a title to be a city of culture. Culture is already central to Stoke. However, the city of culture programme’s importance is in increasing national attention and giving credit to work that is already going on. I hope that the competition continues to thrive; that the next city to win the title enjoys the same success as its predecessors; and that the Government continue to support this excellent initiative of the last Labour Government.
Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)
If the Minister would be kind enough to conclude his remarks at 5.27 pm—perhaps his Parliamentary Private Secretary could prod him with 30 seconds to go—that would allow Ruth Smeeth a couple of minutes to sum up the debate.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your excellent chairmanship again, Mr Hollobone, and to congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) on securing the debate. Rarely has a more harmonious debate taken place in this Chamber. The hon. Lady is a passionate advocate for her city, and we have also seen that from Members on both sides of the House who support the bid. There is clearly strong cross-party support. From hearing the hon. Lady, I am sure that Stoke will make strong proposals in April, as, no doubt, will the 10 other cities that are bidding for this prestigious title.
Only last week, The Times named Stoke in 11th place on its list of the top arts hotspots in Britain—one place behind Hull, the current UK city of culture. That is the first of many facts in my speech that have already been mentioned—just wait till I get on to the oatcakes. The council, which is strongly behind the bid, has brought together a wide array of partners and has incredibly exciting plans to revitalise the area. My opposite number, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), is an absolutely brilliant shadow Minister—her saying that she is not cultured is modesty beyond anything that is reasonable—and I was struck by her saying that the city of culture accolade finds a city where culture is already thriving but is hitherto not enough seen. That description of the impact of being city of culture was incredibly well put.
Stoke has a great history and a global reputation. Most people know it for its ceramics. People can visit the most complete coal-fired Victorian pottery in the UK at the Gladstone Pottery Museum, and they can decorate their own pottery during an Emma Bridgewater factory tour, both of which have been mentioned. I am the proud owner of Emma Bridgewater mugs, both at home and at work, where I have one with my ministerial title on it. It is extremely exciting and sits on my desk at work. There is also the Wedgwood Museum—funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund—which contains the stunning Wedgwood collection, reflecting centuries of cultural innovation.
When it comes to the impact of culture on the economy, I strongly agree that culture and creativity are central to social, economic and civic renewal. We talk about the impact of culture on an economy a lot now, but we can see that through the ages in the potteries of Stoke. The Wedgwood collection has been managed by the Victoria and Albert Museum since December 2014, following fundraising efforts by the Art Fund and others and with the help of the former Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who is now the excellent new director of the V&A. The connection between the V&A and Stoke is one that I only expect to strengthen under his astute directorship.
Middleport Pottery, a major regeneration project funded by the Prince’s Regeneration Trust, hosts the BBC’s “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which I am told is hugely popular but I have not seen. I will have to watch it. If it is anything like the other great pottery throwdowns in film that I have seen in my time, it will be extremely exciting. Stoke-on-Trent also has almost 200 listed buildings—there is a fact nobody has mentioned yet—many of which are connected with the ceramics industry.
It is not just about ceramics and pottery; the city has a lot of other cultural assets too, including Trentham gardens, the Regent theatre, the Victoria Hall, the New Vic and the Potteries Museum and Art Gallery. We have heard about Titanic Brewery, Appetite Stoke, the Five Towns theatre, Trentham brass band, Steelworks at Fenton and many others. In recent years, the area has enjoyed significant investment from Arts Council England and the Heritage Lottery Fund. For instance, Hanley Park, one of the largest Victorian parks in the UK, was awarded £4.5 million for refurbishment by the HLF in 2015. Then, of course, there is the football, and finally, Stoke’s contribution to fast food, the oatcake. Stoke-on-Trent clearly has a lot to be proud of, but why is it worth bidding for UK city of culture status?
Robert Flello
The Minister is right to point out the investment in culture by organisations, but it is also important to highlight investment by businesses. For example, although I know my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) will be upset by this, Valentine Clays Ltd is about to open a fantastic brand-new facility in a big, marvellous building in Fenton. It shows that businesses are also investing in and getting to grips with our city.
Matt Hancock
With so much local knowledge on display in this debate, added to the contribution made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) about the impact that city of culture status can have on a town, I am really a bit part in this debate. All the arguments have already been made, and most of the facts deployed.
UK city of culture is about naming a city, getting the attention of the whole country and putting on a pedestal that city’s cultural assets and value in order to lift it and showcase it to the rest of the country and the world. I saw that for myself in Hull, where I spent a lot of time growing up because I had family there. The impact has been incredibly exciting, including the regeneration in the town centre, such as the opening of the completely refurbished and absolutely brilliant Ferens Art Gallery. It has brought to Hull people who might otherwise not have considered it and asked people in the rest of the country and worldwide, as well as the people of Hull themselves, to look again at the city, see it in a positive, vibrant light, as it has been seen for much of its history, and lift it on its path of urban renewal. It is incredibly exciting. Walking through parts of Hull that I had not been to for 10 or 15 years and seeing them renewed and rejuvenated has been a pleasure, and I look forward to doing so in the city of culture 2021.
To put some hard facts on the issue, we estimate that being the city of culture 2017 will deliver a £60 million boost to the local economy. Hull has already had investments of more than £1 billion, creating thousands of jobs, since winning UK city of culture status in 2013. It has been named by Rough Guides as one of the top 10 cities to visit in the world this year; similarly, Londonderry saw 1 million visitors during its year as UK city of culture. I love the fact that the fans at Hull City now chant, “You’re only here for the culture!” I am sure that that can happen at both Stoke City and Port Vale, should Stoke win for 2021. The city of culture project builds on the European capital of culture project and next year’s great exhibition of the north in Newcastle and Gateshead.
No matter how far each of the 11 cities reaches in the competition, I hope that the galvanising effect of bidding will already have had a small impact. Much of it is about bringing people together, breaking down boundaries and encouraging a mixed economy of business, philanthropy and public sector funding to come together to lift a city. I hope that in the bidding process, Stoke and its surrounding area—we have heard support from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy)—has been able to lift its eyes to the horizon and make the argument locally that culture and creativity are not something to be scaled back; rather, they are critical to the investment that people want in a sense of place and belonging.
Before I leave a couple of minutes for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North to respond to the debate, I know what the people of Stoke watching this want me to do, but sadly, as I am sure she knows, it is the one thing I cannot do: grant her wish that Stoke will definitely become the city of culture. However, I commend her efforts and offer good luck to her and all the people of Stoke as the competition goes on.
Ruth Smeeth
It has been a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, in this debate on an important issue that is close to my heart. Before moving on, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore), the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and my neighbours and hon. Friends, the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello), for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) and for Redcar (Anna Turley) for contributing to this debate; it has been a diverse range. I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, especially the Minister, for celebrating my great city and how much we have to contribute. The Minister has not given me the answer I want, but I did not expect him to—yet.
I was remiss in not mentioning earlier that the oatcake has been the break-out star of the recent by-election, in addition to my new colleague.
Ruth Smeeth
Yes. Not only has the oatcake been mentioned in this debate, it made it into The Guardian’s food pages last month, a clear sign of the culinary zeitgeist if ever there was one.
My colleagues and I truly believe that the city of culture bid is important because it will help our children dream. It will show them how much we have already achieved and what we can achieve together in future. There is nothing more important for us. We have also seen in this debate how much Stoke-on-Trent has to offer. I hope that hon. Members have seen a little snippet of how brilliant our city is. If they did not visit this year during the by-election, although I think most colleagues did, I urge them to come and see how special we are.
It is a testament to how much we have to offer that so many of my colleagues have come to this debate, but how much more can we achieve if we are awarded city of culture status for 2021? I thank everyone for their support, and I look forward to welcoming them to the city in 2021 when we have city of culture status.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Stoke on Trent City of Culture 2021.
Written Statements
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
In February 2015, the Government appointed five commissioners to exercise all executive functions and some non-executive functions at Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. It followed critical reports by Baroness Alexis Jay and Dame Louise Casey, which found significant failings at the council contributing to child sexual exploitation in Rotherham.
On 9 February 2017, I announced my intention, after careful consideration of the recommendation of the commissioner team, to return six service areas to Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council—adult social care and the council’s partnership with the NHS, external partnerships, economic growth, town centre, grounds maintenance and audit. On the same day, representations were invited from the authority regarding this intention. I have now considered the representations, including from the leader and the chief executive, and I am satisfied that the council is now able to exercise functions relating to these service areas in compliance with the best value duty, and that the people of Rotherham can have confidence that this will be the case.
The leader and the chief executive also made representations for the return of the power to appoint council representatives to external bodies. The return of this power was also recommended by the lead commissioner in his letter of 10 February. I am also satisfied that the council is able to exercise this function in accordance with the best value duty.
Therefore, today I am exercising my powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to return seven functions to the council. The Education Secretary and I have issued further directions amending the directions issued on 13 December 2016 to do so. Handing back these powers increases democratic control and is a significant milestone for the council, which has demonstrated steady progress in its improvement journey.
With effect from 21 March, councillors will be responsible for decision making in these seven areas. The commissioners will continue to provide oversight on these areas as well as the set of functions returned last year and ensure that they are exercised in accordance with the statutory best value duty. Commissioners also continue to retain powers in additional service areas including children’s services (including all services relating to child sexual exploitation) as well as the appointment of statutory officers.
Sir Derek Myers, the lead commissioner, will also be stepping down at the end of this month having overseen the return of three quarters of services areas to the council over a two year period. I am grateful for the leadership he has shown in taking a failing authority in hand, and steering it through a rapid and wide-ranging improvement journey. As there is now a reduced role for commissioners, I will not be appointing any additional commissioners. Commissioner Ney will become Rotherham’s lead commissioner with effect from 1 April 2017.
[HCWS548]
NHS England: Mandate 2017-18
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (David Mowat)
I have laid before Parliament the Government’s mandate to NHS England for 2017-18, in accordance with the Health and Social Care Act 2012. This outlines our objectives for NHS England and sets direction for the NHS as a whole. It also confirms NHS England’s budget for the coming year, including a 1.4% real-terms increase.
NHS England is responsible for arranging the provision of health services in England. Building on the current multi-year mandate, which came into effect on 1 April 2016 and set long-term objectives and goals to 2020, the renewed mandate focuses on the same seven high-level objectives:
to improve local and national health outcomes, and reduce health inequalities, through better commissioning;
to help create the safest, highest quality health and care service;
to balance the NHS budget and improve efficiency and productivity;
to lead a step change in the NHS in preventing ill health and supporting people to live healthier lives;
to improve and maintain performance against core standards;
to improve out-of-hospital care; and
to support research, innovation and growth.
The mandate sets out the key annual deliverables in each area to achieve the 2020 goals.
The Government continue to support the NHS’s own five year forward view blueprint for transforming services to respond to the challenges of the future. The Government have committed to a £10 billion increase, over and above inflation, in NHS funding by 2020-21. In parallel, it is vital that the NHS delivers the productivity and efficiency gains set out in the five year forward view to live within its means and that NHS England ensures financial balance in the NHS, alongside NHS Improvement.
Core to the mandate is delivery of the NHS’s A&E turnaround plan to return the majority of trusts to the 95% standard by the end of the financial year. This will require close working with local authorities to reduce delayed discharges from hospital, following the Government’s injection of additional funding for social care in the spring Budget 2017; rolling out new models for urgent and emergency care to ensure patients receive care in the safest and most appropriate setting; and streamlining governance and oversight of A&E across NHS England and NHS Improvement.
The Government are investing more in mental health than ever before to support delivery of the ambitious goal, set out in the mandate, of 1 million more people with mental health conditions to access services by 2020. This includes embedding the first ever access and waiting times standards for talking therapies, eating disorders and early intervention in psychosis; and developing and implementing a five-year improvement plan for crisis and acute care.
The five year forward view set an ambitious vision for transforming out-of-hospital care for patients, including improving access to general practice; greater integration of primary, community and social care to provide personalised care for patients; rolling out new models of care across the population; and achieving early diagnosis, service and improved outcomes for cancer patients.
In the coming weeks, NHS England will set out its plan for delivering the five year forward view, which will summarise progress to date and set out a plan for future delivery, including the next stage of development for sustainability and transformation plan footprints and progress towards establishing accountable care organisations: 2017-18 should be the year in which we see concrete progress on these local sustainability and transformation plans, with NHS England supporting local leaders to drive improvement in outcomes. As part of this effort, the Government have already made £325 million of capital funding available for the best STPs over the next three years. In the autumn a further round of local proposals will be considered.
We are also laying before Parliament today a revised mandate for 2016-17 to take account of changes to NHS England’s budget, including for primary care transformation funding and the move to market rents by NHS Property Services.
Copies of the 2017-18 mandate and revised 2016-17 mandate can be viewed online as attachments at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-21/HCWS547/.
[HCWS547]
Additional Airline Security
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Today the Government announced there will be changes to aviation security measures for selected inbound flights to the United Kingdom. The House will be aware that the United States Government made a similar announcement earlier today regarding flights to the United States and we have been in close contact with them to fully understand their position.
In conjunction with our international partners and the aviation industry, the UK Government keep aviation security under constant review. The UK has some of the most robust aviation security measures in the world, and at all times the safety and security of the public is our primary concern. We will not hesitate to put in place measures we believe are necessary, effective and proportionate.
Under the new arrangements, phones, laptops and tablets larger than length 16.0 cm, width 9.3 cm and depth 1.5 cm will not be allowed in the cabin on selected flights to the UK from the countries affected. Most smartphones fall within these limits and will continue to be allowed on board. However, devices larger than these dimensions may not be carried in the cabin. This is in addition to other existing security arrangements. This will apply to inbound flights to the UK from the following locations: Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Tunisia.
Passengers are therefore advised to check online with their airline for further details.
We understand the frustration that these measures may cause and we are working with the aviation industry to minimise any impact. Our top priority will always be to maintain the safety of British nationals. These new measures apply to flights into the UK and we are not currently advising against flying to and from those countries. Those with imminent travel plans should contact their airline for further information. More information can be found on the Department for Transport website and the travelling public should consult the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s travel advice pages on gov.uk.
I know the House will recognise that we face a constantly evolving threat from terrorism and must respond accordingly to ensure the protection of the public against those who would do us harm. The update we are making to our security measures is an important part of that process.
We remain open for business. People should continue to fly and comply with security procedures.
[HCWS549]
Grand Committee
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017. These orders give effect to the policing and fire elements of the devolution agreements between the Government and the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.
With the Committee’s permission, I will turn first to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017. The purpose of this order is to make detailed provision in relation to the transfer of responsibility for police and crime commissioner functions in Greater Manchester from the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner to the directly elected mayor of Greater Manchester.
The transfer of these functions to the elected mayor will preserve the democratic accountability already established under the police and crime commissioner model. It will also join up oversight of a range of local services, including fire and rescue, opening up opportunities for broader collaboration. This is a chance to build on the strengths of the PCC model. The order requires that the elected mayor must personally exercise the core strategic functions of setting the police and crime plan, take decisions on chief constable appointments and set the policing component of the combined authority precept.
To provide additional leadership capacity, the order enables the elected mayor to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime, to whom certain police and crime commissioner responsibilities may be delegated. The order also requires that a new police and crime panel be set up. This panel will scrutinise the decisions of the mayor in respect of the exercise of their PCC functions in much the same way as the current panel does in relation to the police and crime commissioner. This order has been developed in consultation with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner, and the combined authority and its constituent councils have given their consent.
I will now turn to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017. The purpose of this order is to transfer the responsibility for oversight of fire and rescue functions from the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority to the Greater Manchester Combined Authority, with these functions to be exercised by the directly elected mayor. Transferring oversight of fire and rescue functions to the mayor will provide direct electoral accountability for the provision of this key public service. It should also facilitate closer working with other local partners, including the police. This is obviously consistent with our desire to encourage greater collaboration between the emergency services.
The order permits the mayor to delegate certain responsibilities to a fire committee, to be formed of members from the constituent councils of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The committee is intended to assist the mayor in carrying out their fire and rescue functions. At the same time, the order identifies a number of fire and rescue functions as strategic to the delivery of fire and rescue. These functions must be personally exercised by the mayor and shall not be delegated. These strategic functions include approving the local risk plan and fire and rescue declaration in accordance with the fire and rescue national framework, and approving contingency plans under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. The elected mayor will also remain personally responsible for decisions relating to the appointment of the chief fire officer. Scrutiny of the mayor’s exercise of fire and rescue functions will be undertaken in line with the arrangements for non-PCC functions.
The changes to be made by this order have been endorsed by the people of Greater Manchester in a public consultation conducted by the combined authority. The order was developed in close consultation with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and has been formally consented to by the combined authority and its constituent councils. I commend these orders to the Committee.
Lord Stunell (LD)
First, I thank the Minister for her introduction to these orders. I agree with her that there has been wide consultation and that it is appropriate for this Committee to bear that in mind when reaching its decision in what I hope will be only a few minutes’ time. I should declare a residency qualification, in that I live in Greater Manchester and for 18 years I was an MP for one of the 27 constituencies. For eight years, I was a member of one of the 10 constituent borough councils—and, to complete the full set, I was a Minister in the Department for Communities and Local Government when the combined authority order was set up in 2011. I know that the city deal that flowed from that was widely welcomed across Greater Manchester, along with the steps that have been taken since to ensure that additional resources—funding what has traditionally been central government, Whitehall-directed services—will be put into the hands of the combined authority from the start of the new regime in May.
The progress made so far has been much envied and imitated around England, where a steady stream of visitors from other cities and for that matter rural and shire areas have been received by the combined authority, asking it how the model has been developed and how it can be copied. All that is positive and very much a direction of travel that my parliamentary colleagues and I believe is right, with more decision-making and discretion over the delivery of public services in a given area in the hands of those who live there and are elected from there.
I have a concern about the mayoral model, but that particular ship has left port. A loss in cross-authority representation and accountability flows from that, but these orders do something to combat or respond to that. Certainly, to replace the police and crime commissioner —somebody who, for all his qualities, was elected on a 14% turnout across Greater Manchester—with somebody elected to be mayor of the combined authority, and with a much more significant and wider role in the delivery of public services, is almost bound to increase the visibility and accountability of the person carrying out that role. I welcome that, as do the constituent authorities.
The police and crime panel, to which the Minister referred, is seen as a way of maintaining or improving the police service’s accountability. There is a way to go in that regard; it is to be hoped that a more visible mayor’s being in charge of the police service may lead to the panel having more visibility and capacity to keep control, or a proper oversight of that service. Nevertheless, it is a good thing to see that incorporated in the proposals.
As for the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority, there is no equivalent commissioner but rather control by representatives of the 10 local authorities, and there is no doubt that the new arrangements will give more visibility to the leadership of that service. In the longer term, bringing the police and fire services under common management must be a better way to provide a coherent and integrated service. Indeed, my one question to the Minister relates to that. Today, the Care Quality Commission has produced a report on independent ambulance services. The ambulance service in Greater Manchester is provided by an independent body based in Blackpool. Bearing in mind that these orders bring together two of the blue light services in Greater Manchester—and particularly in view of the critical nature of that report, but more generally in any case—have the Government looked at ways the blue light services in Greater Manchester could be brought together? Again, I remind the Minister that the combined authority in Greater Manchester will be taking over a significant amount of NHS commissioning for future years—a step that I very much favour.
With that sole question to the Minister—I dare say she is not equipped to answer it off the top of her head; perhaps she would like to write to us about bringing together the three blue light services—I am certainly happy to support these orders.
Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest not merely as a member of the combined authority and leader of Wigan Council; I am in a position to answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, on ambulance services because I chair the Greater Manchester health partnership board. The orders are very interesting. I have yet to see in the manifestos of either of the two main mayoral candidates what their policies are on the docking of working dogs’ tails. That obviously is an important consideration.
I not only thank the Minister for introducing the orders, but welcome the fact that the Government have put them together. To add to the points she raised, it is not just about bringing together the blue light services, which is important. We need to see police and fire as part of general public service reform. Many of the issues the services face are related to the fact that people have problems across their lives. We need to get the police and fire services engaged in the work we are doing in Greater Manchester across a wider range of public services, not just in blue light services.
The answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is that the arrangements are currently handled through Blackpool but they are coming back to Greater Manchester. We asked for ambulance service commissioning to come back to Greater Manchester because, as we are now a devolved health area, we need to do this rather than working through CCGs in Blackpool, for example.
There are actually two panels that look after the PCC in Greater Manchester: the scrutiny panel, made up of members of the authorities, and the combined authority itself. We will need to find a mechanism to continue that work, because it is important that the work of the police and crime commissioner, whether exercised by the mayor or anybody else, has consent across the whole of Greater Manchester on major issues.
It may be my ignorance, but the documentation does not make clear the deputy’s role. I would hope that the mayor would appoint a deputy. He or she will have a lot to do generally and we need to supervise what is going on in the police service. A day-to-day role in running the police service would be too much for anybody, and the same is true for the fire service. I hope we will set up the committee to run that, but we need to understand the role of the deputy and how answerable they will be to various public bodies.
As the Minister is probably aware, I regret that the PCC can implement the Greater Manchester precept without really consulting the 10 authorities. That needs to be changed. Unfortunately these orders do not do that; they roll it on. It is also not clear in the fire order whether the fire precept will need to go to the combined authority for approval, or the mayor will simply make a recommendation and we will not have any control over it. There has been a little dispute this year about how much the fire precept should go up by. With the representative of Trafford, I was on the losing side of that argument but we need to do that.
As the Minister said, we consulted on this across Greater Manchester. We welcome the changes. It will be an interesting challenge to have a mayor with the combined authority but I am sure we can all make it work to ensure proper devolution across Greater Manchester.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the mayoral system will be interesting—possibly in the Chinese sense—but if it is likely to work anywhere, it will undoubtedly be Manchester. I want to raise a couple of issues with the Minister.
First, of course the Government would like to see combined police and fire authorities. There are places where that might be suitable. But I take it that where there is a different view locally—as there would be in the north-east, for example, where we have different boundaries for the different services—there will not be any compulsion on authorities to go in that direction.
I am sorry to say that, having been spending my time on the next statutory instrument, I have forgotten what my second point was. Perhaps I will approach the Minister afterwards.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I make my usual declaration of interests as in the register; specifically that I am a local councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The two orders before us I have no issue with, and my comments will be correspondingly brief. The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, and my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, who is a member of the authority, are the experts here.
As we have heard, the orders transfer fire and rescue functions and police and crime commissioner functions to the mayor for Greater Manchester. I am pleased that we are having an election for this position on the first Thursday in May. These functions will then be transferred to this new elected person to be accountable for the delivery of these very important services to people living in the Greater Manchester area. At the same time, the office of police and crime commissioner and the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority will both be abolished.
I record my thanks to Tony Lloyd, who has been the PCC for Greater Manchester since 2012. Before that he was a Member of the other place for 29 years, for both Stretford and Manchester Central. In that time, he also served as the chair of the Parliamentary Labour Party, which is an interesting job to hold down, and he managed to hold it for six years until he left this place to become the PCC.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Escaped, yes. Anyway, it is important to put that on record. For both policing and fire and rescue services, specific functions can be exercised only by the mayor, although they will be able to appoint a deputy mayor for policing and crime.
The issue I have with these devolution deals in general—not this one specifically—is that I sometimes feel they are a little unclear and you get a sort of patchwork. I accept the point that areas can work with what they think they can cope with. Certainly, in this area, the Greater Manchester mayor will have considerable powers, in many respects similar to those of the Mayor of London. They will also have powers in respect of the health service.
I am sure the three noble Lords present today fully understand all the functions the mayor will take over, but I am not convinced that every Member of your Lordships’ House is fully aware, or members of the general public living in Greater Manchester and other places. We need to have a much wider discussion about where we are going with local government and all these functions. It is time for the Government to consider producing a Green Paper to enable proper debate about these functions in England. I have approved a number of these orders in recent weeks in this Room and the Chamber. They are all different and sometimes you cannot work out why. We need a discussion about where we are going with local government. All these positions are important, and it is important to have democratic control. Let us not forget that the individuals involved will be spending huge sums of council tax payers’ and taxpayers’ money. We must be clear who is there, why they are doing it and how we engage with them. But that is a discussion for another time.
As I said, I support the orders and I certainly wish the new Manchester mayor—whoever it is, although I hope, of course, that the Labour candidate gets elected—the very best in their new role.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, I have overcome my senior moment. I wanted to ask whether any consideration had been given to ambulance trusts, which are fairly unaccountable bodies but are, of course, part of the emergency services. Has there been any discussion with either trusts or local authorities about a different relationship—keeping that phrase fairly neutral—as regards the future of that service?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I too must declare an interest as a former councillor and resident of Greater Manchester. I pay tribute to Tony Lloyd who has held the fort very well over the last couple of years in his role as interim mayor, and in all the roles he has held previously in government and local government. We have here three people who will be voting in the mayoral elections in May, so that is very good. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, mentioned turnout. I recall an experience I had in Greater Manchester of probably the worst turnout in history: the Benchill by-election back in November or December 2001, where turnout was 8%. That was a depressing low. Looking forward to the mayoral elections, I was quite sceptical about the Mayor of London, but that is not a position for which any political party is scraping round for candidates. It is very sought-after and has gained a profile over the years, and I fully expect that will happen in Greater Manchester and elsewhere. As it does, visibility will grow and accountability will become a lot more obvious.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith—I was going to call him my noble friend, but he is really—talked about blue light services being brought back down to GM. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about ambulance trusts. It is within the gift of whichever combined authority to request collaboration in that regard, or that those matters be part of the devolved model. There are no limits to what the model may look at. That brings in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy: that the different devolution deals are a bit of a patchwork. This is necessarily a patchwork because every area is different. For example, rural areas look very different from urban areas; they have different needs and different proposals. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is smiling at me slightly but I said that on the then devolution Bill, and I firmly believe it. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, that the Liberal Democrats grilled me on accountability and scrutiny during the passage of that Bill. We have very rigorous structures in place, certainly in Greater Manchester and, I hope, elsewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, asked about the compulsion to combine police and fire authority areas, particularly where they are not contiguous. There is absolutely no compulsion to do that. If they are not contiguous, such a move would require structural change anyway.
I think I have answered all the questions, but if not I will certainly come back to noble Lords.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I accept entirely that different areas have different needs and may want to tackle this issue in different ways. The point I was making is that the Government have not made it clear where we are going. That is not to say that different areas cannot tackle this issue in different ways; of course they can; they have different needs. However, the Government have never set out clearly in a document where they are going with this, which is why the situation is confusing. The West Midlands is a similar conurbation to others, with similar problems and similar areas, but the deal that was arrived at and the powers that were transferred are vastly different from those in other similar areas. Why? That information is missing. There is no difficulty with having different arrangements, but we need to know how the Government have arrived at the present position.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As the noble Lord, Lord Smith, mentioned, we left it up to local areas to say what their version of public service reform looked like—what did public service efficiency look like going forward and what was their plan for growth? Therefore, that might look slightly different in different areas, which is why I explained it in the way I did. However, there will be similarities: transport is a huge issue in Greater Manchester and the solution to that will be huge in terms of growth, as it will be for other areas.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prior of Brampton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee approves the draft Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendments) Regulations 2017. This instrument amends regulations concerning the contracts for difference scheme and the capacity market. Before diving into the specifics of the amendments we are discussing today, I will briefly explain these two schemes.
Contracts for difference, or CFDs, provide long-term price stabilisation to low-carbon generators, allowing investment to come forward at a lower cost of capital and therefore at a lower cost to consumers. The scheme ensures greater certainty and stability of revenues to electricity generators by reducing their exposure to volatile wholesale prices, while protecting consumers from paying higher support costs when electricity prices are high. The capacity market provides regular payments to reliable forms of generation in return for such capacity being available when needed, thus ensuring that enough capacity is always in place to maintain security of supply. A fundamental aspect of both schemes is the competitive auction process for awarding contracts, which drives down costs to consumers.
The next CFD auction, with a budget of £290 million for less established renewables technologies, is on track to open in April. This will result in enough renewable electricity to power 1 million homes and reduce carbon emissions by around 2.5 million tonnes per year from 2021-22 onwards. It will also allow developers of innovative renewable technologies to deliver the best deal for bill payers. Three main capacity market auctions have been held each December from 2014 to 2016 to secure capacity four years ahead from 2018-19 to 2020-21. The latest of these secured 52.4 gigawatts of capacity at a price of £22.50 per kilowatt per year. In January 2017, an early capacity auction was also held to secure capacity for winter 2017-18. The auction secured 54.4 gigawatts of capacity at a clearing price of £6.95 per kilowatt per year.
The regulations we are considering today will implement a second tranche of minor and technical amendments to improve the efficiency and transparency of the CFD supplier obligation, the levy on suppliers that pays for the costs of CFDs. They build on a first tranche of changes approved by Parliament last year, which became law in April 2016. These further changes are being implemented later to allow time for necessary changes to be made to the settlement system, which determines the way that CFD payments are calculated and paid. Both the changes under consideration today, and those implemented last year, were the subject of a public consultation and received a largely favourable response. These regulations also amend the levies that fund the companies established to deliver the CFD and capacity market schemes.
Lord Deben (Con)
I shall intervene for just a short moment. Whenever we talk about these things there is always a kind of reticence—a fear somehow or other that the customer will be charged in an unsatisfactory way for Britain to move to the low-carbon economy that we all seek. I remind the Committee of my interest as chairman of the Climate Change Committee.
I will say three quick things. First, this is inevitably a complex matter. Inevitably, anyone listening to the Minister describing what was changing might have some difficulty in following, were they not absolutely up to date with what it was changing from. That is one of our problems: when we deal with these matters it is difficult to get them right and to get them simple. The Committee must accept that the Minister did a great job in explaining what is to happen. The regulations’ purpose is to do what I imagine we will go on doing almost every year to make sure that we learn from the lessons of the past and discover mechanisms whereby we can make the system work as cost effectively as possible. I emphasise that all of us wish to support that process. Whereas we want some stability in the overall system, we will be concerned if the basics are changed more than is absolutely necessary. We are perfectly happy if on each occasion we seek to tighten some things and loosen others to make the system manifestly more effective.
Secondly, however, I hope the Minister, in all the times that he speaks on these matters, will refer people to the work recently done by the Climate Change Committee, which shows that the overall effect of our low-carbon policy has been to reduce bills, not increase them. Roughly speaking it costs us about £9 a month more to pay for the costs of moving towards a low- carbon economy, but the bills are £20 a month less than they would have been because of the effects of those policies. As people exchange old white goods and other electrical goods for new ones, because of our policies, the latter are much more efficient. We have pressed the technology.
I remember going to buy a freezer at the beginning of the European Union process of warning people about the amount of energy used by new products—when the little notices came in for the first time. The freezers on offer ranged from those with an A rating to those with a G rating. As a matter of fact, I did not buy a freezer in that sale. I waited a year for the next January sales. I went around again and discovered that all the freezers were now between an A++ rating and a B rating. In one year we had changed: people were told about the value of low-carbon, low-emission products at a time when they could do something about it. They were not just generally told about it, but told at the moment when they could save so much a year by making that choice. Manufacturers discovered that they would not sell their products unless they made those technological changes.
I raise these issues because the constant talk in the press is very trying—not just for those of us who are concerned with them daily but for the Government and Opposition too—as if all this has made bills heavier, when it has not. Had we not done this, bills would be £20 a month more. That is not an imaginary figure, but shows how the reduction in domestic use of electricity affects the bills of the majority of people—some 85% of the population—who use both gas and electricity. In those circumstances, we have to go on talking about this, otherwise we lead people astray into thinking they are paying £9 a month extra, instead of saving some £11 a month in total. If they take a personal decision to improve their energy efficiency, they can make even more savings, but we never take that into account, of course, because it is a personal decision. However, the other two factors are a result of government policy playing back into how people pay their bills.
I want the Government constantly to quote this fact, because we have spent a lot of time on it, and it is very objective indeed. I know how objective it is, because our opponents have attacked it and said that it is outrageous, but have been unable to find a single item that they can show to be outrageous, being unable to find a single fact with which they can argue. It is outrageous to them, of course, because it undermines their whole attitude and the campaigning they have done—I am afraid—through a number of our popular newspapers. I hope that the Government will in future speeches include this simple matter to remind people, so that they always know.
My third point is that we hear from the press that the Government are very keen on keeping down energy bills and will make significant investigations and possibly take draconian measures to do so. I point out to the Minister that the report we have just produced shows that business electricity bills in this country are significantly higher than in the rest of Europe. It is not true of domestic bills, as a matter of fact; we sometimes forget that. It is more or less the same position with gas—the cost is somewhere in the middle of bills in the whole of Europe, which suggests that we may find there is not much we can do about it.
I have already spoken about the fact that bills are not greater, but less, because of our green measures, but I want to point to something in the report that is of considerable relevance to our discussion today: that electricity bills to business are higher in this country than in the rest of Europe. It is quite clear why: partly because we charge a higher distribution cost, whether or not it is a real cost, but also because our wholesale market is higher than in the rest of Europe. There is a real problem here. When as a committee we sought to find out why that was, nobody could tell us. Of course, the industry was unwilling to explain it—and one could understand why—and the Government admit that they do not have a ready answer. The Minister has said that the amendments address the cost of the necessary adjustment in how the market works and operating, as far as possible, a free market as we move towards a zero-carbon electricity supply. In that context, I hope he will spend a good deal of time concentrating on the two factors that are independently assessed as the reason for higher prices in the business sector. Otherwise, I am afraid that he may be led down the line that it is all about green taxes, when the opposite is true.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Deben, on these issues. I agree with much of what he has said. I had not intended to speak, but he reminded me, as did the Minister in his opening comments, of how complicated the Bill that put all of this into place was. To this day, some of us still find it quite difficult to get to grips with. I thank the Minister for trying to explain it as well as he did. I miss Lord Jenkin who saw us through that Bill. I was saying to my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was not here at the time, that Lord Jenkin was the man who really understood what was going on and helped us all through a difficult Bill. I put that on the record.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for explaining the amendments to these regulations. They seem eminently sensible, drawn from the experiences of operating the regulations, which are vital to reforming the electricity market and encouraging low-carbon electricity generation to ensure the UK’s security of supply. I also express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his helpful remarks as background to the regulations, and for underlining the importance of the progress we have made.
The amendments to the regulations should increase the cost-effectiveness of the two main measures, the CFD scheme and the capacity market, since they reduce the heavy-handedness of the belt-and-braces approach of the CFD counterparty, the Low Carbon Contracts Company, and that of the Electricity Settlements Company for the capacity market. The Minister’s introduction eloquently explained the improvements. These companies exist only to make payments for low- carbon generation or demand-side responses, and to collect these payments from suppliers. The companies must also cover their costs. The regulations set up the system to do this in as transparent, equitable and cost-effective a way as possible, allowing for a sensible amount of reserves as some guarantee. One would hope and expect these payments to balance out through the reconciliation process.
Much of the debate on these regulations in the other place focused on the probability of error. I could join in and tease the Minister by asking him about 20 scenarios, any one of which could be the one occurrence that could not be reconciled. However, that would be facetious. The modelling looks robust, indicating that the companies have the ability to raise the funding necessary in a modern, technologically efficient manner and make the payments required.
The regulations merely deal with the process of funding. The bigger question is the accuracy of the strike price, which is relevant to the setting up of this compulsory regime. Noble Lords will know that that is contained in the contracts agreements and is not part of these regulations. The two most controversial applications relate to nuclear power and the Hinkley Point C plant, and onshore wind.
The Government have shown how quickly they can alter their assessments and mechanisms for adjustment through Part 2 of the Energy Act 2016 in relation to onshore wind and the compensation payments in the FIT regime. On the prevention of double-counting of exemptions in the measure, exemptions from payments are available to suppliers which import renewable electricity from EU member states. This green excluded electricity—GEE—will not count towards electricity suppliers’ market share for calculating their CFD liabilities. This raises questions about security of supply; whether government policy is blind, whether British-based or not; the relative pricing of renewable energy in the UK and in the EU; and whether security-of-supply policy should seek to encourage import substitution. It also begs questions relating to Brexit; I could ask the Minister various hypothetical questions about the internal energy market and any likely scenarios of tariff applications. I imagine he would say that further amendments can be made as circumstances change.
I am grateful for the clarity provided regarding the operational budgets of the two companies and the professional fees increase, brought about by the inquiries of your Lordships’ Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. I very much agree with the Government’s financial policy to expense rather than capitalise software upgrade costs.
I have a few questions about the regulations. First, on the amendment to allow CFD reconciliation determination after the 10th quarter to be classified as non-generation payments, is a longstop provision of time envisaged, or is that included in the general retrospective provisions? Could this be one of those 20 unknown unknowns? Secondly, following the onshore wind provisions in last year’s Energy Act and given that onshore wind is now so much cheaper, are the Government any closer to allowing onshore wind to participate in future CFD auctions now that the threat of UKIP has receded? Can the Minister update the Committee on the position following the consultation on onshore wind in November 2016? Thirdly and lastly, I understand that the net savings to be passed on to electricity consumers are not a cash item and cannot therefore be shown or guaranteed in some way. However, the memorandum states that the operational costs budget of the two companies will increase, resulting in an increase, albeit minimal, in household electricity bills. Will these two features balance out and the net effect on consumers be neutral?
Having said that, I am content to approve the regulations.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I begin by echoing the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, about Lord Jenkin. I was reminded of the Schleswig-Holstein question, to which the Duke of Wellington said that only three people knew the answer—and one was dead, one had gone insane and the other one had forgotten it. Fortunately, my noble friend Lord Deben has not forgotten it and spoke very eloquently about broader issues than those raised by the statutory instrument before us.
It was interesting to hear my noble friend’s story about how shopping for a freezer had changed in the space of a year—from being able to buy one rated from A to G, to one now rated A++ to B. That is just one small illustration of how technology has helped hugely in reducing the use of electricity. He is absolutely right that technology has significantly reduced bills.
Lord Deben
I am sorry but it is not just that the technology has changed; we have now shown people that it is not worth selling bad products. You have to use the technology and it is we politicians who have made that technology actually go into the marketplace, because it has been worth while. The Government should take credit for what they have done.
Lord Prior of Brampton
That is true. The incentives need to be there, but the fact is that technology is remarkable. Technology is going to do it. If we are going to solve the problem of carbon emissions, technology and incentives to use new technology—which is what the CFD programme is all about, as I understand it —are crucial.
My noble friend also spoke about the cost of electricity for business. It is an issue I take a particular interest in, given that it affects very energy-intensive industries, such as the steel industry, the glass and ceramics industries and other industries, including the potteries in places such as Stoke. It is difficult to know why our costs are higher. It is partly because of distribution and transmission, we are told, and partly because of the wholesale market, but I do not think we have a full answer to that. I have not read my noble friend’s report on this. It may suggest an answer. I will read it with interest. It is certainly a question that we need to answer. It is always very easy to blame the green lobby for the extra costs falling on high-energy consumers. My noble friend raises a question that needs to be answered.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for supporting these regulations. He asked three questions. I shall write to him on them. I have been given the answer, but I cannot absorb it and give it to the noble Lord at the same time without just reading it out without thinking about it. He raised the more general issue of the impact of Brexit on the internal energy market and what tariffs there might be. I will have to give him the rather dull and predictable but honest answer that we will have to wait to see how the negotiations turn out.
The regulations the Government are seeking to amend through this instrument affect the CFD scheme through making some fairly minor technical amendments to improve the efficiency of the CFD supplier obligation and to amend the operational costs levies of the Low Carbon Contracts Company and the Electricity Settlements Company. As I read this, I do realise that this is quite complex, arcane stuff. These companies play a crucial role in delivering the CFD scheme and the capacity market scheme, and they must be sufficiently funded to perform their roles effectively. I have been struck by how the cost of offshore wind has come down in the last auction and how the capacity auction has driven prices down. The market is very powerful. I thank the noble Lord for his support for this measure?
Motion agreed.
Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prior of Brampton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Electricity and Gas (Energy Company Obligation) (Amendment) Order 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to open the debate on this draft order. The ECO order exercises powers set out in the Gas Act 1986 and the Electricity Act 1989 which allow obligations to be placed on energy suppliers in Great Britain.
In the Prime Minister’s first speech of her term in office, she recognised the hardships faced by poorer households in Britain—hard-working families, who,
“can just about manage but … worry about the cost of living”.
As part of the response to that dilemma, the Government are committed to helping households in fuel poverty or on lower incomes living in homes which are expensive to heat. That is why this order is before the Committee today. It will also make an important contribution to the Government’s clean growth plan and to reducing carbon emissions.
We are making amendments to the existing ECO order, which covers the period from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2017. The amendments extend the current scheme from 1 April 2017 to 30 September 2018 to enable reforms to be introduced, while also allowing industry time before further improvements are made through a new longer-term scheme from 2018 to 2022. Planning ahead to 2022, beyond the life of this Parliament, reflects announcements on funding made in the 2015 spending review. This longer-term confirmation of funding is designed to give greater certainty to energy suppliers, installers, local authorities and other energy stakeholders.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)
My Lords, this order is something of a curate’s egg. There are a number of aspects that one would be quite happy with were it not for the fact that one player in this whole scheme is absent: the Government. They are changing some of the regulations and arrangements but they are providing no money themselves, unlike the Administrations in Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh. Therefore, we have to say in the first instance, on the objective of moving the starting time by six months, from 12 to 18 months, if we are to get a better scheme, that might be very well. However, it is a delay, in fact from 2015, when the opportunity to introduce an improved scheme first arose.
It begs the question: why is there a delay? If it is because the Government are wrestling with the complexity of it, I submit that they have had plenty of time to do that. I know from the briefing I received from National Energy Action—of which I happen to be the honorary president, and therefore declare a limited, non-pecuniary interest—that this estimable charity has somewhat mixed feelings, which reflect my own. The Government seem to be doing a little bit with one hand, and then taking it away with the other. When we see the reduction in boiler replacement, it is not because the job is nearly ending—that we have completed the replacement of inefficient boilers—but simply because the Government take the view that it costs too much.
There is also the fact that if you want to make households more conscious of the benefits of energy efficiency, a dramatic change such as the replacement or introduction of a boiler is of critical significance in this change of thought process. We know that in many respects the households that are most disadvantaged are those which have so many problems that trying to be energy efficient is very much a kind of finger-in-the-dyke operation, and they need assistance. Very often, when we are able to secure the replacement boilers, we get a change of step and a greater willingness to help.
It is also fair to say that we have insufficient sums to meet even the most modest of home improvements. We are told by a number of bodies—including, for example, the Committee on Fuel Poverty, the Committee on Climate Change, and Policy Exchange—that even to meet the very modest target of getting households to EPC E level by 2020 will require £1.9 billion. To get households to EPC D level by 2025 will cost £5.6 billion. To get all households up to EPC C level by 2030 will require £12.3 billion. These are large sums. However, what the Minister is talking about seems to be nowhere near what is required to reach these households. Indeed, it has been suggested that a baby born today into inadequate housing would probably be about 75 before their home was properly heated.
A number of the changes are sensible and not unwelcome. However, the Government cannot get away with the platitudinous nonsense the Minister spoke at the beginning of his speech when he quoted the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister really wants to help hard-working families and do something about this kind of household, the Government will have to use central taxation as a mechanism to do it. It is not enough just to express pious hopes and, on occasion, go for cheaper options. That seems to be at least part of the thinking behind a number of the changes in this measure.
Therefore, as I say, this is a curate’s egg. This Committee does not have the opportunity to overturn or amend it. I know that it has been the subject of fairly wide consultation but I do not think that all the organisations that were consulted would necessarily embrace everything in the order. Therefore, as I say, my welcome of it is highly qualified and I am somewhat disappointed. An opportunity has been missed here—and not because the Government have rushed into this. They have had since 2015 to get something done and the best that they can come up with is this rather feeble list of changes and a further six-month delay in bringing about many measures that would be regarded as improvements. We cannot take any consolation as some of the less desirable aspects of this measure will continue for some time.
As I say, I think that this is a missed opportunity for the Minister. He and I are old friends from Select Committee days in the Commons. I am trying to chastise him as gently as I can as I know that he is new to the job and I expect that his influence over the drafting of this order was probably minimal. However, I would like to think that in the months and years that he may still be in the job he will be able to come up with something better before too long.
Baroness Maddock (LD)
My Lords, something is better than nothing. We on these Benches, at least, welcome this measure, although there are many “buts”. There is no doubt that improving the quality of existing homes can play a very important part in increasing warmth and comfort and help to make fuel bills far more affordable, particularly for vulnerable occupants. However—I think the Minister recognises this—it is also a highly cost-effective way of reducing carbon emissions and saving energy. In addition, ambitious energy efficiency savings programmes can capture substantial macroeconomic benefits.
I remember taking through the House of Commons a Private Member’s Bill that became the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, and saying that the job creation potential in making homes energy efficient was enormous. I regret that some 20-plus years later, we are still grappling with this issue and people are still living in fuel poverty. As the noble Lord said, people born into fuel poverty today will probably still be in fuel poverty at the end of their lives. That is very sad.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction and explanation of the order. The ECO is now the only government instrument to increase overall carbon emissions reductions targets for households and overall home heating cost reduction targets by a statutory obligation on the largest energy suppliers to install energy-efficiency measures for households in Great Britain. I approve of the order today and support the measures, as far as they go, to promote energy efficiency and the reduction of fuel poverty. Improving the quality of the housing stock is a highly cost-effective way in which to reduce carbon emissions, save energy, improve the lives of the fuel poor and capture substantial national economic benefits. However, I cannot disguise the widespread disappointment in the Government for their inability to meet their legal target to end fuel poverty by 2017. Comments around the Committee today have reflected that view.
The Government are now extending the ECO scheme in this intermediary fashion for a further 18 months, to September 2018, before introducing further measures to end fuel poverty by the end of the scheme in 2022. The increasing focus on fuel poverty is to be encouraged, but reducing the annual spend by 25% from £860 million to £640 million reveals a lack of political will and the required proper funding. The Committee on Fuel Poverty has estimated an investment requirement of £20 billion to improve fuel-poor homes in England to at least EPC rating C by 2030. The Committee on Climate Change considers that the current funding is less than half that which is required to meet these now delayed commitments.
The Green Deal has been a failure, improving only 15,000 homes. Last year, the Conservative Government scrapped the 2016 zero-carbon homes policy. The UK ranks bottom, 16 out of 16, in western Europe for the proportion of people who cannot afford to heat their homes adequately. While welcoming the change on balance towards better funding of energy efficiency measures, the cap on the installation of mains gas qualifying boiler replacements under the affordable warmth arrangements leaves a big gap in the provision needed to replace or repair existing gas boilers.
A big factor for being in fuel poverty is living in a home off the gas grid. The worst properties are located off the grid and are more likely to be located in rural areas. Over the last Parliament, the number of major energy-efficiency measures installed in homes fell by 76% as total investment fell by 53% between 2010 and 2015. The implications have been particularly crucial to the NHS. Of the 43,900 excess winter deaths calculated for 2014-15, at least 14,000 deaths can be attributable to the cold homes crisis.
Are the Government confident that electricity companies can access the necessary data to target expenditure effectively? The data-sharing powers need critical assessment. Hospitals need to join up outpatient care with fuel poverty initiatives for patients at risk of recurrent visits. Local authorities must act on their duties to enforce and monitor housing standards, and basic energy-efficiency standards should form a critical part of existing licensing requirements. Additional national energy-efficiency programmes are urgently needed to support the upgrading of lower rated properties, notably for the installation of first-time central heating. My noble friend Lord O’Neill and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, have highlighted how the Government are alone among UK Administrations in not providing additional funding towards this important policy. The National Infrastructure Commission and the Government must respond and act on the strong case for domestic energy efficiency to be regarded as a nationally important infrastructure policy.
I shall ask only one or two important questions on this order. These amendments are an extension to the present scheme and delays to meeting targets have been recognised. Will the Minister make clear how the statutory fuel poverty commitment will be met, with milestones along the way? Lastly, what additional energy-efficiency programmes are under consideration by the Government? What is the timing of any policy plan development between April 2017 and the end of this intermediary period in September 2018? In approving the order, I urge the Government to recognise their shortfall in ambition in tackling fuel poverty and the energy efficiency of homes.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, I accept that noble Lords who have spoken regard this order as a curate’s egg and that it does not go as far as they would like. I will try to address the more general questions raised by all three noble Lords. The Government feel that the supplier obligations have proven to be remarkably successful, but we have probably pushed them as far as they can go. That is why we have decided to cap the supplier obligation at £640 million. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, think that we should go further. If I might slightly oversimplify it, I think I am right that the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill, feels that we should consider raising taxation more generally to solve this issue, whereas the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, thinks that we could take money from other areas that we are spending money on to put more money into this area.
To start with the noble Lord’s point, our response is not to increase central taxation. He mentioned a figure of £12 billion, and the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, came up with a figure of £20 billion to 2030. That level of increased taxation is simply not an option—at least not for our Government. Our response to the issues that the Prime Minister has focused on is not to raise general taxation, but to try to address the issue by improving the productivity of the country, which is why we have an industrial strategy. Frankly, to load a lot more general taxation on to our economy cannot be a way to improve productivity. I do not know whether that view will be shared by the leader of the Opposition—who knows these days?—But it is certainly not an option for us to raise central taxation. The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said that there must be other areas that we could take money from.
Baroness Maddock
For example, we know that people who live in cold or damp homes, particularly elderly people, cost us a huge amount in the health service. Over the years, NEA has run various schemes and has looked carefully at this. That is one area where we could look to see whether we could get some money because it will save money in the long run.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I understand that argument, but it would take five minutes to have a whole list of other parts of the population, whether it is people who have mental health problems or learning difficulties or old people who are lonely. There are lots of people we would like to do more for and from whom there will be knock-on benefits to the NHS, social services and the like. As the noble Baroness will know well, the trouble with politics is that choices have to be made. It is very easy to say that we should take more money from this group and give it to that, but if only life was so simple.
Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan
I am almost reluctant to make this point because it is a wee bit unkind and it is not the Minister’s fault. We know that the Government have problems with raising taxes. We have seen that in the past two weeks in the context of national insurance contributions. There was a willingness to raise taxes, but they discovered that they were raising the wrong ones as far as their supporters were concerned. Perhaps between now and next November the Minister can look afresh at what sources of revenue could be secured to help the fuel poor and to meet the Prime Minister’s pious words about helping hard-working families who are unfortunate enough to be living in hard-to-heat homes.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I understand where the noble Lord is coming from. I repeat, our approach is diametrically opposite to his. We do not want to raise taxes from any group of citizens in this country when the alternative is to try to improve productivity. He will know from the time when he was chairing the Trade and Industry Select Committee in the other place that productivity has been, and is still, a huge issue for this country. I do not think that he seriously thinks that we are going to improve productivity by taxing hard-working British people. That is a choice that we have to make. His party, during those long-off, rosy days when Tony Blair was Prime Minister, had in a sense got the message that there is a direct relationship between high taxes and successful economic growth. Raising taxation along the lines that he described is simply not an option for this Government at this time.
Collection of Fines etc. (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Collection of Fines etc. (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2017.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, the draft order, which was laid before the House on 6 February and which was approved in the other place on 14 March, is made under Section 84(2) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. The Northern Ireland Act allows changes to be made to legislation that are necessary because of an Act of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This order is made in consequence of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which was passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly on 14 March 2016 and received Her Majesty’s Assent on 12 May 2016.
Part 1 of the 2016 Act fundamentally reforms arrangements for the collection and enforcement of fines in Northern Ireland by creating a new regime that provides additional ways for offenders to pay their fines. It includes powers for collection officers to secure payment through an attachment of earnings order, which is a court order made in Northern Ireland that requires a debtor’s employer to deduct specified amounts from wages and pay them to the court to discharge the outstanding amount.
The order will amend Schedule 5 to the Courts Act 2003 to enable fine collection officers and courts in Northern Ireland to obtain or verify certain information from HM Revenue & Customs, including the name and address of any employer the individual may have and details of any earnings or other income that the individual receives. This information will allow fine collection officers in Northern Ireland to determine whether an attachment of earnings order is an appropriate enforcement option to be pursued in respect of the debtor.
Schedule 5 to the 2003 Act already enables Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs to make such disclosures in England and Wales, and the amendments made under the order will allow it to do so in Northern Ireland as well. Such amendments could not be made by the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland through the 2016 Act because Section 18 of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 stipulates that conferring such powers on HMRC cannot be carried in Northern Ireland legislation and can be done only through Westminster. However, Section 84(2) of the 1998 Act allows for such amendments to be made by an Order in Council, such as this order, if “necessary or expedient” and I consider that the proposed amendments are necessary to facilitate the effective operation of the attachment of earnings provisions of the 2016 Act.
I am happy to confirm to noble Lords that Ministers and officials of the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Department of Justice have worked closely together on this draft order, which I commend to the Committee.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his very comprehensive explanation of the order, and I very much welcome the order, which will provide the courts in Northern Ireland with additional sentencing, collecting and enforcement options. It will go a long way in helping to reduce the number of people—I believe 2,000—who are jailed each year for non-payment of fines by increasing the availability of community-based options in place of custody, by deducting money from their benefits each week. I believe that the vehicles of habitual offenders can be seized.
Can the Minister say how much money in unpaid fines is owed to the Stormont Government, going back over the last number of years, and how much money in police time is spent in enforcing fines? Is the Minister confident that there are enough safeguards with regard to the policy of possible seizure of vehicles? However, these amendments will go a long way and will prove effective in saving money.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, this order—one of five we are discussing today—is the only one so far to have been taken in the Commons. In that place a very brief explanation was given by the Minister—the noble and learned Lord has given a rather fuller explanation than was given then—and my honourable friend David Anderson replied with a sentence only. I do not propose to add to that except to say that the noble Lord who has just spoken has raised some salient points and I was interested to hear what he said. We certainly have no objection to the order.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am obliged to noble Lords. I will address the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont. I do not have precise figures for outstanding fines, but if those figures can be collated I undertake to write to the noble Lord, although I am not sure that they can be collated in the manner he indicated. However, perhaps at a higher level of generality, I can say that at present we are dealing with about 20,000 cases a year where there is a financial imposition. Of those, more than 16,000 currently result in a default hearing, and the default hearing itself is an extremely time-consuming exercise, taking up manpower and, in particular, police time. It is anticipated that with these measures we will be able to reduce the number of default hearings to something of the order of 4,000 cases. That in itself will bring about a significant saving in time and money. I hope that goes some way to satisfy the points raised by the noble Lord. With that, I invite agreement to the order.
Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Public Guardian (Fees, etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, these regulations apply to England and Wales and reduce the fee for registering enduring and lasting powers of attorney. The current fee of £110 will be reduced to £82. The resubmission fee, paid when an application has to be resubmitted because of an error with the original application, will be reduced to £41 from £55. If Parliament agrees, we intend these changes to take effect on 1 April this year.
The new fee will be an enhanced fee, allowing us to cover the full cost of registering a power of attorney as well as to ensure the efficient and effective discharge of the public guardian’s functions. The power to charge an enhanced fee is contained in Section 180 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.
There are currently more than 2 million powers of attorney registered. These comprise lasting powers of attorney and their predecessor enduring powers of attorney, which remain valid and may still be registered. In October 2017, we will celebrate 10 years since lasting powers of attorney were introduced. In that time, the Office of the Public Guardian, the body responsible for maintaining a register of powers of attorney, has registered nearly 2.5 million powers.
The high uptake of lasting powers of attorney is an indication of the success of the Mental Capacity Act. They allow individuals to plan ahead for a time when they may lack capacity to make decisions for themselves and to appoint someone they trust to make those decisions for them. It is, of course, positive that so many more people are now making powers of attorney, but it has led to a position where the income we receive from fees charged is exceeding the cost of delivering the service. A detailed review of power of attorney fees, together with an improved forecasting model for volumes of applications, taking into account the ageing demographic and the rise in dementia, has enabled us to take decisive action to reduce fees and bring them closer to the cost of providing the service.
As many more people have been registering LPAs in recent years, increased volumes coupled with greater efficiencies in processing applications have resulted in fees being charged above the operational cost of delivering the service without our having exercised the power provided by legislation to allow us to do this. Clearly this situation must be remedied, which is what these draft regulations seek to do. Furthermore, alongside the reduction in fee, we will also introduce a scheme for refunding a portion of the fee to customers who may have paid more than they should. Full details of the scheme will be announced in due course. We will take such steps as are necessary to make sure that people are made aware of, and receive, the refunds to which they are entitled.
The Government’s aim is to ensure that the public guardian’s functions are properly resourced. We consider that an enhanced fee will go towards funding vital wider functions carried out by the Office of the Public Guardian. The enhanced fee will allow the public guardian to ensure that those who cannot afford to pay still have access to the key services offered by the Office of the Public Guardian; there is a remission scheme in that regard. The fee will also contribute to costs of the public guardian’s safeguarding activities, including the annual costs of supervising deputies appointed by the court to manage the affairs of people who have lost capacity to do so for themselves. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether I need to declare an interest in this matter as having registered an enduring power of attorney myself, which might entitle me, I suppose, to a rebate. It is pretty unlikely, I suspect, but it is a possibility and I shall have my old firm explore it.
Obviously, therefore, I welcome the main thrust of the order, which is to reduce the fees from their current level. The Government have acted perfectly properly in that respect. However, it is interesting that the Explanatory Memorandum confirms what the Minister has described as the Government’s policy—namely, that they have decided,
“in view of the financial circumstances and given the reductions in public spending, that a fee above full cost is necessary in order to ensure that the Public Guardian is adequately funded and that safeguarding the vulnerable is protected in the long term”.
That does not seem to be a logical explanation for retaining, albeit now reduced, a fee that is above the full cost. It is a philosophy which I hope will not be applied elsewhere in public services—namely, that you contribute not just to the cost but to an excess of the cost. Have the Government made any estimate of how much they will benefit by this device over time? How do they justify charging more than it actually costs to provide the service? They have been doing so, as it were, unconsciously for some time; now they will do so consciously. That strikes me as a very odd way of proceeding.
Lord Keen of Elie
The fees charged in respect of a power of attorney in 2007, when the scheme came in, were £150. They have reduced steadily since then, although they increased between 2009 and 2011, while transitional measures were being taken to upgrade IT for the Office of the Public Guardian. When they were reviewed in 2013, they were brought down. Subsequently, audit has indicated that they are still above a necessary and appropriate level.
However, with regard to the question about the enhanced fee, that allows for the fact that over and above the actual cost of dealing with a power of attorney, the Office of the Public Guardian also has to deal with other costs and demands—namely, those involving the application of parties who get a fee exemption and therefore the cost of their application has to be covered, as well as the cost of appointing deputy supervisors by the court. I did not use the correct term. It is not deputy supervisors but supervising deputies.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am sure it does—to somebody. Therefore, the limits in Section 180 of the 2014 Act are there to ensure that although we can recover more than the actual costs of the operation itself, it is for the purposes of funding the wider demands on the Ministry of Justice.
Lord Beecham
Is there any report of how that actually works in practice? I do not expect the Minister to have the answer today but what is the amount that has been raised in that way and where has it been spent?
Lord Keen of Elie
So far as the additional funding is concerned, I should have made it clear that it is funding for the Office of the Public Guardian and not wider than that. As to the precise sum, no, I do not have the figure to hand.
Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Additional Voluntary Contributions) Regulations 2017.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I will set out the purpose of the draft regulations in turn.
First, the fee-paid regulations are required to establish a pension scheme for eligible fee-paid judges, to mirror the existing pension scheme for salaried judges established by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993. This is required following the court’s decision in the case of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice. These regulations make provision for a pension scheme for the benefit of those people who have held eligible fee-paid judicial office between 7 April 2000 and 31 March 2015. They also establish the Fee-Paid Judicial Added Voluntary Contributions Scheme, the Fee-Paid Added Years Scheme and the Fee-Paid Judicial Added Surviving Adult Pension Scheme to enable members of the principal scheme to pay voluntary contributions towards the costs of additional benefits under one of more of these additional schemes.
Following the case of O’Brien v Ministry of Justice and subsequent decisions it is now established law that a lack of a pension and other specified benefits amounted to less favourable treatment than some fee-paid judicial office holders in comparison to salaried judges doing the same or broadly similar work, contrary to the part-time work directive. The Ministry of Justice made a commitment to implement a pension scheme for these fee-paid judges. This commitment was honoured for future service, subject to transitional protection, by the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015. However, a new scheme is required as the remedy in respect of reckonable fee-paid service from 7 April 2000—the date when the part-time work directive ought to have been transposed into UK law. The power to create such a scheme was created by Section 78 of the Pensions Schemes Act 2015, which inserted a new Section 18A into the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
The draft fee-paid regulations have been the subject of a detailed public consultation and were modified as part of that consultation process, taking account of responses and as part of our own review of the draft. A response to the consultation was published on 27 February alongside the final draft regulations.
The amendment regulations amend the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015 to take account of the creation of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and ensure parity of treatment between individuals with entitlement in the existing Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 scheme and those with entitlements under the fee-paid scheme in respect of their pension entitlements under the 2015 regulations. In addition, we are taking the opportunity to amend the 2015 regulations to make a number of other changes: to amend a drafting error in Regulation 1 of the 2015 regulations; to enable the Lord Chancellor to determine the eligibility of particular Scottish fee-paid judicial officeholders to join the pension scheme created by the 2015 regulations; to remove negligence as a basis for forfeiture or set-off; to make a correction to the definition of index adjustment for revaluation purposes; and to apply full and tapering protection for those judges who were in fee-paid office on 31 March 2012 but who have subsequently been appointed to salaried office.
The 2015 regulations were made under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to create a career average pension scheme for judicial officeholders as part of the Government’s wider reform of public service pensions. This is the first time the 2015 regulations have been amended.
Thirdly, I turn to the additional voluntary contributions regulations, the purpose of which is to make provision to establish a judicial additional voluntary contributions scheme. This is a money purchase scheme that enables scheme members to make contributions within a range of investment options. This is in addition to their contributions to the 2015 scheme. The AVC scheme is to be managed by the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Pensions Board will oversee the governance. The 2015 judicial pension scheme was established on 1 April 2015 in response to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013. The 2015 scheme applies to fee-paid and salaried judicial officeholders.
The existing judicial pension schemes provided a facility to contribute to a money purchase pension scheme and the same facility is provided for members of the 2015 scheme through these AVC regulations. This includes the pension flexibilities contained in the Taxation of Pensions Act 2014 and the Pension Schemes Act 2015. Amendments to the additional voluntary contribution scheme established under the older judicial pension scheme, made by the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993, are being made in separate instruments containing similar regulations, which also give effect to the pension flexibilities.
To summarise, the fee-paid regulations are necessary as the remedy to provide eligible fee-paid judges with pension benefits that are equivalent to their salaried comparators. The amendment regulations are necessary as they introduce a range of amendments required to the 2015 judicial pension scheme. The additional voluntary contributions regulations are necessary to honour the department’s commitment to provide such a facility to members of the 2015 judicial pensions scheme. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these three sets of regulations as necessary to make important provision for judicial pensions. This is in terms of the Government’s legal obligations and to meet outstanding commitments, and to ensure that all the necessary arrangements are in place for a consistent approach relating to the relevant provisions across the judicial pension schemes. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I must declare a paternal interest since my daughter is a part-time, fee-paid district judge. The noble and learned Lord will, no doubt, be particularly pleased with the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017 inasmuch as they contain a rather rare provision for the Scottish Government to request permission to join a national UK scheme, which is a remarkable volte face from the present Administration in Edinburgh. No doubt the noble and learned Lord will make that point on his next return to that city, and I wish him well in such an approach.
The three regulations dealing with judicial pensions are, of course, welcome so far as they go, but they come at a time when we face a shortage of judges and apparent difficulty in finding sufficient numbers of suitable applicants to fill a rising number of retirements. The Lord Chief Justice’s report of 2016 referred to,
“serious concerns about recruitment to the judiciary, in particular the ability to attract well-qualified candidates for positions in the higher levels”.
He pointed out that this created an impact both on the administration of justice and the position of the UK as a forum for international business litigation, where we are already facing growing competition from other jurisdictions.
The degree of unhappiness with the situation is reflected by results of a recent survey which shows that nearly half of High Court judges plan to retire early. Respondents to that survey alluded to resentment over loss of earnings, deteriorating working conditions and even fear for their personal safety in court. The latter will not have been helped by the scurrilous campaign against the judges by sections of the media and the further reaches of the Conservative Party and of UKIP, which were roundly denounced by the Minister, much to his credit.
A survey of judicial attitudes last year showed that 42% of all judges would leave if they had a viable option, nearly double the number of the previous survey in 2014. A more recent survey suggests that 47% of High Court judges and 36% of all judges indicated they would consider early retirement from the Bench over the next five years. Their attitude is partly coloured by the large number—78%—who suffered a loss of net earnings over the past two years and the 62% who were affected by pension changes. The Lord Chief Justice warned in 2016 that a new High Court judge would have a pension less than that of a District Judge, which is hardly conducive, one might think, to retention or recruitment to the High Court. He also felt that the situation was likely to have a considerable inhibiting effect on promoting gender and ethnic diversity, which the survey disclosed. Significantly 43% of judges felt unappreciated by the public but, tellingly, only 3% felt they were esteemed by the media, and, shockingly, only 2% felt they were esteemed by the public.
If this were not bad enough, one-third complained of the quality of court buildings and two-thirds referred to the low morale of court staff. Just over half the judges expressed concerns for their safety in court, partly due to the number of unrepresented litigants, especially in somewhat fraught cases in the family side of the courts’ work. The same proportion said that out-of-hours work was affecting them—a rise from 29% in 2014.
Currently there is a shortage of 25 High Court judges and between 120 and 140 circuit judges. Lord Justice Burnett, who is vice-chairman of the Judicial Appointment Commission, has complained that suitable applicants for the High Court have been insufficient in the past two years, while the demands on the judiciary continue to grow across the whole system. It would appear that only 55 applications were made last year for 25 vacancies and only eight were filled.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble Lord for his observations. I appreciate that these regulations may be only a small step in trying to ensure that we are in a position to maintain what is still a world-class judiciary that is respected around the globe, not just in this country.
Recruitment to the Bench has often been an issue in circumstances where we seek to appoint only the best. There are competing issues when it comes to appointment to the High Court Bench. It is not simply a matter of salary, nor of pension, although I readily acknowledge that these matters have to be addressed. That is not what drives people towards the higher ranks of the judiciary at a later point in their career. Rather, I would suggest it is the desire to put something back into a system of which they have been a part for many years. We are succeeding there.
The noble Lord referred to the chair of the Judicial Appointments Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, who is taking steps to broaden the pool of talent that can be attracted to the upper reaches of the judiciary, including to the solicitor branch of the profession, which has often been, if not ignored, perhaps overlooked to a greater or lesser extent when it comes to judicial appointment. They also address direct appointment to try to ensure that people do not feel that they have to go into a judicial career part time for many years before they can find themselves eligible for appointment to the High Court Bench. Steps are therefore being taken.
I infer from the noble Lord’s comments that he will welcome the Prison and Courts Bill that we recently introduced in the other place and the developments that that will bring about in court reform, in particular digitisation of the court process. That will ensure that a greater degree of judicial time can be made over to matters that should truly engage the requirements for our higher judiciary. I look forward to his assisting with that Bill as it progresses through our House. I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017.
Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I start by setting the scene. The Government are committed to delivering a bold, long-term industry strategy. We start from a position of strength, as the fifth biggest economy in the world with an employment rate that has never been higher and world-leading industries, from car manufacturing and satellite engineering to financial services and the creative arts. Engineering construction is at the forefront of that industrial strategy. To support delivery of this industrial strategy we are building a high-quality technical education system to improve basic skills, address shortages in STEM skills and ensure that people have the skills that employers are looking for, now and in the future. It is integral that through this system we provide opportunities for lifelong technical education learning.
There are several ways in which we are doing this. The first is through the establishment of 48 university technical colleges, with a further six in the pipeline to provide high-quality technical education to 14 to 19 year-olds. Secondly, there is the implementation of the Sainsbury panel’s 15 new technical routes and wide-reaching reforms to improve the apprenticeship offer. We are committed to raising the prestige of further education and apprenticeships. Thirdly, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board plays a key role in helping delivery of this programme. The engineering construction industry encompasses much of the nation’s key national infrastructure work. We must ensure that skills exist in the engineering construction workforce to deliver such critical new infrastructure projects as Hinkley Point C and HS2. Much like mainstream construction, engineering construction is characterised by significant levels of project working, where demand can be unpredictable. Workers in the sector are often highly skilled, and in high demand both domestically and internationally.
The Engineering Construction Industry Training Board works to help retain these vital skills within the UK economy and to drive innovative working practices within the industry, such as the development of drone technology. The order enables the ECITB to raise and collect a levy on employers in the engineering construction industry. The board has been providing vital industry support since its creation in 1991. Established under the Industrial Training Act, its core activity is to invest money that it receives by way of the levy in skills training for the engineering construction workforce. The board develops the skills of the existing workforce and new entrants into the industry through providing training grants and puts in place strategic initiatives that will benefit industry over the long term and secure a sustainable pipeline of skills. The ECITB is led by industry and has a central role in training the workforce in the engineering construction industry. It provides a wide range of services including setting occupational standards, developing vocational qualifications and offering direct grants to employers who carry out training. In doing all this, the Government look to the board to minimise bureaucracy and to ensure that support to employers is relevant and accessible.
The ECITB also has a key role in encouraging greater diversity across the engineering construction industry. Currently, only 7% of the engineering construction workforce are women. This lack of diversity needs addressing. The board is running extensive careers programmes in schools and promoting female engineering role models and will continue to support the department in its continued drive to increase the number of woman undertaking STEM qualifications. The Department for Education is also investing £20 million in business mentors, which will help disadvantaged and vulnerable young people to access the right information about a fulfilling education or training route that is right for them.
Industry support is fundamental to the success of the ECITB. The vast majority of employers in the engineering construction industry continue to support a statutory framework for training and the ECITB levy. The order will enable these statutory levy arrangements to continue.
I move on to how the levy is calculated. The Industrial Training Act allows an industrial training board to submit a proposal to the Secretary of State for raising and collecting a levy on employers to ensure the effective provision of skills in the industries that they serve. This order will give effect to a proposal submitted to us for a levy to be raised by the ECITB for levy periods ending 31 December 2017, 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019.
Given the history of this levy and our wider reforms, the Committee may ask how the order interacts with the apprenticeship levy. Let me explain. After the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, the ECITB reviewed its levy arrangements and made the decision to reduce its rates as follows. The levy rate attributed to site employees will be reduced to 1.2% of total emoluments—and by emoluments I mean all salaries, fees, wages and any other earnings of an employee—plus net expenditure on subcontract labour. This is down from 1.5% of total emoluments in the 2015 order. The rate in respect of off-site employees, often referred to as head office employees, will be reduced to 0.14% of total emoluments, plus net expenditure on subcontract labour. This is down from 0.18% of total emoluments in the 2015 order.
The Industrial Training Act requires the ECITB to take reasonable steps to ascertain the views of persons who are likely to be liable to pay the levy as a consequence of the proposals. This involves ascertaining the views of the majority of employers who together are likely to pay the majority of the levy. The proposal for the levy obtained the support of the majority of employers in their respective industries. The three major employer federations in the industry, the ECIA, the OCA and BCECA, supported the levy. All levy-paying members of the employer associations, 84 in total, were deemed to be supportive. Of the 149 employers not represented by these federations, 41 did not respond and only 10 declined to provide their support. On that basis, 78% of levy-paying employers were supportive of ECITB’s proposal, and such employers are likely to pay 87% of the value of the levy.
The Industrial Training Act also requires that the board includes within its proposal a proposal for exempting small employers from the levy. This order therefore provides that small firms are exempt from the levy if their total emoluments are below a threshold that the industry considers to be appropriate. If the total gross emoluments and total gross payments are less than £275,000, no training levy will be payable in respect of site-based workers. If the total gross emoluments and total gross payments are less than £1 million, no training levy will be payable in respect of off-site based workers. Those employers who are exempt from paying the levy can and do continue to benefit from support from the board, including grants. The ECITB determines that 375 establishments are considered to be in the scope of the levy. Of that, 120 establishments are exempted due to their size, which means that 32% of establishments are exempted. This order is therefore expected to raise around £78 million for the ECITB in levy income over three years.
To conclude my opening remarks, this order will enable the ECITB to continue to carry out its vital training responsibilities alongside the introduction of the apprenticeship levy and, aligned to our wider skills reform programme, it will help the Government meet their industrial strategy goals. Accordingly, I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this order, which I think it fair to say is not particularly controversial and need not detain us for too long.
Preparing for this took me back some time. In a previous guise, I was the full-time official of a trade union in the engineering sector, and I well remember dealing with many industry training boards on a number of different issues. When the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published its final report in December 2015 on the combined triennial review of the industry training boards, it mentioned the background to the industrial training levy itself, which was introduced as part of the Industrial Training Act 1964. That is of course where the industry training boards can be traced back to as well.
It is to be regretted that there are now only three industry training boards left. I certainly remember that there were more than 20 in the 1980s, and they were significantly reduced by the Industrial Training Act 1982. Apart from the film sector, only the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are still in place today, both of which are of course accountable to Parliament. They raise most of their funds through training levies and various commercial activities. In 2016, the ECITB raised £32 million in levy and returned £28 million to the industry. It is interesting that the ECITB itself made the proposal to reduce the industrial training levy rate for employers, which appears to be a direct result of the impending introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That is reasonable and I understand the thinking behind it.
I made notes but if I read them out I would largely repeat what the noble Viscount said in his introduction, and I see little purpose in doing that. However, the listed exemptions seem reasonable and are set at reasonable levels with regard to the overall pay bill of establishments. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount say that a total of 275 establishments would qualify for the levy, with 120 exemptions. I will not mention the details of the exemptions, but they meet the needs of the industry. It is instructive that the consultation carried out by the ECITB found that 78% of levy payers were in favour of the proposals, and together they will pay a total of 87% of the value of the forecast levy. There is fairly broad support, therefore; I certainly have not been made aware of any opposition.
As the noble Viscount himself pointed out, and I thank him for doing so, less than 10% of the engineering workforce is female. Again, going back to my days as a trade union negotiator, I remember the attempts that were made to get more women into the union, particularly the predominantly engineering-based union that I looked after. It was very difficult, and I pay tribute to WISE—Women into Science and Engineering, which is backed by my union, Unite. We want as many women as possible to come forward and fill jobs in the manufacturing sector, particularly in engineering.
This issue goes back to the requirement for qualifications, particularly STEM qualifications, and will impact on what I am going to say about the next set of regulations for consideration. The pressure on schools to find enough teachers to make sure they can deliver teaching in these subjects cannot be ignored. A lot more work has to be done on that, because they provide the building blocks to get the initial qualifications to get women into university, or through the technical routes into engineering. It is important that the Minister highlighted that, and it is to be welcomed.
The order is not controversial and is to be welcomed. It has been welcomed in the industry, and on that basis I can only hope it will achieve what it sets out to achieve and assists the development of the industry.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his comments and for his contribution today. I was particularly interested to hear of his background, which I did not know about. I appreciate his general support for the order.
Before I make some very brief concluding remarks, I shall pick up on his very important point about the need to encourage more females into engineering. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Nash is in Committee today because I am sure he agrees with me that this is a very important part of what the Department for Education is doing. It is starting from the very early years to encourage more women to study STEM subjects and then, through proper career guidance, to encourage them to take roles in science and engineering. It is one of the major priorities and major thrusts—the noble Lord is right about that.
Noble Lords will be aware from previous debates that the ECITB exists because of the support it receives from employers and employer interest groups in the sector. There is a firm belief that without this levy, there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the engineering construction industry, leading to a deficiency in skill levels. It continues to be the collective view of employers in the engineering construction industry that training should be funded through the statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled labour. I commend this order to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, this Government are committed to a strong skills system that can drive increases in productivity and improvements in social mobility and help make a success of Brexit. We need to do more to support people into high-quality jobs and help them gain world-class skills that meet employers’ needs. Lack of investment in skills is damaging our productivity and our economy. Employer investment in training has been declining for 20 years. On average, UK workers undertake 20% less continuing vocational training than those in the EU. According to the latest available international comparison, the UK spends 55% less than Germany and just over 70% less than France per employee on vocational training. We are forecast to fall from 24th to 28th out of 33 OECD countries for intermediate skills by 2020. We need urgently to address this underinvestment, and the immigration skills charge is one way we are doing so.
The charge was first announced in May 2015. The Immigration Act 2014, as amended last year, provides the Secretary of State with the power to require certain employers who recruit skilled workers from outside the European Economic Area to pay an immigration skills charge. These regulations provide for the amount and obligation to pay the charge. Through the charge we want to incentivise employers to think differently about their recruitment and skills decisions and the balance between investing in UK skills and overseas recruitment.
There is no doubt that skilled migration has brought economic benefit to the UK. It has boosted our ability to compete in global markets and helped make us world leaders in many sectors. There are many examples of good practice, but it seems that some employers would prefer to recruit skilled workers from overseas rather than invest in training UK workers. Use of the tier 2 visa route grew by 37% between 2010 and 2016. Our aim is to see UK workers with the right skills fill these roles.
When we first announced this policy, we commissioned the independent Migration Advisory Committee to advise on applying a skills charge to employers recruiting workers from outside the European Economic Area as part of its wider review of tier 2. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee acknowledged, most respondents to the MAC’s consultation were not in favour of a charge. It is not surprising that those who will have to pay the charge did not welcome it. Based on the SLSC’s comments, we revised and re-laid the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the regulations to reflect more of the evidence we considered. The MAC, which is made up of independent experts in the fields of economics and migration policy, supported it. The committee analysed different levels of charge and took into account views from more than 250 written submissions and from meetings with more than 200 public and private sector employers. It considered that a flat charge of £1,000 per worker per year would be large enough to have an impact on employer behaviour and that this would be the right level to incentivise employers to reduce their reliance on migrant workers.
Where the Government took a different line from the MAC was to protect the UK’s position as a centre of excellence for education and research and to support smaller employers. We announced the rate, scope, exemptions and introduction date for the charge in March last year. The draft regulations implement the decisions taken last year. We believe that this has given employers enough time to prepare for its introduction on 6 April, subject to parliamentary consideration. In deciding the scope and rate of the charge, we took into account the MAC’s recommendations, but we also responded to concerns raised in Parliament during the passage of the Immigration Bill and from employers to announce a number of exemptions and a lower rate for charities and smaller employers. For that reason, Regulation 3 introduces a reduced rate of £364 per individual per year for small and charitable sponsors.
Regulation 4 provides for the exemptions. As the MAC recommended, sponsors of tier 2 intra-company transfer graduate trainees are exempt from paying the charge. The Government have also exempted specified PhD-level occupations, including higher education lecturers and researchers. In addition, those switching from a tier 4 student visa to a tier 2 general visa to take up a graduate-level position in the UK are exempt. This was welcomed by the British Medical Association as it will benefit doctors completing their foundation training. These exemptions are designed to protect employers’ ability to recruit the brightest and the best. For out-of-country applications for entry clearance, the regulations provide that the charge does not apply for leave of less than six months.
Regulation 5 provides that the sponsor must pay the charge up front. This is for a minimum of 12 months and then in six-monthly increments, rounded up. It will be calculated according to the length of employment the sponsor enters on the certificate of sponsorship. Employers will pay the charge as part of the existing sponsorship process, administered by the Home Office.
Regulation 6 provides that part or all of the charge may be refunded or waived. Regulation 7 means that the charge will not be retrospective. Employers of individuals who are already in the UK on a tier 2 visa or have been assigned a tier 2 certificate of sponsorship at the time the regulations come into force will not have to pay the charge. This is also the case where these individuals apply to extend their stay or change job or employer.
I turn to how the funding raised will be used. Based on Home Office analysis of the use of the tier 2 route, it is estimated that the charge could raise £100 million in the first year. The Home Office will collect the charge and transfer it to the Consolidated Fund, less an amount to cover the costs of collection. The population percentages underlying the Barnett formula will be used by the Treasury to determine the split of funding between the Department for Education and each of the devolved Administrations.
The income raised from the charge will be used to address skills gaps in the workforce. It will make a contribution to the department’s skills budget, ensuring that we can continue to make a significant investment in developing the skills the country needs. The charge will raise income but it is also designed to change employer behaviour, and that applies across all sectors.
I recognise the concerns about the impact of the charge on health and education in particular. The MAC was clear in its recommendation that the public sector should not be exempt. As an employer like any other, it should be incentivised to consider the UK labour market first. This is in line with government policy. It is not sustainable to rely on recruiting overseas staff. We are committed to building homegrown skills, to recruit from the domestic labour market and to invest in training.
We recognise that immigration has a role to play in the supply of workers where there are genuine skills shortages, but that should not come at the expense of investment in skills in our country. The immigration skills charge is designed to incentivise employers to invest in training and upskilling the resident workforce. It will also raise funding to support ongoing investment by the Government in their skills programmes. I hope that the Committee will support these regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I welcome these regulations. They are well targeted, have a good concept, good execution, with a sensible set of exemptions and remission for small businesses. I am disappointed that they do not extend to hospitality and construction, both areas where we have a substantial tendency for employers to bring in people from overseas rather than concentrate on training our own people. However, I entirely understand, given that most of that migration is from the EU, why we do not wish to complicate our Brexit negotiations by trying this on the continent just yet. However, when you talk to hospitality employers, they say, “We have to employ these overseas people because the Brits just don’t know how to treat customers”. I say let us bring back the British Airways charm school, which is what I grew up with. We can do this; we just need to train people properly. I do not think that we should accept the excuses of our hospitality industry. We should apply this principle to it to get it to bring our own people up to speed.
However, within the industries this measure is aimed at, it is an excellent idea. It is largely, I think, aimed in practice at IT and industries round that. I would be very grateful if the Minister or his colleagues would agree to meet me and representatives of the tech industry to discuss how to craft training which will meet the needs of employers who are hit by this levy so that the incentive which is provided by it can be directed at the provision of training which will ensure that the objectives of the levy are realised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
We are all being so polite. Perhaps we have learned from the charm school with which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, grew up. We, of course, support investment in skills and training but it is appropriate to put these proposals in the context of the very tight brief which the MAC, as always, was given. It was required to advise on,
“significantly reducing the level of economic migration from outside the EU”,
taking into account the impact on the economy, including on productivity and competitiveness, and was asked to consider five issues, of which a skills levy was one. As the Minister said, at the time of the review the Government had already signalled an intent to introduce the charge. It is fair to acknowledge the MAC endorsement of the proposal. It said in its review:
“We consider that the imposition of an ISC will serve to incentivise employers to reduce their reliance on employing migrant workers and to invest in training and upskilling UK workers”.
But I also observe that, certainly in the health sector, that gives the term “incentivise” a rather new meaning. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to a collapse in training. Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the Government have analysed why that has been the case?
The letter from the Minister, Robert Halfon, to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee confirms that this is a tax. We know that the Treasury hates hypothecation, but given its rationale it seems to us that those who are paying it must be able to see how it is used and, more than that, be involved in decisions about the application of the funds, because they know what normally works best in their own sectors. There must be a lot of sector-specific experience which should be tapped, as well as this being in the interest of transparency.
The Institute of Directors recognised that “penalising employers” who need to look to the “global talent pool” is,
“not the answer to gaining more home-grown talent”.
To balance that, PwC said:
“The levy will not impact the way that companies recruit as they require the skills they require”.
It raised the spectre of, in the long term,
“parts of businesses moving overseas, if mounting costs become prohibitive and companies risk damaging their brands by providing substandard products or services”.
I recall that during the passage of the Bill an argument used against this, partly in the higher education sector, was that some industries will pay the charge but would not see any benefits because their sectors are not apprenticeship-appropriate. That applied in particular to the health sector. I will leave it to my noble friend Lady Walmsley to deal in detail with the health sector. I know that I will support everything that she says.
During the passage of the Bill we also expressed concern about the costs of the bureaucracy of this exercise. Given the investment that the sectors in question already make in training, there seemed to be a danger of a charge being levied, having administration costs deducted and the balance then returned to them. I have been assured that the deduction will be small because the Home Office visa system will be used, but there will be a deduction. We can add to that the unquantified cost of the loading on to the Home Office, which is overloaded. It probably feels that the light at the end of the tunnel is that ever-present oncoming train.
The MAC also said that,
“it is impossible to conclude, ex ante, whether the benefit arising to employers … will outweigh the costs imposed on Tier 2 sponsors”,
because the Government have not yet determined how the revenue will be reinvested. That is clearly a significant point. It is clear that the health sector has come to a conclusion, and it is not the positive conclusion that the Government want to see. Robert Halfon, in his letter to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, said:
“The cost to the healthcare sector and to the NHS in particular has not been estimated”.
That is quite an astonishing statement.
One other area is that of intercompany transfers. The Minister has referred to the exemption in the regulations, but the exemption is limited to trainees. Why is it so limited? Is it simply because they are trainees? That fits in with the thrust of the proposals. I ask that question and make the implied point because we need to do all that we can to attract, retain and not deter international companies basing themselves in the UK. I do not think that I need to fill in the gaps between the lines there.
There are steps that the Government can take after taking through these regulations, particularly by way of exemptions and by working with different sectors, which would make them more palatable to those who find them unpalatable, and more effective, and might help to avoid unintended consequences, as these charges are clearly going to be significant for some sectors.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, I would like to say a few words about health and social care. Report after report shows the dire financial straits in which NHS employers find themselves, with 75% of hospitals already in deficit and A&E departments struggling to meet the four-hour target for attending to patients. There is a shortage of nurses, and retention is terrible. Doctors’ rosters are not filled, resulting in cancelled patient treatments, which puts a greater burden on existing staff, who are acting as the shock absorber for the system. GP practices cannot fill vacancies. Care homes providers are handing back local authority contracts because they cannot provide a decent service within the amount of fees that they are paid. The number of care beds is falling while demand is rising, and 1.2 million elderly and disabled people are not receiving the care that they need.
It is in this climate that the Government have decided to tax health and care employers for every worker from outside the EEA who is on a tier 2 visa. You could not make it up. On top of this, they choose to do it at a time when they have removed the nurse training bursary and have no idea of the effect that it will have on the number of nurses in training. It is no wonder that the BMA and the RCN have written to the Home Secretary, laying out the damaging effects of the charge on health and care. The Government may not have calculated how much it is going to cost them, but they have—it is £7.2 million per year, which will deter cash-strapped employers from filling rosters with essential staff, thereby putting patients at risk. I ask myself why the Government could not make those calculations. Perhaps it is because it is so politically embarrassing.
It is little wonder that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee had serious concerns about the measure, with particular regard to the fact that the memorandum laid with the instrument said nothing about the opposition to the measure voiced by those who were consulted. It was also provided with no information about the impact of the measure, particularly on health and care employers, who are the sector fourth-most affected by the charge. It is no wonder that it was not provided with that information since, in reply to its questions, as my noble friend has just said, Robert Halfon MP confessed that the cost of the charge to the NHS has not been estimated because it is classified as a tax. His letter also shows complete ignorance of the nature of the modern nursing workforce, saying:
“There is no direct impact on employers of care workers as they do not qualify for entry to the UK under the Tier 2 route. Tier 2 has been reserved for graduate occupations since 2011”.
Yes, nursing has been a graduate occupation for a similar length of time. Does the Minister think that care employers do not employ graduate nurses any longer?
The ISC was intended to deter employers recruiting from abroad, but health and care employers have no option, and they have no need for this. As the BMA letter says:
“Checks and balances are already in place to ensure posts are first offered to UK and EU nationals through the resident labour market test”.
Although we are going to introduce apprentice nurses later this year, doctors undergo long and rigorous training, and it is impossible to upskill UK citizens overnight.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Labour Force Survey showed that by 2014 the number of workers participating in training courses away from their own workplace has collapsed since 1992. I will not repeat the figures that the Minister gave, but this feeds into a pattern. In general, UK employers underinvest in training relative to comparable countries. It is therefore understandable that the Government should decide to incentivise employers to invest in training so as to maximise the number of jobs available to the domestic workforce. In that aim, we support what the Government are attempting to achieve through these regulations.
However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was critical of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum laid with the instrument said nothing about the opposition to the proposals voiced by most of those consulted by the Migration Advisory Committee. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was also critical of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum provided little or no detail about the impact of the charge on those employers likely to be affected. That led the committee to conclude that the process of policy formulation for the proposals was not complete and that the Government were not in a position to supply Parliament with sufficient information about the implementation and impact of the proposed charge. If that is not the source of some embarrassment to the Minister and his officials, then it ought to be.
As far back as May 2015, the then Prime Minister announced the intention to introduce the charge, and in March 2016 the scope of the charge was set out. Why then was the DfE not ready when the regulations came to be submitted? Given the array of staff in the department, there is surely no excuse for this. I hope that the Minister will apologise and give an assurance that in future his officials will be better prepared.
Since the charge was first proposed almost two years ago, we can discount any suggestion that it had its roots in what I regret to say is the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric that since last year’s referendum has characterised some government policy. The Government’s generally hostile approach towards migration—and the definition of it, as evidenced by their attitude on the Higher Education and Research Bill in relation to international students—risks further fuelling discrimination and social tension.
Changes to migration policies should be developed through consultation with employers and trade unions and, once agreed, should be introduced with adequate lead-in time to allow employers and employees to plan accordingly. That allows short-term gaps in the labour market to be filled while other measures are taken to address long-term training needs in the domestic labour market. It is to be hoped that that is what this charge will achieve.
Last week, during the briefing session on the charge, the Minister for Skills, Mr Halfon, explained that it will be used to address skills gaps in the workforce. In terms of the resources available to do so, and to some extent reflecting what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, the Minister said he anticipated an annual surplus of around £100 million once the Home Office had deducted the costs involved in collecting the charge.
Identifying those skills gaps is at the heart of these regulations. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills’ Employer Skills Survey 2015 shows that, while overall employer investment in training, in kind and cash, increased between 2011 and 2015, per employee expenditure flatlined at £1,600, despite a period of economic recovery and business growth. That was the last survey to be published, and I regret to say that it will remain the last survey to be published because earlier this year the Government closed the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. We no longer have a national overview. Perhaps the Minister will explain the rationale behind what appears to be an extraordinary step. What will replace it?
The Employer Skills Survey 2015 highlighted what it termed skill-shortage vacancies by sector and listed 13. The top five were: construction; manufacturing; electricity, gas and water; transport and communications; and agriculture. Interestingly, health and social work were only in seventh place, despite the regular reports of difficulty in filling vacancies. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has stolen a bit of my thunder here, so I will not repeat the thrust of her argument. Certainly, the proportion of NHS staff who are not UK nationals is high, although already in decline following last year’s referendum. It seems questionable, at the very least, that the list of exempted occupations listed in the regulations does not include doctors or nurses at a time when the NHS is under real pressure in filling posts in these areas. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that it goes wider than doctors and nurses. Enforcing the levy would effectively penalise the NHS for recruiting workers from outside the EEA to fill gaps in an already stretched workforce in an essential public service. I accept that to some extent the NHS has over the years gone for the easier option of hiring from outwith the UK, but the pressures currently being experienced there will be as nothing two years hence. I urge the Minister to consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said and what the pressures on the NHS will be if the charge is applied across the board for that sector.
Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are also areas where there are skills gaps, not least in schools, where recruitment also remains a problem. I shall not repeat the comments I made in respect of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board in a previous debate. Few teachers will earn above the £30,000 cut-off for the charge, and so non-EEA nationals will be unable to be used to help fill these gaps. From memory, Mr Halfon—or perhaps it was officials—said that there are only about 150 non-EEA nationals in that bracket. I accept that that is not a big number, but none the less these gaps need to be filled. With maths and ICT demonstrating digital skills shortages for the jobs of tomorrow, there could have been a case for relaxing the charge in these areas.
One suggestion I shall make concerns the follow-through on the charge, which we all hope will meet its aims. Could employers not be eligible for some sort of rebate on the charge for employing a non-EEA worker? There is an element of double-charging. If an employer has identified a gap for a group of employees, so that he or she has to take on workers from outwith the UK and, I assume in this case, from outwith the EEA, while doing that, the employer is meeting the aims of this charge by bringing through young, or perhaps not so young, people to train them up to the necessary level. So he is paying the charge for them to be employed and to be trained, and he is also paying a surcharge for those outwith the EEA who he is using temporarily. So in a sense he is training people for the long-term good of the business and of the UK economy, and there does seem to be an element of double-charging, particularly when the £1,000 rises over the years to a maximum of £5,000—leaving aside the charitable sector—when the employer is in fact doing what the Government want him or her to do: training employees.
My other question for the Minister is: when will the charge be reviewed? I do not know whether there is any significance in the fact that the assumption in the regulations is that it covers only non-EEA employees for up to five years. I am not clear whether that is to be a maximum. But there may be a case for, in effect, a sunset clause so that after five years the regulations could be reviewed and some assessment made of the charge’s success. As I said earlier, all of us in this debate, whatever our views and however critical we have been, want to see the outcome that the Government intend. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that point. I do not expect him to respond just now. I do not expect his officials to give him a response just now. If it is more convenient, I am more than happy to receive something in writing.
Overall, I certainly want to see this charge introduced effectively and fairly, leading to a situation where there are more UK workers able to fill the gaps that are evident now and likely to be even more evident in the post-EU years ahead of us. To that extent, I do not do this often but I wish the Government well because I think their intentions are good, but there are certainly some rough edges in this charge which could perhaps be smoothed down to make it more palatable and perhaps even more effective.
Lord Nash
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a really interesting debate. We welcome this feedback. I come back to my opening remarks: the investment in skills is crucial to a productive, strong UK economy—an economy which gives people from all backgrounds the opportunity to fill today’s skilled roles as well as those in the future. Migration has a role to play in supporting the development and supply of expertise and skills and we want to continue to attract the brightest and the best, but through the immigration skills charge we want to incentivise employers to invest in training. I am grateful for the support that has been expressed today for our desire to upskill our workforce. I am afraid that I will not cover all the points that have been raised but I will write to all noble Lords present today.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Hamwee, asked why this impacts particularly on the health service. The MAC was clear in its view that the charge should apply to the public sector. It is not sustainable to rely on recruiting overseas staff and the Government are committed to building home-grown skills. All employers need to look at how they meet their longer-term skills needs, and the long-term strategy must be to train and retain our own nurses and doctors in the UK. Steps are being taken to address the shortage of nurses, including continued investment in training, retention strategies, and a return to practice campaign. We are introducing a new nursing degree apprenticeship. Health Education England has increased nurse training places by 50% over the past two years and is forecasting that more than 40,000 additional nurses will be available by 2020. Similarly, Health Education England is forecasting that more than 11,000 additional doctors will be available by 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the number of nurses impacted by the charge: 2,600 certificates of sponsorship were used for nurses in the year ending August 2015.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the delay in publishing the impact assessment. As the charge is classified as a tax, we have not been required to carry out a formal impact assessment. It is also difficult to do so because it is difficult to anticipate how employers will respond to the charge and to wider changes to tier 2. In addition, the charge does not sit as an isolated measure—it is part of a wider skills programme to develop a strong, productive economy. On the noble Lord’s point about how we will assess and evaluate the impact of the policy and whether the charge will be reviewed, we will monitor the operation of the charge and will undertake a review of the policy after one year, as covered in the Explanatory Memorandum.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
Before the Minister finishes, I mentioned the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and that apparently it has been disbanded. Perhaps the Minister can give me a commitment that he will also write to me about that. I am happy to leave it at that just now.
Baroness Walmsley
Before the Minister concludes his remarks, I will make one point. Of course I agree with what he said about the need for employers to make a contribution to the training of the workforce from whom they will eventually benefit. However, is he aware of the very high level of commitment to training that all health and care employers already make? It takes them a lot of time and costs them a lot of money. Every ward has training nurses on it; every clinical team has trainee doctors on it; most GP practices have GP trainees; most care homes also have trainee co-workers. An enormous contribution is made already. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, talked about double charging—that is what we have here.
House of Lords
International Development: Forestry
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Parminter
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Department for International Development’s Economic Development Strategy, whether they plan to commit to supporting forest programmes across the globe to improve forest governance and reduce deforestation.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, stopping deforestation is an essential part of global efforts to promote sustainable economic development. DfID already supports programmes focused on governance, tackling illegal logging and related corruption, and working with companies to eliminate deforestation from supply chains for palm oil, cocoa and other commodities. This makes an important contribution to DfID’s economic development strategy.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of both this Government and previous Governments in the fight against global deforestation. Given that we are losing an area the size of a football pitch every two seconds, and that deforestation accounts for 10% of our global carbon emissions, will the Minister commit to the fact that the Government will not lose any further funding to take forward this important work?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to renew that commitment, particularly on the International Day of Forests. The commitment is there not only in a government statement on such matters, but also in our signing up to the sustainable development goals. Sustainable development goal 15 puts sustainable managed forests, combating deforestation and reversing land degradation at the heart of one of the key goals that need to be attained. The Government are committed to those goals, and through a number of different mechanisms seek to bring them about by 2030.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, the Washington-based NGO Forest Trends has been working extremely hard to save the South American rainforests. I declare an interest: my son is in Brazil on its behalf at this moment. It has received support from the Obama Administration, but that is now almost certain to end as a result of the policies of President Trump. Does my noble friend agree that public/private organisations of this kind, particularly those working in countries like Brazil, facing economic difficulties, deserve the widest possible support?
Lord Bates
I do, and that is what DfID provides through many of its programmes and by working in public/private partnerships in this area. We recognise that tropical forests regulate weather patterns and that 25% of global greenhouse gases are a result of deforestation and land-use changes. It is therefore crucial that we make efforts in this area. Regarding my noble friend’s opening point about the US Administration’s policy, I would comfort him to an extent and say that that policy is a proposal. A full budget will be published in May and has then to find its way through Congress.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former chair of the Forestry Commission. As the Minister is aware, Britain has a unique reputation as one of the few countries in the world that has successfully reforested its landscape. Traditionally, the Forestry Commission has offered much expertise and experience to countries seeking to reforest their landscape but of late, due to the financial cuts, it has been unable to sustain that at the level it would like. Will the Minister look again at how we could use money to utilise the expertise of the Forestry Commission to practically help countries grow more trees?
Lord Bates
I certainly pay regard to the noble Lord’s great experience and commitment to this area over many years. However, I would also say that, through DfID, we fund a number of programmes, such as the international forestry knowledge programme, which does a great deal around the world in terms of forest governance and partnerships in forests, and are part of the forest investment programme with the World Bank. A key part of those initiatives takes place in areas such as Indonesia, for example, where 80% of forestry was formerly illegal but now 90% is legally audited. We want to see more of that type of work and I assure the noble Lord that that will continue to happen.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
With DfID’s new and welcome emphasis on the promotion of agriculture as the bottom rung of our wider economic agenda, does the Minister agree that forestry and agri-forestry have a vital role to play in sustaining soils and encouraging the sustainable management of water and grazing, and that therefore forestry has a really important role to play in the wider economic agenda generally within sub-Saharan Africa in particular?
Lord Bates
Absolutely. That is why it is such a prominent part of the sustainable development goals. As the noble Lord says, it is about livelihoods and climate change. It is also about direct livelihoods, as about a billion people around the world depend on forests for their livelihoods. That is a very important part of our economic development strategy.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Will my noble friend look again at the decision of DfID not to give any help to Chile, our greatest ally in South America, following the extensive deforestation from the wildfires and the subsequent difficulties of rehabilitation for the people who were devastated in that part of Chile?
Lord Bates
My noble friend and I have had a number of discussions on this. Of course, because Chile is not ODA eligible due to its middle-income status, it is difficult to do that. However, we have corresponded and are looking at ways, through the Cabinet Office, to extend technical support and advice to the people of Chile, who are of course great friends of the UK and who we want to support in their hour of need.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, do the Government agree that if their fine objectives in this strategy of securing greater prosperity and tackling poverty are to be achieved, then tying aid to trade as part of any DfID economic strategy would be the wrong course of action? Will they support continued improvements in the business environment in developing countries, including in forestry, to ensure that there is greater prosperity in those countries in the future?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord is absolutely right that tying aid to trade benefits no one in the long run. We want to get the most competitive people who can deliver the best services to the countries that are in need of our help. We remain resolutely committed to that. That was set out again in the economic development paper.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Global co-operation is absolutely critical, as the Minister mentioned, in achieving the SDGs. Can he tell us how we will ensure that co-operation post Brexit? How will we maintain a relationship with our European partners in delivering the SDGs, particularly on deforestation? I must admit that on days like this, hearing his responses, I wish he was the Secretary of State.
Lord Bates
Let me go straight to the points that the noble Lord has raised. As has been said many times from this Dispatch Box in recent years, we are leaving the European Union, not leaving Europe. We work with Europe around the world on delivering those sustainable development goals, and we will continue to do so. We also have other commitments. There is the New York Declaration on Forests, which is an international commitment of 190 NGOs, Governments and multinationals that contribute towards that effort. We will be working with everyone in pursuit of those global sustainable development goals.
Police: Pension Rights
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, in January 2016, this Government changed legislation to the benefit of widows, widowers and civil partners of police officers in England and Wales who have died on duty. As a result, from 1 April 2015, those survivors who qualify for a survivor pension will now continue to receive their survivor’s benefits for life, regardless of remarriage.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the serving police and crime commissioner for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. I thank the Minister for her Answer and for seeing me earlier today to discuss these matters with her and her officials. On 15 August 2002, two Leicestershire police officers—Police Constables Andy Munn and Bryan Moore—were brutally killed by a criminal driver on the A42. They not only both died in the same incident but both left young widows and small children. One widow remarried seven years later in 2009 and lost her police widow’s pension. The other widow remarried in 2015 and, because of a change in the law, has kept her police widow’s pension. How in all conscience can it be right that two women, both of whose husbands were killed while bravely fighting crime and in the line of duty on the same occasion, can be treated so differently by the country that owes so much to both of them? Will the Minister please look at this case again? Does she not agree that such obvious unfairness offends against every principle this House believes in?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for his Question, for the way in which he has always constructively engaged with me, and for coming to see me this morning. I pay tribute to him as Parliament’s only PCC. Without talking about individual cases, I say that it is absolutely tragic that police officers are killed in the line of public duty. When it happens, we should honour the officers’ memory and sacrifice. That is why this Government have changed the rules so that all survivors of police officers who die on duty do not now face the prospect of losing their pension on remarriage. That is a change that no previous Government have felt able to make. However, we must continue to have regard to the wider implications of a change to public service pensions. It is the duty of government to ensure that any policy changes are legally and financially sound. I do not pretend that the judgment is always easy but it is one that we must make. Successive Governments have maintained a general presumption against retrospective changes to public service pensions, and I am afraid that that remains in place.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as an honorary member of the National Association of Retired Police Officers, which has been instrumental in championing this campaign. Should the Government not recognise the principle that the widows and widowers of police officers who have given their lives in service to the community should receive pensions for life no matter when their partners were killed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Baroness that the Government recognise the principle and that is why we made these changes back in 2016, to be applied from 2015. But as I have said, the retrospective judgment is not one that is made across the public service.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
My Lords, may I recommend to the Minister the principle of “When the facts change, I change my mind” as wise guidance in issues like this? Does she accept from me that the principle of no retrospection, although applicable in many circumstances, simply does not meet the moral obligations that arise from cases like those which have been raised properly by my noble friend?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that, when the facts change, the Government change their mind. That is why in 2016, after decades of widows who remarry not being able to claim the survivor’s pension, the Government did indeed change their mind. The issue of retrospection is something about which no Government have changed their mind.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a current police pensioner. I have often heard Ministers both in this House and in the other place, and indeed at conferences, committing the Government to giving priority to the victims of crime. Does the Minister agree that in homicide cases the definition of victim by necessity applies to the spouses and partners, in this case of police officers who have died in the line of duty? Is there not therefore a justified need to reflect that in the pension arrangements for those officers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly recognise the difficulties faced by the families of members of the Armed Forces, the police service and the fire service and how they could be seen as the indirect victims of crime themselves. The noble Lord talks about provisions for death in the line of duty. There most certainly are awards under the police injury benefit arrangements which ensure that higher benefits are payable when an officer is killed in certain circumstances. These are broadly if death resulted while seeking to apprehend a suspect, protecting life, or if the officer was targeted for the reason of being a police officer. I take this opportunity to recognise the incredible public service that police officers, fire officers and our Armed Forces make to public life.
Gaza Strip
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hylton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the present state of public health in the Occupied Territories of Palestine; and the prospects for agreed international action, in particular action by Israel, to keep the Gaza Strip habitable.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, health indicators in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are relatively good in comparison with regional averages, but they are at risk of deterioration due to conflict and restrictions on movement and access. Increased water and electricity supplies are a prerequisite to improving life in Gaza. We welcome recent initiatives by Israel to increase such supplies and are monitoring their implementation. Further easing of restrictions on materials entering Gaza is also needed.
Lord Hylton (CB)
I thank the Minister for that full reply. The health situation inside Gaza is already bad under the partial blockade by Israel. In the interests of all sides, will the Government keep calling for water, sewerage and electricity supplies to be addressed without delay so that Gaza remains habitable from 2020 onwards? Will they make constructive proposals for all to consider, given the help that is available from British doctors who visit Gaza regularly?
Lord Bates
I reiterate that the Government will continue to make representations to ensure that the suffering of the Gaza people is alleviated as far as possible. We are doing a number of things, such as in the area of reconstruction. We are contributing to the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism, which has rebuilt 2,100 houses destroyed in the 2014 conflict. We are urging the Israelis to honour the obligations they gave in 2015 about the supply of water, which is critical to Gaza. We are also urging them to progress with the connection of the high-voltage 161 kilovolt transmission line to the area. At the same time, we urge those militant organisations in Gaza to restrain themselves and resist and renounce those violent attacks that are at the heart of the cause of this conflict.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
Will the Minister outline what steps, if any, are in place to ensure that none of the £25 million that the UK has pledged to the Palestinian Authority for 2017 to fund salaries for 30,000 officials in the West Bank health and education sectors goes towards rewarding terrorism and teaching hate?
Lord Bates
This is a very good example of where we are working with our European colleagues. We work through the EU PEGASE fund to distribute that part of aid. There is strict vetting to ensure that the only people who receive that salary support are legitimately providing healthcare and other medical services and teaching support in those areas. It is very important that we make sure that British taxpayers’ money ends up exactly where it is intended, helping those in need, and not funding people who have been guilty of terrorist acts.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the health sector in the Gaza Strip is really on life support and that while the blockade remains and while there is a lack of public water, this will continue? Does he see any way of encouraging direct aid from the United Kingdom towards particular hospitals? There are two Anglican hospitals, for example, serving the whole community, often free of charge: the Al Ahli Arab Hospital; and the Al-Wafa Medical Rehabilitation Hospital, which has had to be relocated because of damage to St Luke’s Hospital in Nablus. These are beacons of hope in a fairly desperate place. Is there a way of enabling direct funding there as we continue to urge an end to the blockade?
Lord Bates
As the right reverend Prelate may know, our support of healthcare in this area is directed through the UN Relief and Works Agency, which channels support into the health sector there. A number of hospitals, particularly in Jerusalem, are providing help, particularly for those in Gaza, but there has been significant difficulty, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, in getting those in medical need to those hospitals to get that care, so we have been providing help at the border through an access and co-ordination team, to try to facilitate that. The situation is very fraught, tense and difficult, and there needs to be a political solution very shortly.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that a lack of credible investigation and accountability for repeated attacks on medical facilities, such as the destruction of the Al-Wafa Hospital in Gaza in 2014, is hindering the development of grossly overstretched health facilities? Can the Minister reassure me that the UK will support the resolution at the UN Human Rights Council on Friday calling for accountability for such attacks so that hospitals can be rebuilt with some guarantee of future protection?
Lord Bates
For the people who are suffering so terribly in Gaza in a situation that looks so bleak as we move towards 2020, as the UN forecast, there should be several steps in addition to our supporting resolutions in various bodies. First, Hamas and the terrorist organisation should cease their terrorist attacks. Next, the Palestinian Authority should take over control of the operation of Gaza. Finally, we need to see the opening of the borders, not just with Israel but the border at Rafah with Egypt as well.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the situation in Gaza is indeed dire, particularly for children, and this is due not only to Hamas. Do the Government at least recognise that on the latest WHO figures, albeit they are a little dated, over 4,000 Gazans have been received in hospitals in Israel and well over 90% of applicants from Palestine as a whole are accepted by Israel? Would it not be better if Gaza were to seek to build bridges rather than tunnels to Israel?
Lord Bates
That lies at the heart of this situation. There will be no relief for the people in Gaza, who are suffering so terribly, until there is a political solution and an easing of the tensions, and those should be based on mutually recognised rights to exist. That has to be the only way forward and the noble Lord is right to point to it as we try to apply these urgent humanitarian responses. There needs to be a longer-term political solution.
Schools: Funding Formula
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Massey of Darwen
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Education Policy Institute report on the new funding formula for schools which indicates that primary schools may lose funding equivalent to two teachers and secondary schools may lose funding equivalent to six teachers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, through our careful management of the economy, we have protected the core schools budget in real terms. In 2017-18, schools will have more funding than ever—over £40 billion—set to rise to £42 billion by 2020. The IFS analysis shows that per pupil funding in 2020 will be over 50% higher in real terms than in 2000. While we know schools are facing pressures, we know that there is scope for schools to become more efficient and we are supporting them to achieve this.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that interesting reply. Could he say whether he recognises the concerns of teachers at schools with more disadvantaged pupils, who are more likely to suffer than others under this funding formula? Could he predict what the future for those schools might be?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, in the next four years, the budget of an average primary school will be £74,000 worse off. That is the equivalent of two teachers. The budget of an average secondary school will be £291,000 worse off, which is the equivalent of six teachers. Does the Minister think that it is wise to be spending £240 million on expanding grammar schools and £320 million on creating new free schools when these budgetary pressures exist?
Lord Nash
All public services are facing budgetary pressures. We are still trying to recover from the deficit that we inherited. The National Audit Office has made it quite clear that it is reasonable to look to schools to make efficiency savings. The Education Endowment Fund has said that there is significant scope for better deployment of staff in schools. We find that many of our best schools educationally are also running themselves financially very efficiently. We believe that there is significant scope for saving, in non-staff costs in schools, of over £1 billion.
Lord Polak (Con)
Will the Minister join me in recognising that the current funding system for schools is fundamentally flawed? It is a postcode lottery, where resources provided to identical schools depend not on their needs but on location. This is unfair and needs to be addressed urgently.
Lord Nash
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. As I have already said, the EPI, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, referred, has agreed with him that the system as it currently stands is broken, is unfair and must be addressed urgently. Underfunded schools do not have access to the same opportunities as others do, and this cannot be right. This is why we are introducing a much clearer, fairer and more transparent system.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that these proposals have a disproportionate effect on small primary schools in rural areas? I declare an interest because the school in my village, of Vernham Dean in Hampshire, will have suffered a cut of £64,000 in relation to the money that was available to it only a year and a half ago. I wonder whether the Minister can accept that these proposals will adversely affect young children in small, rural schools in relation to their counterparts in larger towns.
Lord Nash
Rural schools are of course essential to their local communities and ensure that children do not have to travel long distances to school, but we are including an enhanced sparsity factor in our formula to target additional funding to our smallest and most remote schools. This sparsity funding is over and above the lump sum that all schools will receive to help them meet costs that do not vary with their pupil numbers.
Lord Evans of Weardale (CB)
My Lords, while I welcome the additional efficiency and flexibility that come from the multi-academy trust system, and from trusts and free schools overall, does the Minister agree that a reduction in funding per pupil at a time when greater skills are needed to compete internationally, and when mental health problems among young people are increasing so rapidly and causing problems for many schools, is a bad allocation of money?
Lord Nash
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments about the efficiency of multi-academy trusts. One study shows that multi-academy trusts can achieve a saving of £146 per pupil. As I said, we are still recovering from the financial hole that we inherited in 2010 and we all have to adjust our resources. Schools have had a huge increase in money in recent years. We are trying very hard and have a lot of resources available on our government website to help them become more efficient.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister apologise for the fact that the Government are taking money out for their own pet schemes for grammar schools and depriving children in other schools in other parts of the country? Will he agree to go away and look at whether the Government’s pet schemes should have additional money that is not stolen from children in other schools?
Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Bill
Tuesday 21st March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 View all Parking Places (Variation of Charges) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, I would just like to thank David Tredinnick MP, the Member in charge of taking the Bill through the Commons—he is in the Chamber today—and Marcus Jones, the Local Government Minister, for his support. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for his kind words in responding for the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for speaking in support of the Bill at Second Reading. I also thank the RAC Foundation, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Association of Convenience Stores for their support and, finally, the Department for Communities and Local Government. I beg to move.
Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Bill
Tuesday 21st March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 View all Broadcasting (Radio Multiplex Services) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 3 February 2017 - (3 Feb 2017)
Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, the brave men and women of the UK’s Armed Forces are, even as we debate, stationed around the globe keeping us safe. Yet, ever since the 1689 Bill of Rights, the vital protection they afford us rests upon the consent of Parliament. The specific legislation governing our military is contained in the Armed Forces Act 2006. It provides the legal basis for the system of command, discipline and justice that makes our personnel the best in the world.
Every five years, that legislation must be renewed by an Act of Parliament and, in the interim, by annual Order in Council. Since the Act itself passed in 2016, today our job is to consider, and I hope approve, the order, which will extend the force of legislation until May 2018. To appreciate its significance, one has only to imagine the consequences of allowing the Act to expire. The prospect of having our Armed Forces unregulated and our nation no longer able to defend itself is not to be contemplated.
It is in all our interests to ensure a speedy renewal, and I urge the House to agree to that, not least because the dangers we are facing are growing in complexity, diversity, multiplicity and concurrency. That was the expert opinion of our SDSR in 2015, and I firmly contend that nothing that has happened since has given us cause to alter it. Let us consider just a few of the main security challenges that we face in the world today: Daesh in the Middle East, and the prospect of its fighters returning to the continent; an increasingly aggressive Russia, menacing its neighbours in eastern Europe; an ever more assertive China in the South Pacific; and a belligerent North Korea, testing nuclear weapons and the patience of the international community.
All the while, we are contending with humanitarian crises in Syria and South Sudan, mass migration in Europe, rising Islamist fundamentalism, cyberwarfare, piracy on the high seas, and the perils of climate change. Individually, each represents a greater or lesser threat to our nation. Collectively, they pose a direct danger to our international rules-based order—which, in turn, underpins our values and our way of life.
As we have discussed many times before, the UK’s Armed Forces are working tirelessly to protect our nation today. The real question hinges on their ability to react tomorrow. Indeed, that was precisely the focus of our SDSR in 2015. Its response was to restructure defence to make us better prepared for the future, so it is worth reflecting on three of its most significant elements.
First, it ensured that we are investing in the full spectrum capability necessary to deter any danger. The Government chose to grow their defence budget, at a time of austerity and in the face of many other competing interests, so that they could spend £178 billion on the best kit money can buy: digitally enhanced Ajax armoured vehicles, upgraded Apaches, new frigates, a new fleet of drones and a regenerated carrier strike. We are investing not just in conventional forces but in nuclear deterrence, putting aside billions to build new Dreadnought submarines to provide our nation’s ultimate safeguard well into the 2050s. All the while, the exponential pace of technological advance means that we must continually stay ahead of the curve. So we are putting our emphasis on innovation, using an £800 million fund to generate a wide range of disruptive capability in laser weaponry, cyber and big data.
Secondly, the SDSR makes government far more integrated. The global problems we are facing transcend Whitehall borders and boundaries. Consequently, we have brought together all levers of government—whether defence, diplomacy, development, trade or engagement —to pack a more powerful punch. So today we do not just have a National Security Council offering collective strategic leadership across Whitehall on national security and crisis concerns: we have cross-Whitehall funds and joint policy and delivery units covering defence, the Foreign Office and DfID to focus our combined energies on the most pressing issues.
This holistic approach is paying dividends on the ground. When it came to tackling Ebola in Sierra Leone, our Armed Forces built treatment centres staffed by NHS volunteers, while officials from DfID, the FCO and our charities educated villagers about prevention. Together with our international partners, we stopped a deadly disease in its tracks. Meanwhile, today we are applying persistent simultaneous pressure to the Daesh terrorists on multiple fronts—militarily, economically and in cyberspace.
The third element of our SDSR was about ensuring that UK defence becomes international by design. In a world of complex global problems, it is vital for us to work more effectively with our partners. That means much more than collaborating to counter imminent threats; it is about joining forces to stop crisis morphing into regional chaos. It is about building the capability of partners to support good governance and doing more to understand international perspectives. It is also about working collectively to strengthen our trade and increase our prosperity.
Since the decision of our people to leave the EU, we have become even more determined to step up to defend global security. So we are doubling peacekeeping support for the UN, as well as working more closely with the OSCE, the African Union and the Commonwealth. Above all, we are strengthening our support for NATO. Sixty-eight years after the alliance was formed, it remains as relevant as ever. As US Defense Secretary James Mattis said recently, it is,
“a fundamental … bedrock … for all the transatlantic community”.
That is why the UK continues to meet the 2% GDP target. It is why we are leading the very high readiness joint task force—sending 3,000 of our own personnel to join the 14-nation force. It is why we are contributing to the enhanced forward presence in Estonia and Poland, as well as policing Black Sea skies. Finally, it is why we are playing a key role building up the alliance’s cyberdefences as part of the Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Estonia.
However, the alliance is only as strong as its weakest link. It is not enough for us to pull out all the stops; we need other nations to up their game. We agree with President Trump and General Mattis that it is time for the allies to pay their way. US taxpayers cannot subsidise European defence. Currently, 19 of the 28 EU member states are failing to spend 1.5% of GDP on defence. Five—by no means the poorest five—do not even spend 1%. It is salutary to think that, after we leave, EU countries will pay only 20% of NATO’s bills.
NATO adaptation also goes beyond money. We need the alliance to streamline its political and governance structures to make faster decisions, just as we need it to take a 360 degree view, offering total security against threats both from the east and the south.
The UK is also looking to develop combined military formations with like-minded allies that complement NATO. Our joint expeditionary task force working with our northern European partners—Denmark, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, the Netherlands and Norway —gives us greater speed and flexibility to respond to crises. At the same time, we are strengthening our ties with our closest allies such as the US, France and Germany. Together we are building a tapestry of capability to tailor our response to any threat. With France, besides creating a combined joint expeditionary force, we are co-operating on future combat air systems, which will give us the most advanced unmanned combat air system in Europe.
No one would deny that the international environment is becoming more challenging, that the dangers are increasing daily and that we need to do more. In fact, the great advantage of debates such as this is that we have the chance to listen and learn from the opinion of our finest military minds and thereby become even stronger.
All that said, I believe SDSR 2015 has put us in a better position to deal with the unexpected. The UK is investing more, integrating more and doing more to work internationally. The future remains uncertain but we are now on a more secure path towards peace and prosperity. I beg to move.
Lord Touhig (Lab)
My Lords, the House will note that I am not my noble friend Lord Rosser. I apologise at the outset for my part in any confusion caused to the very excellent staff who drew up the speakers list. The House will not be denied my noble friend’s comments; he will speak at the end of the debate.
Seventy years ago last month, on 24 February 1947, the British ambassador to Washington was instructed by Labour Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin to deliver a memorandum to George Marshall, the American Secretary of State. The memorandum made it clear that Britain’s economic position would no longer allow her to continue as the reservoir of financial military support to Greece and Turkey. The shockwaves it produced throughout the Truman Administration were just what Bevin wanted. He believed that, following the end of the Second World War, the United States was in Europe but not yet of it in defence terms. His memorandum forced the US Government to take a decision that they had been unwilling to make up to that time. It led to the creation of NATO, and it was a Labour Foreign Secretary who was the midwife at that birth.
Moreover, it was also Bevin who conspired with Prime Minister Clem Attlee to create Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent, against opposition from some hard-left members of the Labour Party—alas, so far as our nuclear deterrent is concerned, some things never change. The decision was taken in secret by a small Cabinet committee. Arguing that Britain should have the atomic bomb, Bevin told the committee:
“We’ve got to have this thing over here, whatever it costs. We’ve got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it”.
Labour has always had a proud record on defence when in government. Indeed, the Defence Secretary, Michael Fallon, told The House magazine last year:
“It was the Labour Party that gave us the two most important pieces of our defence architecture today—NATO and our independent nuclear deterrent. It was the Labour Government who committed to the 2% and the Labour Government who was the founding member of NATO—every time Labour has been in Government they have taken a responsible view of defence”.
Labour in government has committed resources to the defence of Britain, which this Government have failed to do. In particular, we spent on average 2.3% of GDP when we were in office. The present Government have failed to match this, preferring instead to use creative accounting to massage the figures by including some £1 billion of pensions in the 2%. Will the Minister’s Government match my Government in this? As we urge other NATO states to spend 2%, we would have more credibility if we were genuinely spending that amount ourselves.
The SDSR 2010 was the most misnamed of government publications. In the foreword, David Cameron and Nick Clegg wrote about bringing the defence budget into balance. They meant cuts. They offered a sop by saying that defence and security would contribute to the deficit reduction on a lower scale than other departments. That document was not about our strategic defence and security; it was about cutting back on defence spending. It was a document promoted not by the Ministry of Defence but by the Treasury. It talked of reconfiguring our Armed Forces. Having worked for some time as Gordon Brown’s PPS, I know that is Treasury-speak for cuts.
Today our Army is smaller than the one we put in the field against Napoleon. The latest figures show an Army of just 75,840 personnel. The Royal Navy is reduced to 19 ships, of which six have propulsion problems and two are laid up in Portsmouth because they are short of crew as a result of spending cuts. On top of this, we have no aircraft carriers. I look forward to the Government’s response to the National Audit Office report published last week on the carriers. We have no marine patrol aircraft and there are currently only seven RAF fighter squadrons. Two of these exist only because the life of the Typhoon has been extended until 2040.
There is an overdependence on recruiting reservists. Despite millions of pounds spent on recruitment, targets for all three services have been missed. Morale is poor. Some 54% of service personnel are dissatisfied with service life. The most valuable asset that Britain’s Armed Forces have are the men and women who serve. They have had their pay frozen and their pensions reduced, and their accommodation is in need of major investment. According to the 2016 continuous attitude survey, almost half believe that the quality of their accommodation has fallen. The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body has revealed that almost every group spoken to believed that their pay increases were unreasonable. The 2016 survey revealed that only one in three of our Armed Forces personnel believed they were valued and just one in three planned to stay as long as they possibly could.
The failings I have identified are not the responsibility of our Armed Forces, but the consequence of government policy of cuts, mismanagement and poor forecasting. Concern at the state of our Armed Forces is not the exclusive interest of this side of the House. In recent debates, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench Peers have expressed their concerns.
While continuing my criticism of the Government, I want to say that the whole House values the work of the noble Earl who has constantly demonstrated his commitment to the well-being of our Armed Forces. He comes to the Dispatch Box time and again, often to defend the indefensible, which he does with such great style that he is almost convincing. Those of us who are the Government’s critics in this House have nothing but admiration for him personally and value the fact that he listens and responds. For this, we are all grateful.
The SDSR 2015 was a missed opportunity. It failed to give a vision of the future which could have given us confidence that the Government were tackling the problems that they had created in 2010. There is a strong case for revisiting SDSR 2015. A revised SDSR would afford the opportunity to look afresh at Britain’s position in the world. We, on this side, happen to believe that defence and foreign policy are two sides of the same coin. The SDSR 2015 should have been based on our key foreign policy objectives. It was not. These are bound to be revised now, as a result of Brexit, and this will impact on defence. If the Government shared that view, we would not have the Foreign Secretary going around the Middle East proclaiming:
“Britain is back East of Suez”,
and even announcing a military spend of £3 billion over the next 10 years—all before the Ministry of Defence has published its Gulf strategy.
We cannot have major foreign and defence policy decisions made on the wing. Of course we have a role to play in the Middle East, but we have interests in the Far East and around the globe. We are a maritime trading nation. Keeping open the world’s shipping lanes and being able to protect and defend our global interests are essential. We are—and remain—a world power, one with a nuclear capability available to deter and protect. If we have clear foreign policy objectives, linked to defence, we can answer the question: what do we want our Armed Forces to be capable of doing? It is not rocket science. It is about asking the basic, obvious questions about what we want from our Armed Forces.
My noble friend Lord Robertson of Port Ellen most skilfully set out how such tasks could be approached. In a speech in 2015 about the NATO objective of spending 2% on defence, he said that,
“the 2% only makes sense if it is spent on the right things—deployable troops, precision weapons, logistics and specialist people”.
This simple and basic approach sums up what needs to be done. The SDSR 2015 could have set out those objectives clearly, made provision for the resourcing and funding and included the defence-industrial strategy. Perhaps I may commend this booklet, A Benefit, Not a Burden, which clearly sets out the case for the strategic value of Britain having a defence-industrial strategy. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for drawing my attention to it. In this debate, I look forward to listening to and learning from the noble Lord, Lord Levene, whom I suspect might have a different view.
We face challenges not known by previous generations. Challenges posed by cyber have the capacity to change warfare into something we have never known or imagined. The Government are right to invest in cyber, but we must be willing to use it in an offensive, as well as defensive, mode if we are determined to deter. The other threat is from terrorist groups such as ISIL, which would turn high streets anywhere into a war zone. Some of the most evil and barbaric acts witnessed by humanity have been carried out by religious extremists who are in fact betraying the beauty of their faith.
We face a resurgent Russia, which has spent billions modernising its forces. We face an economically ambitious China, making dubious territorial claims in the South China Sea and increasing defence spending, and we face the evil regime in North Korea, which enslaves its people and threatens the peace of the region. We face the crisis of failed states such as Libya and Syria and the awful consequences of civil war, which has forced millions to flee and try to get to Europe.
NATO remains the bedrock of our defence, and I hope that at the May summit, Britain will make it clear to President Trump that, while we agree with him that all states should spend 2% of GDP on defence, NATO is not obsolete, irrelevant or out of date, as he said during his election campaign.
The first duty of the British Government is the care and welfare of our people, and at the heart of that is our defence. For that reason, we have no hesitation today in supporting the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order, to which the noble Earl referred in opening the debate.
Coming full circle, I return to Ernest Bevin. His shock tactics led to the creation of NATO, but it also led directly to the Truman doctrine of 12 March 1947. For me, the most powerful part of the President’s statement remains true today. He said that,
“totalitarian regimes imposed on free peoples, by direct or indirect aggression, undermine the foundation of international peace”.
The world is no safer today than it was in 1947, and we must therefore be ever vigilant.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I think we all accept that we have moved on from the apparently benign international context of the post-Cold War years to a much more unstable international order in which the advanced democracies of western Europe and North America can no longer set the rules without carrying with them the rising Asian powers. Multilateral co-operation with like-minded Governments who share our values has been among the most important levers of British foreign policy since the Second World War—through NATO since 1949 and through the European Union since 1973. It has been a force multiplier and an influence multiplier in international institutions and in negotiations such as the six-power nuclear negotiation with Iran. We will need to work more closely with others as we face this global shift in power.
The most significant change in the UK’s international environment since the publication of the 2015 strategic defence and security review has been the defection of the United States from its position as promoter and protector of the rules-based international order, to which the Motion refers. We do not yet know what the Trump Administration’s foreign policy will become or exactly their approach to NATO and their European partners, but we have seen enough to know that Trump will put America first, as he promised throughout his campaign, and pay less attention to international order and North Atlantic security, and that Britain cannot expect any greater favours than such other close US partners as Canada, Mexico, Germany or Japan.
I want to focus on the future relationship between Britain and our other long-standing allies and partners with whom we share values in promoting and protecting the rules-based international order: our European NATO allies, which are also, with the exception of Iceland, Norway and Turkey, our partners in the European Union.
Successive Governments have kept from the public and the media how close and effective our security and defence co-operation with our European neighbours has become. Tony Blair signed a bilateral treaty on defence co-operation with France in 1998, to add to our existing collaboration with the Netherlands and Belgium, the most long-standing example of which being the British-Dutch marine amphibious force. His Government, with the then George Robertson—later NATO Secretary-General and now the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—as Secretary of State for Defence, attempted to widen this into a network of European defence partnerships. He recognised that the UK could no longer afford to procure a full spectrum of military capabilities under UK sovereign control and that it therefore made sense to share capabilities to meet shared threats. But when the Daily Mail dubbed this initiative “the European Army”, he backed off and went quiet. Co-operation continued to strengthen but Ministers said as little as possible about it.
When the Conservatives came to power in coalition in 2010, they fought with their Liberal Democrat partners to keep from the public this pattern of undeclared co-operation. Liam Fox, then Secretary of State for Defence, signed a new and closer defence co-operation agreement with France but told the official responsible for UK-French co-operation that he would do his best to keep it out of the newspapers. Since then I have read about major UK-French exercises in the French press, but rarely in the British. I have been told of the exchange programmes under which British pilots fly French military aircraft and that one interception of a Russian plane not far from UK airspace was made by a French pilot in an RAF fighter. But nobody told the Daily Mail, of course.
The level of ignorance within the Conservative Party about the extent of European defence co-operation was and is astonishing. I recall a meeting in Whitehall in which a serving Minister repeated the common prejudice about the uselessness of the Belgians, to be asked by officials whether he was unaware that the strike in Libya which had just knocked out Colonel Gaddafi had been a joint British-Belgian mission. Since the 2015 election, the latest SDSR has spelled out for those willing to read as far as chapter 5 the importance of our links with France, Germany, Italy and the Nordic and Baltic states, both through NATO and through the European Union which, it reminds us in paragraph 5.41,
“has a range of capabilities that can be complementary to those of NATO”.
It goes on to say:
“We will ... continue to foster closer coordination and cooperation between the EU and other institutions, principally NATO, in ways which support our national priorities and build Euro-Atlantic security”.
This underpublicised admission of the extent of our security interdependence with our neighbours did not prevent the leave campaign from repeatedly insisting that the European Union has no security role or value, and no relevance to NATO. When the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, repeated this piece of fake news in a debate in this Chamber I gave him a copy of the 2015 SDSR, with chapter 5 carefully annotated; he seemed genuinely surprised to read what it said. I made some effort when in government to persuade Conservative colleagues to give more publicity to the impressive UK-led EU operational headquarters for Operation Atalanta, the anti-piracy mission off Somalia, based at Joint Forces HQ Northwood. Conservative colleagues agreed to invite ambassadors from other EU states to visit, and I understand that a number of Conservative MPs were also invited, but the press was kept well away. The same happened with the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union Foreign Policy, which stated in its executive summary that “the key benefits” of common action to the UK,
“included: increased impact from acting in concert with 27 other countries; greater influence with non-EU powers, derived from our position as a leading EU country”,
and,
“the range and versatility of the EU’s tools, as compared with other international organisations”.
But again, No. 10 delayed publication until the day after Parliament rose for the Summer Recess, and allowed David Lidington and me to brief EU ambassadors but not the domestic media.
Yesterday several newspapers carried the story that the Prime Minister is now seeking a defence pact with Germany. No mention that we already have one with France, I noted: the Government still seem unwilling to admit how close our security and defence co-operation with our neighbours has become. The Government, from the Prime Minister downwards, endlessly repeat the empty phrase, “We may be leaving the EU, but we are not leaving Europe”, with the implication that it will be in the defence and security sphere that we will remain engaged as we cast all economic integration away.
So can the Minister tell us what sort of defence pact is now planned with Germany? Will it be modelled on the treaty with France? Do we plan any other bilateral treaties of this sort—for example, with the Netherlands, Spain or Italy, or with the Nordic states, which are very grateful for the co-operation that the British quietly gave them in increasing their own multilateral integration? Or do we even consider a network of arrangements that might become in time a multilateral organisation—a sort of revived Western European Union of blessed memory?
Does this announcement mean that security in Europe and around its neighbourhood remains the first priority for UK defence, in contradiction to Boris Johnson’s promise that British forces are going to sail off again east of Suez to defend India and confront China? Do we intend to remain a member of the EU caucus within the United Nations and other international organisations, if it is possible to negotiate that? Are the Government willing to face down the hostility of the Europhobes within their party to any continuing links of this sort with our continental neighbours? Unless the Government are willing to reassert our commitment to continuing European co-operation in foreign policy, security and defence, clearly and publicly, our ability to meet the current challenges to the rules-based international order, severe as they are, will be sadly diminished.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, this important debate comes at a crucial time for our country and I am grateful to the Government for making space for it in the timetable. We will shortly be immersed in the considerable legislative agenda attendant upon Brexit and then there will probably be little time for anything else. Yet while we are devoting our attention to the Brexit trees, it would be very dangerous for us to lose sight of the whole wood. Much of our attention over the next two years will understandably be taken up with economic and trade concerns. Yet we stand at a time when our underpinning assumptions about the world in which we live, and in which we will need to trade and carry on business more widely, are threatened in a way that we have not seen for decades.
Over the past three years we have been commemorating various centenaries connected with the First World War, and the Government are now thinking about the appropriate way to mark the end of major European hostilities in 1918. In doing so it will be important to reflect on the fact that the war was a strategic failure for the supposed victors. This was not because of events on the numerous, blood-soaked battlefields, but because the politicians of the day were unable to create a lasting political settlement. The treatment of Germany, the retreat of the United States into its more traditional isolationism, and other such misjudgements, set us on the path to the Second World War and another 60 million deaths.
This is in contrast to the situation after 1945. The sustained engagement of the United States in setting up and supporting international institutions, the reduction in barriers to trade, the economic and political resurrection of Germany, and even the sense of collective endeavour in containing the Soviet Union all contributed to the development of stability and prosperity. Yet that post-war order, which most of us in your Lordships’ House have taken for granted for most of our lives, is being shaken. The foundations have not yet been destroyed, but the building is at serious risk. The threatened—and, to some extent, actual—retreat of the United States from a position of leadership in the wider world, the rise of nasty nationalism and xenophobia in many countries, the growing popularity of beggar-my-neighbour trade policies and the pursuit of amoral opportunism, particularly by Russia, have all left Europe in a state of insecurity that some had rather naively hoped we would never see again.
Further afield, the increasing muscularity of China’s policy in the Asia-Pacific region risks miscalculation and conflict with its neighbours. Above all, North Korea’s almost ineluctable progress towards a nuclear-armed ballistic missile capable of reaching Hawaii and Alaska poses a challenge that no US President could ignore. Some people believe that these problems are remote from the UK and should not concern us directly. They are wrong. War in the Asia-Pacific region would have serious and possibly disastrous consequences for us all, and we must take the danger seriously. Within that wider context, we have a continuing threat to our security from extremist Islamic terrorist groups, and a whole new dimension of conflict within cyberspace. Economic, resource and population pressures are all contributing to increasing levels of instability in many parts of the world, and mass movements of people seem likely to be a feature of the international scene for some time to come; indeed, they could well become worse. I could go on, but I have already depressed myself enough.
Of course, the world is not all bad. There are developments that give one cause for hope and some problems that we once thought intractable have succumbed to patient persistence. But what worries me most about the current situation is not simply the scale and nature of the individual challenges—it is the evident weakening of our will to combat them vigorously and collectively. For us, in Europe, the bedrock of such an approach has long been our commitment to NATO. Those who talk about the alliance becoming irrelevant must ask themselves what sort of collective security arrangement might replace it. Certainly, it will not be the EU. In fact, there is no substitute for NATO—at least, not in the near future. Our first response to the challenges of the turbulent present must, therefore, be to ensure the solidarity and capability of the alliance.
NATO’s responses to the challenges posed by Russia’s actions over the past few years have been rather slow, although they go in the right direction, and the strengthening determination to stand behind Article 5 is reassuring. To be successful, NATO needs the wholehearted involvement of the United States, and we cannot take that for granted. President Trump’s demands for European nations to spend more on defence are neither new nor wrong. Germany does not, as he claims, “owe” money to NATO, nor should the United States be “paid” for the large contribution it makes to the security of Germany—not least because it does so to safeguard its own security. However, Germany owes it to itself, and to Europe as a whole, to spend at least the NATO minimum of 2% of GDP on defence. Others also need to do more, but Germany’s example in this regard is crucial. I therefore welcome Chancellor Merkel’s commitment to increase spending to that level.
However, we need to be clear about the significance of the 2% figure. It is a bare minimum, designed to provide a clear baseline against which one can measure delinquency. It is not like some fundraising target, which we should celebrate reaching. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, that while he is right to question what lies beneath our own figures, the present Government are far from the only ones to have used creative accounting when it comes to defence expenditure.
In any event, the UK’s commitment to the 2% floor merely raises us above the level of those who should be named and shamed; it does not imply an adequate level of investment in our future security. Indeed, I argue that our public expenditure on security remains woefully inadequate in light of the present challenges to international order. We undoubtedly have first-class military capabilities, as the Minister has said, but we do not have enough of them. Our ships, ground combat formations, aircraft and people are spread too thin, and it is obvious that financial pressures within the MoD are mounting. We ought to be spending more like 3% of GDP on defence, not just the minimum of 2%. We also need greater investment in diplomacy and in other elements of soft power. There will always be arguments about how the money should be spent: about the balance between platforms, weapons, people and new capabilities—such as unmanned vehicles and cyberwarfare. But when such arguments are about the division of an already inadequate cake, they rather miss the point.
The mantra of the moment seems to be about taking back control. With control comes responsibility, and with responsibility comes the duty to will the means as well as willing the ends. Successive Governments have paid lip service to the fact that preserving the safety and security of their citizens is their first priority, but their actions—particularly their spending decisions—have said otherwise. The Minister has pointed to all that the present Government are currently doing in this regard, and I acknowledge that they have at least reversed the miserable downward trend of investment in recent years. They have made a start, but they must do more. We cannot provide all the resources necessary to tackle such a dangerous world ourselves, but we can—and should—set the example for others. It is clearly in our interest to do so.
If we are to be a great global trading nation we shall require a reasonable degree of stability and predictability in the world. Without that, not only our security but also our prosperity will be at risk. Perhaps, as we approach Brexit, it is time to remember, with Thucydides,
“that prosperity can be only for the free, that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it”.
I hope that the Government will find the courage to make that defence a financial practicality.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I hesitate to follow such eloquent speeches on so much detail, but I want to make one or two general points about a more specific area. I do so from an interest that began when I was a Soviet specialist at GCHQ in a previous incarnation, although I realise that that is probably not the right religious phrase to use.
It still seems to me that an SDSR should enable us to be flexible enough to cope with whatever changes are likely to come. My fear, which I have expressed in the House before, remains that in 15 to 20 years’ time we may end up with a force that meets the demands of now but perhaps not the demands of the situation 15 or 20 years down the line because the world changes so much. When I left GCHQ, the Soviet Union was intact, and we see what has changed since then. Therefore, I want to focus on Russia in particular.
It seems pretty obvious that one of Russia’s tactics at the moment, either deliberate or incidental, is to divide the allies one from another—and it seems to be quite effective in that at the moment—enabling the threat against Russia to be diminished, at least in its mind. When we talk about,
“challenges to the international rules-based order”—
the words of the Motion—this begs the question of whose rules. There always are rules, but the question is whose rules they are, on what basis and criteria they are agreed and who adheres to them. What happens if countries decide to change the rules and operate in a different way, which is clearly what is going on at the moment?
Two things that characterise Russia are not only pride and the nature of glory—and there is much more that could be said about that—but the fact that Russians identify themselves through their suffering, which is why I am still a little suspicious of the assumption that the application of greater and greater sanctions will have a big impact. That might be the case in the material West but I think that in Russia a different narrative is running.
How do we look through the eyes of Russia, for example, in determining our response to how we shape our forces for the future? I draw your Lordships’ attention to an article by Richard Sokolsky from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, entitled The New NATO-Russia Military Balance: Implications for European Security. I found this one of the most easily understood and probably most helpful and accurate surveys of the situation at the moment, drawing attention to the political and military challenges or perspectives that we face. One point that he makes is that it is incumbent on NATO to draw clear lines if we are to maintain an international rules-based order. For example, when the INF treaty is violated by Russia, even if we think it will not go back on it, we should at least make it clear that that is a violation of rules—a transgression over lines that have previously been drawn in the sand—and perhaps attention should be drawn to that a little more loudly.
The other point that he goes on to make is the importance of keeping dialogue with Russia open, including through back-door diplomacy, and this could be extrapolated to other contexts. When the divisions are increasing in the foreground, how do we maintain those perhaps unofficial back-door routes where the conversation can keep going? If we are to maintain a situation where the same rules can be adhered to whatever the change in circumstances, that conversation will be essential.
I end, noble Lords will be glad to hear, largely where I began. How do we enable our forces to have the confidence that they are being set up to exercise power in a changing environment that has already changed from the assumptions that were set out when the SDSR of 2015 was established? That is where the challenge lies as we pay attention to some of the dynamics of relations with countries such as Russia.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate ended on a challenging question, which relates to the success in recruitment that may be essential to underpin the programme that the Government have before them. I start by echoing the tribute that the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, paid to my noble friend Lord Howe for the way in which he conducts defence matters. I shall also, if I may, pay tribute to the noble Lord himself, for the very constructive and serious way in which he speaks from the Opposition Front Bench on defence matters, which I think the whole House appreciates.
Noble Lords, including my noble friend in his introduction, have already said—and I agree with them—that this is the most unstable world that we have seen since the Second World War. The threats are greater. I notice the changes since my time in office and in defence. We never had global Islamic extremism, which is a completely new variety of terrorism of a particularly nasty and dangerous kind. Now we never know where the next terrorist outrage in support of Islamic extremism will be—whether in Australia, Brussels or New York. The range of this is challenging and extremely difficult.
The range of problems is much greater than I remember in my time. The population explosion in the world undoubtedly underpins some of the mass migration of people; I have referred to this in an earlier speech. I remember my noble friend Lord Hague saying that although we may look at what is happening at the moment and think that this may be near the end, it may be just the beginning of the problems of migration—underpinned in part by climate change, which does not make things easier.
We can add to that the extraordinary complications of the internet and cyber, and the whole new dimension that they have introduced, including social media, which underpin much of the communication of terrorist activities in a way that we still have not suitably mastered. These are all new. Then there is the total chaos of Syria, the situations in Iraq, in Libya, in Yemen—and in Afghanistan, I believe, at the moment—and in North Korea, including its possibly aggressive activities. To pick up a phrase from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, I must not get too depressed about this—but it seems to me that it is all leading to a lack of confidence in the West. That has undoubtedly been made worse by Brexit, which, whatever its outcome may be, introduces instant uncertainty into the world at present.
There are also uncertain signals coming out of Washington, which I hope, with the help of General Mattis, may become more reassuring shortly, to the effect that America is soundly in support of NATO, notwithstanding the absolutely justifiable request by President Trump that the other members of NATO, including the European members, make their proper contribution.
The other danger that I see is the re-emergence of Russia as it tries to reassert itself after the humiliation of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I was briefly Secretary of State for Defence, yet in my time I moved from recognising a President of the Soviet Union—President Gorbachev—and a Berlin Wall, to, before the end of my time in office, welcoming President Yeltsin of Russia, the whole Russian Soviet empire having collapsed. We all know that part of President Putin’s appeal to his own people is the fact that he is creating a sense that Russia matters again in the world. Russia was once a superpower, and he is determined to have it recognised as such again. We have to learn how to deal with that. It poses major challenges to the West. We are moving into Estonia. We are waving a big flag called Article 5, as our 800 troops and those from the other contributing countries make the front line of NATO.
We are just in the process of commemorating the First World War and the various years of it. Any of us who have been involved in studying it, and the Second World War, will realise how tragedies and terrible wars occurred because people did not believe treaty obligations and had not properly understood the responsibility they had. That was certainly true in the First World War for undertakings of that kind to Belgium under treaty, and in the Second World War for undertakings to Poland, both of which were dismissed by potential adversaries because we perhaps would not really be prepared to stand over them.
I do not want to depress the House too much, but we have a very similar situation now in which the humiliation and collapse of the Soviet Union has left pockets of Russian citizens in various territories. We saw what their activities were in Ukraine, when they were positively begging President Putin to get involved, and you can see their presence in the Baltic states, where they represent about 25% of the population. They were abandoned in the collapse of the Soviet Union and have been left there. If they seek to stir up grievances in those areas, handling that could pose a major challenge. That is part of the dangerous situation that we have.
The Prime Minister, in her speech to the Republican gathering in Philadelphia, referred to the phrase that President Reagan coined to describe his approach to President Gorbachev: “trust but verify”. Prime Minister May said that her approach to President Putin is “engage but beware”. I am not sure whether she said “beware”, or whether that was a misprint and she said “be wary”, but that is how it came out.
We have to look at the situations that we face. Others have referred to China. How ready are we to cope with this situation? I worry that we are not very well prepared or ready. I am not going to say a word about the naval programme, because the noble Lord, Lord West, is about to follow me and he will cover that in some detail. However, I will be very interested to see what an old friend of mine from Northern Ireland, Sir John Parker, and his national shipbuilding strategy will produce. I understand that that is coming out in spring 2017. Today is the second day of spring, but I do not know whether we can expect an early delivery of the strategy. Looking at the naval programme and whether we will be ready for anybody by 2025—although according to the latest report from the Defence Committee, that might even be a bit late—I worry about the very lumpy programme we have got involved in and whether it has the flexibility that we need.
When I was Defence Secretary, I was privileged to have responsibility for considerably larger Army numbers than we have now. I see the challenge that numbers represent at a time of austerity and difficulties in recruitment. However, I think that we need everyone we have got, and we probably need more. It underlines the importance of working with allies if we do not have the resources that we might like for everything. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, that I do not regard Brexit as a reason to stop work on the common security and defence policy. I see every reason why we should continue in the work we are doing against piracy and on helping refugees in the Mediterranean. There is no reason why we should not also lead some projects, which is a role we could well play.
The other critical issue is the difficulties we face in looking after NATO. We have to make sure that the US stays firmly committed and that our European allies keep their contributions up.
There are other issues that I think are even more essential because of the present difficulties. One of the things that has kept us ahead so many times in the difficult and dangerous world we are in is our skill in intelligence. Intelligence co-operation with the United States is vital. Everybody is familiar with the “Five Eyes” partnership. We have a very high standard on that and we must ensure that it is not undermined any more than it has been—partly by Mr Snowden, and with the situation not helped by the recent row in the United States. Other issues are cyber defence and the Prevent programme at home against terrorism. Lastly, and most importantly to avoid military activity, is soft power. I worry whether the Foreign Office is sufficiently resourced in the light of the difficult problems it faces and now has to take on, as its role in Brexit and thereafter is crucial. It is important not only for our relations with other countries but for the defence of our own country.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Government for the opportunity for this debate, which is extremely timely. Indeed, there is so much going on at the moment that our nation and the Government seem to have lost sight of the growing threats to our security and, in the worst case, our very existence.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my speech in the defence debate on 12 January when I articulated the perfect storm of threats and uncertainties threatening global security. I spoke in some detail of Russia, the Middle East and the countries there, terrorism, Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea, China and cyberthreats. Today, I am sure that many noble Lords will talk about the significance of cyber in all of our considerations. As the country’s first ever cybersecurity Minister who produced the nation’s first cybersecurity policy, I am well aware of that threat. However, I reiterate what I said in the last defence debate: spending on cybercapability is not an alternative to conventional defence spending, as some, particularly the Treasury, seem to think. It is necessary spending, but it is additional.
We are entering a hypercompetitive age in which illiberal power is growing and liberal power declining. It is a world made dangerous by Europe’s retreat from power and its wilful refusal until recently to invest in power. There are real dangers of an even more chaotic and highly dangerous world developing over the next decades, not least within the context of possibly irreversible climate change and an ever-increasing competition for resources of all kinds amidst a rapidly expanding world population. That population pressure is enormous and worrying. The dramatic rise in the numbers of migrants fleeing either war and persecution or economic hardship are a stark reflection of this.
Recent events have shown that the late 20th-century consensus that rested on the perception that the international system benefited both the US and global interests seems to be breaking down. We cannot be sure how much longer the US will be willing or able to bear the burdens of being the protector of last resort for the free world and will remain the ultimate guarantor of a rules-based international system. Nor can we assume that the idea of a multilateral rules-based world for diplomacy and economics will necessarily survive the population and resource pressures of the early decades of the 21st century. Our human record in circumstances of intense competition across all dimensions has not been good. Robust defence forces may prevent, contain or mitigate the consequences of a uniquely threatening combination of global and strategic risks.
Our nation, despite what the chattering classes may say, unlike most countries in Europe is a global power, and global stability is crucial to the wealth and security of our nation. Brexit, if anything, reinforces that fact. Our soft power, with the all-pervasive English language, the fact that the financial hub of London sits on the Greenwich meridian, the best universities in the world, the BBC World Service, a globally admired legal system and so on has great leverage—but, in many situations, it is as nothing without hard power to back it up.
In the face of the threats we face, what have the Government done? They have shown staggering complacency and self-delusion when it is quite clear to experts and laymen that defence needs more resources. When in coalition they reduced our military capability by 30% and our forces remain underfunded. Despite what the Defence Secretary says, there is minimal new money. It is, in theory, being produced by efficiencies. The HCDC has pointed out the creative accounting in the 2% figure, which has been mentioned by other speakers, for spending on defence. Spending on pensions does not win wars, and the 2% of GDP is not a target but the very minimum that any NATO nation should spend. Our nation should spend more.
Others will speak about lack of Army numbers and the inability to generate a fighting division in a meaningful timescale, but I, as the noble Lord, Lord King, spotted, will focus on maritime, which I believe is crucial for global reach and stability, as well as the protection of our shipping and dependencies. The Defence Secretary himself called this year the Year of the Navy. The simple fact is that the Royal Navy has too few ships to do what the nation expects of it. It has been underfunded against its core programme by £250 million a year for the last three years. That is three-quarters of a billion pounds. It also took a forced reduction of 4,000 men in the dreadful 2010 SDSR, recovering only 400 in SDSR 2015. We must fully fund an uplift of people for the Navy, I believe by around 3,000 people, and we need to put that in the programme and ensure that we recruit to it. The combined effect of a lack of funding and lack of people, particularly engineers, is having a profound impact on our nation’s maritime capability.
Before looking at the Navy in more detail, it is worth reflecting on the very real problems that exist in our procurement world—although I know that the Government are trying to tackle those. Indeed, there are some interesting articles in the House magazine this week—I wrote one myself but there are some from other contributors as well—on this specific subject. Moving back to the Navy, the decision to proceed with the Successor programme is fundamental to the ultimate security of our nation and I compliment the Government on the fact that we are proceeding with it. However, Trident is not a war-fighting weapon. I remain convinced that the capital costs of the Vanguard replacement submarines should fall outside the defence vote and come from Treasury contingency funds. Such a move would remove the yawning cash black hole that is appearing in our defence programme.
Two new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers are being built and again I must congratulate the Government on recognising their importance. The future carrier battle group is the only conventional asset our nation will possess that has global strategic significance, and the US cannot wait for them to be operational. But it appears that there are problems. There seems to be no certainty about when sea trials will commence and there is a lack of transparency over whether the delay is being caused by a major technical problem or just the sort of snags one would expect from a highly complex programme of this type. Perhaps the noble Earl could update us on where the programme stands. The build-up of the Sea Lightning squadrons is crucial, as is the operational availability of the Crowsnest early warning system and the new solid support ships. When will all this come together to allow us to deploy a fully functioning carrier battle group? Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us when we will be able to do that with our own resources.
A carrier battle group, if facing a peer threat, needs a nuclear attack submarine, two Type 45 destroyers and two to three Type 26 frigates in company. At present our great maritime nation with its huge maritime history has in effect only 11 escorts fully capable of operations. When I joined the Navy it was 110. Today we have 19 altogether in our order of battle, which is a national disgrace—something I have said before. If five of the 19 are needed for the battle group, 14 are left to provide presence and stability in the south Atlantic, around the UK, around the Horn of Africa, in the Gulf, in the Mediterranean and the Far East. To provide one ship on task you need three, so simple arithmetic shows that we need 30, not 19—and there is no allowance in that for attrition.
In the Falklands we lost four escorts and 12 were badly damaged. When you fight, you have attrition. Delays in ordering the Type 26 frigate have resulted in cost rises and the initial plan to build 13 has been cut to eight. The much-vaunted Type 31 frigate is still a doodle on the drawing board and we await the much-heralded shipbuilding strategy with interest. It is difficult to see how the present Type 23s will be replaced one for one on their present planned disposal dates. Perhaps the Minister will let us know when we need to start cutting steel on the Type 31 frigates that will replace the last of the Type 23s.
Our amphibious force is about to take a major hit. Manpower and funding problems in the Navy have led to the decision to pay off HMS “Ocean” after a £65 million refit to run her on until 2025. The Government appear to be most complacent and have said that “Ocean’s” capability will be provided by other shipping. This is rubbish. I have commanded task groups and amphibious assault groups, and it is clear and well known that the only way of providing simultaneous two-company lift is to have a large deck with at least six spots that can be operated simultaneously and a hangar that can carry up to 12 or 14 helicopters. Anything else will not achieve it, and that amphibious capability is clearly laid out clearly in our doctrine. So we will lose our full amphibious capability until the “Prince of Wales” starts operating in the mid-2020s. I beg the noble Earl, as I have done before, in this highly dangerous world, the most chaotic I have known in my 50 years on the active list, to put “Ocean” in reserve in the way we are doing with “Bulwark”, so that if there is a crisis we can pull her out and use her.
Delays in ordering Type 26s have led to the ordering of extra, highly overpriced offshore patrol vessels to fill the Clyde yard—but any ship is of value and has utility. Hence I find the decision to pay off the relatively youthful batch 1 River class offshore patrol vessels, which are between 11 and 15 years old, slightly strange.
It is quite clear that there are insufficient maritime assets to ensure the security of UK inshore waters, particularly post Brexit, and there is a need for an urgent study into what craft are available, how many we need, and how command and control are to be executed and by whom. There may be a role for the RNR and batch 1 OPVs in this. Will a study be undertaken to look at this yawning gap in our nation’s maritime border security? Having robust defence forces makes a war involving our nation less likely. If Ministers get defence wrong, the nation will never forgive them. The costs in blood and treasure are enormous. It can be argued that the planned saving of £16 million by getting rid of HMS “Endurance” precipitated the Falklands War, at a final cost of 300 lives and £6.5 billion. The Government have a choice in whether to spend what is required to ensure the safety of our nation, dependencies and people, or not. At present, I believe that they are getting the choice wrong.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I declare my membership of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s strategic advisory panel and of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s diplomatic excellence external panel, and that I shall shortly become, at an advanced age, an honorary captain in the Royal Naval Reserve.
In the life of a nation, it falls to certain generations to undertake a rethink of their country’s place in the world, its means of defence, its instruments for projecting international influence, the limits as well as the possibilities of what it can sensibly seek to do and the states of mind needed to reconcile aspiration and reality. The outcome of last June’s referendum on our membership of the European Union requires us to be just such a generation —a generation that truly rises to the level of events.
The multiple resetting of our national and international dials, the plethora of overlapping uncertainties, is, I think, creating a growing and unsettling realisation that, for probably a decade to come, we will be a destabiliser nation in the world. It is a condition we can scarce forbear to recognise in ourselves, for it cuts deeply against the grain of how we have imagined ourselves in the past, as a nation that strives to bring stability to others and tries to turn down the heat and to lower the noise in international affairs. But cut against that comforting grain it does.
In view of this, I should like to make the case this afternoon for taking a long, hard look at ourselves in a way that goes beyond the scope of our five-yearly cycles of strategic defence and security reviews. The model I have in mind is the Future Policy Study, part of a series of post-Suez rethinks that Harold Macmillan commissioned. He established the Future Policy Study in 1959 and tasked it to take a searching forward look at where the United Kingdom would be by 1970 on current policies. It was conducted in secret, reporting in 1960, but saw the light of day only 30 years later, as it was a Cabinet document. But, at the time, it undoubtedly added its weight to the tilt away from Empire and towards Europe which led the Macmillan Cabinet to undertake the first application for British membership of the European Economic Community in the summer of 1961, which began the long years of “Brentry” negotiations that eventually concluded in 1972.
In the cold light of “Brexit”, may I suggest that we wait neither for the conclusion of the Article 50 process in 2019 nor for the next SDSR in 2020, but instead encourage the Government to create a royal commission, or equivalent, on Britain’s place in the world, peopled by a widely drawn and knowledgeable membership recruited to do in public what Macmillan’s study group did nearly 60 years ago? It could, if so commissioned, divide its work into two parts. The first would be an audit of our assets as a nation, motivated by an appetite, which I share, to play a careful but substantial role in the world. The second would be to draw up the options and possibilities that our new, post-Brexit geopolitical position will present.
General de Gaulle famously opened his memoirs by declaring, “I always had a certain idea of France”. Each of us carries in our heads a certain idea of Britain, of our country’s gifts, accomplishments and what it can bring to the international table. Here, briefly, is my own certain idea, and the ingredients of our debate today are naturally central to that idea—to that audit of our assets that I mentioned earlier on.
We live on top of the world’s sixth-largest economy.
Thanks to our history, we are a member of more international organisations than any other country, with, in addition, our permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, though of course we are about to leave a mega-international organisation thanks to Brexit.
As others in this debate have mentioned, we possess a range of top-flight Armed Forces, albeit in my judgment not enough of them, including some stunning specialities—special forces, submarines and many more—plus a substantial nuclear deterrent. We have a cluster of top-of-the-range security and intelligence services, as well as a position as one of only three nations with genuine global intelligence reach, thanks to our so-called “Two Eyes” relationship with the United States and our “Five Eyes” relationship when you add Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The other two powers with global reach are, of course, Russia and the United States, with China coming up fast.
We are served by a top-flight Diplomatic Service, and a meritocratic and uncorrupt Civil Service.
We undoubtedly think above our weight in the world. Just linger for a moment on the most stunning of our trade statistics: we have around 1.5% of the world’s population with 5% of the world’s scientific papers and 15% of its most cited ones.
We deploy a formidable array of soft-power instruments —what the noble Lord, Lord Bragg, has called our “cultural world service”, which goes far wider than the BBC World Service and the British Council.
This is but a sketch. The list could go on. It amounts to a remarkable national portfolio. We must strive to sustain, cherish and burnish it. In seeking so to do, we must not think about those assets as a hubristic, wider-still-and-wider nation, but as a temporarily anxious and perplexed people who, if the national conversation rises to the level of events, can find good, sensible and sustainable ways through into a new and valuable geopolitical place in the world, to the relief of our friends and the disappointment of our adversaries.
But, first, we need that royal commission, fuelled by a high sense of purpose and shaped by a stretching and wide-ranging set of terms of reference. The sooner that we cease to be a destabiliser nation, the better. The first step to that is working out what we think our global position should be and how best to conduct ourselves in a vexing, testing world.
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, I echo the very warm words of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, about my noble friend the Minister.
I want to say a few words today about legacy issues arising from the Troubles in Northern Ireland. This is relevant to the morale and recruitment of our present-day Armed Forces. I pay tribute to all those who helped bring about the Northern Ireland peace process, and am aware of the huge effort and difficult compromises that brought about the current settlement. It is in everyone’s interest that the peace process continues and endures. Along with the police, the Armed Forces paid a huge price for the part they played in the Troubles: 520 Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force regulars, reserves and veterans, and 243 from the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment, including veterans, were murdered by terrorists. Countless others were seriously injured, and left to bear the mental and physical scars.
We should not forget that the Army was originally called to Northern Ireland to restore order and to protect Catholics. Quite by chance, serving with the Life Guards I was one of the first soldiers sent to Northern Ireland in August 1969. I can vouch that our soldiers, mostly young men, conducted themselves to the highest possible professional standards, despite some very difficult times. I am concerned, however, about the legacy issues and, as an example, want to raise one particular case—that of former Life Guards Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings, whose committal hearing took place in Armagh today. I declare an interest in that I am on the Life Guards regimental council and served with Dennis Hutchings in this country and in the Far East. However, I do not raise the issue for this one case alone. It is of great interest to other veterans who may face similar problems to his in the future.
In 1974, the Life Guards were sent to Northern Ireland. In June, Dennis was on patrol and came across an IRA unit with weapons being readied for an attack. He exhibited great bravery in engaging the terrorists in a firefight; several terrorists were arrested. This shows that Dennis was an exemplary soldier who used proportionate force and exhibited great bravery. A couple of days later, while soldiers were sweeping a locality for terrorists who had escaped, John Pat Cunningham was shot dead. This was a tragic incident. The soldiers who are alleged to have fired the shots, including Dennis Hutchings, were interviewed under caution at the time. A file was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded:
“I do not consider that the evidence warrants any criminal proceedings”.
The incident was reviewed by the PSNI Historical Enquiries Team—the HET—in 2012, which concluded that there was no new evidence and that nothing had changed. On the basis of the HET report and following a request by their solicitors, the MoD issued an apology to the family of Mr Cunningham in January 2013.
The HET was disbanded by the PSNI and replaced by a legacy unit, which again reviewed this case. There was no new evidence. Nevertheless, the PSNI was determined to arrest Mr Hutchings and in April 2015, without any warning, did so in an early morning raid at his home in Cornwall. He was immediately escorted back to Northern Ireland, held in police cells and interviewed under caution over four days. He was then charged with the attempted murder of Mr Cunningham.
Dennis has now been on bail for nearly two years. Friends report that his health has been damaged by the stress of this matter. He has had heart surgery and been measured as having 13% renal function. He went into hospital last November to receive surgery, in the expectation that he will start kidney dialysis soon. Yet the Northern Ireland PPS was determined that he should be in court, which is where he was today, having been committed for trial in a Crown Court in Belfast on a charge of grievous bodily harm with intent.
Many members of the Life Guards, and of the Household Cavalry as a whole, believe this to be a grave injustice and that scrutiny has been applied to the security forces in a way that has not been allowed for others. In particular, John Downey was charged in relation to the Hyde Park attack on the Household Cavalry’s Queen’s Life Guard in 1982, when four soldiers and seven horses were killed by a nail bomb. But John Downey’s trial collapsed after a ruling on a letter sent to him by police, assuring him that he would not be pursued as a result of the Government of the day’s secret amnesty for terrorists. One hundred and eighty-six other people wanted for terror-related offences in the Troubles received similar assurances, yet no British soldier has received any assurances, despite 90% of the deaths being attributed to terrorism.
One could well ask: why was Dennis in court today but the case against John Downey dropped? Is it really fair that soldiers should face trial for their alleged misdeeds more than 40 years ago, while the perpetrators of terrorist activities are ignored and their victims forgotten? I really feel that the whole system of addressing the past in Northern Ireland is not balanced, and is unjust. Dennis was sent to Northern Ireland by our Government. They cannot now wash their hands of their responsibility and pass on the consequences to the Northern Ireland Executive. That is a fundamental breach of the Armed Forces covenant.
It must be very difficult being the magistrate who hears cases such as this one, with so much riding on the decision. That magistrate is someone who lives in the local community and will have to be a very brave man or woman to find no case to answer. Does my noble friend agree that a great deal of time, money and anguish on all sides would be better spent if an independent QC or judge were to be retained in all similar cases in the future to review the evidence and confirm whether there is a case to answer?
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this timely debate and thank the Minister, who has great respect in the House, for setting out the Government’s thinking and spending on present and future UK defence strategy.
Although I was a Government defence Whip for several years in the last Labour Government and recently co-chaired the Parliamentary Labour Party’s defence committee, it has been some time since I took part in a major defence debate in your Lordships’ House. As I focus again on our domestic and international responsibilities, I am reminded how like the 1980s it seems out there and how the Cold War did not really go away—yet how our response is still inadequate.
As Yeats put it in his poem “The Second Coming”,
“the centre cannot hold …
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity”.
The new and old forces ranging against the West today, and against NATO in particular, have a new strength and determination. Our major ally, the US, despite its recent announcements on NATO and defence spending, seems very unsure of its value base when it comes to its global responsibilities. The enfant terrible of cyber and hybrid warfare often appears out of control.
I welcome our emphasis on NATO this afternoon. Sweden, one of the shining examples of a modern democracy, is bringing in a new military service obligation, which is being imposed on all men and women there, which allows us to see the anxiety it has for its borders in the face of the emerging Russian aggression. That anxiety is prevalent also in the Baltics, Poland and elsewhere. I welcome the deployment this past weekend of the first of 800 British troops to Estonia, and I know that we all wish them well in their extremely important work there. Could the Minister go into more detail on the discussions the Secretary of State for Defence has had with the new US Defense Secretary, James Mattis, on how we can reaffirm our joint commitments to our NATO allies in the face of Russia in its new bastion mode and in the face of President Trump’s suggestion that he may not come to the aid of a NATO ally unless it has paid its dues?
I welcome the progress, albeit slow, that is being made by NATO members towards meeting the 2% of GDP target for defence spending, agreed in Wales of course in 2014. I understand that five countries in NATO now meet that target, while 10 meet the 20% pledge on major equipment and research. However, like my noble friend Lord Touhig, I would like to press the Minister on his response to the defence committee’s findings that Britain can claim to meet the 2% target only by including areas such as pensions that were not previously counted—certainly not during the last Labour Government. Can the Minister tell us what defence expenditure would be if we used the same accounting rules that we did in 2010? Does the Minister agree that we would have more credibility when urging our NATO allies to meet their spending commitments, were we not barely scraping over the line ourselves? Surely, as other noble Lords have said, the proportion should be whatever is required to allow the UK to respond to the threats of today.
Those of us who grew to adulthood under the chill of the Cold War have seen our hopes for a stabilised and globalised peace grow ever more threadbare in the last few years. Whatever is required should be the only limit to our spending. As someone who grew up in Plymouth—that great naval city—I was particularly pleased to see that the Ministry of Defence has confirmed that Plymouth will be the centre for the Royal Marines. I ask: what additional naval expenditure will come the way of Devonport in the near future?
However, does the Minister feel that there has been an adequate government response to the defence select committee’s report of last November, which concluded that there was a woefully low number of Royal Navy warships? We could not possibly miss out on that position, as we have with us the noble Lord, Lord West, who manages wonderfully and creatively to get the Royal Navy into most Questions in Oral Question Time. As we look to the future, it is still the Government’s planning assumption, I take it, under the Joint Force 2025 of the SDSR 2015, that there will be a maritime task force centred on the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier, with F35 Lightning combat aircraft and consisting of 10 to 25 ships and 4,000 to 10,000 personnel.
While still on naval matters, I for one was content with the vote in the House of Commons last year enabling the Government to take the Successor submarine programme forward into the manufacture phase. The Labour Party remains committed to a minimum credible independent nuclear deterrent, delivered through a continuous at-sea presence. Will the Minister update the House on the various investment stages that will replace the Vanguard class of submarines?
I add my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to the dedicated RAF crews who are working around the clock to defeat Daesh in Iraq and Syria. We all wish success to the coalition forces in the battle to liberate Mosul. I know that the Government are doing what they can to encourage, once Daesh is routed there, a more lasting peace that has political reconciliation between Sunni and Shia people at its heart.
Finally, we come to Brexit. We seem to be doing that a lot. As we leave the European Union—and with it the EU Foreign Ministers’ monthly meetings, the daily meetings of EU ambassadors and diplomats and the thousands of meetings that form the EU’s foreign affairs co-ordination at the United Nations—what detailed planning is going on to set up a meaningful structure for exchange of information, intelligence and assistance between the UK and our EU partners on common positions in international policy? I will give an example from when I chaired the Women’s National Commission at the UN some years ago. Then, the UK always met with other EU countries to form a common EU position—in that case on women’s rights—before meeting with other UN members and coming to UN decisions on issues such as abortion rights, FGM and girls’ education. There was always a European common position—usually the most progressive position at the UN. It would be foolhardy in the extreme for this country to lose its influence and partnership in EU decision-making on international matters. However, at present I am not optimistic.
Do noble Lords think that once the Brexit deal is done, the whole of NATO as a force for democratic solidarity—here I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord King, for whom I have a lot of respect—will be stronger, weaker or just the same as it was when the referendum was but a twinkle in a badly misguided Prime Minister’s eye? This is a very bad time to create friction with our allies. I see a hard Brexit as little more than organised friction, as we can be sure President Putin knows only too well. Brexit is a geopolitical windfall for the Kremlin and all who despise the West. While I wish the Government well in their future defence policy, we are all aware of how rocky that future is going to be.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I should like for a moment to narrow the wide focus of this very welcome debate and turn to an issue that I have repeatedly raised in debates in your Lordships’ House: combat immunity and the legislative fog that surrounds it. I have long argued that it is essential to tackle incompatibilities between the Armed Forces, human rights and international humanitarian legislation—that is, incompatibilities between international humanitarian law and the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European court in Strasbourg, and incompatibilities between the current Armed Forces Act and the Human Rights Act. I first raised this matter in 1998 when the House was considering the Human Rights Act. Since then, and particularly in the past decade, I have pressed and encouraged the Government of the day to come forward with new proposals, particularly to provide a clearer definition, understanding and reach of combat immunity.
A series of judgments handed down by the Strasbourg court about the geographic areas and the exercise, even for a limited time, of effective mandate of the European Convention on Human Rights, have overridden some of the judgments of our national courts and blurred the primacy that is due to the lex specialis of international humanitarian law in combat situations. The Supreme Court judgment in Smith and others in 2013 upheld the defence of combat immunity, narrowly defined, but invented an area of middle ground edging the land of combat immunity, where the writ of Article 2 and other articles of the European convention were deemed not automatically excluded. The judgment was not unanimous; three of the seven judges did not support the finding. They were concerned that the courts would be drawn into the judicialisation of combat and potentially inhibit the actions of commanders and others in operations.
However, the majority finding of the Supreme Court, in the absence of any clear guidance from Strasbourg, was that the boundary between combat immunity, narrowly defined, and that putative middle ground had to be determined on a case-by-case basis. For the service man or woman, however, that is not a clearly described or marked boundary. To them, the meaning of the phrases “narrowly defined” and “the middle ground” are unclear. It does not help them to appreciate in advance, or at the time, whether their operational activity in the course of hostilities or a threat of hostilities is or is not combat-immune. The services operate to, and respond to, executive direction. They need to be clear what their mission is, what the constraints on the exercise of force are and whether their actions can be deemed combat-immune. Faced with conflicting interpretations of legislation, and the practical experience in the past decade or so of the complexities and protracted nature of claims and counterclaims arising out of injury or death to their fellow service men and women, this situation cries out to be clarified.
Indeed, as far back as October 2013, I asked,
“will Her Majesty’s Government consider new legislation to define combat immunity, in order to clarify the current position”?—[Official Report, 23/10/13; col. 1003.]
Happily, after a number of false starts and some indecision, the Government have set about doing just that. The MoD’s consultation paper, circulated earlier this year, briefly set out their case and sought views on a variety of issues relating to the scope and definition of combat immunity. The nub of their proposals is that the Government will legislate to enshrine the position that combat immunity should apply to deaths or injuries that occur in the course of combat. This will be combined with awards of compensation for the death or injury of entitled individuals equal to that which a court would have awarded as if the Government and their servants had been negligent, even when no negligence arises. This will remove a requirement to take legal action against the Government to gain the fullest compensation for a death or injury in combat.
I do not underrate the challenge of a statutory description and definition of combat immunity. The Government have put their mind to it and I welcome that. This time they must see it through—no ifs, no buts. Clearly, new legislation will be required. In so far as the enlarged compensation package is concerned, this can be achieved by secondary legislation to the Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Act 2004. This Act allows for the Secretary of State to make orders about pensions and compensation schemes. With an affirmative order, it would seem straightforward.
Combat immunity, however, will call for primary legislation, presumably led by the MoD, rather than by the Ministry of Justice, which had been involved previously in the legislative considerations. The Bill of Rights—of forgotten memory—was trailed for some considerable time as a possible statutory vehicle for combat immunity. Now that the MoD has the lead, it should consider whether new legislation should be by amendment to the Armed Forces Act, rather than by a new, free-standing Bill.
The Armed Forces have been disadvantaged in the past by serious incompatibilities in primary legislation to which I have already referred. The existence of combat immunity, as defined by statute, would directly relate to many of the disciplinary provisions in the Armed Forces Act. It would be helpful if those who have responsibility for and oversight of service behaviour —when deployed on operations—had all the statutory provisions, including for combat immunity, within one service statute. I urge the Government to give this suggestion serious consideration.
A further suggestion for legislation is to enact a time limit to forestall historic investigations and the charging of individual service personnel many years after they have been actively involved in a combat scenario. Recent experience of historical allegations relating to Iraq—and their inept handling—shows the obvious problem of finding witnesses and reliable evidence 10 years after the event being examined, let alone 20 or even 40. This points to having some time limit, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, suggested a few moments ago. Combat immunity compensation claims will surely have to be time-limited. Why not also have a similar time limit for allegations made about behaviour when combat immunity obtains? These two proposals clearly do not refer directly to the continuation order that is the subject of this debate and to which I give my full support.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have been involved in international trade for pretty well all my working life and, since the Falklands War, heavily involved with the armed services. Indeed, I have the great honour of being an honorary vice-admiral. I start by thanking my noble friends Lady Evans, Lord Taylor and Lord Howe for agreeing to hold this debate.
There is an obvious difference between history and memory, and we often confuse the two. History is what we have been taught and read about. We are a product of it but in danger of forgetting it. Nelson’s Navy, Wellington’s Army and Churchill’s Air Force are a reassurance. One thing we did in history: we maintained our credibility. Memory is shorter term. It is what we are all imbued with as a product of our experience. It is the ability to have a visceral reaction to that which is within our experience; it colours all that we do and the way we think. I believe that today it is adversely affecting our credibility. Due to relatively short-term financial expediency, we are in great danger of undermining that credibility on which, I am sure that your Lordships will agree, our reputation depends.
Late last year, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, said that the world had changed to such a degree that the role and therefore the needs of our armed services had changed dramatically since the defence review in 2015, and that a re-examination was therefore required. I stated that I totally agreed, but that this must also include the needs of our foreign and intelligence services. I am sure that many in both Houses concur.
The timing of this debate is critical. One thing that history teaches us is that we cannot dictate events. In 2010, it is worth remembering, the only major area of conflict was Afghanistan. Ukraine, Crimea, the so-called Arab spring—Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya and Syria—and the potentially more extreme ambitions of Russia were totally unknown. Our military chiefs must have the firepower and flexibility to react at a moment’s notice to the unexpected.
As your Lordships are aware, defence has always had all-party support in both Houses, and many have participated in the armed services scheme. I have had discussions with Dr Julian Lewis—who, by the way, has joined us tonight—chairman of the powerful Select Committee on Defence, and with Bernard Jenkin, Crispin Blunt, James Gray and Graham Brady, who head influential committees in the other place. They are all concerned that resources for our long-term needs are inadequate, and are particularly troubled that our present capability is being heavily emasculated.
I entirely agree with the views of the noble Lord, Lord West, on what is needed. Indeed, I would go further, if he does not mind me saying so: the £250 million he talked about is not just for the past three years, but goes back to a major mistake in 2010. As he said, for 40 years the capital cost of the deterrent was carried by the nation, not by the Ministry of Defence. Following what I hope will be a robust debate here, a strong debate in the other House will carry much greater weight.
I have thought long and hard whether there is a key new factor that will galvanise the Government. Sadly, it appears that only the need to go on to an immediate war footing would have that effect.
Although today’s debate must concentrate on the present and future, it should be noted that the so-called defence review of 2010 proved to be a highly damaging major cost-cutting exercise. Our armed services are still recovering from those ill-thought-through decisions leading to unintended consequences. I vividly remember the immediate destruction of the Harrier jets on board the “Ark Royal” in advance of taking it out of service in days to stop any reversal of the decision. The massive reductions in Army numbers and Air Force squadrons were brutal.
The savage reduction in people across all services—salami slicing—has had the most damaging effect on morale. In my experience, organisations are usually at their best when they are growing and have a very clear view of their role in both the short-term and the long-term future. It was almost worse than receiving friendly fire. We were left without a carrier strike force for well over 10 years between that period and the early 2020s.
How different history might have been if we had retained that capability. Perception of our international standing could have been quite different. The last defence review was infinitely more professional, and covered the equipment needs for the future as then perceived, accompanied by a re-examination of sovereign procurement, namely the strategic value of Britain’s defence industry, including a major uplift in cybersecurity. However, the key logistical build-up is still under immense pressure, due to continued hollowing-out, together with the extra required savings to be made by 2020. I do not think it is fully realised by many just how adverse an effect this is having.
Like all major living structures, can the Ministry of Defence improve on its use of moneys? The answer must be yes. It is clear to me that its present structure may be understandably, but not acceptably, that of peacetime and not that of wartime. Peacetime always creates unnecessary bureaucracy and interference from other departments. In time of war, a clear command structure would demolish the present totally unacceptable timescales. Ethos in our armed services is still outstandingly high. Despite life changes in the last 50 years, it must never be forgotten how crucial a part pride in the cap badge plays in ethos. We must never take those serving for granted and expect them to live on love alone. Those of this nation who serve in our armed services are truly special—the salt of the earth—and we need the finest of our young men and women to volunteer.
It goes without saying, having been in business all my life, that long-term economic strength is of overriding importance. Without it, you cannot have hard power capability. The USSR, as has been mentioned, discovered this in spades. But fundamentally this is a wealthy country and we must ensure that sufficient of its wealth is allocated to its protection. Protection of the realm and rule of law must be sovereign over all other needs. I would like to think that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor were more than aware of that.
I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that the input metric—the famous 2%—is useful in forcing other NATO Governments to pay their way. But a real measure of military output or capability can be judged only against hard cash. Many of us consider that 3% of GDP is needed, and already that has been stated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Before eyebrows are raised, I remind noble Lords that in practice, in the 1980s, it was a steady 4.5% to 5%.
I am not alone in considering that a serious analysis of our foreign aid programme could deliver serious money to be used by the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Service. At the opening of Parliament in 2015, Her Majesty used the word “re-engage”. Our allies in the continent of Europe, in the Commonwealth and indeed worldwide were fast coming to the conclusion that we were removing ourselves from the world scene, losing influence and credibility.
The Prime Minister stated in her recent Lancaster House speech that we are returning to a global role and that we work together with our partners in Europe. An enhanced military capability in NATO will further strengthen our commitment to defend continental Europe as we have always done in the past. Public backing is vital. In the United States, public support is unqualified and those serving in their Armed Forces are most appreciative. It is key to the ethos of those prepared to risk their lives for their country. Sadly, I am not sure we could say the same here today. Positive public backing is essential in encouraging parliamentarians to insist on the requisite level of support for the defence of the realm.
Trade has been the driving force for this country throughout history. Since the 1660s, the role of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines has been to protect the merchant marine in delivering world trade. As the empire expanded, the Army in general and, more recently, the Royal Air Force played vital roles. Enhanced hard power, together with our elite submarine nuclear deterrent capability, is of critical importance and will only increase our influence in the Security Council.
Since leaving Aquitaine and Calais, our role in Europe has, for several hundreds of years, been as a power broker between France and Germany, mainly to protect the empire. Such military capability could prove to be an important element of our coming negotiations with those countries in the European Union where defence concerns have, to say the least, been more than heightened. We will be the only European and global nation to operate two dedicated fifth-generation aircraft carriers, and these will represent the nation’s conventional strategic deterrent. Although we are no longer a superpower, our future role, as outlined by the Prime Minister, requires a larger Army, more squadrons for the Royal Air Force and, for example, a considerably larger number of the new Type 31 frigates—the workhorses—if we are to have a real presence east of Suez, in Asia, et cetera, particularly serving with the Commonwealth where necessary. China’s possibly increasing ambitions must not be underestimated. As we are the USA’s closest allies, this would undoubtedly be warmly welcomed in Washington, particularly following its recently significantly increased military budget.
Finally, the positive, worldwide progress of mankind over thousands of years has been quite extraordinary and the human brain has given us so much to wonder at, not least music, the arts, science, medicine, philosophy et cetera. However, the natural competitiveness of mankind is such a driving force that, unless controlled, it still leads to the strong dominating the weak. Despite all these wonders, today this House still needs to debate the defence of the realm as our number one responsibility. Will peace ever prevail? We go to war in order to achieve peace; even better, our capability, and therefore credibility, can deter war. I am sure we all agree that peace must be the goal of a country like ours. It is our responsibility to achieve these aims, and they are the right legacy to leave for future generations. I am sure the Minister, with his great personal sense of history, would agree with these sentiments.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure, and not for the first time, to follow the noble Lord. He brings to this House a whole lifetime of experience both in business and in maritime affairs and defence. I very much agree with what he said.
I think the whole House is well aware that I was the Defence Procurement Minister in the last Labour Government, under Gordon Brown. In that role, I was often, and continue to be, accused of having overspent and having created, or culpably presided over, a procurement deficit of £30-odd billion—the actual figure varies from time to time. I have dealt with this matter in correspondence with the Minister and asked him to put that in the Library. I do not know whether he did so: I found that only members of the Government can place correspondence in the Library. Briefly, I could not possibly have overspent because the Treasury would not have allowed me to do so. What I never did, unlike the subsequent Government, was underspend. They did so on two occasions and a large amount of money was permanently lost to defence. I would have regarded such an action as a betrayal of the very important fiduciary responsibility which had been confided to me.
There is always a degree of uncertainty about the cost of a future programme, but the bulk of the procurement deficit was created, when the new Tory-led Government came to power, by the simple expedient of changing, from 1.5% in real terms to 0% in real terms, the rate of increase in defence expenditure, both currently and prospectively. Doing that, given compound interest and a defence budget of £35 billion, you can create a very large potential deficit and that is exactly what they did.
When he appointed me, Gordon Brown said that my first task was to make sure we got the right equipment out to Iraq and Afghanistan. We did that, and commissioned seven or eight new, bespoke armoured vehicle programmes. On one occasion, we actually got down to six months between specification and delivery to the theatre, which was an absolute record. Anybody familiar with defence procurement will realise what that means. It is a tremendous tribute to the ability, determination and morale of the people working in the DE&S—people who were subsequently, quite disgracefully, attacked publicly by the man who the incoming Tory-led Government put in charge of them. We also made some considerable breakthroughs in areas such as ground-penetrating radars, which were a vital part of the anti-IED programme.
I did not neglect in any sense the core programmes. When I arrived, I found that the two carriers were running into considerable cost overruns and delays. The Defence Board had decided that the programme should be extended by several years—at an enormous increase in cost, because you are doubling and trebling the fixed cost as each year goes by. It was obvious to me that, if that happened, we would ultimately end up cancelling the whole programme. I managed to persuade the Secretary of State—my noble friend Lord Hutton, who unfortunately is not in his place today—as well as others in the MoD and indeed in the Treasury, in due time, that we should go for a quite different option which had not been considered by the Defence Board. This was Option C, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, may recall, which involved some delay and some additional cost, but of a relatively manageable kind. Fortunately, as a result, it was possible to save that vital programme.
On the Type 45, I thought they were wonderful ships and I still think so. I believe three were launched in my time; they were ordered long before I arrived. But I admit to the House that I never asked—it never occurred to me to ask—the brilliant naval engineers, admirals, shipbuilders and ships’ architects that I was meeting on that programme the key question: are you quite sure you specified enough power to run both the propulsion system and the radars at the same time? I have no idea how such experienced people would have reacted to a Minister asking a question of that type. However, I say with culpability that I should have asked it. It was a pertinent question. I still want to know what happened, and I think the public need to know what happened. There should be a public inquiry about it. I would look forward to taking a full part in such an inquiry to get to the truth.
The other great naval programme was Astute, which I shall come to.
On the RAF, I found when I arrived that the MoD was attempting to push forward as far as possible, in order to save money, the purchase of tranche 3 of the Typhoon. We managed to turn that one round, and I managed to negotiate with our partners for the tranche 3 programme to move forward. I am glad it has done so, because that aircraft now provides the cutting edge for our air capability in the period between the retirement of the Tornado and the arrival of the F35. It will continue—with the Meteor missile—to be the key power we have in the air-to-air area, prospectively into the 2030s.
I was also keen that we get into the unmanned aircraft business. I brought the French into that, because it was important to have partners to share the cost and, particularly, to secure longer production-runs than would have been possible if things were run purely on a UK basis. In addition, we had to renegotiate the A400M programme. I believe we did so successfully. I am a great believer in that aircraft—I think it will be the Hercules of the 21st century—though at times it too looked under threat.
With Nimrod, I inherited something that has now gone down in business schools as a classic example of how not to procure a military project. At the time I arrived, as I recall, the cost was around £2.3 billion for four aircraft. But I believed then, as I believe now, that economic decisions should be taken on the basis of marginal cost, not sunk cost. It was clear to me that almost all the capital cost had already been incurred—certainly, by the time of the election, all the capital cost had been incurred. Therefore, I looked open-mindedly at whether we should stay with that, or buy the P3, which was another possibility in those days. I became convinced that the right thing to do in those circumstances was to stay with the Nimrod programme. Had the Government done so—compared with what they are now doing in buying the P9—I believe they would have saved a lot of money. What is more, we would not have this irresponsible gap in our long-range maritime surveillance capability which we have been running now for many years, and which is quite frightening.
From these experiences, I am left with one or two conclusions, which I want to share with the House. One is that an awful lot of nonsense is talked about how defence procurement would be much more efficient if it were based on fixed-price contracts and if competition were involved. In most cases, you cannot do either of those things in defence procurement in our country because we have to operate at the frontiers of technology. We can send our brave young men and women to risk their lives only if we provide them with the very best equipment that money will buy. That means investing in new technologies, and you cannot speculate in advance what the costs or problems will be.
Every first of class is a prototype. If it costs £1 billion, like an Astute-class submarine, you cannot throw it away, saying, “It was a prototype; we’ll start again”, but it is still a prototype. You are going to spend an awful lot of money at the beginning of these programmes and you cannot tell what the costs will be. If you force the contractors to accept a fixed price, as happened with BAES over Astute and Nimrod, they will just blackmail you after a few years, saying, “We can go bankrupt if you want but we can’t come up with £5 billion”, or whatever it costs to change the programme, so you have to renegotiate, as we did on those occasions. However, that is the worst of all possible worlds.
The solution to that problem is the one that we devised in the case of Astute—that is, to have a target price with a reward for the contractor if it comes in under it and a penalty if it comes in over it. The whole thing was kept under very close and constant review, and that worked for the rest of the Astute programme. I think that that has a very wide application in defence.
Secondly, it is very important to have partners in this business, not just to share the costs of R&D, which are enormous, but because the economies of scale in production runs are so important. We tend to buy both systems and programmes a few dozen or perhaps a few hundred at a time, depending on what we are dealing with. In the same area, the Americans will purchase by the thousands or tens of thousands, which makes the economics completely different. We can achieve something in that direction only if we have partners, not just to share the R&D but to make sure that we have much longer production runs. I did that successfully with the French on several occasions, and it is something that we need to do more and more.
Incidentally, I am delighted to see that OCCAR—an organisation that I strongly supported in every way that I could at the time—has been a great success. I think that it is now running about 30 joint European programmes, including the A400M. It is under the charge of one of my ablest civil servants, Tim Rowntree, and it has been a delight to see how successful that whole project has been.
Another thing that I want to share with the House is that there are a lot of illusions about exportability. I think that it was General O’Donoghue and I who first laid down that exportability must be considered at the specification stage and reported on at the “initial gate” stage. I am very much in favour of it and I commend the Government for trying to do what they can to achieve some exportability for the Type 26. However, again, because we need the best in this country, we will always tend to overspecify. Therefore, in practice the opportunities for export will be really quite small, and we have to face that uncomfortable fact. That may be the case with the Type 26. If it is not, and even if we export some variants of that frigate, we may well find that there are diseconomies of scale by virtue of the fact that we have split up that programme.
Finally, we must go over to modern accounting principles, particularly present value accounting, in defence procurement. I could have saved a large amount of money—perhaps £300 million or £400 million—by purchasing all the supplies and components that we needed for boats 3 to 7 of the Astute programme at one go in bulk, but that was impossible because the Treasury would not let me bring forward the purchases in relation to subsequent parts of the programme, even if I paid it back, as it were, with a substantial discount rate, which of course I was prepared to do, representing the costs of the capital involved. In the private sector, you would always make investment and purchasing appraisal decisions on a present value basis, but we cannot do that in the public sector.
Another good example was the MARS programme for naval tankers. I wanted to take advantage, opportunistically, of the collapse in the shipbuilding market after the Lehman Brothers disaster and so forth and buy in the market, for about $50 million each, tankers that were in the programme at £200 million. Even with the discount rate, the Treasury would not let me do it. By the time of the election, I persuaded not only my own finance director but the head of the National Audit Office, Sir Amyas Morse, to move in that direction, and I was in the process of persuading the Treasury to do so. I set out to my successor the importance of doing this and I thought that I had persuaded him as well. Sadly, I do not think that any progress on that has been made but I raise it this afternoon in the hope that that matter too will be looked at again.
Lord Burnett (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, who has extensive experience of defence procurement as a Minister. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate with him, and I draw the attention of the House to my entries in the register of interests. Like the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, what I have to say has a bearing on morale in the Armed Forces, and the morale of veterans and their families.
On 15 September 2015 we had a defence debate in the Moses Room. I confined my speech to the case of Sergeant Alexander Blackman, Royal Marines, and I stated that he had been,
“the victim of a terrible miscarriage of justice”.—[Official Report, 15/9/15; col. GC 228.]
Last Wednesday the Court Martial Appeal Court quashed the murder conviction of Sergeant Blackman and substituted a verdict of manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. I very much welcome this decision, and so will many others.
Right at the start, I pay tribute to all the men of 42 Commando Royal Marines who served in that unit during its 2011 tour of Afghanistan. It was a most stressful, demanding and exhausting tour. Seven members of the unit were killed and 45 seriously wounded. I can do no better than quote Sergeant Blackman’s company commander, Major Steve McCulley, who has been medically discharged from the Royal Marines after being blown up by an IED. He said that his men were operating,
“in the most dangerous square mile on earth”.
He added:
“They were superb men and their skills were excellent”.
Sergeant Blackman had an excellent, exemplary record, and has retained his dignity throughout this dreadful ordeal; he has been an exemplary prisoner. I also wish to put on record my admiration for Mrs Claire Blackman, his loyal, courageous and steadfast wife. She has worked and campaigned tirelessly on his behalf.
I explained in my speech in 2015 that I had visited Sergeant Blackman in prison and spoken to him for some hours. I also explained that:
“To become a senior non-commissioned officer in the Royal Marines is an immense achievement. Being accepted for training in the Royal Marines is extremely competitive. The training is rigorous and long”.—[Official Report, 15/9/15; col. GC 229.]
He would also have been selected for, and passed, long and arduous courses for promotion to corporal, and thereafter promotion to sergeant. In addition, he would have had to be selected for, and have passed, long and arduous courses for his specialist qualification.
Sergeant Blackman served for approximately 15 years in the Royal Marines and his behaviour would have been observed closely and scrutinised throughout his time in the corps, especially on the courses that he attended and passed. As I have said, he was an exemplary Royal Marine. In the years leading up to the incident in 2011, he had been deployed on operational service six times. That means six six-month tours involving intense combat operations. As I have said before, no one in the Royal Marines complains about that level of deployment—but it will have its consequences.
I am very much reassured by Sergeant Blackman’s acquittal. The Court Martial Appeal Court recognised the severe, grave and prolonged stresses that will affect even the best-trained, bravest troops of the highest calibre, impairing their ability to think through the consequences of their actions, with potentially lethal consequences. Day after day, night after night, week after week, month after month, 42 Commando were dealing with an enemy which has no respect for human life, and has nothing but contempt for the rules of war. The commandos were in continuous mortal danger. Whether in the dreadful conditions in which they were living or out on patrol, they were under constant threat of mortar fire, rifle fire and improvised explosive devices that could blow them to shreds. And this was all in the searing heat.
Mr Christopher Terrill’s excellent documentary on “Panorama”, shown on the evening of Wednesday 15 March—the day after the Court Martial Appeal Court had handed down its decision—gave the public an insight, but no more than that, into some of the terrible stresses inflicted on our fighting troops. Again, no one is complaining about that, but allowances have to be made, and there will be many in the Armed Forces who are reassured by the Court Martial Appeal Court decision, precipitated by the report of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. I and probably many millions of people in the country wish to ensure that no other member of our Armed Forces has to endure the ordeal that Sergeant Blackman and his wonderful wife have had to endure over the past five years.
My first point is that when charges like this are contemplated, what mentoring and assistance is given to a proposed defendant? He will have no idea of the criminal courts or courts martial and will need an experienced individual to monitor and guide him through the maze so that he can choose the very best defence team available. Remember that Sergeant Blackman had served his country with distinction on active service for years. He deserved to have a fair trial and a fair hearing right from the start. What level of assistance is available at the start of criminal proceedings for someone in that position?
Secondly, was there any psychological testing right at the start of this legal process to gauge the effect of the immense stress and demands made on him and other troops in Afghanistan? As I have said, these troops are constantly shot at, existing in the most basic conditions in the searing heat. They suffer constant exhaustion, knowing that they are always in mortal danger. I said in my earlier speech on this matter that our troops must in all circumstances comply with the law. However, the law itself recognises that stress, provocation and other factors should be taken into account in assessing criminal liability. What tests were offered or given to Sergeant Blackman right at the start of this process? I could list extensive, exceptional stress factors that impacted on both the unit and Sergeant Blackman.
My third point is that I read with interest my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford’s letter to the Times, published last week on Saturday 18 March. I am grateful to see him in his position today. I just ask whether it was the duty of the court—in this case, the Judge Advocate-General—to bring the possibility of battle fatigue and diminished responsibility to the attention of the panel.
My fourth point is that my noble friend Lord Thomas was in the Moses Room when I spoke on 15 September, when I raised the point that the Judge Advocate-General and others have criticised the fact that a simple majority at a court martial can convict a person. In Sergeant Blackman’s case, five of the panel found him guilty and two found him not guilty. I went on to say that that ratio would be insufficient to convict in a civilian criminal court. We have a military covenant which states that the members of the Armed Forces should not be disadvantaged in relation to their civilian counterparts. The least that could be done is to change the court-martial rules so that they mirror those that prevail in the civilian criminal courts.
My fifth point, which I also raised in my speech in September 2015, is that the entire ethos of a court martial is that a person is supposed to be tried by their peers, who fully understand through shared experience all the surrounding circumstances. No one who has not served through the hell and horrors of the front line in Afghanistan or similar conditions can hope to appreciate the stresses and dangers that will affect even the strongest and best-trained human being. A number of the panel members would have failed this test—in other words, a number of panel members had not served on active service, let alone even heard a shot fired in anger.
My sixth point is that, after Sergeant Blackman was convicted, it emerged that a member of the panel sent a message to the effect that the panel had come under immense political pressure to convict. If this is true, it is outrageous.
Finally, I believe that the Ministry of Defence is going to inquire into the surrounding circumstances of this case. I hope that it will look into all the matters I have raised and that the findings will be made available to the public.
I put on record again my thanks to the members of the extensive Royal Marines family and the millions of citizens throughout the United Kingdom and beyond who have supported Sergeant Blackman, including the Daily Mail’s defence and campaigns team and the readers of that paper who contributed so generously to his defence fund; to Mr Goldberg QC and his team; and to Mr Frederick Forsyth and Mr Richard Drax, a Member of the other place. I said in September 2015 that we owe it to our fine men and women who continuously and selflessly protect us to fight for them in their hour of need.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the brave contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, drew to the House’s attention the case of Corporal Major Hutchings. In his contribution, the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, said that the military should not be disadvantaged and that this was part of the military covenant. I am afraid that is not working out in practice. We know—it is always correct—that where new evidence comes forward, whether in cases involving members of the security forces or potential terrorists, it is material and should be judged accordingly in a court of law. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, drew to the attention of the House, some people have pieces of paper in their pockets that can override any evidence. The one group of people who have not been identified are those who have received royal pardons. Indeed, we understand that the Government have lost the list containing the names of many of these persons.
We have got things completely out of balance. This applies not only to Northern Ireland but more generally. We have seen an unscrupulous lawyer prepared to profit at the expense of unfortunate members of the security forces who were operating in that hell, as the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, described it. We are all for fairness, but we need a level playing field and we do not have one. That is a matter of deep regret.
The 2% target, to which many noble Lords have referred, is a purely arbitrary figure. The figure should reflect what is necessary, not what is arbitrary. We have ring-fenced 0.7% of our GDP for international aid. However, I am always against ring-fencing departmental money because it usually ends in tears and it makes some departments bear the brunt of reductions in spending in a totally disproportionate and chaotic manner. While I am in favour of well-targeted international aid, I do not believe that the scatter-gun tactics we are using at the moment, whereby we pour millions of pounds into all sorts of weird and wonderful projects, are working. We should concentrate on certain things, such as clean water, trying to rid areas of diseases such as malaria, emergency relief to tackle what we are confronted with in Africa, disasters such as earthquakes and so on. I am in favour of all that, but it is ridiculous that while this country steps up to the plate in this, other, wealthier countries are virtually not even on the pitch in terms of their contributions.
Given the international instability we face, the benefits that we say we are getting from soft power do not, I have to say, register particularly strongly with me. When we are dealing with the North Koreas of this world and a resurgent Russia, which many noble Lords have mentioned, the fact is that the capability of hardware makes a difference. The one point that has been made so blatantly obvious by noble and noble and gallant Lords with their lifetimes of experience in this area is that our surface fleet is wholly inadequate to deal with the circumstances that we face. When the aircraft carriers come on-stream, are we saying that we could simultaneously send two battle groups off to two different parts of the world to work with those carriers? Could we protect the carriers or is it the case that if there was a conflict, they would end up alongside without the capability to protect them? There are huge issues to face here and I do not believe that we will serve our country well if we knowingly, year on year, leave huge areas of our defence capability basically out of action. We have not had the ability to seriously project air power for years and, as has been said, HMS “Ocean” is to be retired early. We have no fixed-wing anti-submarine capability, yet the one thing we need to protect is our nuclear deterrent.
I just do not get it. We are fixated on keeping social programmes going, but there has to be a balance in these things. It has been said: look at what will happen in terms of persons and treasure if this goes wrong. I think we have the balance wrong. I am 100% in favour of co-operation with our European partners and 100% for joint projects to share costs because that makes sense, but we have the balance wrong and continuing to limp forward as we are will not work. Yes, we are getting some great kit, and I do not doubt that that is good, but it comes down to the question of whether we go for gold-plated equipment at the expense of having a spread of volume. That balance must be struck.
I turn to the issues with regard to NATO. I was encouraged by the comments of the American Vice-President Mike Pence in Germany. He reassured us on the commitment of the US to NATO, but as many speakers have already pointed out, many European countries are not stepping up to the plate. It is not that they do not have the money, but as long as someone else is prepared to do it, why bother? The message from the United States is clear: it is not going to carry the can any longer, and who can argue with that? Colleagues in this part of the world have to realise that we have a resurgent Russia, international terrorism and developments taking place, whether in laser technology or weapons that can be triggered from space to identify and damage surface vessels. Not only unmanned aircraft but unmanned naval vessels will be a thing of the future. We must spend enough on protecting our country. Even for an issue such as immigrants trying to cross the Channel, we have three vessels to deal with it. It is ridiculous for an island nation to be in that position.
I ask the Minister to address some of these points when he sums up the debate. Of course, if we press Her Majesty’s Government to spend more on defence, they will have to take decisions to spend less on something else. It is the inevitable piece of arithmetic that has to be done. It will not be pleasant and, as has been said by those who have experience of the military, the price will be high. The Falklands have been mentioned, in particular HMS “Endurance”—all to save a few quid. Everyone looks for economies, but that was being penny wise and pound foolish. There is a fundamental error in the balance between our foreign and defence policies and our aid policies. They are closely linked and it is important that we get the balance right. The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, who is not in his place at the moment, made a good suggestion. He has called for a commission or whatever it might be. We should not have to wait for the next five-year defence review; this is something we need to get on with now.
On that point, I would argue that unmanned vehicles of all types are likely to replace pilots and surface vessel personnel. Where does the Minister think we are in all of that? Moreover, does he really believe that we have sufficient surface vessels to deploy simultaneously two battle groups for the new aircraft carriers while at the same time meeting our international commitments and dealing with hot spots? You always need to keep a contingency in reserve to deal with an emergency, but we seem absolutely flat out. Some of our surface vessels do not seem able to propel themselves adequately, so how on earth are we going to deploy two aircraft carriers with their battle groups with such a small surface fleet?
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I participate in this debate, which is after all mainly about defence policy, but I do so because in my view the international rules-based order is under greater and more existential challenge than it has ever been since our predecessors began to piece it together amid the ruins of two catastrophic world wars. I do so also because those challenges and the necessary responses to them cannot be confined to the spheres of defence and security policy; they need to go much wider than that.
To understand this, along with the need for a wider vision and response, we need only look at the period between the two world wars. Of course history does not repeat itself exactly, but it does contain plenty of lessons that we would be foolish to ignore. The world experienced then a perfect storm in which economic, political and military developments fused into a single mass which overwhelmed the totally inadequate rules and international institutions that had been established after the First World War. The 1929 stock market crash led to mass unemployment, trade protectionism and tit-for-tat monetary devaluations. These and other factors fuelled the rise of populist political parties across Europe, while the weakened democracies averted their eyes and turned inwards. Does that sound familiar? Is there any parallel with the faltering response to the financial crisis of 2008-09 and the emergence of political forces such as those which propelled Donald Trump to the White House and are fuelling the political bids of Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders and Beppe Grillo? It is not an exact parallel, of course, but it is quite enough to cause us to worry very seriously.
I will look at three pillars of our rules-based order which are under threat: the open global trading system, symbolised by the World Trade Organization; the nuclear non-proliferation treaty; and the functions of the UN with respect to international peace and security. The arrival in the White House of a President and a trade policy team who seem to regard protectionism as a path to prosperity, and bilateral trade balances as something to be eliminated by any means, including by measures that would run roughshod over WTO rules, is a challenge to all of us, and in particular to this country which has, quite rightly in my view, nailed its post-Brexit colours to the mast of being a champion of free trade. That will require more than just words. It will require standing up to the forces of mercantilism and protectionism wherever they emerge and defending the rules of the WTO. If we fail, we will end up poorer and less able to generate the resources we need to defend ourselves and our allies, in NATO or elsewhere.
The nuclear non-proliferation treaty has been for a considerable time now one of the cornerstones of our rules-based world, but has been under considerable stress for some years, particularly from North Korea, which cheated on its obligations under the treaty and then withdrew, and from Iran, whose nuclear programmes gave much legitimate cause for concern. The only thing the two challenges have in common, I suggest, is that in neither case is a military response either sensible or to be anticipated or planned for, other than as an extremely last resort. There is no doubt about the immediacy and reality of the challenge from North Korea. Clearly, our own position can only be an ancillary one, but do the Government share the view that China has to be a key player in any effective response? Antagonising China, either politically or in trade policy terms, is unlikely to be the best way of securing its support.
As to Iran, we have the rather oddly acronymed JCPOA. Can the noble Earl confirm that the Government’s policy is to remain committed to that agreement and its rigorous implementation, whatever the US attitude may turn out to be? Is that policy properly understood in Washington? Is it not time, too, that we began thinking about globalising and generalising the constraints in the Iran agreement, thus extending its duration, which is rather on the short side, and ceasing to make it so Iran-specific, which makes it less attractive to Iran?
The United Nations, too, is under stress, even as it has more than 100,000 peacekeepers, both military and civilian, deployed worldwide. Often, as in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic, they are the only forces that fulfil the responsibility to protect civilians—forces that the rulers of those countries are either unwilling or unable to provide. The Government’s decision to strengthen our commitments to UN peacekeeping in South Sudan and Somalia is very welcome. Can the Minister say something about the Government’s medium and long-term policies on UN peacekeeping? Is the shift in policy we have seen in the last year here to stay? Is it built in to our security strategy and destined to play a more prominent part in it than has been the case in the recent past?
Others have covered the crucial issue of NATO and the uncertainties about its deterrent capacity as a result of some of the things that the new President of the United States said during his election campaign. My neglect of that issue merely shows, I think, what an extremely wide scope for debate today has offered us and how important it is to focus on all parts of it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with whose analyses I almost invariably agree—although with his conclusions a little less than invariably. Like him, I shall concentrate on the rules-based order part of the Motion we are discussing. I do so not because I question for one moment the crucial role of a fairly funded NATO and a strong and agile military and maritime power on a far greater extent than we have today, but because our defence and physical safety now rely on so many other things, in a totally transformed and disrupted world security environment that is unlike anything that existed even five years ago, let alone a decade or so ago.
A year ago the then Foreign Secretary, Philip Hammond, observed that the distinctions between military capability, intelligence agency capability, diplomatic capability and capacity building through development programmes et cetera, are “becoming more blurred at the edges”—in other words, very interrelated. To his list I would add: the sheer pace of digital technology, which has empowered the streets and the masses and transformed the balance of power throughout the globe; the fragmentation of states, which we have seen in the Middle East particularly; the vast shift of power, production and capital construction to the east and south and away from the north and the west in the 21st century, away from the Atlantic powers and especially to Asia; and, above all, the vital need to win, and keep winning, the narrative through adroit projection of soft power and through maximum connectivity, all the time and everywhere. It is what the Chinese call winning the discourse war, or the information battle, and it is now central in a way that it was not even five years ago.
The signals for a change of gear have been there long enough. None of what has happened now is very new. Long before Brexit or Donald Trump, the need for a fundamental rethink in our position was there. First, for example, it has been obvious for three decades that power was shifting in the world, away from the Atlantic hegemony of the 20th century and from Governments and hierarchies of power generally. Major changes in the co-ordination and configuration of Britain’s international policies were bound to be necessary. In many ways, the whole pace of innovation and investment is being set at the other end of the planet.
Secondly, it has been equally obvious that conventional military size and big spend were going to be challenged everywhere by small and agile methods, and that the whole scale of power and influence deployment has changed. The microchip has, among many other things, miniaturised weapons force and power dramatically. The Davids have been vastly empowered against the Goliaths everywhere. Almost any small organisation, tribe or cell can operate a lethal drone. An inexpensive shoulder-launched missile can destroy a $100 million plane or disable a $1 billion warship.
Thirdly, it has long been clear that in the digital age military engagement has to accept entirely new rules. The battle may no longer be on the battlefield. The ubiquity of the web and total connectivity, on a scale never before known in human history, mean that infinitely greater audiences have to be persuaded and influenced. There are no clear decision points between victors and vanquished. Trust becomes the new and essential winning weapon. Subtle new mixtures of force and friendship have to be crafted and assembled if permanent instability is to be overcome in any theatre and any kind of settlement reached.
As I have already said, none of this is very new. Indeed, our own military thinkers and leaders have responded with growing vigour over the decades. I remember the days of Frank Kitson’s low-intensity warfare, the practice of which I was involved in in Northern Ireland in the 1970s. Profound and innovative ideas have been continuously developed by military thinkers in response to these new conditions and new types of engagement. Yet there seems to me to be one colossal piece missing from this plethora of activity and all this dedication to new forms of power deployment in a radically transformed international milieu. The missing piece is clear: motivating purpose and cause. What exactly is it all aimed at? What is the central story, the truly coherent, graspable, definable strategic narrative that should be the common and impelling theme right across this landscape, and in the minds of every service man and woman at all levels all the time?
A central lesson from our House of Lords soft power report three years ago, Persuasion and Power in the Modern World, from the many experts who gave evidence to it, and from the current International Relations Committee inquiry into the UK Middle Eastern policy, is that for our power and influence to be effective, and our interests to be well protected and promoted, there have to be some defined policy priorities and goals. These can be derived only from a clear and overall articulation of our national purposes and direction, against a background of an increasingly confused and altered world. We need to be prepared for, believe in and be fighting for some definite goal.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, we need a certain idea of the United Kingdom—to adapt, as he said, General de Gaulle’s phrase—in the new networked international landscape that has replaced the 20th-century order. One has to ask what this certain idea, now in its British clothing in this age of global turmoil, is to be. Does the prospect of Brexit—possibly positively—and the arrival of Donald Trump, in a more negative way, point to the answer? I believe that they do. We now have to build a partnership for European security, although not under but liberated from the old EU treaties. This is plainly a major opportunity for creative leadership in the digital age.
We can cast off the image of a Britain of limited, downsized ambitions, as some American commentators keep saying we are signalling. They are frankly reading the wrong signals. However, they can hardly be blamed, when they see that we are spending less on our diplomacy through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget—now about £800 million net—than we blow, for example, on cavalier aid dispersals to international agencies or on subsiding carbon reduction by the most expensive conceivable means. Billions have gone in that direction with little to show for it. The sooner that these international departments dovetail, and in some cases even reunite—in the words of my noble friend Lord Howe, to pack a more powerful punch—the better.
As for America, it is obvious that Pax Americana is finished, even if some Americans still believe otherwise. America, spending more than the next eight major countries combined on defence, no longer wins wars. Anyway, I doubt whether President Trump is quite the power everyone seems to think, as power slips away from all Governments into the hyper-connected worldwide network. His attempts to impose trade protection on the fluid and revolutionised international trade scene are bound to fail in an age of internationalised production.
Should not our strategic and unifying vision be something quite different from either of these 20th-century tableaux? Should not our story be of a more confident Britain, superbly placed to operate with agility in today’s networked and heavily interdependent world, making full use of its huge experience and extensive global friendships, and an amazing latticework of relationships, trust, common understanding and brilliant connections all across the globe? Is not the inspiration a resourceful Britain, wonderfully woven into the Commonwealth network of 2.3 billion people using the same working language, language being, of course, the ultimate conveyor of complex ideas, common understanding and trust—the default protocol of the planet? For deploying Britain’s undeniably immense but still underused soft-power assets, the Commonwealth —with its ready-made trust network—is the ideal forum and platform, although there are some backsliders.
To see things through this lens demands a changed mindset among policymakers and those in all branches of government, civil and military, who are charged with safeguarding Britain’s security, and its global business, brand and reputation. We are talking about nothing less than a grand repositioning of the United Kingdom in a world utterly transformed by the digital age. For this we need a new strategic synthesis, ready to work bilaterally, with America as a partner, to a degree with China and closely with our European neighbours, but not permanently tied or overcommitted to any of them.
The Army speaks rightly of its core purpose, but whatever form power, deployment and projection take nowadays, soft, hard or smart, one purpose above all others needs to be clear, inspirational and a source of commitment at every level. This is to uphold the nation’s changing role and interests in an age of global turmoil, and to provide its security with a rock-solid basis. That is the unambiguous message that our society and its leading voices need to send to all three branches of our armed services, so that they can perform at their best, with a clear sense of direction. We owe them nothing less.
Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate. I would like to interpret in that also his support for its taking place, as it would be a foolish Chief Whip who listed a debate without the Minister saying, “Yes, let’s go for it”.
I would also like to say how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is back with us, debating defence issues. This House has been blessed in the past 10 years with two Front-Bench Ministers, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, as defence spokespeople whom we have respected and certainly find most helpful in the work that we are trying to do.
I declare an interest. I chair the House of Lords defence study group, an informal grouping of about 60 Members, comprising experienced former military Members, politicians who have worked in defence and the MoD, and also lay Members, such as myself, who, while not working in either of those areas, have had some experience. I was chairman of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. For the rest of my life I will carry with me a recognition of the huge debt that we as a nation owe to our Armed Forces, young men and women, day in and day out, year in and year out, often without being thanked for it.
A member of that group, possibly one of the oldest in it—not in years but in service—was Lord Lyell. I think that this is the first main defence debate that we have had since his passing. On behalf of the group I would just like to pay our respects and thank him for the work that he did over many years.
In their assessment, National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the Government said that they had concluded that the threat to our nation had not significantly changed. That is a view that many would challenge—and indeed it has been strongly challenged in this debate. A number of noble Lords have dealt with it quite factually, about how actually the threat has increased. The Minister alluded to it, even if he was not blunt about it. I suggest that, were it not for the distraction of the media with Brexit day in and day out, we would be seeing security issues much more on the front pages of the press than they are at the moment.
Introducing the debate, the Minister referred to the 2% contribution to NATO, as a number of other noble Lords have, too. One of our House of Lords study group Members, who is absent—a number have written to me to apologise and express regret for not taking part—was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceaux, recently the Chief of the Defence Staff, as we all know. He wrote:
“I am sorry to report I am abroad until 24 March and therefore will not be able to take part. What I would have emphasised is that while hitting the 2% target is a good thing, it has become a veil behind which Her Majesty’s Government is obscuring the true state of the UK’s defence capability. In itself the 2% target means little if a country’s ambitions, or the perceived threat, require more, as would appear to be so in the case of the UK”.
I think that that is view with which many of us would agree. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I think is not in his place at the moment, said that he did not agree with the 2%, that we should not have it there and that we should pay what we need to. I agree with the 2% as a base and a minimum entry to NATO. Certainly we need to pay more.
My noble friend Lord Touhig said in his excellent opening address that the most valuable asset was the people. Obviously I agree with that, having chaired the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. Two days after the strategic defence and security review in 2015, the Government announced in their spending review and Autumn Statement that they had included in that Statement a decision to spend £11 billion on new capabilities, innovation and the defence estate. Good—but where was the money coming from? Well, £7.2 billion of it was from efficiency savings, including military and civilian pay restraint. That restraint continues—the restraint, as I mentioned in our last defence debate, of a 1% maximum—yet other areas of public service, including MPs, were not limited to it. It also included a cut in the civilian headcount in the MoD of some 30%. So how can it be extra expenditure when it just shifts the deckchairs on the deck—and the people paying for it are, in my view, the least able to do so—at a time when as a nation, we face a higher security threat?
It is no wonder that the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body talked in its last report about morale dropping, as has been mentioned in this debate. I am not at all surprised about that. Members of the Armed Forces see the statements that are made and what they themselves experience. The reality is—we have probably been too small-minded to say this out loud as we are now—that we need to spend more on the defence of our nation because of the state of the world today. The chairman of the Defence Select Committee in another place, who was sitting with us until a short while ago, has called for 3% expenditure. He reminded us that when we were last in a period of major terrorism and security threat—the 1980s, as has been referred to in this debate—defence expenditure varied between 4.3% and 5%. I do not think anybody is being so bold as to suggest that. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, another member of our group, has called for 2.5%—which, on nearly £40 billion of expenditure, is a not significant amount.
This is not just about the pounds and pence; it is about what we need for the security of this nation. How do we properly resource our young men and women and our defence capability in a world which is probably less secure now than it has been for many decades? In fact, between 2010 and 2016 defence spending reduced in real terms by 6.9%. We are still clawing that back. We also face the drop of 15% in the value of the pound since 23 June last year, which is having a negative impact on the MoD budget of around £700 million. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm in his response that that will not come out of the set budget and that the Treasury will find that money. Talking of resources, is the Minister able to inform the House how progress is being made on an issue which was very topical a short while ago but has gone quiet recently? I refer to the recruitment of reserves, up to the total of 35,000 that was talked about.
Many Members of the House have taken part in this debate today and I respect hugely their expertise and experience. I say to the Minister, as gently as I can, that there has not been one demurring voice in this debate on the assertions, first, that we are in a more insecure world and, secondly, that we need to look at our defence budget. That voice has come from across the House, irrespective of party or which Benches we sit on. Can the Minister please pass that message back? I hope that a similar debate will take place in the House of Commons, because only by raising our voices in this joint, across-the-House way will we stand any chance of being listened to. We are not warmongers or people who call for expenditure because it is politically convenient to have a go at the Government. If we had a Labour Minister sat on those Benches now to answer the debate, my contribution would be exactly the same. I hope that that message can be carried back to the Government.
Lord Levene of Portsoken (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, whose wise words on defence are always worth paying attention to. I thank her for her chairmanship of the group to which she referred, from which we all benefit. I also pay compliments to the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, for the efforts that he always makes to promote the importance of defence in Wales. He does a great job on that. I declare my interests as chairman of General Dynamics UK.
At a time when there is so much uncertainty in international relations, both in Europe and the wider world, our thoughts must always turn towards our defence to ensure that the nation is well protected. During this debate, with so many distinguished contributors, we are learning much of how our Armed Forces and others are properly prepared. But for those Armed Forces to be prepared, that preparation can be most effective only when they are supplied with the best equipment embodying the latest technology. The task of procuring this equipment is undertaken by the Defence Equipment and Support division of the Ministry of Defence, which is staffed by serving officers and civilians. For years, that division and its results have been, all too often, the subject of uninformed criticism centred on perceived delays or excessive cost when, very often, a fuller examination of these issues reveals a different picture.
Defence procurement around the world always gives rise to such feelings and countries have different approaches to dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord West, recently asked a Question in your Lordships’ House relating to defence industrial policy. I was at pains to say that I did not believe that we should revert to an approach of “national champions”, which we had some years ago and which failed. So I shall speak today about the way in which we go about procuring our equipment for the Armed Forces and the DE&S organisation which is responsible for that task. It is a task for which some 30 years ago I had responsibility and, having been asked more recently by successive Defence Secretaries to oversee a process known as defence reform, I think that my perception of this area is relatively up to date.
Defence procurement requires a thorough understanding of the interaction between technology, production and commercial realism. I have argued for a long time that this was not necessarily very different from imperatives in other industries and that that process should be led by an experienced businessman, who understood both the development and the commercial imperatives. In my opinion, and at long last, the Government have managed to recruit an outstanding individual to head the organisation in the person of Tony Douglas, the man who previously ran the Abu Dhabi airport authority. Your Lordships will understand that that was no mean feat. This is a man used to getting complex projects completed on time and on cost: precisely what is needed in the Ministry of Defence post which he now holds.
To give further credit to those making this appointment, it was decided a little earlier to appoint a non-executive chairman to oversee the division. An inspired choice was made in choosing Paul Skinner to do this, a man whose reputation precedes him from his time spent at Shell and Rio Tinto. The top of the organisation is now in place and we should be able to deliver what we need, on time and on cost.
So far, so good, your Lordships may think, but like any other efficient organisation, it requires a clear line of control. In my view, it requires the chief executive to have authority and control over all the parts of his organisation. I have therefore been greatly concerned to look at the way in which the acquisition of the nuclear submarine successor programme is being largely hived off to a separate procurement organisation, over which DE&S will only have much reduced influence. It may be that that decision was driven by the Treasury, whose understanding of procurement in the past, I have to say, has been far from perfect, but it has taken years to find the right person to run DE&S and now the Ministry of Defence seems to be looking for yet another person to run the submarine programme. I believe that is fundamentally wrong. I know what has driven it, but I do not agree with it.
I hope that it is not too late for the Minister to discuss this with his colleagues to see whether a more suitable arrangement can be arrived at. The nuclear submarine programme is a very complex one, involving the design, development and construction of the most modern vessels. I can say from my past experience that this interface is complex but needs, in every way, to be closely connected with the rest of our defence procurement programme. A separation is wrong, and I believe it will not deliver the outcome that we really need.
I hope your Lordships may concur that we have some extremely dedicated people working on both the military and the civilian side in procurement, who rarely attract praise but very frequently are blamed for faults that often do not really exist or have been misinterpreted. As I said, we need the very best equipment to be procured. We need the best people to enable us to achieve this, and those people deserve our absolute support.
Lord Jopling (Con)
My Lords, I am sure this debate has been immensely enhanced by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, who has just sat down, whose huge experience is of massive value to all of us. I begin by reminding the House that for many years I have been a member of the delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where I am currently chairman of one of the committees.
It is only seven weeks or so since we had our last defence debate, but in view of continued tensions which confront us it is timely that we have another one today—I pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister for that. That is especially so when one contemplates what I describe as the “arc of trouble”, which stretches from the Baltic states in the north, through the Middle East and North Africa, to the Atlantic Ocean, where Nigeria continues to struggle with Boko Haram. Not all of it, but much of this tension, which has increased in recent times, stems from Russia’s increasing posturing and provocation, and I will concentrate most of my remarks on Russia.
This increased provocation by Russia comes despite a faltering economy, which we should remind ourselves has been compared in scale to that of Spain and which is mainly a consequence of crude oil prices that are near $50 a barrel. At the same time we are seeing burgeoning defence spending—admittedly from a comparatively low base when we remind ourselves that Russian defence expenditure only four years ago was less than that of the United Kingdom—and an intensification of Moscow’s military build-up throughout the entire region from the Arctic through to the Mediterranean. We have seen evidence of their tinkering in Libya recently.
Our allies in NATO and the east continue to feel threatened by the hard power imbalance in their neighbourhoods. Russia has the ability rapidly to amass significant forces on its border, and continues to mount anti-access and area-denial capabilities in the Baltic, Black Sea and Mediterranean regions. The Russians have threatened nuclear strikes against NATO allies and have withdrawn from or violated key arms control agreements. In addition, very importantly, they have developed a highly sophisticated propaganda and disinformation campaign, often blatantly distorting facts and the truth—a matter I shall return to in a few moments.
One cannot help feeling that, with the mounting threat from Russia, the NATO allies are relatively sleeping through all of this, and it is not helped by the continued uncertainty which comes from Washington. That is not only down to the wild and sometimes contradictory tweets and speeches from the President himself but down to this period of uncertainty in the formation of a new Administration in the United States. In the past, it has often taken up to June before all the political appointments are made, but last week, upstairs in the International Relations Select Committee, of which my noble friend Lord Howell is chair, we heard evidence that the current appointments in the United States are proceeding very slowly and that some of the most senior Pentagon political offices remain unfilled.
Perhaps one of the few firm messages, though, to come from Washington recently is President Trump’s dissatisfaction at the poor response to the target declared at NATO’s Welsh summit of moving towards 2% of GDP going to defence. When the noble Earl, Lord Howe, opened the debate, he referred to the five states whose defence spending comes to less than 1%. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in his speech, talked about the need to name and shame those that do not spend even 1%. Unfortunately, he did not name them, and therefore I will. It has been implied in the past that it is bad manners and not very friendly to name the backsliders, but it is Belgium, Luxembourg, Spain, Slovenia and Hungary that currently spend less than 1%. That is a disgrace, particularly given that some of those countries are extremely wealthy and really ought to be moving towards the Welsh summit target. Indeed, some of them, particularly Belgium, seem to be spending less each year, which again I would have thought was indefensible.
This has been said before, but I repeat that it is a sad reflection on our European friends that after Brexit —I speak as one who was not in favour of it—80% of the spending on NATO’s defence will come from non-members of the European Union. That is also a disgrace. However, one constructive and praiseworthy development in recent times has been the decision to deploy battalion-size battle groups in the three Baltic states and Poland. I have expressed concerns in the past about the delay in their deployment, and I am very relieved that the first of the UK-led contingent has already arrived in Estonia. I have felt for some time that these months, which we are in the middle of now, covered a dangerous period of change and uncertainty which could have encouraged Mr Putin to make another provocative incursion one way or another.
I have two particular questions to ask the Minister. First, will he tell us when the Estonian deployment of UK troops will be complete? Will he tell us when it is expected that the other deployments—I am thinking of the Canada-led one in Latvia, the German-led one in Lithuania, and the United States one in Poland—will be complete? These deployments, although small in size, will provide an essential tripwire, which should warn Moscow that to engage with them would have immediate Article 5 implications.
Finally, I referred earlier to the propaganda and misinformation programme which the Russians are so good at. I ask the Minister to confirm that all preparations have been made, alongside our Estonian battle group deployment, to have adequate back-up of Russian speakers and media facilities to counter the inevitable sniping and vilification which we can be assured that the Russians are bound to spray over them in the months and years ahead.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate about the very serious international situation facing the UK in terms of its capacity to defend itself in collaboration with its allies. I declare an interest as a scientific consultant to a defence contractor working for the MoD. I am also a consultant with a university in Toulouse, working on new wings for Airbus, and some of these Airbus facilities are of course important for the UK now. When I was head of the Met Office, I also saw a bit of how the MoD works— some of which made your hair stand on end—and, during that period of focus, the ability of the Met Office to forecast the atmosphere and oceans greatly improved. I should also declare that, when I was a professor at Cambridge, one of my research students used our research techniques to provide high-tech shelters for all the women protesting at Greenham Common.
Since this is a debate on the politics of defence, I should begin by asking HMG whether they are satisfied with the understanding and support of the British people for the main aspects of UK defence strategy. The first point of controversy has been about the size of the Armed Forces, which is now smaller in total than for many years and significantly lower than is needed to confront the main opponents to the UK and its allies, in Asia and the Middle East especially. This is a technical and financial question, depending on the choice of strategic goals, but we should learn more about the arguments.
The second major controversy, which is much more political, concerns whether the UK armaments should continue to depend on nuclear weapons systems. I believe that this is essential. It is of course the official Labour policy, as my noble friend Lord Touhig mentioned earlier this afternoon. The Labour and the Lib Dem parties continue to be split about this, with many members inside and outside Parliament being opposed. Also, of course, many countries in the NATO alliance are opposed to the use of these weapons.
A lesser but more recent controversy about the UK’s defence is to what extent it should be used to support Governments in the Middle East and Africa where civil war is taking place, or where there are outbreaks of disease and civil emergencies such as the breakdown of government systems in Libya and elsewhere. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, in his introductory speech commented on how our defence forces are used for these civil issues—and very effectively too.
There is very little political controversy about the use of the UK’s world-class defensive capability in cyber and security services to protect the UK and our allies.
I should like to make a suggestion that the Government need to build up support of their defence policies among all parts of society, including schools, universities, industry, trade unions and so on, in order to have support for their defence forces and their infrastructure within government. There is also a need to build up understanding about the role of the private sector.
I believe new approaches are necessary. I came to this conclusion when visiting with my grandson the excellent Royal Air Force Museum at Hendon, and I have told the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about this story. The technical and scientific aspects of the RAF over the past century were well displayed, and I assume that there will be some centennial celebrations at this museum in a year or two. But there needs to be more emphasis on current operational policies, as well as the developing technologies, and the existence of nuclear weapons in UK defence should not be ignored. It is also important, in museums and other places providing public information, to explain why the UK has defence forces in 2017—giving information about countries which are the UK’s allies and, controversially, which countries are not our allies.
In some schools, I am afraid to say, the governors prevent school visits to defence facilities. The RAF Museum, as an example, provides information about our former enemies. Surely there should now be considerable emphasis in all such information displays on how these former enemies are now our allies. There is a great misunderstanding by many young people on these issues. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this question.
Demonstrations, museums, and videos about modern defence forces and their infrastructure should also include displays and information about their use of technology and scientific developments, including systems collaborating with our allies. An example is the large Airbus transport plane I mentioned, one of which is used by the UK Prime Minister now, who, I am glad to say, no longer goes on a Boeing.
However, it is not realistic to pretend that our forces depend only upon UK industry and technical products. For example, the Met Office, which provides world-class meteorology and environmental data and forecasts for the UK forces, benefits from information provided through NATO from other forces, but it also provides its information to allied forces—such as weather forecasting, which is now used by the US Air Force. It is important that technical defence collaboration between NATO forces should not be impeded by the UK withdrawing from the current EU technological projects, which other noble Lords have mentioned. That may happen without considerable diplomacy. Perhaps the Minister could say how this issue is also being addressed.
Finally, there should be greater collaboration between UK defence scientists and those of our allies. When I was at the Met Office—perhaps it is not the case now— there were none on the Defence Scientific Advisory Committee, DSAC, and I hope that may have changed by now.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery (CB)
My Lords, in contrast to the large number of qualifications and interests which many noble Lords have professed, I can only profess to having been a Cold War submarine commander, but I have the interests of the senior service very much at heart. I thank the Minister for this debate, which has given us the opportunity to revisit and examine the entire defence area. We have heard the challenges to the rules-based order listed by many. They include, among others that have perhaps not been listed, famine of both food and water, nuclear proliferation and, perhaps we should say, even the new US regime.
In times of peace, military expenditure tends to be the Cinderella of government spending. Large parts of the population see it as neither necessary nor desirable, and it falls to Parliament to persuade the voting public to accept spending on defence when so many other areas command their attention. History tells us that although we are seldom fully prepared for conflict when it arises, we occasionally get it right. Henry VIII regularly ran out of money to maintain his forces; indeed, he began wars only when he had received a new injection of cash. Elizabeth I’s expenditure on warfare was remarkably modest, but it cost the King of Spain two-thirds of the entire revenues of the Spanish Empire in 1585 to build the Spanish Armada. Note that he started three years before the date on which the fleet was to set sail.
Between 1690 and 1815 Britain was involved in a semi-continuous global struggle, generally against France and Spain. In this period, spending on the Royal Navy consumed the largest share of government revenues, with the results that we all learned about in school. I am of course assuming that most of us come from an era when such matters as Napoleonic history and the Industrial Revolution still formed a part of the history curriculum. In 1814, the last year of the Napoleonic wars, the British national budget stood at £66 million, of which £50 million was spent on the war. The Navy spent £10 million, but Trafalgar was behind it; the Army, pre-Waterloo, spent £40 million; and another £10 million was spent on mercenaries from Austria and Prussia.
Post 1815, and during the 100 years or so of the Pax Britannica, we were probably the most confident country on the planet—confidence has been mentioned in several contexts. The peace was substantially maintained by the large but increasingly outdated Royal Navy. Defence expenditure fell steadily as a percentage of GDP, partly because of the vast rise in GDP itself during the 19th century, but by 1900 it stood at just under 4%. The arrival of Admiral Jackie Fisher as First Sea Lord in 1904 saw a complete change in defence thinking. Fisher was convinced that war with Germany was inevitable, and set about modernising the Navy and preparing it for war with enormous enthusiasm. He retired for the first time in 1911, with the job done so effectively that defence spending, at 3% of GDP, was lower than when he had arrived, due to the massive efficiencies and savings that he had been able to make while completely renewing the battleship fleet.
Fisher had the public on his side. He was such a popular figure that, as he bullied Parliament into supporting his new building programmes, the public coined the phrase, “We want eight, and we won’t wait”, referring to yet another class of Dreadnoughts. As a result, the Royal Navy entered the First World War as probably the only military arm in Europe ready for the conflict, and defence spending at 3.15% of GDP. There is a magic quality to this figure of three; it crops up time and again. From 1920 to 1935 it remained fairly steady at around 3%, before rearmament began in 1936. The arguments of Churchill and others surrounding that process do not need rehearsing in your Lordships’ House; suffice to say that they were highly controversial at the time. I apologise to your Lordships for reciting all this history, but I hope my point is clear: we ignore the lessons of the past at our peril. The visionary Fisher managed to revitalise the Navy within 10 years—but it took him 10 years, in an age far less technologically advanced than today. The equally visionary Churchill managed to get the ball rolling in 1936, although we were far from ready when the war started.
In more recent times, we entered the Cold War in the 1950s with defence expenditure at 6% of GDP, and it was still at 4% by the early 1990s. Since then, the so-called Cold War dividend has had the psychological effect of lulling the country into a false sense of security, which is now, 25 years on, starkly apparent. Other speakers have detailed, and no doubt still more will do so, the effects of the obvious lack of “mass”—that is, numbers—manpower shortages, the reduction in the procurement for stocks of weapons and equipment, and the scrapping of useful equipment because its maintenance or manning cannot be funded.
My principal point is that we must start to think the hitherto unthinkable of casting aside some of the shibboleths of 21st-century expectations and politics. Today, real spending as a percentage of GDP, in figures that are not widely understood by the public, includes the following figures: pensions at 8%, health at 7.4% and welfare at 6%. Add all those together and you get one-quarter of our entire GDP. Education gets 4.4% but defence gets 1.76% for pure defence spending and 0.25% for other things that have been creatively accounted into the defence calculation.
We simply do not have 10 years, or even three, to prepare for the next conflict that may be forced upon us. Despite the rapid advance of technologies, development times have lengthened. Fisher built “Dreadnought”, the first of a new type of battleship, in a year. The latest “Dreadnought”, the first of the successor class submarines, will probably take 15 years. It took 10 years from project start to launch of the first Daring class destroyer. The Type 26 frigate project began in 2010 and the first vessel has yet to be ordered. The numbers of both these projects have been halved since inception. The Type 31 frigate—perhaps you could call it the other half of the Type 26—is still a figment of the collective imagination. I could start on the Astute class submarine programme, but embarrassment for my old service forbids further comment.
The elephant in the room is clearly social spending in all its forms. While most would agree that such spending is only right and proper, I argue that the balance has been dangerously upset by the post-Cold War lull in military need. I also argue that the 2015 SDSR has quite possibly already reached its sell-by date, and that another serious look needs to be taken at our defence needs rather than looking through the other end of the telescope—or periscope—at what we can afford when all the other budgetary pressures have been contained. The SDSR addresses development but fails to address personnel recruitment and retention to any great extent. To quote the Secretary of State for Defence:
“Nothing is more important than defending our country and protecting our people”.
I offer another quotation, which I think came from the Prime Minister:
“The first duty of the Government is the defence of the people”.
In conclusion, I point out that while we aim to spend 2% of GDP on defence, Russia spends 5.4%, the US only 2.3%—but of course from a vastly higher GDP base—China 1.9% and Saudi Arabia a huge 13.7%. I have a final question for the Minister, which has already been asked: what consideration has been given to removing the costs of building, maintaining and operating the strategic deterrent from the defence budget to its own separate vote?
Other than all of that, the main issue that seems to come across from noble Lords’ speeches is morale and recruitment—the hollowing-out of services personnel. Equipment can and will be built and budgets will provide for that, but we have to create an attractive enough platform for recruitment to bring enough people into the services and benefit them in order to create the kind of task forces and numbers that we have been talking about.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl. He brings nautical experience to our discussions but I bring rather more of an Army bias. He is also a relative newcomer to this House. As a relative new boy myself, I note that your Lordships’ House has taken a bit of a kicking recently in the press but, having sat through most of this debate, I have been extraordinarily impressed by some of the excellent speeches, which have been interesting, well-informed and informative. It is of course invidious to mention names but I shall mention in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who I thought spoke particularly well. I am glad to see that the Secretary of State and indeed the chairman of the Select Committee from the House of Commons are both here listening. I hope that I can live up to that high standard, though I rather doubt it.
I shall make two points. The first relates to the standing of the Armed Forces, which was partially covered by the noble Earl. The second is about the current international situation, which was mentioned in the Motion, and our preparedness for it.
It is a cliché to say—quite rightly—that our Armed Forces are highly regarded. When I was working in the MoD, they were probably more highly regarded than they ever had been in my lifetime, largely because of Afghanistan, Iraq and the tragedies there. To digress, a friend of mine in the United States army told me that, after Vietnam, he flew back into Los Angeles airport and, as he walked out in uniform, he was spat at. I am glad to say that we have never got to that stage here and I hope we never do. In the same vein, about a dozen years ago, when there were elections to the US Senate, it was said that there was no elected senator with a child who had served or was serving in the armed forces. Of course, there were people such as McCain who had served themselves. In contrast, on the Benches here and in the other place, there are people who not only have themselves served in the Armed Forces but who continue to have connections through children and relations who serve. This means that we are closer, in many ways, to our Armed Forces than is the case in some other places. I am glad to say that it remains a respected career and attracts a high quality of both officers and men. It remains a profession of which to be proud. Parents can be proud if their children join the Armed Forces.
Lord Robathan
The noble Lord is, of course, an academic. It used to be “mankind” but now, apparently, one has to say “personkind”. When my son rang up and announced that he was thinking of joining the Armed Forces, his mother said, “Over my dead body”. She has changed her mind now, I am glad to say. It is not by chance that we have respected professionals in the Armed Forces. When I served, there used to be something called KAPE—keeping the Army in the public eye. This is very important. Unfortunately, with the reduction in the Armed Forces over a number of years, we have seen, for instance, good barracks being sold. I recall Chelsea. Hounslow, also in London, is on the market as, I understand, is Woolwich. Nobody quite knows what is going on with Hyde Park barracks. The point is that if you consign your Armed Forces personnel to the back of an industrial estate, the respect they are afforded is less. Messes have been contracted out. What used to be regarded as a home, particularly for officers, is no longer seen as such. Pay and conditions have continuously been eroded over many years.
We have heard about morale. Morale is a bit amorphous. If you listen to some people, it is always low. I used to think that if soldiers were not complaining about something, they probably were not happy. To put it mildly, recruitment and retention are not good at the moment. We have an Army that is not recruited to its 82,000 target. I urge the Government to look at this whole situation. It is not about people pitying poor soldiers who have seen awful things in Afghanistan and Iraq, as we sometimes hear. They do not want pity; they want to be respected. It is not about politically correct issues and diversity, nor about bad conditions in which people live, although these too are important. It is about feeling valued and respected by the society one serves. It is about being challenged by adventure and excitement, seeing a future career and lifestyle that can offer a decent life for oneself and one’s family, and doing a worthwhile job. This means the Government seeing the value of some things rather than just looking at the cost.
My second point, which has been covered much more in this debate, is our response to the current international situation. I was particularly impressed by the tour de force from the Minister about the strategic threats we face, which was backed up by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I know that my noble friend the Minister is in a rather difficult position, but we all value his support for defence. I was part of the SDSR 2010, together with my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, is absolutely right. It was driven by costs. Some people tried to deny it at the time, but it was about cutting costs. I say to the three Labour Ministers who have spoken so far today, that the situation we inherited in 2010 across the public finances was dire. There is no question about that, nor any point in arguing about it. Not only was it dire but, in defence, there were unfunded procurement programmes going forward which we estimated at some £30 billion to £60 billion. It was an estimate, since nobody could tell us what the funding was because it was so chaotic.
The last, coalition Government, and Philip Hammond in particular—for whom I worked—brought defence spending under proper control. They should be congratulated on that and on the SDSR as well. They had the assistance of the Liberal Democrats. I see the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in his place. He was also there with me. SDSR 2015 is a step in the right direction but we need to go a lot further. Other people have said so too.
My noble friend Lord Jopling, who is not now in his place, talked about Russia. I will not cover other strategic threats but let us home in on that. Nobody has been held to account for the murder of Litvinenko 10 years ago—not a mile from here—nor for the downing of a civilian airliner over Ukraine by Russian missiles. The Baltic states have a joke: “Visit Russia, before Russia visits you”. They are worried, and with good reason. The other threat, closely linked to Russia, is from cyberattacks. We have heard about whatever happened during the US election. We have heard about Montenegro. These attacks are non-stop, asymmetric and will grow.
I say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that the situation has changed. When I joined the Army in 1974, we had a complement of 150,000 or so. Some 55,000 were in West Germany, with tanks, missiles, tactical nuclear weapons and aircraft facing the East. We spent about 5% of our GDP on defence throughout the 1980s. Now it is around 2%. I will not dwell on how this is accounted for. We have only a vestige of the BAOR left. We do not expect invasion forces crossing the Elbe or the Rhine, but we should expect asymmetric warfare, as it is called, be it by “little green men” such as we saw in Crimea and the Ukraine, or by undermining the Baltic states by winding up their Russian minorities. We should remember that the Baltic states are guaranteed by Article 5 and an attack on one is an attack on all.
As a country, we need a bigger stick, as does NATO. Much has been heard about how NATO’s spending should rise; of course it should. We need to up our spending as well. I pay tribute to the Government—although it might not seem like it—and especially to current Defence Ministers. I know what they think, but we need to go further. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had rather a bad week last week, but I believe he understands the need to spend more on defence.
We need to educate our public, our politicians and government Ministers that defence is the first duty of government. There is always the danger that old men—and there are quite a few in this place—look back through rose-tinted spectacles at the good old days. We need a balance and to understand history. We could draw analogies with the 1930s, to which the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord King, have referred. There is some validity in this—disarmament, isolationism, aggression and invasion of small parts of countries, such as the Sudetenland. I urge my Government to up defence spending so that the Armed Forces feel valued; so it becomes an attractive career for young men—and women; and, most of all, to ensure that British interests are safe in this deteriorating world situation. The first duty of government has always been the defence of the realm. We all need to remember that.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord was absolutely right to draw attention to the non-accountability of the Russians for their actions. I was for some years rapporteur to the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya. One thing that drove me to despair was not only their brutal behaviour but the way in which they were recruiting for extremists. People were driven into the arms of the extremists by their behaviour.
It has been a very interesting debate, due in large part to the thoughtful and wise speech by the noble Earl and the firm and trenchant speech by my noble friend Lord Touhig. We should in debates of this kind always take some time to pay the warmest, unlimited tribute to the men and women of our armed services, the security services and the police, who carry so much responsibility in such demanding and exacting circumstances on our behalf.
I should perhaps declare an interest. I had a short service ground commission in the RAF during the Cold War. I was subsequently Minister for Defence responsible for the Navy, when we still had Service Ministers. Despite the awful circumstances, I found that a very fulfilling and enjoyable role.
Surely the first thing we should do in debating defence is to examine and define the threat. We should not start by talking about percentages of expenditure. We should ask: what is the real threat that faces us? What should we be doing to respond to that threat? What does that demand of us? How much is it responsibly essential to pay to respond to that? We sometimes forgo that debate, which leads to a great deal of misunderstanding. What is the threat?
For most ordinary people, one of the biggest threats in their lives is terrorism and extremism. What does that demand of us? It demands extremely good, highly qualified security services—we are deeply grateful for all they do on our behalf. It also requires a great deal of support from the police. However, we have to ask what leads people into extremist positions. We have always to remember that we are in a battle for hearts and minds. This can at times be extremely exacting, but it demands the highest conduct in the values that we proclaim because, if we slip from them, we play into the hands of the recruiters for the extremists.
I get very worried by some of Trump’s language. When Trump starts advocating waterboarding again and talks loosely on Twitter about the acceptability of torture, I get extremely worried. How many new recruits for extremism has he made by those few ill-judged, remarks? We therefore have a great responsibility as a long-standing ally of the United States to stand firm in our position and not yield an inch. I know from my long-standing involvement with people in the United States that many will rejoice if we do that.
The Minister is absolutely right to emphasise the unpredictability, instability and complexity of the situation. It is unnecessary to mention all the places in the world which have been listed several times in this debate, but I am glad that we have also talked about migration—refugees and displaced people—and climate change. Those two factors taken together might make anything we face at the moment seem like child’s play by comparison. We have also touched on the issue of world trade—of moving from an ordered approach to a phase of possibly aggressive free markets, without that moderating influence. That in itself becomes threatening.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on raising another point. We must ask ourselves whether the carriers as we now have them and Polaris as it now stands are not distorting the expenditure of the overall defence budget compared to the real needs and threats that we will face and the action we may need to be able to take to contain those threats. I am not and never have been a unilateralist. I have always been a multilateralist on disarmament, but we have to ask that question, because it would be unfortunate if we end up muscle-bound because we are unable to respond to the real situation and the demands made of us.
The Minister emphasised working with others. That will be desperately important. I can think of few situations in which we can even contemplate acting alone. All of them, including terrorism of course, demand international collaboration. Therefore, working out new ways of collaborating with the European Union, continuing our close collaboration with France and others and playing our role within NATO is crucial.
Before I conclude, I mention one other point of which I am convinced. If we are to talk about effective defence policy, we have to see the relationship between arms control and regulation of the arms trade as central. In the situation in which we are operating, with extremism and terrorism as a factor, we cannot afford any danger of lethal weapons ending up in the wrong hands or weapons being used in a way that recruits extremists. We have to be certain of the end use of arms that are exported; we need to be certain of accountability. That is not an alternative. It is central to the defence programme. How are we recognising the danger and significance of armaments and ensuring that we are not inadvertently playing into the hands of people who will exacerbate the terrifying issues with which we are confronted?
Lord Walker of Aldringham (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard from many noble Lords who have spoken, we are living in a very troubled and insecure world— militarily, politically, economically and socially. Everything seems to be in turmoil. It does not matter where you look, the landscape is littered with issues that Governments and international institutions are finding it increasingly difficult to handle. In this Chamber, we pray daily for peace and tranquillity in the realm. But we are clearly not doing enough.
So what does all this mean for our military in the second decade of the 21st century? The most pressing item on people’s agenda is Brexit. At first sight it seems to us that Brexit itself is unlikely to have a vast impact on our Armed Forces—certainly on their roles and tasks. We are firmly attached to NATO and expect to be able to continue to co-operate with our European allies. More indirectly, there are big unknowns. What will happen within and to our defence industries? How will a change in the value and exchange rates of the pound affect our ability to fund the ever-increasing costs of procurement of military equipment and manpower?
Added to that is the spectre of the Scottish independence referendum. Should it become a reality, there will presumably be a requirement to give Scotland her share of the combat units and vehicles, aircraft squadrons, warships, intelligence, logistics and maintenance assets, and of course to sort out our nuclear base at Faslane. That will all take some doing. I wonder whether the Minister will be able to give us a view as to the Government’s thinking, should that happen.
The central lesson of our experience of the last 60 years is that forces equipped and capable of prosecuting warfare at the highest-intensity level are absolutely capable of less demanding operations. But the reverse is not true. That is why our national engine is and must remain warfighting. Indeed, the Minister referred to it as full-spectrum capability, so that we can change down through the gears when demands require it. This equation is as much about organisational attitudes and methods as about the physical fabric of our capability, although the former is nothing without the latter. To use an Army analogy, the sort of mentality that can position an armoured division tactically in an area equivalent to that inside the M25, supply it with 70 tonnes of food and 1,600 tonnes of ammunition on a daily basis and then use some 30,000 to 40,000 men and more than 10,000 vehicles to destroy or defend against an enemy at night, should be able to burn a few sheep when everyone else is panicking.
However, you cannot hope to keep the peace if those who threaten doubt your will or your ability to wage war. They will laugh in your face. Contingencies in which the enemy is an abstract noun, such as famine, terror, poverty and disaster, may be more likely at present, but we must never forget that we still have potential enemies whose senses are stimulated only by the weight of conventional force brought to bear on them—and there are more than 120,000 main battle tanks out there. High-intensity warfare is, thankfully, relatively low on likelihood, but we should not forget that we used a version of this capability as recently as the Gulf War in 1991 and again in Iraq in 2003—although thankfully both times against a very weak enemy. But the risk level has gone up a notch or two, as we have heard, particularly in the last couple of years. We have seen the sabre rattling of Russia with its latest modern battle tank and enhanced capabilities across the board—and only the other day Iran announced the development of its own version of the Russian tank.
We currently claim to have a set of forces structured to be capable of high-intensity warfighting as part of an alliance. In this type of warfare, operations are conducted in five dimensions: in and from the air; in and with the electromagnetic spectrum; on the land; and, if sea is involved, with both surface and subsurface operations. Our contribution would in effect be a one-shot weapon which would consume most of our available resources.
In a recently leaked memo, the last commander of our Joint Forces Command cast grave doubts on the efficacy of this capability. Even if only part of what he claims about the shortcomings in our strategic thinking, cybercapability and fragile naval, air and land capabilities is true, our ability to fight a conventional war must be in doubt. At the same time, there is much uncertainty about all our allies in NATO increasing their defence spending, as we have heard from so many noble Lords, and the impact that it might have on our US ally’s intentions. Were we to engage in an endeavour requiring us to deploy this capability and fail, we would be faced with one of two very unpalatable options: either accept defeat or resort to our nuclear capability.
A capability for high-intensity warfare is high on cost—and getting higher by the day. Once that capability is lost, it takes a long time, a lot of money and a lot of training to reconstitute it. Moreover, if Scotland votes for independence, the repair bill will be large and could come sooner than expected. Everybody agrees that the defence of our nation is the first duty of our Government. I believe that that duty to maintain such a capability should be followed, whatever the future costs may be.
I will talk briefly about one other aspect because it has been touched on by a number of noble Lords. It is about our people. Being a service man or woman is not better or cleverer, or necessarily braver, than being in another occupation—but it is different. That is because we require our youngsters to be sent off at a moment’s notice to a place they may have difficulty finding on a map, where they are required to risk life and limb alongside an ally whose language they may not be able to understand and in defence of an issue that they may not even have begun to grasp. In this distinctive chemistry of the military world, men and women, as we have already heard, wish to be valued. They wish to be valuable as well. They are paid folk and they have a contract that takes them to the door of death.
Nothing about the future suggests that tomorrow’s service men or women will have to be any less brave, less physically and mentally tough or less resilient than their predecessors. There will continue to be a premium on the men and women who are prepared to put up with the dreadfulness of an environment that is at best exceptionally unpleasant. There will be an equal premium on those leaders capable of persuading others to accept that dreadfulness.
These folk have hardly been highly rewarded by the nations they have defended. The New Model Army of the 1640s—the most reliable force to emerge from the English Civil War—was eventually driven to oppose the Parliament for which it had fought so well by the fact that its pay was in arrears. Time and again, servicefolk, who have been perfectly prepared to face physical risks, have sulked, grumbled or even mutinied over pay and conditions. The feeling that their country is not honouring its part of the contract or the fear that the well-being of dependants is threatened, strikes at the very basis of their loyalty. It is indeed ironic that our country has oft been best defended by those who owe it the least.
In 1957, when conscription ended, the Regular Armed Forces were some 700,000 strong; the defence budget was some 7% of GDP; and the average per capita cost of a service man or woman was some £41,000. By 2011, we had shrunk to186,000; the defence budget was just over 2% of GDP; but the average per capita cost was some £220,000. The full-time trained strength as of December last year had dropped to just over 139,000—some 4% below establishment. The jury is out on whether full manning can be achieved.
Today, after the last SDSR, one of the main areas in which savings are being sought is in personnel. Military pay will increase by only 1% over the next four years—well below projected levels in the private sector. For a private soldier this is 1% on £18,000—some £7,000 below the national average. Service allowances are being targeted for savings, and the 30% savings in numbers of MoD civilians could well require backfilling with military personnel. There are, too, concerns about the legal pursuit of 60 year-olds in Northern Ireland, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Astor, the damage done by the IHAT allegations, and concerns about service accommodation and work/life balance. I believe that we need to do better for our people, for it seems that our country still seeks to be best defended by those who owe it the least.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my somewhat technical interest. I support the Motion in the name of my noble friend the Minister. I echo some of the observations about Russia made by my noble friend Lord Jopling. We know that it is an economic basket case with a GDP equivalent to that of Italy. It makes little that is good enough to export to the rest of the world, apart from armaments, and is far too reliant on mineral wealth. To cap it all, it has a perfectly rotten system of justice and the rule of law, which will make it very hard for ordinary, decent Russians to construct a healthy, modern economy. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made important points about the nature of Russia and its population. It is also important to understand that the Kremlin’s map of the world will look very different from the one in the Ministry of Defence. Its leader has no regard for an international rules-based world order and, unfortunately, many of his population hold him in high regard. That might change, however, if his armed forces took a number of casualties. In other words, Mr Putin cannot afford to get a bloody nose.
Russian armed forces have some good capabilities but they are not balanced and have weaknesses as well. Mr Putin’s strategic objective must be to break up NATO and Article 5 by intervening in the Baltic states, possibly by using Russian-speaking minorities as an excuse, as other noble Lords have said. I warmly applaud the Government for not being overreactive and provocative and for avoiding the trap of deploying at medium scale. A battalion group lays out a thin red line, or trip wire, while avoiding the expense of deploying at medium scale, which would fix a large proportion of our deployable combat power. At the same time, Mr Putin is incurring the cost of having large numbers of troops deployed, or at least at high readiness. However, we need to take special care to monitor the position of Russian-speaking minorities, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Jopling and other noble Lords.
Several noble Lords have referred to difficulties with the carrier programme. Yes, it is a capability that we do not yet have in place, but when we do have full operating capability it will be game-changing. Of the western states, only the Americans, the French and we will be able to deploy a carrier battle group to support a brigade deployed out of area. We should be positive and look forward to the increased capacity to be a force for good when the carriers come on stream. They are not in service today, but we do not face an existential threat today. It is perfectly clear, however, that we do not have enough surface warships or submarines and we need to do something about this. Perhaps addressing this concern properly will be unavoidable when the carriers start being deployed. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, suggested that we might have to deploy two carrier battle groups at once. Clearly, we could always have one carrier available, but I believe there is no intention to operate two groups at the same time. We do not have the resources to do that.
Many noble Lords have talked about manning, which is of great concern to me and others. I am content for Regular Army phase 1 soldiers to be counted as part of the trained strength of the British Army. This is because most of them will be trained to a basic trade standard quite soon—in most cases within, say, six months—after phase 1. In addition, they would have some military utility even if not fully qualified at trade. Furthermore, in a period of heightened international tension it would be possible to retain fully trained regulars currently in service, especially in terms of PVR and manning control points. The same cannot be said for a phase 1 trained reservist. I have to be blunt: they may well have attended only a few training weekends prior to a two-week recruits’ course. Conversely, a regular’s phase 1 training course would be about 15 weeks. After reservist recruits’ course, they will attend a few weekend training exercises, but they will gain military experience at a painfully slow rate. They will really learn to be effective only after they have completed their initial trade course and at least one annual camp. Anyone who thinks that a phase 1-trained reservist has military utility is living in a fool’s paradise.
Everywhere I look outside defence, there is a problem with insufficient professional and technical engineers. Pay has been more or less frozen everywhere in public service and conditions reformed—we know what that means. Forgetting the problems with MPs and Ministers, we see problems with getting QCs to be judges because the pay is so poor that it is not worth doing. In Parliament, we have problems recruiting IT technicians. We face similar problems in the Armed Forces. You can have public sector pay freezes for only so long. Careers advisers have a duty to school leavers to brief them honestly about career opportunities and the likely rewards. The Armed Forces simply do not have as good an offer as they used to. The Treasury appears to be interfering with the implementation of the conclusions of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. I agree with everything said by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean.
There is something else that parents and careers advisers need to take into account. The Armed Forces were always a hard taskmaster. Nevertheless, a good serviceperson could be confident that, if they did the right thing—especially on operations—they would be backed by the chain of command and, ultimately, by Ministers on behalf of the sovereign. That is no longer the case: noble Lords need only to think about the IHAT inquiry. It also does not seem to be a problem to torment an old-age pensioner about some incident that occurred decades ago, which was thoroughly investigated by the authorities at the time and many of the witnesses to which have since sadly passed away. There is nothing wrong with our Ministers, but for one reason or another they are powerless to intervene.
Serving on military or aid operations is a risky business, so we need courageous, able and prudent risk-takers for this activity. Defence Ministers may point to reasonable recruiting and retention figures, but I fear that prudent risk-takers will shy away from the Armed Forces and the gap in numbers could, to some extent, be made up with—shall we say?—not such good quality. Of course, it will be exceptionally difficult to measure the difference, and impossible for the Treasury.
I will say a few words about the need for large-scale—more than one brigade—overseas deployment exercises. The whole point of having credible Armed Forces is to be able to deter aggression. It is immaterial how much is spent on defence if your opponent is not convinced that you can inflict unacceptable harm on him using conventional forces. There is also the risk of overestimating one’s own readiness and capability and then overlooking any weaknesses. Of course these exercises have a marginal cost, but it might be better to spend slightly less on capability and more on exercises if one can increase one’s conventional deterrent effect. In this connection, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever for his work with Oman. I look forward to the Minister making an announcement about Exercise Saif Sareea at some point in the future.
The world is far less stable than in the early 1990s, when I first made a contribution to a defence debate in your Lordships’ House. Nevertheless, we should be proud of what we do and aspire to do even better.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, in addition to adding to the tributes to the noble Earl, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, on his persistence in trying to persuade the Government to hold this debate—the first one in which I have taken part whose title comprises three separate subjects.
I declare an interest as a former council member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, because the starting point of my contribution is the conclusion reached in the most recent publication in its Adelphi series, entitled Harsh Lessons: Iraq, Afghanistan and the Changing Charter of War, in which, as a former soldier, I found it sad to read:
“In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States and its allies came extremely close to strategic defeat, due to inadequate leadership, reconstruction efforts, political strategy, military strategy, operational concepts, tactics and equipment. These shortfalls combined with failures, at every level, to adapt quickly enough to unforeseen circumstances, provided opportunities that were exploited by insurgents and militias”.
These are harsh and sobering words, particularly in the context of today’s uncertain world, when the United Kingdom, whose Armed Forces are now weaker than at any time in the last 200 years, has embarked on leaving the Union of its closest geographical allies.
The other interest that I must declare is as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, in which capacity I have already voiced my concern that—despite the lessons of the imperfect 2010 strategic defence and security review, and in defiance of their undertaking to base SDSR 2015 on the national security strategy—the Government published both at the same time. I submit that, in the light of Brexit, SDSR 2015 is now out of date and ought to be reviewed. Of course, we remain a member of NATO, but it is feeling the draught of President Trump’s variance from the long-accepted wisdom that the provision of a large NATO commitment is vital for the security of the United States, and not merely a favour to Europe.
The most visible evidence of that membership is the 2% of GDP that we guarantee to spend on defence—to the inadequacy of which, in real terms, I am not surprised that so many noble Lords have drawn attention. I note, too, that, in this year’s Military Balance, the IISS has suggested that spending amounted only to 1.98%, because the actual amount is blurred by pensions and other associated, rather than actual, costs. In this connection I must repeat what I have said many times in this House: namely, that, like the noble Lord, Lord West, I regret the coalition Government’s decision to lay the cost of the nuclear deterrent on the defence budget. I have also mentioned Field Marshal Lord Carver’s two definitions of affordability: whether you can afford something, and whether you can afford to give up what you have to give up in order to afford it. I suggest that the question of whether you can afford to give up capabilities such as the size of the Army or the number of surface ships needs to be re-examined in the context of today’s uncertainties.
Currently, the West, including both NATO and the EU, are preoccupied with the production of cohesive responses to the various challenges being posed by Russia. In theory, this should encourage European states, including the United Kingdom, to increase their focus on defence, including defence spending. However, rather than just spending more, they need to spend more smartly. Boosting R&D and equipment spending, and driving industrial collaboration, will prove, in the long term, to be much more useful than simply aiming to meet arbitrary financial targets.
Post Brexit, I hope that the United Kingdom will still be able to play a part in EU security structures. Europe’s defence R&D has long been fragmented, with only minimal co-ordination and collaboration. But, in light of the European Commission’s plan—as part of the European Defence Action Plan—to boost defence procurement and establish a European defence fund for defence technology and equipment R&D, I hope that we will also maintain access to EU-wide science and technology developments.
The only word one can use with certainty about the future is “uncertainty”. Currently, the NSS Joint Committee is conducting an inquiry into the national cybersecurity strategy, in the context of which I have been thinking about the whole concept of deterrence, to which cyber adds a new factor. Deterrence must have a strategic goal of preventing crisis, not just responding to it. But what is required to wage deterrence today is more complex than in the days of the uncertain stability of the Cold War. It includes not only operational analysis, strategy development, planning and execution, but understanding and achieving the integration of hard and soft power. In addition, Governments need to understand the potential uncertain regional and global effect that deterrent actions may have on actors other than the adversary, including allies. More significantly, the rise of non-state threats and the pursuit of offensive cybercapabilities and long-range precision conventional capabilities by some nuclear-armed states bring further risk and uncertainly to the efficacy of nuclear deterrence.
In addition to nuclear and cyber, we must not forget that conventional levers play an essential part in promoting our defence and security interests. As so much has happened in the interim, it is easy to forget the so-called revolution in military affairs and its presumption that,
“greatly improved surveillance, communications and precision-strike weapons would produce superior knowledge of the enemy and better-targeted and more effective strikes and manoeuvre, allowing a modernised and networked force to defeat a larger but less modernised one”.
That was announced only in 2001, before the burgeoning of wars among the people. Sadly, it will be some time before British forces are modernised sufficiently for our contribution to NATO’s readiness action plan to allow a credible full-time spectrum combat capability against a peer competitor such as Russia.
Returning to my earlier point about the size of the Army, any plans to increase the size of the forces we can deploy overseas—and the speed with which they can deploy—as many other noble Lords have pointed out, are more likely to be limited by personnel numbers than equipment availability. If we are to meet the challenges to the international rules-based order, and increase our preparedness to satisfy defence and security interests, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Hennessy that we should take a cold, hard look at the future, starting with an examination of whether the SDSR 2015 is fit for purpose.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, over the last seven decades, the liberal international order has been a bedrock for promoting global stability and prosperity. Throughout my life, this nation—outward-looking and globalist—has been at the heart of the international rules-based project. From the start, British Armed Forces, diplomats and lawyers devoted their lives’ work—and, sometimes, their lives—to build and protect the many institutions and values which are now unremarkable set pieces on the international landscape.
Those values have guided our foreign policy for generations: the rule of law; respect for human rights and the dignity of all people; and international relations driven by process, diplomacy and rules, rather than shows of aggression and force. This liberal international order has not only allowed us to bend the arc of history towards ideals we believe are right—it has striven to move the world away from the games of “great powers”, wars of aggression and the rule of the strong. The institutions that have arisen out of this post-war international order—many of which the UK helped to build and lead—have also directly benefited the lives of UK citizens.
Nowhere is this truer than when it comes to defence and security. Our leading roles in the UN Security Council and a host of other key international institutions have allowed us to shape the international discourse. NATO—and other treaty organisations designed to promote collective security—has allowed us to spend less on defence while still being able to defend ourselves and our interests abroad.
In short, international laws and institutions have made the world, on aggregate, safer and more peaceful. Overall, that world is a more tolerant, wealthy and democratic place than the world of our parents and grandparents. Britain’s place in this world has been assured, and the rules-based system has promoted the norms and values that have made that possible. That order is as much a part of our defence as our Armed Forces and intelligence services. It is not possible to calculate the immense value that we reap from them year on year. Yet we have heard many times today that this international order is under threat, and I feel it—a protective safety net for seven decades, not guaranteed to last another.
Nor is it clear that we have the capacity to defend it. It is clear that without today’s order we will not even have the capacity to defend ourselves. We must treat threats and challenges to the international system as seriously as we treat direct threats to our own security. Some of those challenges have arisen naturally. We live in an era of huge progress—the pace of change near inconceivable to the international order’s architects of the 1940s. Fast-paced developments have transformed international relations, armed conflict and the relationship between individuals and states.
Many noble Lords have spoken about developments in cyber technology which have left our infrastructure and secrets vulnerable. The expansion of the use of drones in conflict has put pressure on laws of armed conflict and human rights norms. The proliferation of technology allows individuals to threaten national interests inexpensively. If the rules-based order is to avoid slipping into irrelevance and if our place on the world stage is to be assured, we must develop new international laws—and reform old ones—to meet the challenges brought by change.
But not all of today’s challenges to our world order originate from the changing times. We must acknowledge that there are those who seek to damage and destroy the system. Vladimir Putin’s Russia has set out to aggressively delegitimise, discredit and undermine western policies and institutions, as well as the entire post-Cold War norms-based security order. International institutions and the entire European security architecture stand in the way of Russia’s strategic aims, and Moscow is determined to undermine and render them irrelevant.
At the same time, Russia is a repeat violator of international laws—be they human rights laws, laws of armed conflict or treaty laws—in its domestic actions, in its annexation of the Crimea, in Syria and across cyberspace. The noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, pondered how to deal with the Russians, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, had the answer: we have to start by talking to them.
But Russia is not alone. In the South China Sea, China has taken “nation building” all too literally; Syria uses chemical weapons with alarming frequency; and then there is North Korea. Other nations watch the abuses and annexations, and they wonder whether they might reap similar results with impunity. How much chipping away can the rules-based order take before it is damaged beyond repair? The rise of non-state players such as the Taliban, Boko Haram and Daesh ignores the rules-based order altogether.
However, our soft power—second to none—can get us only so far in defending those structures and laws which have kept us so safe through our lives. In 2017 it is not clear that we have the capacity to defend vital interests or deter enemies. We must acknowledge that our Armed Forces have been hollowed out, and other noble Lords have spelled this out in detail: we have spent too little on defence, taking the peace dividend for granted; that which we have spent has sometimes been spent unwisely on pet projects built for yesterday’s wars; and we face a chronic shortage of personnel—young people do not see a future with our Armed Forces as a lifelong career. We may have state-of-the-art fighter jets and capital ships but, without the men and women and funds to run them efficiently, we may struggle to defend our interests abroad.
Our Armed Forces are our national insurance policy or our pension pot. Spending today is less painful and expensive than spending when it is too late. Spending on defence in a world of international rules, international institutions and NATO is much cheaper than spending in a world without them. However, a great deal has changed since the 2015 SDSR. In the light of post-Brexit currency fluctuations, a new spending review might be in order. The risk calculus from global threats is also different. There has been a great bonfire of the post-Cold War certainties these past few years, and our procurement must be adjusted to address this. Of course, there is also Brexit, and I thank my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for so ably describing the possible impact of our leaving the EU on our defence.
However, there is a third kind of threat to the rules-based order. Throughout the West, populists and nationalists are urging their populations to turn inward, cut ties and put themselves first—several noble Lords have alluded to the 1930s. These demands are not compatible with the globalism, the multilateralism and the idealism of shared values upon which our post-war order was built.
Brexiteers and Trumpeteers alike have railed against institutions which have secured us for decades: the EU, the WTO and NATO—all have come under fire. We must commit ourselves to a political fight to protect those institutions which keep us safe. Though an inward-looking or isolationist foreign policy may be comforting for many, the challenges that we face in today’s complex world cannot be solved by going it alone. Tomorrow’s global powers are not guaranteed to share our values and most certainly do not share our interests. Preserving institutions which promote the international rule of law and prevent the worst excesses of power politics must be as important to our defence as building new ships. Today, our building blocks of peace and security are our alliances, our global institutions and an international order which resolves most disputes without shots fired.
This is not idealism. The number of international armed conflicts has fallen decade on decade since 1945, and the number of deaths as a result of war has fallen consistently since the 1970s. Britain is a world-leading soft power and has the hard-power levers which come with permanent membership of the UN Security Council and key roles within NATO. These levers must become our “smart power” to preserve the international rules-based order. But more than that, the UK should take the lead in working to develop those institutions and rules to suit modern realities. Technologies may change but our commitment to values such as internationalism, openness, human rights and peacebuilding should not.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as one could have safely predicted from the speakers list, this has been an informed and thoughtful debate, during the course of which a number of different concerns have been raised, to which no doubt the Minister will respond shortly.
As my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde reminded us, the 2015 spending review and Autumn Statement said that the Government would invest £11 billion in new capabilities, innovation and the defence estate, of which some £7.2 billion would come from efficiency savings. Those efficiency savings apparently included military and civilian pay restraint, which is an interesting definition of the word “efficiency” and, as has been said, will inevitably have repercussions for recruitment and retention, as well as for morale. In the light of views expressed by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that the savings target presented “a significant risk” to the delivery capabilities set out in the strategic defence and security review, and a statement in a Royal United Services Institute paper that the Ministry of Defence is “struggling” to produce the efficiency savings required, can the Government say where those efficiency savings will actually come from, and when?
In July 2015, the Government stated that they would meet the properly measured NATO pledge to spend 2% of national income on defence every year of this decade. However, concerns have been expressed about how the 2% spending target is measured—not least by the House of Commons Defence Committee, which stated that the Government had achieved their commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence partly by revising the criteria used to calculate the UK defence budget reported to NATO so that it now included expenditure that had not previously been included but had been being incurred, such as, but not exclusively, pensions. According to the House of Commons Library, the Government’s Ministry of Defence net cash requirement for 2015-16 was £36.4 billion, compared to the £39 billion on the UK’s NATO return. No doubt the reason is that the NATO return includes elements of the Government’s cybersecurity spending, parts of the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund relating to peacekeeping, war pensions, and pension payments to retired Ministry of Defence civil servants.
However, creative accountancy and moving items from one set of accounts to another will not ease the pressures on our Armed Forces, at a time when the world hardly seems to be becoming a stable and more secure place, with the threats to our country and our interests diminishing rather than increasing. The Government anticipate moving more items from one account to another in future years, in a bid to stick to their commitment to increase defence expenditure by 0.5% annually over the next five years and keep pace with meeting the 2% NATO target. Under the Government’s projected growth targets, in terms of GDP defence expenditure is likely to fall below the 2% figure by 2020-21, which means that fulfilling the 2% commitment will require further financial contributions. Could the Minister indicate what those further financial contributions to meet the deficit are likely to be, if the Government’s most recent projected growth targets are hit?
The Government have already indicated that the deficit will be met by an additional inclusion of intelligence funding, on the basis that a significant proportion of the annual expenditure that funds the UK intelligence agencies is in support of military activities, with further sums coming from the new joint security fund, which provides money for security-related activities. Again, this does not represent additional resources available for increasing or even maintaining the capabilities of our Armed Forces. It is simply moving existing items of expenditure around, from one account to another, in order to be able to claim that the percentage expenditure commitment has been met.
Could the Minister say how much additional money would have been available for enhancing the capacity and capabilities of our Armed Forces if the additional money to bring us to the 2% of GDP figure on defence spending had been new, additional money, and had not been achieved by including in the figures items of expenditure already being incurred but previously not included in the total?
The reality is that defence spending has fallen, even taking into account the latest accountancy wheezes. The House of Commons Library has calculated that, between 2010-11 and 2015-16, defence spending as measured by the UK’s NATO return has, as my noble friend Lady Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde pointed out, been reduced by 6.9% in real terms. Using NATO’s data, the UK’s average proportion of GDP devoted to defence expenditure dropped from 2.6% to 2.1% between 2010 and 2015.
A further factor impacting adversely on the level of defence resources is the weaker pound, which appears to have been the result of Brexit, and with it an increase in the cost of defence imports. The National Audit Office expressed concern about that issue in a report the other day. Can the Minister say what the fall in the value of the pound since the referendum vote would mean in additional defence import costs over the next five years, if the value of the pound against other currencies were to remain unchanged? One estimate from a Royal United Services Institute source has suggested that, if the decline in the pound is sustained, the cost of our defence imports could increase by around £700 million per year from 2018-19—or around 2% of the total defence budget.
Concerns have been expressed by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy about the ability of our Armed Forces to fulfil the tasks given to them in the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, in the light of the capabilities, manpower and funding allocated. A recently retired head of the UK’s Joint Forces Command was reported last autumn as having said that the capability of our Armed Forces had been “withered by design”, and that there were capability shortfalls, dependence on small numbers of highly expensive pieces of military equipment, and dangerously squeezed manpower.
On top of this, we now have the potential impact of leaving the European Union, which must surely have an impact on some of the assumptions and strategies in the 2015 strategic defence and security review, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred, as well as on our foreign policy objectives, to which the SDSR should be closely related if we are to ensure that the money spent on defence is spent on the right things. Do the Government have a view on whether our withdrawal from the EU will have an impact on the tasks set out for our Armed Forces in the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, and on our present alliances? If so, do they anticipate that fewer or more resources will be required by our Armed Forces to carry out their future role post Brexit? Or is this another Brexit-related issue on which the Government have no public view at all, despite the fact that the Foreign Secretary has already opined that we are now back east of Suez? The noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, spoke about the need to reassess, determine and clarify our future role and place in the world as it has become today.
Before concluding, I would like to place on record once again our admiration for, and gratitude to, the members of our Armed Forces, who protect our nation at home and our interests abroad, and in so doing are prepared to put their own personal well-being and safety on the line. As my noble friend Lord Touhig said, the most valuable asset our Armed Forces have is the men and women who serve. Yet the 2016 continuous attitude survey revealed that only one in three of forces personnel believes they are valued, with just one in three planning to stay in service as long as they can. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, referred to that issue.
One of the concerns that has often been expressed in this House is how we address the issues faced by many veterans—issues related, for example, to health, to employment and to housing. On the issue of housing for veterans, I want to refer to recent reports about the disposal of parts of the defence estate and accommodation in London, and apparent suggestions that it might be sold off and developed as up-market luxury housing or offices. What are the Government’s intentions in respect of the disposal of parts of the defence estate in London? There is a shortage of accommodation for those on low incomes in central London, not least among veterans, despite the fact that London is a major centre for jobs and employment. Can the Minister give an assurance that, where parts of the defence estate, particularly in central London, are disposed of, every effort will be made to ensure that it is developed to provide low-cost housing for Armed Forces veterans, and not sold off to be developed only for those with great wealth, whether from this country or from abroad? When it comes to considering bids, there can surely be no higher bidders than Armed Forces veterans and those on low incomes.
My noble friend Lord Touhig asked a question in his opening contribution from these Benches, to which the Minister will no doubt respond. He pointed out that Labour in government committed resources to the defence of Britain, and spent on average 2.3% of our GDP on defence between 1997 and 2010—a figure, incidentally, well below that called for by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, in this debate. My noble friend asked whether the Government would now give a commitment to match that figure of 2.3%—and not through more creative accounting—in the light of the many new challenges we now face. My noble friend referred to those challenges in some detail. They include cyber conflict and cyber warfare, and they mean that the world can hardly be described as a safe place today—as the Minister himself recognised, and on which subject the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, my noble friend Lord West of Spithead, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, among others, spoke so powerfully.
Particularly in the current climate of significant change and uncertainty, it is vital that we are clear about the role and capabilities of our Armed Forces in protecting our nation and meeting our foreign policy goals. It is equally important that we then provide our Armed Forces with the necessary resources, manpower, training and skills to undertake effectively the objectives we require them to meet and deliver. Doubts have been expressed today about whether that is what is happening in reality, and we now await the Government’s response to the many questions and concerns that have been raised by noble Lords in this debate.
Earl Howe
My Lords, it is a mark of the experience that resides in this House that we have had the privilege of listening to so many well-informed, constructive and well-argued contributions to this debate today. It has been a truly memorable occasion in that sense. I begin by thanking most warmly all noble Lords and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken. In fulfilling the role that I occupy in government, I carry with me the reassurance that on all Benches in this House, without exception, there is unshakable support for the men and women of our Armed Forces and a passionate wish to ensure that they are led, equipped, trained and looked after to the highest standards in a way that enables them to fulfil, credibly and well, the tasks placed upon them by government. It is not surprising, with so many contributors and a Motion that is so deliberately broad in its scope, that the subject matter of your Lordships’ speeches should have been equally wide-ranging. I shall do my best, as I always do, to respond to as many noble Lords as I can in summing up. All questions asked of me will receive an answer, either today or in writing afterwards.
Let me start with some key aspects of the big picture and, first, the topic raised by a number of noble Lords: the UK’s defence budget. Not for the first time the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, raised questions around the 2% spending target. In particular, he cast doubt on whether we are genuinely spending 2%, a question echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, who urged us to spend more, as did my noble friends Lord Sterling and Lord Robathan, the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Let me remind the House that we spend in excess of the NATO 2% minimum and are pledged to increase our defence spending in real terms year on year during this Parliament.
The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Touhig, accused the Government of creative accounting. As they would expect me to say, we do not accept those accusations. The House of Commons Defence Committee’s own report on the matter confirms that all UK spending on defence, including intelligence, cyber, war pensions and others, falls firmly within NATO’s guidelines. Given that defence spending will increase by £5 billion over this Parliament, it is nonsense to suggest that there is no new funding. Our plans will deliver more ships, more planes and more troops at readiness, better equipment for Special Forces and more on cyber, to help keep Britain safe.
However, I want to be fair. The question posed by a number of speakers is, essentially, whether 2% is enough for the UK to be spending. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, rightly reminded us that 2% is a base figure. However, the commitment to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence came after a thorough examination of threats and risks, after which the Government decided on an appropriate level of funding. I acknowledge the honourable motives of noble Lords who urge us to spend substantially more. However, I challenge the Government’s critics to show how the strategic defence and security review failed to set out a clear and affordable strategy for delivering one of the most capable Armed Forces in the world. That was our aim, and the SDSR did that by including an expeditionary force of 50,000 by 2025, £1.9 billion for cyber investment, new capabilities for Special Forces and a commitment to spending more than £178 billion on equipment and equipment support, which is £12 billion more than in previous plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, referred to the drop in the exchange rate since last year. I can tell them that we built headroom into our forward plan to use in the SDSR, and that is what we did. We hold more than £5 billion of contingency in the equipment plan against an independently assessed financial risk of £4.8 billion. The forward purchase of foreign currency at agreed prices has provided cost stability in the early years of the programme. Longer-term challenges will, if necessary, be met through the normal planning process.
In addition, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly referred to the MoD’s efficiency target. We have a demanding target, as we should, given the Government’s objective to drive down the deficit. We are absolutely focused on delivering it.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, questioned our commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on overseas development aid. The rationale for this is to enable government to prioritise prevention and preparedness in fragile states and regions. By doing so we build stability and tackle the root causes of conflict as part of a whole-government approach to national security, alongside diplomatic, defence and law enforcement capabilities. That is particularly important for countries and regions at risk of instability. These strategies are co-ordinated and owned by the National Security Council. An expanded Conflict, Stability and Security Fund now exists to direct cross-departmental effort in fragile states, and the MoD is able to draw from that.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Attlee for his helpful comments on military capability. On that theme, let me address my noble friend Lord Sterling’s concerns about hollowing out and shortfalls in capability. No one in this debate has referred to the clear plan set out in the SDSR 2015 of Joint Force 2025. The key to understanding this concept is a simple proposition: it is to strengthen our Armed Forces while increasing their adaptability. Joint Force 2025 is designed to meet the more complex real-world challenges of today and to provide a greater ability to undertake the full range of different operations, including warfighting under NATO Article 5. It will enhance our ability to work alongside our key allies and partners, including providing a framework for the UK-led joint expeditionary force.
With the joint force, by 2025 we will be able to deploy a force of around 50,000 drawn from a maritime task group of around 10 to 25 ships and 4,000 to 10,000 personnel; an Army division of three brigades and supporting functions of around 30,000 to 40,000 personnel; an air group of around four to nine combat aircraft squadrons, six to 20 surveillance platforms and five to 15 transport aircraft, and 4,000 to 10,000 personnel; and joint forces, including enablers and headquarters, of around 2,000 to 6,000 personnel. This capability will allow us to meet the demands of multiple smaller and geographically dispersed operations, and to respond to the most significant challenges to national security, including a call to warfighting under NATO Article 5.
The large, sophisticated expeditionary force of around 50,000 at the centre of Joint Force 2025, combined with the development of our Special Forces, sends a powerful message to our adversaries and, I am sure, reassures our allies. While it is perfectly true that various capabilities announced through the SDSR 2015 will not come online until the 2020s, we have a significant equipment programme already delivering and we will be making improvements to our cyber and intelligence capabilities well before the next Parliament. Policy changes, particularly innovation and efficiency, will take root immediately, as will international by design.
Let me follow the latter theme. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, drew attention to the UK’s relationship with our most important ally, the United States. The UK and the US have the broadest, deepest, most advanced defence relationship of any two countries. Our collaboration extends across the full spectrum of defence, including intelligence and nuclear co-operation, scientific research and flagship capability programmes. This has continued under the new Administration. The Defence Secretary spoke to US Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, on his first day in office. They had a substantial bilateral in the margins of the February NATO Defence Ministers meeting and teams are looking at a future meeting in the next month. We have shared priorities. President Trump, Vice-President Pence and Secretary Mattis have all confirmed the US commitment to NATO. I am sure that will be welcomed by my noble friend Lord Jopling, whose speech I listened to with particular care and attention.
Similarly, no one can listen to the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, without paying careful attention to his advice. I listened to the noble Lord’s reflections about the UK’s place in the world with great interest and I noted with care the rationale he advanced for establishing a royal commission. However, although eloquently argued, I cannot agree with his characterisation of the UK as a destabiliser nation. Our exit from the EU does not equate to a retreat from the world stage—quite the reverse. The policies that we committed to in the last SDSR will bring us into closer co-operation with a wider range of allies and partners. Brexit does not change that. It reinvigorates—it does not diminish—our capacity to bring stability to the vexing world that he describes.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked about our defence and security relationship with the EU after Brexit. The negotiations with the EU Commission, of course, are yet to commence, but we want to use our tools and privileged position in international affairs to continue to work with the EU on foreign, security and defence policy. Defining the specifics of the UK’s future foreign and security policy relationship with the EU will be an important consideration as we leave.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker, asked about the effect on defence were Scotland to vote for independence after Brexit. I hope he will not be disappointed by the answer I am about to give. The people of Scotland have already voted to remain in the UK. The UK Government continue to be strongly committed to Scotland remaining in the UK, so the MoD is not making any plans for Scottish independence. I can, however, say that the Government are firmly committed to the future of defence in Scotland and its continued vital role in defence. Scotland is home to military bases that provide essential capabilities for the defence of the UK as a whole. It benefits from billions of pounds of MoD contracts placed directly and indirectly with companies which sustain hundreds of jobs and careers.
On the subject of Brexit, I am led to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who referred to our bilateral defence links in Europe, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. The noble Lord asked about Germany. The UK is committed to strengthening its defence and security ties with Germany. Germany is a key ally for us, as recognised in the SDSR, in which Germany was elevated to a tier 1 defence relationship alongside the US and France. Germany has since reciprocated in the publication of its own 2016 defence review. We are enhancing our bilateral co-operation with Germany in the areas of operations, training and equipment. We are seeking to enhance our interoperability as well. We are driving towards closer joint working on innovation and equipment projects—which should, in the case of common aircraft such as Typhoon and A400M, for example, reduce support costs—improving our information sharing and working more closely in other areas such as cyber and capacity-building in countries outside Europe.
Our bilateral links in Europe will grow in importance, as I have said. The UK and France have been bound by mutual security commitments for over 100 years and we are now building an ever closer bilateral defence and security relationship through the 2010 Lancaster House treaties. These recognise that our history, interests, values, challenges and capabilities are so closely aligned and so deeply interlinked that it is the right strategic choice, and plain common sense, to work together to address the security challenges that we face.
As I expected, the noble Lord, Lord West, challenged the Government on the size of the Royal Navy. I entirely understand his perspective—as I do that of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, who spoke on a similar theme—but I do not share it. Not only is our fleet set to grow for the first time since World War II but its high-end technological capabilities will allow it to provide a better contribution and to retain a first-class Navy up to 2040 and beyond.
Lord West of Spithead
I asked the noble Earl whether there would be more ships in the Navy by 2025 or fewer and, after a dialogue, we decided it would be one fewer. So it might be growing in weight but not in numbers.
Earl Howe
It is certainly growing in weight but our ambition is for it to grow in numbers once the Type 31E destroyer comes on stream. We will maintain a destroyer and frigate fleet of at least 19 ships and we will look to increase that number by the 2030s. The Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers will be coming into service and the fleet will also be supported by a capable and renewed tanker fleet, with four new fleet tankers to add to our existing new fast fleet tankers in the short term and three new fleet solid support ships in the longer term. A fleet of up to five offshore patrol vessels will support our destroyers and frigates in delivering routine tasks and enhance our contribution to maritime security and fisheries protection.
The noble Lord, Lord West, asked about carrier capability. The first of our carriers, HMS “Queen Elizabeth”, will enter service in 2018, after which she will conduct flying trials. As he knows, in relation to the situation currently, where he asked about technical issues, there have been a number of issues associated with bringing the ship’s systems on line, but there is sufficient flexibility within the programme to allow us to complete the schedule on time. We still expect HMS “Queen Elizabeth” sea trials to commence in the summer of 2017.
I welcome the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, and the noble Lords, Lord Touhig and Lord West, on the Dreadnought programme. I can tell them that the construction of the first new Dreadnought-class submarines is under way following the contract award announced by the Defence Secretary on 1 October. On 20 December we published the 2016 annual report that updated Parliament on the United Kingdom’s future nuclear deterrent. This was the fifth update and, as with previous reports, it detailed the progress that we have made on the programme and its governance since the last update in the 2015 SDSR.
Also as set out in the SDSR, we are creating a new submarine delivery body for the procurement and in-service support of all nuclear submarines, to stand up in April 2017. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Levene, has concerns about this delivery model. The establishment of the submarine delivery body reflects the Government’s commitment to the nuclear enterprise and the unique scale, complexity and importance of this national endeavour. Its establishment reflects lessons learned from successful capital programmes found elsewhere in government which demonstrate that a dedicated organisation with a single focus can make a major contribution to successful delivery. It will also enable targeted investment to further enhance our performance on procurement and support, building on work taken forward under DE&S transformation.
As an executive agency, the submarine delivery body will have a clear cultural focus on delivering submarine procurement and support, time, cost and quality, and be the sole organisation responsible within the MoD for doing so. That provides for clear lines of accountability and allows us to create a closer relationship between the delivery body and its customers.
I depart from those noble Lords who argue that the deterrent should not feature in the defence vote. If the budget for the deterrent lay elsewhere, it is certain that the MoD budget would go down. However, it surely is right that the MoD pays for the nuclear deterrent as the Royal Navy is responsible for delivering it 24/7, all the year round, and has done so without rest for nearly 50 years.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked what we were doing to promote nuclear disarmament. In February 2016 the UK proposed a programme of work at the conference on disarmament in Geneva with the aim of reinvigorating the conference’s work. The P5 process initiated by the UK brings together nuclear weapon states to build trust and confidence to help develop the conditions which would enable disarmament. Over the coming year we will continue to press for key steps towards multilateral disarmament, including the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and successful negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty in the conference on disarmament.
I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Levene, said about the principles underpinning our approach to defence procurement, and the same applies to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke about the propulsion issues affecting the Type 45 class. There is good news on that front about which I will write to him, and I will write to the noble Lord, Lord West, about Type 31E. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, asked about Plymouth Devonport. The naval service is developing a strategy that will focus on centres of specialisation. This includes an amphibious centre of specialisation in the south-west based around Devonport.
My noble friend Lord Robathan spoke about the importance of maintaining our efforts to recruit into the Armed Forces, in particular into the Regulars, and I agree entirely with his sentiments. I will write to him to flesh out the picture that we are now experiencing, which is on the whole positive as official statistics indicate that intake levels are showing a steady increase. The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked in particular about recruiting into the Reserves. We remain committed to reaching our target of 35,060 trained reservists by 2019 and we are moving fast in that direction. Central to that is an improved offer, including better training, equipment and remuneration along with an improved experience for reservists.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, reminded us compellingly of the threat posed by Russia. Russia is seeking to re-establish itself as a great power. In doing so it has become more aggressive, authoritarian and nationalist, and its risk appetite to take action in pursuing its interests has increased, hence the decisions taken by NATO at the Cardiff and Warsaw summits. My noble friend Lord Jopling asked about our enhanced forward presence in Estonia. The UK will deploy an enhanced forward presence HQ commanded by a colonel and an armoured infantry battle group to Estonia from early next month on an enduring basis. The battle group advance party deployed on 19 March and the main body will deploy in early April. The UK will also deploy a light cavalry squadron to Poland, and that deployment too will be completed next month.
My noble friends Lord King and Lord Robathan and the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Touhig, referred to the importance of cyber. In 2014, GCHQ dealt with 100 cyber national security incidents per month. In 2015 the figure had risen to 200 a month. Each of these attacks damages companies, their customers and the public’s trust in our collective ability to keep their data and privacy safe. The Government recognise that we must take steps to defend our national security in cyberspace as we do in any other domain. We have a substantial budget for this across government and, to co-ordinate properly this whole-nation effort, the Government created the Cyber and Government Security Directorate in the Cabinet Office, which runs the national cyber security programme. We have also announced the creation of a national cyber centre to provide a unified platform to handle cyber incidents.
I cannot do full justice to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, to whom I listened with great respect, but I will write to him. He asked whether we will remain committed to the agreement with Iran. We do remain committed to the full implementation of the joint comprehensive plan of action, often known as the Iran nuclear deal. We will continue to work with the United States on ensuring its implementation. As regards the UK’s contribution to UN deployments, we are increasing our support for UN peacekeeping efforts and we will continue to do so. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, will know, we have current deployments in South Sudan, Somalia, Mali and Cyprus, where we have been patrolling the green line for 50 years.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, spoke about combat immunity, and I thank him for his constructive comments and for his continued and long-standing interest in this matter. As he will be aware, we have said that we will be bringing forward our proposals on combat immunity shortly. We are considering the responses to the Government’s recently concluded consultation, which did not propose specific drafting terms for achieving a policy. He will understand that I cannot pre-empt the process or anticipate what the Queen’s Speech may say, but I can assure him that we share his desire to provide greater clarity on this matter.
My noble friend Lord Astor, in a powerful speech, mentioned Northern Ireland and the issue of investigations currently under way in relation to incidents that took place during the Troubles. There are many of his remarks with which I and the Government, and I am sure many others present on these Benches, would wish to associate themselves. Against that background I can understand his questioning the justice of pursuing criminal cases against members of the military over events that may have taken place more than 40 years ago. It is a matter that concerns the Ministry of Defence, as it concerns him, but I hope he will understand the limitations over what I can say in response to his comments about the specific case he raised of Corporal Major Dennis Hutchings. I understand that the local magistrate in Armagh has today decided not to commit on the charge of attempted murder, but he has committed Corporal Major Hutchings to be tried in the Crown Court on a charge of grievous bodily harm. The case is now before the court and is clearly subject to a process that is independent of the Ministry of Defence and indeed of the Government. That specific case aside, I accept absolutely what my noble friend said about the need for the whole issue of criminal inquiries into conduct during the Troubles to be balanced and that many perceive this currently not to be the case, a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has previously undertaken to work with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that in any proposals he brings forward to deal with legacy matters, there is a fair, balanced and proportionate approach to investigating the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Burnett, asked me a number of questions. I am being reminded that I have overshot the expected time but with the leave of the House I will continue for another couple of minutes. He asked about Sergeant Blackman and what monitoring and assistance is given to a defendant charged with serious offences, such as those Sergeant Blackman faced, at the start of the process. Ensuring that those facing legal proceedings have the appropriate welfare and legal support is a responsibility that the MoD takes extremely seriously. A wide range of welfare support is available to both current and former personnel and these policies are kept under review. For suspects, legal funding for service personnel and veterans facing criminal allegations is provided through the Armed Forces Criminal Legal Aid Authority.
We understand that neither the prosecution nor Sergeant Blackman’s original defence team obtained psychiatric evidence before the start of his court martial, and that no psychiatric evidence was called during the trial itself. The defence did obtain a psychiatric assessment for the purposes of sentencing. In the recent CMAC judgment the court stated:
“If the expert evidence of the psychiatrists and other evidence set out fully at paragraphs 86 to 106 below had been before the court martial, we are in no doubt but that the defence of diminished responsibility would have had to have been left to the Board and that it could have affected their decision to convict”.
The Government have been successful in establishing, both in the European Court of Human Rights and in the civilian courts, that the court-martial system is in principle safe, independent and impartial. The current system of majority verdicts has been considered twice by the Court Martial Appeal Court in the last five years and was on both occasions held to be fair and safe. The Court Martial Appeal Court, which is made up of the same judges as sit in the civilian Court of Appeal, has held that there is no ground for deciding that a verdict by simple majority of the lay members of a court martial is inherently unfair or unsafe.
The rules regarding membership of the court martial focus on and recognise the importance of experience of command and the exercise of service discipline at a sufficiently high level to enable lay members to assess the actions of those who appear before them in the court martial in the appropriate command and disciplinary context. We have seen no evidence that a member of the panel allegedly sent a message to the effect that they had come under intense political pressure to convict. We respect the court’s latest judgment in relation to Sergeant Blackman, which found no basis to criticise the original court martial and indicated that the issues raised at the time were dealt with in an entirely fair and proper manner.
In closing, I thank noble Lords once again for taking part in today’s debate. The message conveyed by noble Lords will not be lost on the Government. As ever, it has been a valuable discussion around some of the most demanding challenges that face our nation today. I am struck by the fact that we all appear to agree on the reality and nature of those challenges. They are the same ones that the Government wrote about in the SDSR 2015. We believe that to meet these challenges we need to strengthen the bonds of co-operation that underpin the rules-based international order. I do not believe that any noble Lord would wish to divert us from that aim. We are doing more to lead and reform NATO; we are intensifying our collaboration with allies and partners in pursuit of our shared objectives; and we are integrating the levers of power across government, so that the UK is more effective in these endeavours. Through Joint Force 2025 we are making defence’s principal contribution to the levers of government —the Armed Forces—more capable, versatile and deployable than ever before. Those programmes, when put together, make a reality of the UK’s vision of being an outward-looking, global force for good, promoting stability, security and prosperity around the world. I beg to move.
Defence and Security
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Howe
That this House takes note of the current challenges to the international rules-based order; the preparedness of the United Kingdom’s Armed Forces and of the NATO Alliance; and the levers available to Her Majesty’s Government to promote this country’s defence and security interests.
Brexit: Gibraltar
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Boswell of Aynho
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their response to the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: Gibraltar (13th Report, HL Paper 116).
Lord Boswell of Aynho (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am delighted to have this opportunity to debate our report and I am hugely grateful to the business managers for making time available at such short notice. This short debate is particularly timely given the presence tonight in the Gallery of the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the honourable Fabian Picardo, who gave eloquent evidence to our inquiry, and the Deputy Chief Minister, the honourable Dr Joseph Garcia. Although I cannot of course direct my remarks formally in their direction, perhaps I may say to the House at large that I hope they found our report constructive and helpful. I underline my committee’s continuing openness to dialogue with the Gibraltarian Government and people.
As our report states very clearly, Gibraltar is part of the European Union and its citizens were able to vote in the referendum last June. Just under 96% of votes cast in Gibraltar were to remain—but Gibraltar, as a dependent territory of the United Kingdom, is now set to leave. In these circumstances, particularly, the United Kingdom Government, I suggest, have a unique moral responsibility to ensure that Gibraltar does not suffer as a result of a Brexit that its people almost unanimously opposed. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that responsibility tonight.
There can be no question that Gibraltar has benefited hugely during our membership of the EU. I say “during” rather than “as a result of” our membership because I do not wish to assert any necessary causality. But we just have to remind ourselves of the position in the 1970s, when Spain was still under the rule of General Franco and the border was closed, to see that Gibraltar today, with its vibrant, service-based economy, is in a far better place. The existence of an open border, which allows more than 10,000 workers—40% of the total workforce in Gibraltar—to cross from Spain every day, is absolutely fundamental to Gibraltar’s long-term prosperity, as it is to that of Andalusia, the neighbouring region of Spain.
We urge the Government here to do everything possible to maintain Gibraltar’s access to that pool of cross-border workers. That will require intense diplomacy with Spain, the European Union institutions and the other 26 member states, which have played an important part in promoting dialogue between Gibraltar and Spain and which have a strong interest in maintaining the prosperity and stability of Gibraltar going forward. That diplomacy will become even more important after our withdrawal, when United Kingdom Ministers have ceased to participate in regular European Council meetings, and have lost that forum for frequent and informal dialogue with their Spanish counterparts.
I do not underestimate the challenges that the Government may face. Some are technical. The Government will need to explore the options in legal terms for maintaining a free-flowing frontier and we flag up the Chief Minister’s suggestion to us that the Local Border Traffic Regulation could provide a suitable basis for this. We also note that in the area of policing, the land frontier becoming part of the European Union’s external border could create difficulties. As in the case of the Irish land border, close co-operation between police forces on both sides of the border and flexible extradition arrangements will be vital.
There are other important issues such as aviation, Gibraltar’s access to the single market in services, particularly financial services, and Gibraltar’s territorial waters. I am sure that other noble Lords will touch on some of these tonight and I look forward to their contributions to this debate. Reaching solutions on these issues, in particular on the vital issue of the border, will require compromises on all sides and I hope that the Minister in responding to this debate will take the opportunity to outline the Government’s approach in more detail than we have heard thus far.
However, on one key issue no compromise is possible. The Government have made a commitment never to enter into sovereignty discussions against the will of the Gibraltarian people, and our Committee fully endorses that commitment. The reaction in Madrid immediately following the referendum was watched closely in Gibraltar and there is always the risk that someone will seek to inflame tensions with a view to their domestic political gain. The United Kingdom Government therefore need to be alert to any attempts by Spain to advance territorial claims over Gibraltar, by whatever means.
I emphasise that the rest of the European Union is potentially a useful ally in this process. The European Union and its member states have invested in Gibraltar. They have a real stake in the stability and prosperity of neighbouring states, and will not take kindly to any attempt by Spain to derail a Brexit deal over Gibraltar. It would be unwise and potentially counterproductive for the Government here to try to play off Spain against the other 26 member states. I hope that the Minister will agree that, as we approach the Article 50 negotiations, the last thing the Government should do is to try to undermine the unified approach of the EU 27. The challenge, in contrast, is to identify common interests and shared practical solutions that will underpin a durable continuing partnership.
Within the United Kingdom that partnership has to be built up across our constituent nations and regions. It needs to embrace Gibraltar, the Crown dependencies and the other British Overseas Territories, which each have a distinctive constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom and European Union. There also needs to be a partnership between the United Kingdom and European Union—that is, the whole European Union, including Spain—if we are to maintain a fruitful relationship for the future. It is important to acknowledge the strong bilateral relationship that the United Kingdom enjoys with Spain and to accept that that relationship should not be seen solely through the prism of the dispute over Gibraltar.
I will end as I began. Our view is that the United Kingdom Government have a unique moral responsibility to ensure that Gibraltar’s voice is heard and its interests respected as we approach Brexit and beyond. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply, in which I hope that she will clearly set out how the Government plan to fulfil that responsibility.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, timings are particularly tight for this 90-minute debate and I therefore request that Back-Bench speeches are wound up as the Clock reaches four minutes, and no later.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the chairman of the EU Select Committee, on the needs of Gibraltar, which must not be overlooked. It has long been popular to invoke the Rock of Gibraltar as a symbol of steadfastness and safety. Now, as a result of Brexit, the Government must strive vigorously to ensure that that massive limestone promontory, the territory that surrounds it and its infrastructure should remain in excellent condition and that the people will thrive.
Greek myths describe the Rock as one of the Pillars of Hercules. In more recent times, we have had 300 years of shared history to uphold after Gibraltar was ceded by Spain in the treaty of Utrecht in 1713. Since then, like the ravens at the Tower of London, the Barbary apes that live on the Rock have often been depicted as legendary guardians of Britain’s political fortunes. Well aware always of the need to boost morale, during the Second World War Winston Churchill was anxious that the apes, whose numbers had fallen as low as seven, were seen to continue to flourish. As the Battle of Arnhem was raging, he sent a message to the Colonial Secretary demanding that action be taken to ensure that the troop of animals on the Rock should total no fewer than 24.
To return to the present day, clearly the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union has raised complex and hugely important issues for the Gibraltarians, who voted by 96% to remain in the EU. Almost immediately, the Spanish Government once more raised the vexed issue of possible joint sovereignty to allow Gibraltar to stay in the EU. However, this was angrily rejected by its Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who characterised it as the generosity of the “predator” towards a wounded prey. Borrowing words from President John F Kennedy’s inaugural speech in 1961, the Chief Minister movingly told the House of Commons Exiting the European Union Select Committee that:
“Gibraltar will pay any price, bear any burden and meet any hardship in the context of ensuring that we have a future that is bright and exclusively British post-Brexit”.
Gibraltar, through no wish of its own, finds itself on the front line of the consequences of our planned exit from the European Union. After Brexit, the UK will have two land borders with the EU: one between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and the other between Gibraltar and Spain. Currently, around 12,000 people cross that Spanish border every day to work in Gibraltar, making up 40% of the workforce there. I strongly support the report’s call for the maintenance of a frontier between Gibraltar and Spain which is as free flowing as possible following Brexit. It emphasises the need for all parties,
“to work together in good faith to reach an agreement that supports ongoing regional cooperation and trade, and avoids undue disruption to the lives of thousands of border residents who cross the frontier daily”.
The report also stresses—the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made this point firmly a moment ago—that the Government of Gibraltar have placed their trust in the UK to negotiate on their behalf. It goes on to state that,
“the UK Government has a moral responsibility to ensure that Gibraltar’s voice is heard, and its interests respected, throughout the Brexit process”.
I believe that Britain’s negotiators must also be vigilant over any attempts by Spain to use the constitutional future of Gibraltar and the issue of sovereignty as a bargaining tool.
EU funding has played an important role in Gibraltar’s development in recent years. Does the Minister agree that there is an urgent need for the Government to clarify what kind of UK financial assistance will be available for projects in Gibraltar after Brexit, especially beyond 2020? After Brexit, can we also be assured that the Government will support opportunities for Gibraltar to benefit from any new trade deals which are negotiated by the UK in the future? In conclusion—I am on my last sentence—I hope the Minister will be able to promise us that in every way possible in the months ahead, the Government’s negotiators will shoulder their historic responsibility and work to secure the best possible outcome for this uniquely patriotic and enterprising British Overseas Territory.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, this is an admirable report, which sets out the key challenges facing Gibraltar after Brexit. The Government of Gibraltar recognise the complexity of the issue and call for a measured, multifaceted and indeed nuanced response. I will make but three observations.
First, any deal following Brexit will carry more risks and be less advantageous for Gibraltar than the status quo—hence the negotiations, in essence, will be about damage limitation. We have, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, stated, a moral responsibility: 96% of the people of Gibraltar voted to remain, and I am puzzled that certain Brexiteers such as Farage, who claim to be Commonwealth men, seem to indicate that they know the interests of Gibraltar better than the Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, and the Deputy Chief Minister. What are the current benefits to Gibraltar, which led to such an overwhelming vote? The UK, as an insider, is its advocate in Brussels and of course in New York; in addition, UKRep is its eyes and ears in Brussels, placating at an early stage proposals which might harm the interests of Gibraltar. Clearly, these two roles will no longer be possible, at least to the current extent, when we are outsiders.
Secondly, what then are the principles on which we should embark on negotiations? Clearly, we have to listen very carefully to the concerns of Gibraltar over the single market, financial services and the border, and keep its Government wholly in touch with developments. To this end, the proposed joint ministerial council must help. We must also make crystal clear to our Spanish colleagues, with whom we otherwise have excellent bilateral relations, that there is no point in their seeking to make life more difficult for Gibraltarians after Brexit, as El País appears to suggest. Indeed, any such action would be counterproductive, as there is no question of the British Government countenancing a change without the agreement of Gibraltar. We also have to ascertain which EU benefits Gibraltar is likely to lose and consider ways and means of replacing them after Brexit. We should also stress the social and economic benefits to both Spain and Gibraltar of a frictionless border and be ready flexibly to search for new structures to facilitate future co-operation.
Thirdly, what are the prospects after Brexit? Who knows the likely spirit of our negotiations with our partners in the European Union? The Prime Minister’s priority is immigration, which is not relevant to Gibraltar, but not the single market, which is. Our aims and interests are best served if we seek to improve our bilateral relationship with Spain, emphasising the mutuality of interest. The heading of the final chapter of the report carries the warning to all of us: “An uncertain future”.
Lord Chidgey (LD)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and his committee on their report, called simply Brexit: Gibraltar. I make no apology for being a friend of Gibraltar, having been a member or officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gibraltar almost since it was established, some 20 years ago.
As a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the other place, I took part in the inquiry that revealed the attempt to pass the sovereignty of Gibraltar to Spain without first engaging with the UK Parliament. I had the privilege to be invited to act as an official observer to the 2002 referendum on whether Gibraltarians wished to remain British and reject joint sovereignty with Spain, in which 98% voted to remain. I have spoken at Gibraltar Day rallies in Casemates Square, addressing crowds of over 20,000 joyous Gibraltarians, fervently displaying their patriotic desire to remain British. Members of our family walked through the Alameda Gardens in the 1920s, watching the Rock Hotel being built. And I have stood beside the statue of the young Gibraltarian family, commemorating the deportation of many thousands of women and children to the UK for their safety during World War II, only for many to find their safe haven turned out to be London. Some were not allowed to return home until long after the war had ended.
Her Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar, have no doubt about the commitment of the UK Government and the British people towards protecting British sovereignty of Gibraltar, in accordance with that 2002 referendum. I agree that it is important, in the present uncertain climate, particularly given recent statements by Spanish Ministers, that this commitment continues to be publicly and robustly restated. Gibraltar has, since the early 18th century, been of great military significance to the UK’s defence strategy, following the ceding of Gibraltar to the UK in perpetuity by the treaty of Utrecht.
While the UK is re-establishing an interest in projecting power east of Suez, access to Gibraltar’s airport and base, the harbour and the underground arsenal is integral to her ability to project power through the Indian and Pacific Oceans and beyond. There are two key issues for Gibraltar: the freedom to provide services and a free-flowing frontier. With regard to services, analysis shows that 90% of her financial services industry relies on trade with the UK. So far, the UK has committed to preserve and underpin the existing access to the UK markets. The UK Government have said they are prepared to look to extending the scope of market access into the UK, and take account of Gibraltar’s priorities, as they negotiate post-Brexit deals around the world.
The Government must ensure that Gibraltar attains the same level of access to the single market as covered in the scope of any trade deal the UK secures. It should be the duty of Parliament to oversee any draft deal that the Government bring back from the negotiating table and to ensure that this condition is met. It will be the duty of Parliament to ensure that the Government stand ready to robustly defend Gibraltar if Spain exerts heavy-handed border controls during the EU negotiations. A fluid border is essential to cater for the movement of cross-frontier workers.
Above all, there must be no attempt to compromise on Gibraltar’s sovereignty. Joint sovereignty was comprehensively rejected in the 2002 referendum by 98% of the population. Parliament must be on its guard to expose any attempt to hand over sovereignty to Spain through the side door while attention is diverted by wider Brexit issues.
Lord Luce (CB)
I declare an interest as a former Governor of Gibraltar and as the current chancellor of the new University of Gibraltar. When I arrived as Governor, exactly 20 years ago this month, one of my tasks was to help and encourage Gibraltar to transform from a defence-oriented economy—although defence remains very important today—to a diversified economy, in which it could be financially more resilient. During that time this has happened. Today we have a resilient, strong economy: tourism, port and bunker services, online gaming and financial services are well regulated and transparent, in conformity with the standards expected by the European Union and the OECD. This transformation is being brought about and led by two notable people: Sir Peter Caruana, the former Chief Minister, and the present Chief Minister, Fabian Picardo, who may be listening to this debate.
Gibraltar has faced many challenges in the past 312 years under British sovereignty; now it faces Brexit. It faces the dangers of Brexit and I therefore welcome this report led by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. It seems to me that there are three issues for Gibraltar. First, there is access to the single market. As we have heard, 90% of the financial services are with the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is the need for the free flow of people and goods on the frontier, with 12,000 people every day going into Gibraltar from Spain, 7,000 of them Spanish, with the EU Commission playing the role of arbitrator regarding the flow of people across the frontier. Thirdly, there is the need for co-operation in security and judicial matters—for example, the European arrest warrant.
Against that background we have this excellent report, published under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I welcome the point that everyone—above all the noble Lord himself—has made, that Her Majesty’s Government have a moral responsibility to the people of Gibraltar. It goes without saying that Her Majesty’s Government must keep up the commitment on sovereignty but, as always, with the backing of this Parliament. However, there are other practical recommendations, such as keeping the UK and Gibraltar as a single state for the purposes of negotiation; suggesting that we should strengthen Gibraltar’s financial and business links with the UK; suggesting that Her Majesty’s Government should underpin EU funding arrangements in the future; and, if the frontier becomes an external one, taking up the Chief Minister’s suggestion of some kind of local traffic management plan that works in other areas.
Our relations with Spain would benefit enormously from collaboration across the frontier, Gibraltar contributing 25% of regional GDP in the local Spanish area and being the second-highest employer in the region of Andalusia. The co-operation is enormous, as are the benefits, so the choice for Spain is quite straightforward: either return to the stale old Francoist bullying and use Gibraltar as a diversion from political problems, or recognise an overall mutual interest of close economic and political relations with the UK against the background of the EU negotiations and the achievements of the previous Spanish socialist Government in collaborating more closely with Gibraltar to the benefit of all in that region—Britain, Spain and Gibraltar. That must now be our aim.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, I endorse all that has been said so eloquently. The report is excellent, but for me it raises a number of questions. The main one concerns the fact that throughout the referendum campaign, and subsequently, we have repeatedly heard statements such as, “We will get a good deal”, and, “We will do this and we will do that”, when in fact we do not hold the power in a lot of this—it will have to be negotiated. Despite urging that we get the best for Gibraltar, I want to be assured that the Government are stress-testing all the scenarios, including the worst-case ones. We owe it to the people of Gibraltar to do that because it was not done in preparation for the referendum itself.
If you look through the eyes of Spain, you find that it is not good enough for us simply to say, “We mustn’t compromise on sovereignty”. What if the Spanish hold out sovereignty, play a long game and say, “We’ll just sit this out. We won’t give equivalence”? What if the EU does not give us equivalent status? What if Spain wants to use sovereignty or cross-border access and frontier issues as a bargaining chip? We cannot simply stand there and say, “Well, you can’t”. I want to know that we are stress-testing this. Who has the power? After all, we have spoken of having a clean Brexit; what if the Spanish take us at our word? That has to be thought through and our response to it considered.
Particular questions are raised here. As I indicated, if the EU declines to give equivalent status after Brexit, what then? What is the cost to the UK, already alluded to in this debate, if Gibraltar is given no access in future to EU programmes? Has that been costed out? In paragraph 29 of the report, we read about the strong economic links to the UK, specifically the City, should the single market be infringed in some way. But what if the City effectively moves to Frankfurt or Paris? We keep saying, “Well, it won’t”, but what if it does? We do not hold all the cards.
Paragraph 36 says that, if access to the single market is restricted,
“the rest of the world beckons”.
So does outer space. It does not mean that we can get what we want. Where is the realism that comes from looking through the eyes of those who do not hold the best interests of the UK as their priority?
Paragraph 50 says that, for Spain to intensify border controls would be regarded as an “aggressive act”. Frankly, why should it not? It did not choose this. I suspect that, if the boot were on the other foot, we might be rather aggressive as well.
I just want to be reassured that these scenarios are being stress-tested in the way that they were not before we went into this business in the first place. We owe it to the people of Gibraltar.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as honorary president of the Friends of Gibraltar. This is a UK-based group which brings together Gibraltarians and others who have lived and served in Gibraltar and who are concerned about keeping in touch with what is going on on the Rock, politically, economically and especially in terms of its history and heritage. I am also a long-standing member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Gibraltar.
As an erstwhile member of the European Union Committee, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Boswell on the way in which he introduced this debate and his committee for its comprehensive, first class report. It succinctly and clearly covers the economic, border and sovereignty issues and the uncertainties resulting from our referendum decision. Although all our overseas territories have been affected in one way or another by Brexit, Gibraltar is the only one in Europe and is most at risk. I had always hoped that, under the umbrella of the European Union, it would have been possible to sort out some of the challenges and issues with Spain which have made life so difficult for Gibraltar in the past.
I also know Spain well and have many friends there. I find it hard to believe that the Spanish Government would try to exert undue pressure and heavy-handed controls during the period of the Brexit negotiations or, indeed, once we are out. I understand the fears. We have all had experience of the past, such as the queues and delays at the border and the airport problems. Let us hope that the newly arrived Spanish ambassador to this country will be watching or at least listening to this debate and the signals it sends out.
I welcome in particular the setting up of the dedicated joint ministerial council, and I trust that it will ensure, to some extent, a less uncertain feeling about the future for Gibraltarians. I hope that it will also give the Government of Gibraltar the realisation that the United Kingdom Government are giving Gibraltar a special place and space in the negotiations.
As has already been said, the key issue for Gibraltar is access to the single market and services, as well as the border issues and air flights. If a week is a long time in politics, two years gives us an opportunity to use ingenuity, imagination and circumstances as they change to find a solution. This has to be the main concern of the joint ministerial council. If the Minister could give us more information as to the council’s agenda, that would be very welcome.
My special interest in Gibraltar started when, after the first direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979, as a newly elected MEP, I was asked to be one of a small cross-party group to keep an eye on Gibraltar’s interests. That was when Sir Joshua Hassan was First Minister, and the late Lord Bethell led the group. At that time, the big issue for Gibraltarians was voting rights to the European Parliament. Eventually, a solution was found. I hope that those MEPs who benefit from Gibraltarian votes are also looking to protect Gibraltar’s interests.
It seems to me that anyone who knows Gibraltar loves Gibraltar and its people, and that must augur well for the future. Loyalty should be repaid by loyalty.
Lord Hoyle (Lab)
I am very pleased indeed to follow the noble Baroness: I know what a firm friend indeed she is of Gibraltar. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for an excellent report. It gives us this opportunity to ensure that the needs of Gibraltar are not forgotten.
First, I must declare an interest in Gibraltar: an interest of which I am very proud. I am a freeman of Gibraltar. I announce that with great pride here tonight. I am not suggesting for a moment that the Government have forgotten or will forget Gibraltar; nevertheless, it is essential that we put the case here tonight and keep reminding them that Gibraltar is part of the negotiation, as well as us.
When we say that 96% of them voted to remain in Europe in 2016, we must not forget that in 2002, 98% voted to stay with us in Britain. They made their position very clear: yes, they want to remain and have access to the European market if that is possible, but, above all else, they want to remain with us. They are remarkable people. When we think about it, it is not long ago that they were totally dependent on defence. They have now turned around the economy so they are no longer dependent just on defence; financial services are very important to them. Some 90% of those depend on access to the British market, but we must not forget the other 10% which are very important to Gibraltar.
It cannot be repeated often enough that the border is essential to the economy. It has been said—but there is nothing wrong in repeating it—that every day 12,000 people cross the border to work in Gibraltar, 7,000 of whom are Spanish citizens. Gibraltar is the second biggest contributor to the GDP of the neighbouring region of Spain. So it is of great benefit to the Spanish people and the adjoining region. Emphasising that is very important.
We have been talking about the economy, but let us not forget that every year 10 million people visit Gibraltar, and many of them come across that border. When we are having discussions with Spain—we have been good friends and allies of theirs—it is right that we put that point to them. We have heard that they have said—I do not know quite what this means and the Minister may explain it to me—that waving a passport will not be sufficient. If producing a passport is not sufficient, what are they talking about? Are they talking about limited visas? That is why this debate is essential.
I will finish by saying that the people of Gibraltar have always been good friends of the country. They want to remain in this country and we must not let them down in our negotiations on Brexit.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, the Gibraltar quagmire is easy to define but mighty difficult to resolve. The cocktail of complexities is varied and impacts on all participants, including the challenges of a determined Madrid, the time immemorial socialist province of Andalusia and that mother of all complexities, the Brexit negotiations; they combine to defy easy resolution.
I see one of five possible alternatives. First, the tempting old adage, “When in doubt, do nothing” seems in the circumstances unsustainable and should be discounted. Secondly, we could revisit 2004 when the El País editorial of the tercentenary, advocating the benefits of tripartite talks, were given more credence as both Madrid and London then hosted socialist Governments. Thirdly, we could bring balance to the table and recognise that there is indeed a fourth participant of equal standing to the people of Gibraltar: namely the people of Andalusia. Fourthly, we could constitute confidence-building initiatives resulting from regular civil society-led discussions, possibly with bilateral members as observers.
Red lines should be removed to allow co-operation through civil society to take centre ground to define and develop mutually beneficial goals and objectives. An important consideration is that discussions and decisions should reflect the wishes of the people most affected. Consent is key. The status quo is not an option now that the Brexit negotiations are about to begin. After all, as has been said throughout this evening, 96% voting to remain does suggest a willingness to engage. While first and foremost it is clearly for the people of the region to decide, I firmly believe that Gibraltar’s future long-term prosperity must be rooted in mutually beneficial regional co-operation.
Might I then suggest that the centre ground of Seville be a convenient location for talks, and possibly also an ideal location for a long-overdue Gibraltar representative office? A view held in certain quarters among Spanish politicians has suggested that sovereignty need not be on the table. Rather, matters including the environment, free exchange of financial information and police co-operation—from terrorism to drugs—were considered more essential. Some time ago it had been agreed that access to medical assistance was on the table, including reciprocal recipient and donor transplant exchange using Andalusian hospitals.
Interestingly, the socialist parliamentary group in the Cortes, the Congress of Deputies, through its deputy for the province of Cadiz, presented on 9 March just past a non-legislative proposal in relation to the commercial customs checkpoint at La Línea de la Concepción and the non-commercial frontier checkpoint with Gibraltar. This will be submitted to debate and vote in the Committee for Foreign Affairs and Co-operation, possibly as early as next week. If it passes that hurdle, it could proceed to a vote and possible adoption by the Cortes as a whole. This is a development inviting close scrutiny and continued interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, might wish to consider forwarding his committee’s report to Spanish local and national officials most exercised with Gibraltar, including the Parliaments in Madrid and Seville. Engagement, after all, is everything at this critical juncture. I have little doubt that HMG recognise the anomalies and possible complicating consequences of the country at large voting to leave. HMG will not wish to have their overall Brexit negotiation strategy frustrated but will also not wish to be held hostage to this complex issue. Positive results can come from dialogue and could divert looming dark clouds.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, and his committee for this excellent report on the challenges facing Gibraltar—and the UK—after the decision to leave the European Union. As the report says—I quote from the summary—
“Negotiating on Gibraltar’s behalf, the UK Government will be responsible for ensuring that Gibraltar’s voice is heard, and its interests respected, throughout the Brexit process. The UK also has a responsibility to support Gibraltar in benefiting from any opportunities that arise following Brexit, including by participating in any new international trade deals”.
My interest in Gibraltar stems from having helped the Gibraltar Defence Police a number of years ago to come to a happier place when it was being threatened—I use the word advisedly—at that time with a merger with the Royal Gibraltar Police, in itself a seemingly reasonable move. Unfortunately, it was anything but, and was being handled appallingly by our own MoD and the commander-in-chief on the Rock at that time. Fortunately, a change of Government in Gibraltar, and a change of personnel at the highest level—plus some timely and much-welcome advice—helped calm things down and a few years later we found an amicable move towards the merging of the two forces, which undertake different duties, to the mutual satisfaction and benefit of the security of Gibraltar and its citizens.
I mention this as Gibraltar is a dependent territory of the UK, as the report says. We have an absolute responsibility and a fundamental duty to ensure its security—militarily and economically—once we leave the EU. Chapter 3 of the report talks about the frontier with Spain. As we have heard, this is one of the most important areas we have to address. Gibraltar’s strategic location affords the Royal Navy unique naval intelligence, including the ability to monitor nuclear-capable submarines, which is crucial for our contribution to NATO. Spain has consistently sought to detract from Gibraltar’s military role, especially as it provides services to the US and NATO, and believes it is better placed to control the Strait of Gibraltar than the UK, and so displace the UK’s strategic role in the region. Spain encroaches on British Gibraltar territorial waters frequently and this poses a very real threat to our global military and strategic interests.
Brexit also poses an enormous challenge to the economic status quo in Gibraltar. As we have heard, at present more than 12,000 people cross the border daily for work, making up 40% of the entire Gibraltar workforce. As noted in paragraph 48 of the report, any arbitrary closing of the border will cause enormous harm, and an abrupt exit from the single market—which this Government seem intent on inflicting—will have dire consequences for Gibraltar, with an immediate 10% loss of business. We must consider the needs of the Government and residents of Gibraltar, who have put their trust and loyalty in the UK. We have an absolute moral duty to do that, as the report states in paragraph 110. At the moment, Gibraltar is fearful of the future, as there is absolutely no clarity on how we will actually leave the EU. If the Government persist in telling us that they cannot divulge their negotiating stance, how does that help Gibraltarians? Do they have to spend the next few years wondering what their future will be?
Given the issues we face, we must ensure a smooth and productive working relationship between the Governments of the UK and Gibraltar. This report highlights with utter clarity the realities of this need and I commend it wholeheartedly. We must recognise the inextricable bonds between the people of the UK and the people of Gibraltar, whether at the governmental, military or community level. Our histories are intertwined and we must redouble our efforts to ensure that our futures remain so.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest, albeit one lost in the mists of time and, indeed, outside the timeframe covered by the excellent report which we are debating this evening. A little over 45 years ago, I was part of the team which negotiated the terms of the UK’s—and thus Gibraltar’s—accession to the European Communities. In truth, we got a Goldilocks deal for Gibraltar: outside the customs union, exempted from the requirement to introduce a value added tax and inside what became, over the years, the biggest single market in the world. That deal has stood the test of time, which is attested to by the fact that 96% of Gibraltarians voted to remain last June. To complete my declaration of interests, some 35 years ago I was sent to Madrid by Lord Hurd of Westwell—then Minister for Europe at the FCO—to persuade the Spanish Government that they needed to open their border with Gibraltar if there was to be any chance of their EU accession treaty being ratified by this Parliament. The Spanish Government were so persuaded, and the border was reopened.
This declaration of interests is no vanity project. It reflects the reality, recognised by the Gibraltarians themselves, that Britain’s—and thus their—membership of the EU has been the basic cornerstone of their prosperity today. That cornerstone is, alas, about to be removed. I do not know whether those who campaigned for Britain to leave the EU really understood what their success might mean for Gibraltar. Given that many of them are among the most vociferous parliamentary supporters of Gibraltar, if they did understand then this was a shameful act of betrayal. But let us give them the benefit of the doubt: they acted in ignorance. They threw Gibraltar under the wheels of that infamous battle bus, without having a clue what they were doing. They broke it, and we own it.
What can be done? Well, there is no doubt what would be best for Gibraltar—that is, the status quo. But the status quo is not on offer, because Gibraltar’s status depends on the UK’s status. If noble Lords do not believe that, they should read the treaties of Utrecht and of Rome and our own accession treaty. We are set to become a third country in 2019—and Gibraltar’s border with Spain is set to become an external border of the EU, with all that implies. The Prime Minister has stated that she excludes the possibility of Britain remaining in the single market.
So what can be obtained for Gibraltar from an EU shorn of our membership? That remains to be seen in the negotiations about to begin but—in one of those superbly British understatements—the report we are debating, in paragraph 111, states:
“We note, however, that Spanish opposition may present an insuperable barrier to any perceived special treatment for Gibraltar”.
There you have it; the report did not need to say a word more than that. I wish the Government well in their endeavours to save something from this unintended shipwreck, but I do not envy them. Next time the Foreign Secretary makes one of his “sunlit uplands” speeches about Brexit, or says that it will be perfectly okay if there is no deal, he might first take a look towards the Rock of Gibraltar—at the dark clouds gathering there, caused by the very success of his own endeavour to remove us from the European Union.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, this report made for fascinating reading. So often in the debate that has engulfed this place and another place, we are told of the importance of keeping a soft border on the island of Ireland. However, Gibraltar is, as the Under-Secretary of State in DExEU said, “part of the British family”. I was gladdened to see the Under-Secretary travel over to Gibraltar recently to restate his commitments.
Ensuring the softest possible border between Gibraltar and Spain must remain a priority of the Government, and I am pleased to see them take it seriously. The Spanish Government have used Brexit as another opportunity to call for joint sovereignty over the Rock, but I repeat again the words of the Treaty of Utrecht, which cedes to the Crown,
“the full and entire propriety of the town and castle of Gibraltar, together with the port, fortifications, and forts thereunto belonging; and he”—
the Catholic king—
“gives up the said propriety to be held and enjoyed absolutely with all manner of right for ever”.
This report covers a number of important points. I welcomed the submission by the Government that EU funding commitments would be guaranteed by the Treasury until 2020. However, given that the final deal, if there is one, will come into force at roughly the same time, I would wish to see a more long-term commitment, perhaps until 2025, in order to start, post Brexit, with a clearer base and offer more certainty.
As I have called for before in relation to arts funding here, this report is refreshingly clear on the risks faced by Gibraltar especially from any cliff-edge removal from the single market. This should further focus minds on the importance of having a short-term transitional deal, about which both the Secretary of State for DExEU and the Prime Minister have signalled in favour. The fundamental point is that Gibraltarians were given a vote in the referendum and are being brought out despite being the most pro-remain voting district. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that Gibraltar does not suffer lies with the Government. If its access to the single market is limited and prosperity is threatened, the Government should be prepared to further open up the British single market to ease financial pressure. In any case, the vast majority of Gibraltar’s business in the single market is with the UK.
The border with Spain is already fairly hard, given that Gibraltar is out of the Schengen zone and the customs union. It should be borne in mind that people having the freedom of movement to work in industries such as financial services and online gaming remains an abiding concern. If Spain were to make it harder for Spanish citizens to go to well-paid, secure jobs in Gibraltar, that would be an act of extreme pettiness, but it should not be ruled out. However, it would be surprising, given the ameliorating tone that Spanish diplomats and their Prime Minister have taken, calling for “calm” and “good negotiations” with reference to Article 8 of the Treaty on European Union.
Overall, I welcome the assurances given by the Government on funding and keeping sovereignty with the Crown, and I think that the focus of this report on negotiating as a single state with no bilateral Spanish talks is sensible, as is the rejection of a microstate-style status. The Government ought to bear in mind their responsibility to Gibraltar, and I have all confidence that they will.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I first visited Gibraltar by sea in September 1948 and have done so dozens of times since, and I know it well. I intend to speak only on the military significance of Gibraltar to the United Kingdom, the United States and NATO in this troubled and ever more chaotic and dangerous world.
Gibraltar commands one of the world’s seven key strategic global choke points for maritime trade. It is a southern outpost of Europe facing the north African littoral, from which we are able to monitor all surface and sub-surface traffic through the strait, and it is important in tension and war but also in combating terrorism. One thousand miles closer to the Mediterranean, the Middle East, the South Atlantic and the West Indies than the United Kingdom, its strategically important location has proved invaluable for three centuries.
With large dry docks, as well as oil fuel and ammunition storage supported by air links to the UK, its maintenance capability has proved of crucial importance on numerous occasions. Gibraltar’s naval docks and storage facilities are important today, with British and US nuclear submarines frequently visiting the Z-berths. Indeed, the US would like to make more use of Gibraltar, preferring it for security reasons to Rota, but it is constrained by the Spanish attitude to such visits.
Gibraltar’s position makes it important in combating Islamic terrorism based in the Sahel or north African littoral. It is also a useful base from which to conduct trials and training in rather more benign sea conditions than are found around the western UK. Our military presence on the Rock has been reduced to a minimum but is sufficient to ensure maintenance of sovereignty. Having said that, I believe that the Gibraltar squadron boats need to be rather more powerful and heavier, so possibly should be enhanced.
The constant infringement of Gibraltar’s territorial seas by Spanish vessels is completely inexcusable, not least as she is a NATO ally. It is to be hoped that Brexit will not be used as a reason to heighten tensions, because it is extremely dangerous when you do that sort of thing: things can escalate and go beyond what anyone wanted.
In purely military terms, Gibraltar and its brave, resolute people are important to the security and stability of our nation and NATO in this very dangerous world.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, who, I notice, has been engaged in something of a marathon with this, his second speech this evening.
I first went to Gibraltar in 1949 as a teenager with my father, and I have been going there ever since. I very much admired the report produced by the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, as well as his very valuable speech at the beginning of this useful debate. I am a vice-chairman of the Anglo-Gibraltar parliamentary group, of which I am proud to be a member.
Gibraltar, as we all know, has a special position as part of the European Union—but, as we also know, is set to leave. It is staunchly British in its support of the United Kingdom and is a thriving centre of excellence, despite Spain’s constant interference and incursions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, mentioned. It is abundantly clear that during the Brexit negotiations and post Brexit we must publicly and effectively support Gibraltar in all the situations that may arise in which that will be necessary, including continuing threats from Spain. The Government have, I am glad to say, promised again and again to do so, and they must carry out their promise. That is something that others have said, and I just follow.
I would also like to speak briefly about something completely different—the Criminal Finances Bill, which I think has its Committee stage next week. Gibraltar, which is potentially affected by it, is happy with the intentions of the Bill, but is understandably concerned about possible amendments. Some were tabled in the Commons, but fortunately they were unsuccessful.
Gibraltar has a commitment to transparency in the financial services sector, and is used as an example for other jurisdictions. It is committed to the central register of beneficial ownership under the EU anti-money laundering directive; it works closely with the United Kingdom Government on financial issues; it has an excellent record on the exchange of information, recognised by the OECD; and it has the same rating on that as the United Kingdom. I am sure that we in this House all hope that Gibraltar will remain a strong financial centre, whatever may happen in the future.
I must therefore tell Members of this House that it is very important that inappropriate amendments, which are being suggested by some Members, should not be allowed to have any adverse implications for Gibraltar. This measure must not be allowed to be to the detriment of Gibraltar. I therefore ask your Lordships to watch what any amendments tabled to the Criminal Finances Bill actually say. We must be sure that they are not passed—because if they are, there will be an opportunity for Spain to denigrate Gibraltar’s financial services, which would obviously be to the detriment of Gibraltar. We must not allow Spain that opportunity.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, and his committee for their excellent report. In referring to our obligations toward Gibraltar, I shall talk briefly about the sovereignty question and how it connects to certain obvious economic priorities, yet how both matters together perhaps call for a new approach and structure, which we should now start to devise.
On sovereignty, the key aspect is the preference of the Gibraltarian people. They are fiercely loyal to the United Kingdom. Post Brexit that is still the position, although, as has already been said, 96% supported the case for the UK to remain in the EU. Correctly, the report endorses the UK Government’s view. This is to reject Spain’s proposal for joint sovereignty as the only way for Gibraltar to retain its relationship with the EU—for it does not want joint sovereignty.
This, of course, sets the main theme, which is that of principle and the expression of democratic will. Clearly these transcend economic and other issues. Nor in any case are they necessarily even inconsistent with other considerations. Democracy and human rights also form the priorities of the affiliation of 47 member states, including Spain, of the Council of Europe—of which the UK, post Brexit, remains an important member. Does my noble friend the Minister therefore agree that it is within this simultaneous context of principle and mutual practical advantage that dialogue and understanding between the UK and Spain should now be progressed?
There is also the need to protect sovereignty, not just immediately but in the long term. The report draws attention to that distinction, and to Gibraltar’s later vulnerability when, post Brexit, the UK is “out of the room”. In view of this, what steps will the Government take under international law to help prevent the undermining of Gibraltar’s future preferences?
No doubt economic anxiety will persist for as long as it takes new deals to be struck. Yet does my noble friend concur that there are a few commitments which, if now given by our Government, would serve considerably to reduce Gibraltar’s current plight of economic uncertainty? Such are also recommended by the report.
First, there should be clarification of what future UK-based funding beyond 2020 can be accessed by Gibraltar if it should not be able to benefit from EU programmes after Brexit. Secondly, arising from our moral duty towards it, emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and others, there should be an undertaking that, post Brexit, any new international trade deals for us will also be designed to benefit Gibraltar. Thirdly, there should be an early and timely negotiation with Spain jointly to endorse the local border traffic regulation, EC 1931/2006, and as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, so guarantee the movement of labour between Spain and Gibraltar, in which regard Spain, Andalusia and the Campo de Gibraltar region stand to gain along with Gibraltar itself.
Then there is a much wider priority shared by Spain and the UK: joint co-operation on security and policing reflecting the importance of the European arrest warrant, to which the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has referred, and which prevents those wanted for crimes from escaping justice by crossing the EU’s external border, in either direction.
Does my noble friend concur that detailed government attention to these various matters, as advocated by the report and as strongly supported by many of us today, would in itself help a great deal to construct a new and lasting framework, within which our responsibilities can be discharged, good practice advanced and Gibraltar’s sovereignty and economy best protected?
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, who spoke with his customary acumen and clarity. I remind the House that I am a member of the EU Select Committee. I start by thanking the Select Committee staff for the sustained high quality of their output. I note that this was the 11th Brexit report, which now number 15, that has been produced since 24 June last year, with more in the pipeline. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his leadership of the EU committee structure and his continued and continuous good humour.
I want to make just three brief comments tonight. The first relates to the context of the report, and in particular the special nature of the relationship between citizens of the UK and those of Spain. I dare say that there are many here tonight who have, as I have, a long history of enjoyable experience of both business and leisure in Spain. While I hang no argument on that, this proximity is borne out by the numbers: 310,000 UK citizens live in Spain and 125,000 Spaniards live in this country. In addition, there was much evidence in our inquiry of this citizen engagement, not just the economic interdependence described by many noble Lords tonight but friendliness at the citizen level, including that described in paragraph 58 for instance: unofficial and commendable police and customs co-operation. It would be a travesty if politicians mucked this up and a great detriment to many lives. Can the Minister confirm that this citizen-led warmth will be hammered home during the Brexit discussions?
The second area that I want to touch briefly on is the way in which the Gibraltarians are approaching matters. In evidence, we met three in person, including the Chief Minister and the Deputy Chief Minister, who are here tonight. Other Gibraltarians gave us written evidence. Their contributions were without exception measured, constructive and helpful, while remaining strong in advancing Gibraltar’s position. It would be very helpful if the Minister recognised that and confirmed that the Government will maintain their current level of engagement with Gibraltar during the Brexit process.
My third and final point concerns the local border traffic regulation. In our report we discuss this from paragraph 62 onwards and describe it in detail in box 1 and appendix 3. In the time available for our inquiry, we were not able to take any evidence on how such agreements are working elsewhere. However, our staff did reference a 94-page report, a copy of which I have with me, published in November 2012, and the news is good. The report, Ex Borea Lux?, on cross-border co-operation on the EU’s eastern border, was prepared by the Institute for Stability and Development and funded by the Finnish and Norwegian Governments. It details the experience of a number of successful situations where local border traffic agreements have been concluded, particularly between Finland and Russia and Poland and Russia. Will the Minister comment on the use of this regulation as a potential route to consider for the Gibraltar/Spain land border post Brexit?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his excellent introduction and for the excellent report of your Lordships’ sub-committee. I also welcome the Chief Minister, the Deputy Chief Minister and other representatives from Gibraltar who are here tonight.
My first visit to Gibraltar was in 1984, just prior to Spain fully reopening the border. I was there to meet T&G representatives of the 6,000 Moroccan workers who were then critical in maintaining the economy of Gibraltar. As we have heard, over recent decades the development of Gibraltar’s economy has been underpinned by access to the EU single market and the pool of more than 10,000 workers who cross daily into Gibraltar.
However, what matters most to Gibraltar, and will do in the future, is access to the UK market for its services. Britain and Spain have a mutual interest in good relations. We invest and trade with each other on a huge scale. According to a leaked report to El País from the Spanish Brexit commission, the UK’s departure from the EU will leave Spain hugely exposed economically, with tourism and the food, pharmaceutical and automotive industries being hit the hardest, together with the innumerable repercussions for the hundreds of thousands of Britons who live in Spain and the hundreds of thousands of Spaniards in the UK. I declare an interest as one of those citizens is my husband.
I hope the committee’s aspirations for all parties to work together positively and pragmatically to secure an agreement that reflects all their economic interests will be the primary factor in negotiations, rather than what Spanish sources allegedly told El País, which was simply not to do mutual damage. The framework behind the Brexit negotiations must be the absolute commitment of the UK Government never to enter into sovereignty discussions against the will of the Gibraltar people.
In their White Paper on Brexit, the Government said that Gibraltar’s interests and priorities will be expressed and understood through the new joint ministerial council. At the conclusion of its second meeting held only a few weeks ago, the Minister, Robin Walker, promised to continue engagement with Gibraltar throughout the negotiations. It is vital that the people of Gibraltar have confidence in that process and that its Government are fully involved. Will the Minister give us more detail on the engagement process once Article 50 has been triggered next week? What priority will be given to Gibraltar in the Government’s formal notice to trigger Article 50? Will the Gibraltarian Government be part of the negotiation team when matters affecting them are considered?
EU membership has seen police and judicial co-operation. What priority will the Government give to this in the negotiations to ensure that the border with Spain cannot again be exploited by those seeking to evade justice? As my noble friend Lord West said, we should not forget the military importance of Gibraltar and its brave and resolute people for the security and stability of the dangerous world in which we now live.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, for tabling this debate. I also thank the European Union Committee for its report, Brexit: Gibraltar, which provides a valuable analysis of the opportunities and challenges presented to Gibraltar by the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. The Department for Exiting the European Union is considering the findings of the report and will publish its response in the coming months—I hope sooner rather than later. I also thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has been fascinating.
As noble Lords will know, my honourable friend Robin Walker, the Member for Worcester and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Exiting the European Union, appeared before the committee in February of this year to discuss the extensive engagement with the Government of Gibraltar that has taken place since the referendum. We remain steadfast in our support of Gibraltar, its people and its economy—the referendum has not changed that—and we have committed to fully involve Gibraltar to ensure that its priorities are properly taken into account as we prepare to leave the EU. It is, as the report rightly notes, the Government’s responsibility to ensure this, and I can reassure noble Lords that it is a responsibility that we take very seriously. I wish in particular to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, on that point.
This is demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister met the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on the day she took office, and has had regular engagement since. As a number of your Lordships pointed out, the Government have established a new joint ministerial council for Gibraltar which is chaired by the Member for Worcester. It brings together Ministers from the UK Government and the Government of Gibraltar to discuss the opportunities and the challenges presented by EU exit. The first meeting took place on 7 December and the second on 1 March 2017, with both DExEU and FCO Ministers taking part alongside the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Deputy Chief Minister and the Attorney-General. I know that the honourable Mr Picardo, his deputy and the Gibraltarian Attorney-General are taking a keen and tangible interest in these proceedings. Perhaps I may also say what a pleasure it was to meet them earlier this evening.
There has been a wide range of other engagements with the Government of Gibraltar at both official and ministerial level. The Secretary of State for International Trade met with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar on Monday to discuss the valued links between our economies, and just last week the Parliamentary Under-Secretary visited Gibraltar to get a first-hand view of its unique context and to speak to representatives from across its thriving economy, from the business community to the trade unions. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar said of the visit that it,
“symbolised the relationship that exists between the Governments of Gibraltar and the UK, and is a clear reflection of the real action there is on the real pledge that Gibraltar would be fully involved in exiting the European Union”.
Mr Picardo also said that Gibraltar has had access to the highest levels of the UK Government and believes that that access will continue. I hope that that reassures your Lordships, not least the noble Lord, Lord Collins, who expressed a particular interest in how this process is working. I hope that it demonstrates that this is not just a close but an informed relationship.
Through our engagement with the Government of Gibraltar we have built an understanding of Gibraltar’s particular priorities in the EU exit. We welcome this report as an important contribution to that process and we are pleased with its finding that the Government of Gibraltar have been satisfied with the UK Government’s engagement to date. Let me reassure the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that we very much welcome that relationship. It is positive and it is important.
Let me turn now to some of the issues and priorities raised both in the report and by noble Lords over the course of this debate. Perhaps not surprisingly, the economy featured consistently. There are challenges and opportunities which EU exit presents to Gibraltar’s economy. Gibraltar is rightly proud of the strong economy it has built for itself. It has the fourth highest GDP per capita and the second lowest unemployment rate in the world. The committee heard how Gibraltar’s economy has been transformed in recent decades from one dominated by military spending to a thriving and resilient economy based on financial services, tourism and commercial port services. That is testament to the hard work, creativity and ingenuity of all Gibraltarians. If I may say so, it is testament also to that vision of 20 years ago conceived by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, to whom I pay tribute.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, with some justification, described Gibraltar’s position in the EU as a “Goldilocks deal”. I do not disagree; it is a fairly accurate description. But I also observe that the UK has been an important support and bolster in that relationship. The UK remains and Gibraltar remains—and with that tandem of talent I am unable to share the pessimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.
On market access, the report highlights the strong links between the economies of Gibraltar and the UK, particularly when it comes to financial services. For example, as others mentioned, 20% of UK car insurance policies are underwritten in Gibraltar and around 90% of Gibraltar’s trade is with the UK. The Government are clear that we should work together to maintain and strengthen these economic bonds after we leave the European Union. When it comes to financial services it is important that the strong mechanisms already underpinning Gibraltar’s access to the UK market are enshrined in UK law. That is worth remembering. The Government’s clear intention is to maintain that access.
We have also agreed that, together with the Government of Gibraltar, we will take into account the priorities of Gibraltar and the other overseas territories as the UK looks to establish new trade and investment opportunities with the wider world. This is a very important aspect of what lies ahead. The Secretary of State for International Development confirmed this position to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar during their meeting yesterday. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that we approach these matters positively. It was an issue to which my noble friend Lord Dundee also referred.
On the issue of access, the Government have been clear that Britain is seeking a new, strong partnership with the European Union: a partnership that maintains the close relationship we have with member states and builds further on them for both the UK and Gibraltar. Although we are not seeking to maintain membership of the single market, this agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between the UK and EU member states. The Government are confident that if we approach these upcoming negotiations in a spirit of good will, we can deliver a positive outcome that works for all, including Gibraltar. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, raised a somewhat technical issue to which I confess I do not have the answer: I apologise for that. I undertake to write to her to provide clarification. I noted her concern about what possible amendments to the Criminal Finances Bill might mean and I will ensure that we look at that.
A number of issues were raised in relation to EU funding. My noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Dundee wanted to know what lies ahead, post Brexit. I am afraid that that is not something I can comment on in detail; it is too early to say what the position of Gibraltar and the other overseas territories may be in regard to such funding, but we will continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar to understand their concerns in this important area.
Not surprisingly, many contributors referred to the issue of the Gibraltar-Spain border. We recognise the importance of a well-functioning border to the economy, as well as to the surrounding Spanish region and to the thousands of Spanish workers who cross the border every day. We are clear that politically motivated delays are unacceptable. They cause serious problems for people on both sides of the border and we stand ready to work with the Government of Gibraltar and the Government of Spain to ensure that the border continues to function well after we leave the European Union. We approach these negotiations with good faith and determination and in a spirt of good will.
A number of contributors raised points and I hope that I have answered them. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made the point about the importance of the border very powerfully, as did my noble friend Lord Suri and others. The issue of the Local Border Traffic Regulation was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Boswell, Lord Luce and Lord Hoyle, my noble friend Lord Dundee and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. The UK Government are working with the Government of Gibraltar to consider all options on the crucial issue of the border. As the committee noted in its report, the Local Border Traffic Regulation would, of course, require commitment from Spain.
The noble Lord, Lord Luce, also raised the issue of police and judicial co-operation, as did my noble friend Lord Dundee. That is a very important area. We have been clear that we will do what is necessary to keep our people safe. One of the 12 objectives for the negotiations ahead is to seek a strong and close relationship, with a focus on operational and practical cross-border co-operation, to fight crime and terrorism.
By way of encouragement I can say that there have been some very good examples of how that partnership with Spain and Gibraltar has been working. Spanish and Gibraltarian agencies often co-operate to tackle issues such as drug smuggling. In January of this year, approximately €4 million-worth of cannabis was seized in a joint operation on the waters. So there is a mutuality of interest in trying to make these positive arrangements continue.
The issue that came out of the debate perhaps more cogently than any other was that of sovereignty. A number of noble Lords referred to this. I want to reiterate that the UK has reaffirmed its double-lock sovereignty commitment to Gibraltar. We will never enter into arrangements by which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will we enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content. We will, in short, continue to stand beside Gibraltar and its people. That is the metaphorical foundation of the Rock. My noble friend Lord Selkirk made a colourful analogy when he equated the steadfastness of the Rock with the steadfastness of our relationship with Gibraltar and its people. I could not have put it better.
I am conscious of time, which is a pity as there are important issues here that I wanted to cover. The noble Lord, Lord West, asked about the strategic significance of Gibraltar in relation to defence and free maritime passage. If he will permit it, I will write to him in fuller detail on the points that he raised. Questions were also asked about the general intentions of Spain. My colleague, my noble friend Lady Hooper, made a very helpful comment in that respect, echoed by others, that is that there is a mutuality of interest in the negotiations for both Spain and the UK. That has been reiterated by the Spanish Government. The indications are that they wish to take a pragmatic and constructive approach. The Prime Minister of Spain has said that he is confident that the Government in Madrid are sitting squarely behind the objective of achieving a positive relationship between the UK and the EU after Brexit.
In conclusion, this has been an important and interesting debate, with many positive and helpful suggestions. I am sorry that I have not been able to deal in detail with all the points raised by noble Lords. I would like to end on a note of optimism. I was aware that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, is currently Chancellor of the University of Gibraltar. I had a look at its motto: “Scientia est Clavis ad Successum”. I know that noble Lords are all scholars of Latin and do not require a translation, but it is simple: “Knowledge is the key to success”.
I suggest that knowledge by the UK of what Gibraltar and the Gibraltarian people need, knowledge of what our EU partners wish to achieve and their knowledge of what we seek to achieve make a good starting point for how we embark on these vital negotiations. If we approach these matters based on knowledge, all will benefit. The UK will benefit—and if the UK benefits, Gibraltar, too, will benefit.