House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Speaker
Colleagues, in respectful memory of those who lost their lives in yesterday’s attack, and of all the casualties of that attack, we shall now observe a minute’s silence.
The House observed a one-minute silence.
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
As we begin our questions today, it is appropriate that we recommit ourselves to the values that this Parliament represents. Those who carry out such wicked and depraved actions as we saw yesterday can never triumph in our country. We must ensure that it is not violence, hatred or division, but decency, goodness and tolerance that prevail in our country.
The United Kingdom and Israel have a strong and important trading relationship, with nearly £5 billion in bilateral trade last year. We will continue to liaise closely on strengthening our trading links, including in important sectors such as medical research and development. The Life Sciences Organisation within the Department for International Trade currently supports companies wishing to export to Israel from the earliest stages of research and development through to manufactured medicines and medical devices.
Bob Blackman
I join you, Mr Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in expressing sincere condolences to the victims of the terrible atrocity yesterday, and particularly to the family of PC Keith Palmer, who died so that we can carry out our democratic duties.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Companies in the Israeli economy are responsible for more than 100 million prescription drugs consumed in this country every year, and one has recently launched the ReWalk device, whereby people are encouraged to develop. Will he set out what further plans he has to ensure that we benefit from Israel’s pharmaceutical industry?
Dr Fox
UK industry will have a strong and important trading relationship with Israel, and the Department for International Trade supports and will continue to support life science companies from Israel that invest in the UK, and those seeking to export from the UK. The companies range from large multinationals to small and medium-sized companies such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned. We support all stages, whether that is by facilitating investment in research and development or setting up commercial operations, such as manufacturing, to export from the UK.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I, too, express my condolences to the families of all those who died, and I wish the very best for those who were injured.
One notable thing about Israel’s trade relationship with the EU is that Israel is part of Horizon 2020. Has the Secretary of State considered whether, after Brexit, we should stay in Horizon 2020 and the European Medicines Agency?
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
In his trade discussions with the Israeli Government, will the Secretary of State convey the House’s sympathy for and solidarity with Israel, which has so often suffered the same kind of terrorist attack as we suffered in this House yesterday?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
May I echo the opening words of the Secretary of State and indeed the condolences that have been expressed for the police officer and the families of others affected by this tragedy?
The world-leading Institute of Cancer Research in the London borough of Sutton already does a lot of work with Israel. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether the post-grads who work at the institute, a third of whom come from the European Union, will be able to carry on working in those projects for years to come?
Dr Fox
The Government have already made it clear that the United Kingdom wishes to see an early resolution on the status of EU citizens. Those who collaborate with our research institutes do so on the basis of the quality of the research, and I am sure that that will continue.
Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The World Trade Organisation agreement on trade facilitation entered into force on 22 February 2017 once two thirds of WTO members had accepted the new agreement. This is a very significant event. Once fully implemented, the agreement could add more than £70 billion to the global economy, and of that we expect a benefit to the UK of up to £1 billion.
Mr Speaker
I should say for the benefit of the House, because there was a quizzical air in the Chamber, that Question 2 was withdrawn. That is a situation which is not dissented. I can see that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) is in his place, but the question was withdrawn.
Sir Henry Bellingham
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for the work he is doing to try to secure a bespoke trade deal, and to his Ministers for the work they are doing as well. We do not want to fall back on to WTO rules, but, if we did, what would happen to airlines, digital data flows and trade and services?
Dr Fox
There is a difference between some of the agreements mentioned, which are bilateral agreements, and WTO tariffs that largely apply to goods. We hope to get a comprehensive agreement with our European partners across all the sectors that my hon. Friend mentions so that we will see no interruption to the business as we have it today.
Suella Fernandes
The WTO trade facilitation agreement’s coming into force last month brought about great reforms such as reducing fees on imports and exports and quickening clearance procedures. What impact will the reforms have on UK businesses that are importing and exporting?
Dr Fox
UK exporters in particular will benefit from the customs reforms being introduced, and implementing the agreement will reduce delays at the borders of participating members and improve the trading environment for businesses engaging in international trade, making it easier and cheaper for UK businesses to export their goods across the globe.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I associate the Democratic Unionist party with the sentiments that have been expressed for the innocents who were murdered yesterday? Our thoughts and prayers are very much with those who were injured.
With the initial period of this agreement now under way, will the Minister determine how we can enhance and further build capacity in this area? Does he believe that lessons learned here can and will affect our approach to Brexit, trade and negotiations?
Dr Fox
As most European Union countries are already higher than the bar set by TFA, that will not have a huge effect on intra-European trade, but it will have a beneficial impact on European exporters, especially if they are exporting to markets such as sub-Saharan Africa, where the greatest benefit of the trade agreement is likely to be felt.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give some reassurance to Welsh lamb and sheep farmers, who have faced 40% tariffs under WTO, and ensure that if we do have a trade agreement with New Zealand we will not be flooded with New Zealand lamb?
Dr Fox
When we get to the point at which we begin to have those discussions, we will want to take into account a balance between UK producer interests and UK consumer interests, and we will also wish to ensure that we are making a contribution to a global liberal trading environment that benefits everybody.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
This agreement is potentially of greatest advantage to the least developed countries, in which we have put very considerable investment. Will the Secretary of State continue to drive forward that agenda?
Dr Fox
Yes, and we have actually invested a large amount of money in supporting the agreement itself and in ensuring that it can be introduced in as beneficial a way in as many countries and as quickly as possible, because, as my right hon. Friend correctly says, this agreement will have the greatest benefit to some of the poorest countries in the world, which is why the United Kingdom, under Governments of both parties, has been so supportive of it.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
For well over a century the UK has not had security of food supply, but has instead always relied on imports. What will WTO tariffs of up to 40% do for the price of food for hard-working families already squeezed by the Tory Government’s policies?
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman perhaps unintentionally raises this important point: where we have genuinely free trade it benefits consumers, and where we can have an open global trading environment, it is likely to make the incomes of those on low incomes in particular go further. We should welcome an open trading environment, which I hope the Scottish National party does.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
The Department for International Trade provides market access, support and advice to UK businesses both in the UK and in 109 markets overseas. Through the GREAT campaign we build the global appetite for British goods and services, and give UK companies access to millions of pounds’ worth of potential business through the digital services offered on the great.gov.uk website.
Sir David Amess
My hon. Friend the Minister leads the buy British goods campaign. Does he agree that taking companies that make British goods on trade delegations is an excellent way of ensuring that companies make the most of our opportunities as we leave the European Union?
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Trade delegations give an opportunity for small businesses to be put in front of buyers, and the Department for International Trade runs about 1,000 of them every year; I have been on a number, as have my colleagues, and they are extraordinarily successful in developing opportunities.
David Rutley
What steps is my hon. Friend the Minister taking to help first-time entrepreneurs become first-time successful exporters?
Mark Garnier
The great.gov.uk website is a tremendous opportunity, whereby entrepreneurs, many of whom are very tech savvy, can take advantage of the opportunities that we provide through our subsidised access to global e-marketplaces. They can also access the advice we provide through the website for exactly that type of business—they are supported as well.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister specifically what advice there is, and what the Government are doing, to help small businesses in that respect?
Mark Garnier
The Department for International Trade has available a network of international trade advisers throughout the English regions who can be contacted through local chambers of commerce and are specifically there to hand-hold individual companies that need help.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Is the Minister looking at the trade differences between the English regions? One of the reasons that lots of people in the English regions outside London voted to leave was that they did not feel they were getting the benefits of the European Union. What is he going to do to help those areas improve their trading links?
Mark Garnier
We certainly look at foreign direct investment into the regions through trading links. That is why we see inward investment in areas such as Sunderland, which has benefited from Nissan. The right hon. Lady’s point about trade is absolutely right. The UK needs to trade more with the rest of the world—just 11% of businesses that could conduct such trade are actually doing so. One of the prime concerns and objectives of the Department for International Trade is promoting trade to the whole of the UK to ensure that we up our offer to the rest of the world.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What steps is the Department taking to enhance trade between India and the UK?
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has certainly held meetings in India, and we are having ongoing talks to try to facilitate opportunities there. I will visit India in the next couple of weeks with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to explore more opportunities with financial services.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
May I associate myself and my colleagues with the Secretary of State’s remarks about yesterday’s terror attacks?
The Federation of Small Businesses reports its members’ concerns that there should not be a cliff edge when we leave the European Union. Smaller businesses want to continue with tariff-free access and to minimise non-tariff barriers. What is the Minister’s Department doing to support small businesses and allay their concerns?
Mark Garnier
The Department for International Trade absolutely shares those desires for a disruption-free exit from the European Union. We are certainly representing those interests to the Department for Exiting the European Union, which is tasked specifically with the objectives described by the hon. Gentleman.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to identify the United States as our single biggest trading partner, with 23% of the UK’s exports going to the United States. We are waiting for confirmation of when we can start having conversations.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
May I associate myself and my party with the Secretary of State’s opening remarks? We will have an opportunity to pay our respects later, but we are grateful that we are here because of the bravery of others.
The rise in Scottish exports has been one of the major success stories in the Scottish economy over the past decade. What lessons does the Minister believe the rest of the UK can learn from this, given that we have seen exports double in the past 10 years?
Mark Garnier
Like everybody else, I am delighted that exports from Scotland have done particularly well, but I stress that trying to promote exports is part of an ongoing process through the whole UK, not just one region. I celebrate the fact that Scotland has a number of tremendous exports, particularly Scottish whisky. Nearly £4 billion-worth of whisky is exported from Scotland, and the rest of the world sees a great deal of value in the brand.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
International Trade Ministers and officials regularly meet British businesses to discuss trade policy matters. These discussions have included our position in the WTO, work under way to avoid the loss of trade preferences that UK firms currently access via EU trade arrangements, and future trade negotiation priorities. The Department for Exiting the EU is also engaged fully with British businesses.
Jeff Smith
As an EU member state, we are party to free trade agreements with countries such as Mexico, South Korea and South Africa. Is it the responsibility of his Department or the Department for Exiting the European Union to negotiate the grandfathering or replacement of those agreements?
Mark Garnier
I can absolutely confirm that DIT leads in every sense on the trade negotiations with the rest of the world. The Department for Exiting the European Union is restricted to the European Union.
Paula Sherriff
How does the Department intend to help businesses trading with non-EU countries overcome trade barriers such as tariffs and rules of origin requirements if the Government are unable to secure continuation of preferential trading terms?
Mark Garnier
When we leave the European Union, it is the intention of the Department for International Trade to carry over the existing trade deals that we enjoy through our membership of the European Union. Countries such as Mexico, for example, have trade deals with the EU, and it is our intention to carry over such trade deals in the first instance in order to avoid any cliff edge.
Justin Madders
The Minister will be aware of statements made by the head of the PSA Group, following the takeover of Vauxhall-General Motors group, that when new models are awarded plants across Europe will be judged on their competitiveness. A 10% tariff on cars would have a huge impact on the competitiveness of the UK car industry, so what contingency plans do the Government have to ensure that the UK car industry remains competitive?
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this point; he speaks on behalf of his constituents in an area that manufactures these vehicles. It is the intention that the UK can achieve tariff-free, customs-free access to the single market. That benefits not only the UK car manufacturers that produce 1.9 million cars, but the European manufacturers that export to the UK.
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Many countries breach WTO rules by using a whole series of non-tariff barriers such as local content requirements. What discussions have the Government had to get the WTO to enforce those rules, and what can we do to ensure that those countries are persuaded against this practice?
Mark Garnier
My hon. Friend is right. Non-tariff barriers are incredibly disruptive to free trade, and we take that very seriously. We will be looking at our own system of trade remedies, but at the moment everything has been done through the European Union. We need to start engaging in that. To a certain extent, we have had conversations with other countries through the joint economic and trade committees, where we can deal with that.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The Government will know that WTO rules are not something that we fall back on, but the ultimate foundation of all international trade. Will the Minister bear in mind the advice of Economists for Free Trade, which has said that a UK free trade policy could add 4% to GDP in the long term and reduce consumer prices by 8%?
Mark Garnier
Free trade is absolutely the key to giving prosperity to the world, including the UK—it is a huge benefit to developing nations, as well as developed nations. For consumers, there is the opportunity to have market choice, and therefore price choice, which can be incredibly helpful to the economy.
Mr Edward Vaizey (Wantage) (Con)
Tech City UK published its excellent “Tech Nation” report yesterday, showing that investment in digital companies in the UK is 50% higher than in any other European country. I know that my hon. Friend and his fellow Ministers are supporting the tech industry strongly, but has he made an analysis of how WTO rules will affect it?
Mark Garnier
The Department for International Trade is carrying out an analysis of how WTO rules will affect every sector of our economy. This is an ongoing process, but my right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the technology sector as one in which this country is leading, and that is a fantastic opportunity.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, you and I have been in this House for 20 years, and after yesterday’s attack, I have never felt more proud or more grateful to be speaking in this Chamber.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the need to deploy WTO trade remedies? We know that the Government opposed anti-dumping measures in Europe that would have protected British industries. Earlier, he spoke of a balance of interests between UK producers and UK consumers. If there is to be a balance, how many specialist staff has he recruited to deploy successful anti-dumping measures and protect vital UK jobs in the steel and ceramics industries from dumping by China?
Mark Garnier
We will bring forward our proposals on this to the House in due course, but at the moment we are looking to adopt a rules-based process to deal with it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Dr Liam Fox)
The Department for International Trade has three tasks: promoting UK exports to support a growing economy that serves the whole country; maximising opportunities for wealth creation, including through overseas direct investment, to support the current account; and negotiating the best international trading framework for the UK outside the EU.
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to acknowledge Sir Martin Donnelly, who leaves our Department after 36 years in the civil service. He is a great and distinguished civil servant who will be very much missed by my Department and more widely.
Gavin Newlands
Last weekend, we learned that the Secretary of State’s Department is secretly working on a 10-year transitional arrangement with the EU, based on the WTO general agreement on tariffs and trade. Will he confirm that the Scottish Government and all other devolved Administrations are being consulted so that the interests of all the nations of the UK are represented, should a trade deal not be reached in time?
Dr Fox
The Department is not working on a secret agreement with anybody, including the European Union. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to press reports about the possible use of WTO rules to ensure a smooth transition at the point when the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Trade (Mark Garnier)
The Department for International Trade works with, and will continue to work with, key UK suppliers, potential and existing inward investors, foreign Governments and offshore wind developers. The UK is building a competitive and innovative supply chain that creates and sustains jobs, exports and economic benefits for the UK as we leave the European Union.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State has revealed to The Sun his plans for a trade Bill in the Queen’s Speech, will he do Parliament the courtesy of publishing a trade White Paper that sets out clearly what markets he wishes to liberalise and what measures he will take in future trade agreements to protect and enhance International Labour Organisation principles, sustainable development, human rights, environmental protection, intellectual property rights, food standards, future options on state-owned enterprises and the ability to nationalise particular sectors? If he develops an informed, consultative international trade policy, the Government may be able to restore confidence that they are holding trade dialogues that are backed by a clear and strategic plan.
Dr Fox
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Should the Government intend to introduce legislation on this issue in the Queen’s Speech, we would want a consultative process so that stakeholders could make their views known. It is important that we do that in a very collegiate way, because that is, as he said, the way to maintain and maximise confidence.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)
Mark Garnier
Our aim is absolutely to keep the UK as a leading aerospace—and, indeed, space—nation. We will continue to work with the industry through the aerospace growth partnership and to promote foreign investment, boost exports and grow high-value jobs here in the UK.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Mark Garnier
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to celebrate the activities of this creative industry sector. However, since we have not started the article 50 process, we have not entered into any specific talks.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Dr Fox
Just over a week ago, we held our first conference with Commonwealth Trade Ministers. That gave us an opportunity to look at how we might maximise intra-Commonwealth trade and at the differences between our trading systems. That will help us to move towards greater consistency in the rules that we apply so that all in the Commonwealth can get even greater benefit from a system that is growing faster than the global economy and should be much more beneficial.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Mark Garnier
The subject of product standards is incredibly important. My hon. Friend will be aware that the great repeal Bill will bring across a great deal of what relates to the European Union, and that Bill will contain detail about product standards.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
What influence can my right hon. Friend bring to the showcasing of great British beer in embassies around the world?
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Dr Fox
One problem that we have faced in recent times is that although the European Commission has been relatively forward-leaning on digital issues, European Union members have prevented the Commission from taking forward some of the measures of liberalisation that would, in fact, help this country and others. As we leave the European Union, we will want to see what advantages there are for the United Kingdom in liberalising our economy, especially so that the digital economy and e-commerce can flourish.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
I would, of course, like to add my condolences to those already expressed by colleagues to the families of the victims of yesterday’s attack, and especially to the family of Keith Palmer.
I can assure the House that the Equality Act 2010 and the public sector equality duty, which incorporates a number of EU directives on equalities, will continue to apply once the UK has left the EU. Additionally, we continue to be signatories to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which is binding in international law.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for her answer, but she will be aware that a lot of her Conservative colleagues are desperate to do away with many of the regulations. As we go forward post Brexit, will she guarantee that there will be no rush to deregulate and there will not be a reduction in the statutory protections available to disabled people?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Gentleman mentions my colleagues, but I remind him that the Conservative party has a proud history of protecting disability rights. It was under a Conservative Government that we passed the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which made it unlawful to discriminate against people in respect of their disabilities. The UK is a world leader in support for disabled people, and we are proud of the work that we do to support people with disabilities and health conditions, both in this country and abroad.
Gavin Newlands
There is already a lot of fear and anxiety as this Tory Government have substantially reduced disability support with the powers they already have. How then can we trust this Government’s word? Will the Minister set out exactly which of these rights will be safeguarded following Brexit?
Caroline Nokes
Our reforms to welfare are about making sure that we give more to those who need it most while encouraging those who can do so to get into work. That is why people with the most severe disabilities have had their payments increased and protected from the benefit cap and the benefits freeze.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Over 160 Members have signed a prayer against the new personal independence payment regulations. The period for praying against those regulations comes to an end on 3 April. A debate has been arranged in the other place next week, 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, as the regulations will come into force under the negative procedure. Why are the Government refusing to hold a debate on the new PIP regulations in this House?
Caroline Nokes
As the hon. Lady will know, the usual channels decide when debates will be held in this place. It is not for me to give such a date today.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
The Welfare Reform and Work Act was scrutinised by both Houses and gained Royal Assent in March 2016. An impact assessment of the policy was published during the passage of the legislation. The policy strikes the right balance between protecting vulnerable people and encouraging families who receive benefits to make the same financial decisions as those who support themselves solely through work.
Fiona Mactaggart
The respected Women’s Budget Group calculates that these cuts will disproportionately affect Asian families, costing them £16,000 by the next general election compared with a cost of £13,000 for larger white families. Should not the Government have carried out a comprehensive equality assessment on this and other Budget measures, and taken action to end this disproportionate effect?
Caroline Nokes
As the right hon. Lady will have heard me say, the policy was available for scrutiny during the passage of the Bill. Since 2010, we have worked hard to make sure that families who are reliant on benefits make the same decisions as families in work. Our reforms are about encouraging more people into work.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
For the very reason that my hon. Friend has just given—those on welfare benefits should have to make the same choice as those in work—will she reassure me that there will be no U-turn on this policy?
Caroline Nokes
As I have said, the reforms are aimed at helping working parents and they are removing barriers to work for ordinary men and women across the country. Ordinary working families rely on the Government to provide economic stability and we are starting from a position of strength. I assure my hon. Friend that we have looked at the regulations carefully, and we have taken this decision to restore fairness in the benefits systems.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
May I, too, associate myself with the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members from across the House?
The Prime Minister wants to transform the way in which we think about domestic violence, and I am sure that the Minister supports her in those efforts, but does the Minister accept that that is completely undermined by introducing the rape clause without parliamentary scrutiny? Will she encourage her colleagues to scrap this pernicious tax?
Caroline Nokes
The hon. Lady will recall that there was a debate on this subject in Westminster Hall in October. I am aware that there have been repeated requests for further scrutiny and debate on this subject, and the usual channels have considered them.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about PC Keith Palmer. We will always owe a debt of gratitude to him and our hearts bleed for his family.
From 6 April, new mothers will not be able to claim tax credit or universal credit for their third child. What communications has the Minister had with women who are pregnant now to tell them that they face an unexpected drop in income because of this Government’s choices?
Caroline Nokes
Of course, the hon. Lady will know that no existing family will be a cost loser as a result of this policy. We consulted widely on the exceptions and how to implement them, and we have worked hard with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make sure that information is available to all staff who have to communicate the policy.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Justine Greening)
First, I would like to set out my own condolences to PC Keith Palmer’s family and all those who were affected by the terrible incident yesterday. I would also like to say a big thank you to the emergency services and the House of Commons staff, who I felt were outstanding yesterday. The kind of people who perpetrate these sorts of attacks need to understand that they will never disrupt our democracy, because democracy is part of our country’s DNA. That is why oral questions are happening perfectly as normal today.
This is a fantastic time to be able to celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage. We now have our second female Prime Minister, who I know is committed to encouraging women in politics, and the proportion of women MPs has finally reached 30%. However, there is much, much more to do. In the Budget, we announced a £5 million fund to support projects to educate young people about the important milestone that is coming up and to inspire women to get more involved in politics at all levels.
Sir David Amess
As we mark 100 years since women were given the right to vote, will my right hon. Friend join me in celebrating the election of two female Prime Ministers, the first of whom made our country and the world better places in which to live, and the second of whom will make our leaving the European Union a great success?
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am extremely proud that it is our party—the Conservative party—that has delivered not only the first two female leaders of the major political parties represented in Westminster but, critically, the first two female Prime Ministers of our country. One of them shaped the Britain we live in today; one of them will shape the Britain we live in tomorrow. It is long overdue that we celebrate the centenary that is coming up.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Women won the right to vote—they fought for it, as they have had to fight for so many rights. I want to make that clear. What is the Minister doing, as we approach the year in which we celebrate that struggle, to ensure that all women in the country today are registered to vote, as many are finding individual registration difficult?
Justine Greening
The Government are committed to ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote in our country, women included, is registered to vote. I very much hope over the coming months that we can all be role models and inspirations for a new generation of young girls growing up in our country, and encourage them to play their role in our democracy not just in this Parliament, but in councils and other community groups around the country.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
This House benefits hugely from the much broader representation that women and all those from different backgrounds bring to it. As chair of the all-party group for women in Parliament, may I ask the Minister to commit the Government to highlighting women’s suffrage, which was hard fought for and should be highly valued and used?
Justine Greening
I absolutely give my hon. Friend that commitment. We announced £5 million in the Budget to help community groups around the country to celebrate and highlight this important centenary. When I arrived here as a Conservative female MP just over 10 years ago, there were fewer than 20 others. We now have a huge number, but we need to do more. We all need to work together to say that politics is a place that should have more women in it. It is important that we see that happen.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
While it is welcome that next year we will celebrate 100 years of votes for women, those women were also campaigning for economic equality. How then, 99 years on, can the Government justify the fact that 86% of Treasury gains come from women?
Justine Greening
One of the Government’s important achievements is getting more people, particularly women, into work. Indeed, there have never been more women in work. However, women’s economic empowerment is vital—it is one of our biggest economic growth levers, not just in the UK, but around the world. I was on a United Nations high level panel that recently completed a second report to hand over to the Secretary General in New York. That will provide a platform for delivering global goal 5 of the sustainable development goals.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
The Government consulted on the exception in October 2016 and responded in January 2017, outlining the finalised policy. Since then, we have been developing guidance and working with stakeholders to plan for the delivery of this exception in the most sensitive and compassionate way possible.
Lilian Greenwood
The rape clause exception in the two-child limit on tax credits is not just unworkable, but inhumane. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of sexual violence and domestic abuse. Will the Minister act urgently and seek to persuade her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to reconsider the proposal in order to protect women’s rights?
Caroline Nokes
We know that this issue is difficult and sensitive. The exception will use a third-party model, whereby women can request the exception through engaging with a third party, who will be a recognised healthcare professional. We are setting up procedures that are mindful of the sensitivities involved. Neither DWP nor HMRC staff will question the claimant about the incident, other than to take the claim.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Justine Greening)
The scale of the humanitarian crisis we are facing in 2017 is unprecedented. Once again, the impact falls disproportionately on women and children. I am proud that the UK is leading the way, stepping up DFID’s life-saving emergency assistance for those affected by food insecurity in east Africa, with women and girls at the heart of that response.
Patrick Grady
The Minister is right that women and girls are disproportionately affected by the food insecurity crisis in east Africa, and I recognise her experience in dealing with such matters. What further discussions has she had with the Secretary of State for International Development about not just immediate, short-term aid, but long-term rebuilding, especially access to education for women and girls, which is the best route out of poverty?
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development announced £100 million to support South Sudan in particular. More broadly, we need to look long-term, and I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary is leading a big push to ensure that girls and women, wherever they are in our world, have education. It is vital if women are to take their proper place in our society.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Millions of impoverished women and girls in developing countries spend much of their life fetching and carrying very heavy loads of water to and from their homes. Their lives would be vastly improved if DFID encouraged proper sanitation and water facilities.
Justine Greening
I agree with my hon. Friend and, indeed, substantial investment has gone into improving water and sanitation. It is a basic issue, but it makes a tremendous difference to being able to lift up women and girls.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
We simply cannot afford to miss out on the talents of half the population. Increasing the number of women in STEM industries is vital for economic growth and to eliminate the gender pay gap. That is why we are improving the quality of STEM teaching, funding programmes such as the Stimulating Physics Network and the further maths support programme, and raising awareness of career opportunities through STEM ambassadors.
Andrew Stephenson
I recently met Katie Goodwill, an apprentice from Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick, who in November won the gold medal in CNC turning at a 2016 world skills show. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Katie as a role model for other women and girls, inspiring them to take up STEM careers?
Caroline Dinenage
I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in congratulating his constituent, Katie Goodwill, on her fantastic achievement. Role models are so important—that is why more than 40% of our STEM ambassadors are women. They are helping to inspire the next generation, just as I am sure his constituent Katie will.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
It is important to encourage women and girls into non-traditional careers, but will the hon. Lady ask the Ministers responsible for expanding apprenticeships why there are no targets for increasing the number of girls on apprenticeships in traditionally male areas? There has been a lost opportunity to challenge that.
Caroline Dinenage
I certainly will have conversations with my colleague in the Department for Education, but the right hon. Lady must remember that there are no such things as girls’ jobs and boys’ jobs, and we have to get that message across from the earliest stages of kids’ engagement with the education system. That is why we have chosen to focus on increasing the take-up of STEM subjects, which lead to the more technical apprenticeships and jobs.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
The engineering education scheme is a brilliant scheme for encouraging primary schoolchildren of both sexes to get interested in engineering. What can the Government do to support that scheme and promote it in schools across the country, including in my constituency?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that scheme and others that make such a difference up and down the country. She should also be aware that we are investing an additional half a billion pounds in developing technical skills for 16 to 19-year-olds via the new T-level certificate. We are encouraging girls to take advantage of that scheme to gain valuable industry skills and experience.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
All the evidence suggests that one of the best ways of getting girls and young women to go into STEM careers is to change STEM to STEAM—that is to ensure that every young person in this country, and particularly girls, has a really strong arts education in their school. What will the Government do to ensure that schools do not cut music teaching and drama education, and ensure that every youngster gets a good arts education?
Caroline Dinenage
The Government have taken unprecedented steps to ensure that we continue to invest in those subjects, and that they continue to have massive focus in our schools. We are also publishing online guidance—“Your daughter’s future”—that helps parents to support their daughters in careers choices, so that they ensure that they include all those important subjects when making decisions about their future.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Refuges provide vital support for victims of domestic abuse. We are investing £40 million over this Parliament in services to support victims of domestic abuse, including refuges. We expect local areas to assess their need, and to provide services and support to meet that need.
Helen Hayes
Domestic violence refuges are unique within the supported housing sector because many who need them have to flee a long distance to be safe. By relying solely on local authorities to commission refuge services, the Government are failing to maintain a strategic approach. We are now seeing patchy provision with, for example, the recent closure of the last remaining refuge in Cumbria. Is the Minister monitoring the number of specialist refuge services and specialist providers that have closed since 2010? If not, how can he be assured—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am extremely grateful but we have got the thrust of it. We really do need to be briefer. That was far too long.
Mr Jones
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We recognise the importance of refuges. That is why we are exempting refuges from the 1% social rent cap policy, and exempting them from the local housing allowance rate until 2019-20. We are working closely with organisations that provide refuges to ensure that we get the new system for supported housing right, so that we can continue to provide those refuges, which are so badly needed.
Sir Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)
I warmly welcome what the Government are doing in this crucial area, but what work is being done with local authorities and social housing providers on the next stage, which is ensuring that there are enough homes for women and their families to return to that provide a safer environment?
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
I am delighted that there are now more women in work than ever before, and that the female employment rate is nearly 70%, which is the highest on record. The female employment rate has increased by more since 2010 than it increased during the three previous Parliaments combined.
Chris Davies
Recent figures show that record-breaking numbers of women are in work under this Government. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is only by creating a stronger, fairer economy that works for everyone that we will continue to see records being broken?
Caroline Dinenage
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. We want to ensure that all women can fulfil their potential. That is why the Government have extended the right to flexible working and introduced shared parental leave. From September, we will double the 30 hours childcare offer.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
According to Maternity Action, 54,000 women are forced out of work each year due to maternity discrimination. What steps are the Government taking to address that unacceptable gender inequality?
Caroline Dinenage
Maternity discrimination and pregnancy discrimination in any form is utterly illegal and must be tackled. Women must feel that they can bring cases forward, which is why we are committed to ensuring people from all backgrounds can access justice. The introduction of the early conciliation service through ACAS has meant that people have to avoid the stress of going through an employment tribunal hearing.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
Recent changes to the PIP regulations clarify the original criteria used to decide how much benefit claimants receive. This is not a policy change, nor is it intended to make new savings. It will not result in any claimants seeing a reduction in the amount of PIP previously awarded by the Department for Work and Pensions.
Kerry McCarthy
The Minister, in response to the Labour Front Bench, batted away suggestions that we need a full debate and vote on the Floor of the House on this issue, but given that the Government’s own equality impact assessment says that 164,000 people with debilitating mental health conditions will be affected, does she not think it is her job to go to the DWP and tell them we want a proper vote?
Caroline Nokes
Supporting people with mental illness is a priority, which is why we are spending more on mental health than ever before, and an estimated £11.4 billion this year. PIP does ensure parity between mental and physical conditions, and it achieves this by looking at the impact of conditions on an individual, not which conditions they have. As I have previously said, it is of course up to the usual channels to decide whether there will be further debate on the subject.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Justine Greening)
We celebrated International Women’s Day this year with a budget for potential and a budget for equality, including £20 million of funding to combat violence against women and girls, £5 million for internships and £5 million to mark the centenary of women getting the vote for the very first time. Next month, the gender pay gap reporting regulations will come into force. I want to thank Members from all parts of the House for their constructive support as we take forward amendments to the Children and Social Work Bill, enabling statutory, age-appropriate relationship education in primary schools and relationship and sex education in secondary schools.
Jo Stevens
The European Social Investment Fund has supported a Cardiff-based charity, Chwarae Teg, to deliver a range of successful programmes to help women in Wales achieve pay equality and progress in Welsh workplaces. One example is the £8.6 million for the Agile Nation 2 project. Can the Minister provide a guarantee that post-Brexit the Government will provide equivalent replacement funding for Chwarae Teg?
Justine Greening
The Government are proud that we now have the lowest gender pay gap on record. We are absolutely committed to making sure that that continues post-Brexit.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Justine Greening
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health looks into these incredibly serious issues very carefully. I will raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with him.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Justine Greening
The bottom line is that the best route for all of us as women is to be able to have the chance to have a working life and a career. That is why we have more women in employment than ever before, something the House should welcome.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) had a question on the Order Paper. She is here and it could be topical. She should be heard.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Justine Greening
Absolutely. The Department for Transport set out an ambition for women to represent at least 20% of new entrants to engineering and technical apprenticeships in the transport sector by 2020. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills visited the Crossrail Academy recently. The academy is exceeding the target: 27% of its apprentices are female.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Some 54,000 women are forced out of work due to maternity discrimination. Will the Government look at reducing the extortionate fees for employment tribunals, and will the Minister specifically look at extending the time for application from three months to six months?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Caroline Dinenage)
We are consulting on proposals to extend the support that is available under the help with fees schemes. We propose that the gross monthly income threshold for a full fee remission should increase to £1,250, which is broadly the level of the national minimum wage.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend aware that only 36% of headteachers are women? In my constituency, the Affinity Teaching Alliance, led by local headteacher Sarah Watson, is working on an innovative programme to change that. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Sarah Watson on enabling many more women to take up senior teaching posts, and does she agree that that is the best way to get the most out of our workforce?
Justine Greening
I would indeed like to congratulate Sarah Watson. Improving flexible working in the teaching profession is one of the best things we could do to ensure that women can get to the top, and later this year the Department will host a summit with teachers to discuss how we can make more progress in that regard.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Welfare Delivery (Caroline Nokes)
As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a long-standing commitment to equalise the state pension ages of men and women, and we continue to look very closely at the state pension age in general. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcomes the increase in longevity. The Government have made big concessions with regard to cost—we have already committed more than £1.1 billion—and there will be no further concessions.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
After yesterday’s shocking events, I know that the whole House will want me to express our heartfelt condolences to the families and friends of the victims of this outrage. A police officer, PC Keith Palmer, was killed defending us, defending Parliament and defending parliamentary democracy. Arrangements have been made for books of condolence to be placed in the Library and Westminster Hall. Our hearts go out to all those directly and indirectly touched by yesterday’s events.
I should like to thank all colleagues, staff of the House and Members’ staff for their forbearance in very stressful circumstances yesterday. Naturally, the parliamentary security authorities have already taken measures to ensure that Parliament is safe in the light of the attack. In due time, the Commission, which I chair, will consider, together with our Lords counterparts, what sort of review of lessons learned would be appropriate. However, let the security personnel who protect us—police, security officers and Doorkeepers—be in no doubt whatsoever of our profound appreciation of the way in which they discharged their duties yesterday, matched by other staff of the House. That means that this morning the House has been able to resume its business undeterred.
London Attack
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
Yesterday, an act of terrorism tried to silence our democracy, but today we meet as normal, as generations have done before us and as future generations will continue to do, to deliver a simple message: we are not afraid, and our resolve will never waver in the face of terrorism. We meet here, in the oldest of all Parliaments, because we know that democracy, and the values that it entails, will always prevail. Those values—free speech, liberty, human rights and the rule of law—are embodied here in this place, but they are shared by free people around the world.
A terrorist came to the place where people of all nationalities and cultures gather to celebrate what it means to be free, and he took out his rage indiscriminately against innocent men, women and children. This was an attack on free people everywhere, and on behalf of the British people, I would like to thank our friends and allies around the world who have made it clear that they stand with us at this time. What happened on the streets of Westminster yesterday afternoon sickened us all.
While there is an ongoing police investigation, the House will understand that there are limits to what I can say, but, having been updated by police and security officials, let me set out what, at this stage, I can tell the House. At approximately 2.40 pm yesterday, a single attacker drove his vehicle at speed into innocent pedestrians who were crossing Westminster bridge, killing two people and injuring around 40 more. In addition to 12 Britons admitted to hospital, we know that the victims include three French children, two Romanians, four South Koreans, one German, one Pole, one Irish, one Chinese, one Italian, one American and two Greeks, and we are in close contact with the Governments of the countries of all those affected. The injured also included three police officers who were returning from an event to recognise their bravery; two of those three remain in a serious condition.
The attacker then left the vehicle and approached a police officer at Carriage Gates, attacking that officer with a large knife, before he was shot dead by an armed police officer. Tragically, as the House will know, 48-year-old PC Keith Palmer was killed.
PC Palmer had devoted his life to the service of his country. He had been a member of the parliamentary and diplomatic protection command for 15 years, and a soldier in the Royal Artillery before that. He was a husband and a father, killed doing a job he loved. He was every inch a hero, and his actions will never be forgotten. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I know that the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family, and to the families and friends of all those who have been killed or injured in yesterday’s awful attacks. I know also that the House will wish to thank all those who acted with such speed and professionalism yesterday to secure this place and ensure that we are able to meet, as we are doing today.
At 7.30 pm last night, I chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency committee, Cobra, and will have further briefings and meetings with security officials today. The threat level to the UK has been set at “severe”—meaning an attack is highly likely—for some time. This is the second highest threat level. The highest level—“critical”—means that there is specific intelligence that an attack is imminent. As there is no such intelligence, the independent joint terrorism analysis centre has decided that the threat level will not change in the light of yesterday’s attack.
The whole country will want to know who was responsible for this atrocity and the measures that we are taking to strengthen our security, including here in Westminster. A full counter-terrorism investigation is already under way. Hundreds of our police and security officers have been working through the night to establish everything possible about this attack, including its preparation and motivation, and whether there were any associates involved in its planning. And while there remain limits on what I can say at this stage, I can confirm that overnight the police have searched six addresses and made eight arrests in Birmingham and London.
It is still believed that this attacker acted alone, and the police have no reason to believe that there are imminent further attacks on the public. His identity is known to the police and MI5, and when operational considerations allow, he will be publicly identified. What I can confirm is that the man was British-born and that—some years ago—he was once investigated by MI5 in relation to concerns about violent extremism. He was a peripheral figure. The case is historic: he was not part of the current intelligence picture. There was no prior intelligence of his intent or of the plot. Intensive investigations continue, and as Acting Deputy Commissioner Rowley confirmed last night, our working assumption is that the attacker was inspired by Islamist ideology.
We know the threat from Islamist terrorism is very real, but while the public should remain utterly vigilant, they should not, and will not, be cowed by this threat. As Acting Deputy Commissioner Rowley has made clear, we are stepping up policing to protect communities across the country and to reassure the public. As a precautionary measure, this will mean increasing the number of patrols in cities across the country, with more police and more armed police on the streets.
Since June 2013, our police, security and intelligence agencies have successfully disrupted 13 separate terrorist plots in Britain. Following the 2015 strategic defence and security review, we protected the police budgets for counter-terrorism and committed to increase cross-Government spending on counter-terrorism by 30% in real terms over the course of this Parliament. Over the next five years, we will invest an extra £2.5 billion in building our global security and intelligence network, employing over 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and more than doubling our global network of counter-terrorism experts working with priority countries across Europe, the middle east, Africa and Asia.
In terms of security here in Westminster, we should be clear first of all that an attacker attempted to break into Parliament and was shot dead within 20 yards of the gates. If his intention was to gain access to this building, we should be clear that he did not succeed. The police heroically did their job. But, as is routine, the police, together with the House authorities, are reviewing the security of the parliamentary estate, co-ordinated with the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for the security measures in place around the Government secure zone. All of us in this House have a responsibility for the security and safety of our staff, and advice is available for Members who need it.
Yesterday, we saw the worst of humanity, but we will remember the best. We will remember the extraordinary efforts to save the life of PC Keith Palmer, including those of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] And we will remember the exceptional bravery of our police, security and emergency services who once again ran towards the danger even as they encouraged others to move the other way. On behalf of the whole country, I want to pay tribute to them for the work they have been doing to reassure the public, treat the injured and bring security back to the streets of our capital city. That they have lost one of their own in yesterday’s attack only makes their calmness and professionalism all the more remarkable.
A lot has been said since terror struck London yesterday. Much more will be said in the coming days. But the greatest response lies not in the words of politicians but in the everyday actions of ordinary people. For beyond these walls today, in scenes repeated in towns and cities across the country, millions of people are going about their days and getting on with their lives. The streets are as busy as ever, the offices full, the coffee shops and cafés bustling. As I speak, millions will be boarding trains and aeroplanes to travel to London and to see for themselves the greatest city on Earth. It is in these actions—millions of acts of normality—that we find the best response to terrorism: a response that denies our enemies their victory, that refuses to let them win, that shows we will never give in; a response driven by that same spirit that drove a husband and father to put himself between us and our attacker, and to pay the ultimate price; a response that says to the men and women who propagate this hate and evil, “You will not defeat us.” Mr Speaker, let this be the message from this House and this nation today: our values will prevail. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues, I am advised that we have been joined today by French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault—Sir, we appreciate your presence and your fitting display of solidarity with us—who is accompanied by a number of his colleagues and also by the deputy Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan).
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in welcoming our colleagues from France here today, and I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks. What happened yesterday within metres of where we sit now was an appalling atrocity. The police are still piecing together what took place and what lay behind it. It behoves us all not to rush to judgment, but to wait for the police to establish the facts, to stay united in our communities and not to allow fear or the voices of hatred to divide or cower us. Today, we are united by our humanity, by our democratic values and by that human impulse for solidarity to stand together in times of darkness and adversity.
I express my condolences to the family and friends of police officer Keith Palmer who gave his life yesterday in defence of the public and our democracy. We thank the police and security personnel who keep us safe every day on this estate, and we especially pay tribute to the bravery of those who took action to stop the perpetrator of yesterday’s assault. The police and security staff lost a colleague yesterday and continued to fulfil their duties, despite their shock and their grief for their fallen colleague, which many of them expressed to me when I was talking to them late last night. We see the police and security staff every day. They are our colleagues. They are fellow workers. They are friends. They are neighbours. As the Prime Minister said, when dangerous and violent incidents take place, we all instinctively run away from them for our own safety; the police and emergency services run towards them. We are grateful for their public service yesterday, today and every day that they pull on their uniforms to protect us all.
I want to express our admiration for the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), whose efforts yesterday deserve special commendation. He used his skill to try to save a life.
Innocent people were killed yesterday walking across Westminster bridge, as many millions of Londoners and tourists and all of us in this Chamber have done before them. As the Prime Minister said, the injured include people of 10 nationalities. We send our deepest condolences to their loved ones and to the loved ones of those still in a critical condition, including the French schoolchildren so welcome in our capital who were visiting from Concarneau in Brittany. We send our sympathies to them and to the people of their town and their community.
We thank all the dedicated national health service staff working to save lives, including all those from St Thomas’ hospital who rushed straight over to the scene of the incident to try to support and save lives. Many people will have been totally traumatised by yesterday’s awful events—not just all of us here, but those who were watching on television, worried for the safety of their friends and loved ones—so I ask in this House and in the country, please, that we look after each other, help one another and think of one another. It is by demonstrating our values—solidarity, community, humanity and love—that we will defeat the poison and division of hatred.
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Gentleman and you, Mr Speaker, in expressing our gratitude for the support and solidarity that the French Government have shown us at this difficult time. Like many other countries on the continent, France has obviously felt the horror and trauma of terrible terrorist attacks, and we are grateful to the French Government for the support that they have shown us.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his description of the police officers. Every day they put on that uniform, they do not know what they will confront in the course of their duties. It is a fact often forgotten when people see the police officer walking on the streets that, actually, they put their life on the line for our safety and security. They show enormous bravery, and we are grateful to them all.
We are also grateful, as the right hon. Gentleman said, to all those from the emergency services, to those from the hospitals and to others who rushed forward to give aid and support to those who had been injured at a time when they knew not what else might be happening in the vicinity and whether they themselves might be in danger.
Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman said, at this time it is so important that we show that it is our values that will prevail, that the terrorists will not win and that we will go about our lives showing that unity of purpose and the values that we share as one nation as we go forward, ensuring that the terrorists will be defeated.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I join my right hon. Friend in everything she says in respect of the deaths and injuries that have taken place, and I join her in sending our condolences to the families and the injured.
My right hon. Friend has set exactly the right tone. Those of us who are privy to the information and background of these matters know very well that it has been little short of a miracle that, over the course of the last few years, we have escaped so lightly from the evil that is, I am afraid, present in our society and that manifests itself in these senseless and hideous acts of violence and evil. We have been very fortunate in that our security services have been immensely diligent and helpful in preventing such attacks, but she may agree with me that the House will simply have to be resolute in accepting that such attacks cannot always be prevented and that, as a society, we have to accept that we are going to have to fight this evil with rational democratic principles in order to get rid of it and that, in reality, there are no shortcuts that will ever enable us to do that.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. In a sense, he refers to the fact that a number of plots have been disrupted in recent years, and it is easy to forget that when the threat level is at severe it means that an attack is highly likely. We live in a free and open country, we live in a democracy, and as he says it is not possible to ensure that we can prevent the possibility of any attack, but we can work as hard as our security services and police do precisely to try to prevent attacks. They have worked hard and have been doing a good job, and they continue to do a good job, in keeping us safe and will do so into the future.
If we are to defeat this evil, my right hon. and learned Friend is right that we will defeat it through our democracy and our values. We must defeat, of course, the terrible ideology that leads people to conduct these horrific attacks.
Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)
I begin by associating myself and my hon. and right hon. Friends with everything that has been said by the Prime Minister, by the leader of the Labour party and by you, Mr Speaker. Today of all days, we are reminded that, notwithstanding our differences on political and constitutional issues, we are as one in our dedication to democracy, the rule of law and harmony between peoples of all faiths and none.
I personally wish the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary well as they work very hard on our behalf with the security and intelligence services to deal with the aftermath of the appalling indiscriminate terrorist act yesterday. Our hearts go out to the family, friends and colleagues of PC Keith Palmer and of all other casualties. We are all hugely grateful to all the police, security and intelligence staff and first responders who ran towards danger without concern for their own safety, and I include in that our colleague, the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
Today is not a day for detailed questions, so will the Prime Minister accept on behalf of the Scottish National party, and no doubt every Member of this House, our huge debt of gratitude to all police and security agency staff who are working so hard to keep everyone in the country safe? Does she agree with me that no terrorist outrage—no terrorist outrage—is representative of any faith, or of any faith community, and that we recommit ourselves to strengthening the bonds of tolerance and understanding?
Finally, is it not best to follow the advice of Brendan Cox, the husband of our murdered MP colleague, Jo Cox? He said:
“In the days to come I hope we will remember the love & bravery of the victims not just the hatred & cowardice of the attackers.”
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. He is absolutely correct that now is a time for us to come together to promote the values of tolerance and understanding to which he referred, and to recognise that what motivates the terrorists is a warped ideology and a desire to destroy the values that we share and that underpin our democracy—those values of the rule of law, human rights, tolerance and understanding, and democracy itself. We should be absolutely at one in ensuring that those values prevail. Finally, as he says, we should remember the bravery of the victims and the bravery of those who keep us safe, day in, day out.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s powerful statement and add my prayers to hers for those who have died and those who are suffering, and particularly for Keith Palmer, our wonderful and brave police officer. We have faced such threats before from those of twisted and violent ideologies, as the broken stones of the arch through which we enter on a daily basis bear testament to. Time and again, they have failed; they will always fail because we are a beacon of freedom in this place, and that is why they target us. But as they fail, may I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that as we extoll our righteous defiance in the face of such evil, we lace it with compassion, tolerance and hope?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely share the thoughts that my right hon. Friend has set out. He is right: this place is a beacon of freedom, and we should never forget that. We should be absolutely resolute in our determination to defeat this evil, but we should also be optimistic and hopeful for our democracy and our society in the future.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and for early sight of it. I also thank her for her words from the steps of 10 Downing Street last night, which were both unifying and defiant, and in which she really did speak for us all. We always know that the police keep us safe, but yesterday, in the most shocking of ways, we saw how true that really is. In my prayers are Keith Palmer, his family and all the victims of yesterday’s outrage, and they will continue to be there. I am, and we are, beyond thankful to the police, the NHS, the emergency services and the staff of this House for keeping us safe and being so utterly dedicated to their roles. Those who attack us hate our freedom, our peaceful democracy, our love of country, our tolerance, our openness and our unity. As we work to unravel how this unspeakable attack happened, will the Prime Minister agree with me that we must not, either in our laws or by our actions, curtail these values? Indeed, we should have more of them.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is of course right that, as others have said, we should ensure that our values of democracy, tolerance and freedom prevail. It is exactly those values that the terrorists are trying to attack. It is our very way of life that they wish to destroy, and that is why it is so important that, out there, those millions of citizens are going about their lives, as they would do normally, showing, in the very smallest of ways, but each and every one of them, a defiance of the terrorists.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Although yesterday’s dreadful events took place within the boundaries of my constituency, I know that the Palace of Westminster is close to the hearts of not just the 650 of us but of many millions of our fellow countrymen and, indeed, people who live abroad. I thank the Prime Minister for speaking so very eloquently for the nation, both on the steps of Downing Street yesterday evening and in the House today. She reminds us all that the greatest tribute that we, collectively, can pay to those so tragically murdered is to ensure that we go about our business as normally as possible and maintain the values and liberties that our forefathers fought so hard to win on our behalf.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is so important that we continue to show not just that we value those freedoms and liberties, but that we espouse and, in every action, embody them, because it is those that the terrorists wish to attack. Those freedoms and liberties were hard fought, and there are parts of this Palace where in the past there have been many arguments about them. We must ensure that they remain, and that we show, in our actions, in our deeds and in our words, that they remain at the heart of our democracy.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for her words here today, and also her words on the steps of Downing Street yesterday. At this very difficult and important time she spoke for us all, so I thank her for that.
We are so proud of the bravery of PC Keith Palmer, so sad for his grieving family, but so grateful for what he did to keep us safe. I wish to add my tribute to all the police and the parliamentary staff here in Westminster who acted with such calmness and professionalism yesterday. I wish to pay tribute, too, to the emergency trauma team at King’s College hospital who are caring for the injured. This was an horrific crime and it has cost lives and caused injury, but as an act of terror it has failed. It has failed because we are here and we will go about our business. It has failed because, despite the trauma that our staff witnessed outside their windows, they are here and getting on with their work. It has failed because, as the Prime Minister so rightly said, we are not going to allow this to be used as a pretext for division, hatred and Islamophobia. This democracy is strong, and this Parliament is robust. This was an horrific crime, but, as an act of terror, it has failed.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Lady speaks very well and I utterly agree with her words.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Some of us were present 38 years ago and nearby when Airey Neave was martyred. The lesson that we learned then was not to damn a community because of the actions of a single person. The message from the imam at the Worthing House of Prayer and Peace was:
“We will always be with those who work for peace.”
May I suggest that we try to disappoint those who calculate that publicity and public reaction will work in their favour by making sure that we work together?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Metropolitan police are bringing together a number of faith leaders for a meeting today to show the importance of that coming together. They are of course working with communities up and down the country, especially with those that are concerned about the possible reaction that might take place, to reassure them that the job of the police is to keep us all safe.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
May I join others in commending the Prime Minister for her statement last night and her statement today? In her tone and in substance, she has spoken for the whole country and I commend her for it. May I also echo those who have said that, in the coming days and weeks, we must not allow anyone to try to divide our country on the basis of faith or nationality after these attacks? The reality is that, across London and across the country, we are united against these attacks; that is who we are.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the country is united. People of all faiths and none are going about their business in defiance of the terrorists. Their very clear message is that they will not be cowed, and that is a message that this House gives very clearly today: this country will not be cowed by these terrorists.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I too send my sympathies to all those bereaved or injured in yesterday’s horrific attack. As we reflect on what happened, we must ask if it is time to consider whether the police who guard sensitive sites known to be of interest to terrorists, such as Parliament or airports, should routinely carry personal protection weapons, even when those officers are not part of the units formally tasked with armed response?
The Prime Minister
Over the nearly 20 years that I have been in this House, the level of security on the parliamentary estate has been enhanced significantly, and the number of armed officers on the parliamentary estate has been enhanced significantly. As to whether individual officers undertaking particular duties are routinely armed, that is an operational matter for the police themselves. They are best able to judge the circumstances in which it is best for individuals to have such arms. Of course, we have seen a significant increase in the number of armed response vehicles and the number of counter-terrorism specialist firearms officers. It is a sad reflection of the threat that we face that it has been necessary to do that, but we have been doing so. But, as I said, my right hon. Friend’s specific question is really an operational matter for the police.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I too commend the Prime Minister for her words last evening and today, when she spoke for all of us and for the entire country? PC Keith Palmer and his colleagues are the reason we are here today and on any other day. He embodied the rule of law, which we stand for, and stood in harm’s way for all of us. We remember and pray for his family, all the victims who suffered yesterday and the bereaved. We must remember, too, and always will, the bravery of the emergency services, the police, the security forces and our own parliamentary staff and, indeed, the goodness and decency of ordinary members of the public who rushed without regard for their own safety to help people—that includes our hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood).
We must uphold the values of this place—our democratic values. We have learned in Northern Ireland that the way to overcome terrorism is by working together politically, and in every other way, to ensure that our democratic values, the rule of law and human rights are all upheld in every way that they can be. We must rededicate ourselves to that in the future.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—we are able to be here today because of the bravery of our police officers. He rightly referred to the emergency services and others—members of the public, as he said—and to the staff of this House and of this Parliament who calmly went about their jobs to ensure that everybody was safe yesterday. As he said—he referred to the experience in Northern Ireland—the way to defeat terrorism is by working together and upholding our democratic values.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
As a Back Bencher, it seems to me that both the Prime Minister and the leaders of the opposition parties have set exactly the right tone today and prove that it is values that unite this kingdom. When this Chamber was completely destroyed in the war, Mr Churchill and Mr Attlee decided that not a single day would pass without our carrying on our work. The Prime Minister and her opposite number have shown today that the best way to defeat terrorism is to prove that we will not be moved from our values and our place.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He refers to a specific example in the past when, once again, Parliament upheld our democracy and showed our values in the face of evil, and we continue to do that today.
Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is dealing with this outrage in a calm and assured way. Does she agree that an effective counter-terrorism strategy designed to prepare, protect and pursue would be inadequate without the strand of prevent? In that vein, will she assure the House that across all 43 constabularies there will be neighbourhood policing teams visible to, and contactable by, the public, which is a crucial strand in feeding information on terrorism to the counter-terrorism organisations?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right. As he knows from his experience, our counter-terrorism strategy does indeed embody those four pillars, including the pillar of prevent. The action that is taken to prevent terrorism, violent extremism and extremism will come in many forms, but it is important that individuals within communities feel that they are able to give information when they are concerned about somebody within their community, or perhaps within their family, and what is happening to them. It is important that there are those opportunities for them. There will be a variety of means—some through policing and some through other opportunities—where people can go and give such information, not just only for the protection of us all but often to the benefit of the individual concerned.
James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)
May I commend the Prime Minister for her very fitting statement? When police officers die, they leave behind husbands, wives, sons and daughters. The Police Dependants’ Trust was set up to support the dependants of police officers killed or injured on duty, following the brutal murder of three police officers in Shepherd’s Bush in 1966. Will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging people to donate to the Police Dependants’ Trust via pdtrust.org/donate?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to encourage people to do exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. It is a valuable organisation, providing help and support to the families who are left behind. As we have all said, they have to live forever with what, for us, has been an act of bravery from their family member, but which, for them, is a tragedy and a trauma.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I, too, welcome the Prime Minister’s words, as she speaks for all of us with the backing of all parties today. She was right to say that this was an attempted attack on Parliament and democracy that failed because of the bravery of PC Keith Palmer, who gave his life doing a job with others to keep people safe. It was also a violent, cowardly attempted attack on our freedom, by mowing down people who were just walking along a bridge. As our hearts go out to them, does the Prime Minister agree that that attack on freedom also fails, not just because of communities’ resilience and determination but because of the perhaps unique partnership in this country between the police and communities of all faiths and across all parts of the country, and that that partnership working will be crucial to our making sure that the terrorists never win?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right; it was a cowardly attack. Parliament has particularly focused on the attempt to attack Parliament, but the mowing down of innocent men, women and children who were just going about their business in a variety of ways—many had come here as tourists to enjoy the great delights of this wonderful city—was an absolutely cowardly and appalling act. We have a unique bond between our police and their communities, and it is important that the partnership and bond continue.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
May I commend the Prime Minister’s statement? I also commend the Prime Minister for her reassuring dignity and resolve. She has shown why she is proving to be a superb Prime Minister, and why we are proud to have her as our Prime Minister. Of course, our hearts go out to the victims, and we honour the police, who risk their lives every day and, unfortunately, too often give up their lives to keep us safe. Will the Prime Minister assure us that she will ensure that police forces up and down the country, and the security services, will always have the resources they need to carry out their job of keeping us all safe?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. As I indicated in my statement, we have taken steps to enhance the resources available for our security and intelligence agencies, and for our police forces, particularly those working in counter-terrorism. As I indicated in my answer to an earlier question, we have looked, in recent times, to increase the number of armed response vehicles available not just here in London but in other parts of the country. Of course, we constantly look at making sure that our response is appropriate, but we are very conscious of the job that our police do, day in and day out, and we give them the support that they need.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I speak for my party, Plaid Cymru. I commend the Prime Minister for her words today. All of us being here today is not a show of defiance. It is a show of respect for the dead and the injured, respect for democracy and respect for our duty to our constituents. One man cannot shut down a city and lock down democracy. Does the Prime Minister agree that we must not react to such a warped ideology with unworthy responses?
The Prime Minister
What is absolutely appropriate is the response that this House has shown today: it has shown gratitude for the bravery of our police and our emergency services; it has shown respect and concern for those who have been the victims of the terrible attacks that took place; but, also, it has shown normality, and that is what is important as we defy the terrorists, and as we work to defeat them.
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement. I have been an MP for 25 years, and I have seen the police play many roles around the Palace of Westminster, one of which is to give advice to members of the public about where to go. None of us will have passed Carriage Gates without seeing members of the public having their photographs taken with the police—that too is one of the things the police do. One of the other things they do is protect our democracy, as we saw yesterday—with brutal consequences.
I am very proud of the police and everything they do in defending our democracy. Keith Palmer was one of us; every one of the police who protect us is one of us. The tribute to Keith and the police is that we are here today and that our proceedings are going on. We have the arch that was spoken about before, which is a lasting memorial to those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our democracy. I hope that, at an appropriate time, following discussion with the family, we may be able to look at a lasting memorial to Keith, in order that each and every one of us will know that there are people putting their lives on the line for our democracy today.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am sure the House authorities will wish to consider the point that he has made. If I may just reflect on his earlier remarks, it is a particular characteristic of policing in the United Kingdom that our police are able to have that link and that bond with members of the public, at the same time as they are doing the very difficult job of keeping us safe. We see it so often when major events take place—royal weddings, the Olympics and so forth—but my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we see it day in and day out here on the parliamentary estate.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
As we mourn those who were so cruelly cut down yesterday, give our grateful thanks to the police and to the emergency and security services for their exemplary courage and devotion to duty, and show as a country, by our determination to carry on, that we will not be cowed, as the Prime Minister put it so eloquently, does she agree that we will need to show the same determination to stand up against anyone who seeks to sow division or to stir up hatred in the wake of these cowardly attacks?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We must be very clear that the voices of evil and hate will not divide us; that should also be a clear message from this House today.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
While our hearts go to all those people who were wounded and murdered yesterday, and to all the people who sought to help them, I would like, with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to turn for just a moment to PC Keith Palmer, whom I first met 25 years ago when he was Gunner Keith Palmer at headquarters battery, 100 Regiment Royal Artillery. He was a strong, professional public servant, and it was a delight to meet him here again only a few months after being elected. In recognition of the work that he did and that the other police officers and public servants in the House do, would my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister consider posthumously recognising his gallantry and sacrifice formally?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for not just the compassion but the passion with which he has spoken about an individual he knew, and he bears witness to the tremendous public service that Keith Palmer had given this country in so many ways, having served in our armed forces and then come to this place and made the ultimate sacrifice here, at the heart of our democracy. I can assure my hon. Friend that the issue he has raised will, of course, be considered in due course.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
Yesterday, we saw absolutely the best of security, policing and the emergency services. We also saw the camaraderie that got people through the lockdown, when we had staff stuck in offices all over the estate. I make a small plea that people will take the bravery and determination of yesterday, but that they will also remember to talk among themselves and support their staff; and that instead of burying any feelings of fear from yesterday, they will let that out, so that there is absolutely no scar remnant within this place as we go forward.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. It is all too easy for us to come to this Chamber to show our gratitude, rightly, for the bravery shown by those who protect us, but to forget that for all the staff who were caught up in this, it could have lasting impacts. I understand that there are moves afoot to ensure that, as I said in my statement, Members can access help and support for themselves and their staff, should they wish to do that. But, actually, just allowing people to talk about what happened is often the best remedy.
Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement this morning and for her message last night in Downing Street. As a former Metropolitan police officer, may I pass on my condolences personally to Constable Palmer’s family, and to the pedestrians and everybody who was involved yesterday?
As someone who served on the counter-terrorist command here in London in the 1980s, when the IRA, the Irish National Liberation Army and middle eastern groups were bombing London apart, I know only too well the challenge that is faced by the police. I know that the Prime Minister has already been asked about resourcing, but may I reinforce that point by asking her to ensure that in the area of counter-terrorism the Met police and all police forces, as well as the security forces in general, want for nothing?
The Prime Minister
I reassure my hon. Friend that through the refresh of the strategic defence and security review we did a major exercise in which we looked at the resources that should be available for all aspects of counter-terrorism. That is, of course, about the security and intelligence agencies and the police, but other parts of Government have a role to play in counter-terrorism as well. Extra resources are going in, as I indicated in my statement. Of course, we want to ensure that all who are involved in acting against terrorism have the support that they need to do the job that we want them to do.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s words and those of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Does the Prime Minister accept that this is not about our personal security, as Members of Parliament, or about the security of this building? PC Keith Palmer died defending the values of, as the Prime Minister put it, “free people everywhere”. Is not the proper response over the coming days, as more facts emerge, to stand firm for those self-same values of free people everywhere?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As he says, it is not about individuals in this House or this building; it is about what we stand for, and we should stand absolutely firm for those values.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I start by commending the Prime Minister for a very powerful speech, and particularly for the tone in which it was delivered? Yesterday, we saw an attack on this centre of democracy and on the citizens of 10 countries. The message that we need to take away from here is that not only is this evil ideology an attack on western countries and on the values that we hold so dear, but it seeks to destroy the way of life of people across the globe. I hope that the message will go out to all decent and civilised countries that we must all redouble our resolve to deal with this evil.
The Prime Minister
I have been struck by the number of messages I have received from a number of foreign leaders to whom I have spoken in which they have been absolutely clear that we stand together in defiance, as he says, but also in ensuring that we will defeat this evil.
Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)
We recognise the immense bravery of all concerned yesterday, but should we not also recognise that, unfortunately, terror attacks are likely to continue for years to come and, needless to say, this country is not unique in Europe, let alone elsewhere, in having such onslaughts against us. Arising from what the Prime Minister said, may I just tell her that, during all the years of sustained IRA bombing, I as a Member of Parliament did not receive any letters at all or have anyone come to my surgery telling me that we should change our policy in combating terrorism? I have to say that illustrates once again that our people are simply not appeasers.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe the British public stand with this Parliament in wanting to see us in defiance of terrorists, defeating the terrorists and showing that the values of democracy and the rule of law—the values of free people everywhere—underpin our way of life. I think people recognise that, and they want to see this House endorse it.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I support all that the Prime Minister has said and done, and my thoughts are with all those who have been affected by this evil act. The assistant police commissioner, Mr Rowley, said in 2016 that two people a day are being turned away from extremism, that it is often members of an individual’s own community who are alerting the authorities and that it is communities who defeat terrorism. May I ask the Prime Minister what further steps we are taking to engage with all our communities so that we can work together to defeat the non-violent extremism that often leads to violent extremism?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that it is important we defeat such extremism and deal with it at that earlier stage. A lot of work is being done within communities and working with communities. Obviously, there is the work that the police do to encourage people within communities to come forward with information when it is possible to do so and they have such concerns. That is important: people need to have the confidence of feeling that they can do that. It is important to create the environment within communities where people who recognise there are those who are trying to destroy our way of life actually feel able to take action about it. My hon. Friend is right: bringing communities together is an important part of what the Government are doing on a number of fronts.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I had intended to call another Birmingham Member, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who, sadly, has left the Chamber. In the absence of that hon. Member, let us hear the voice of Jack Dromey.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
May I thank the Prime Minister for her leadership at a bleak moment for our country? As the brave guardian of Parliament, Keith Palmer fought for his life yesterday; the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) fought to save his life. May I say of the hon. Gentleman that he is one of Parliament’s finest?
In backing our police to defeat terrorism, does the Prime Minister believe we should heed their wise words that to demonise and divide is to play right into the hands of the evil that is terrorism?
The Prime Minister
We should not be making any attempt to demonise individual communities. We should recognise that it is individuals who are terrorists, that they are adhering to a warped ideology—a warped ideology of evil—and that that is true whatever the origin of the terrorism, because there are different ideologies. This House has been struck before, as we know, and has felt terrorism of a different sort hitting a Member of this House. We must ensure that we do not demonise communities, but work with them to identify and to isolate those who wish to do us harm.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
In the wake of yesterday’s evil, tragic, but unfortunately not wholly unexpected attack on this place, there will be a review, as the Prime Minister has said, of the response of our excellent police and security services. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an open and free democracy such as ours there will always be a balance between our security, and public access to and the transparency of our democracy, and that if that balance is not maintained, unfortunately, the terrorists will have won?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is a balance. We live in an open and free democracy. We want members of the public to have access to their representatives and to this place, and for Members of this place to have easy access to it. That is part of how we operate. It is important, as we look ahead and ask whether anything more needs to be done, to recognise that we should not in any way destroy the values that underpin our democracy, because if we do that, as he says, the terrorists will have won.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
For the first time in this House, I want to agree with everything that has been said by every Member who has spoken so far. May I add thanks to two more groups of people who have not yet been mentioned: the staff at Westminster Abbey who received people who left this House; and the firearms officer who acted in a way that he had been trained to, but probably never expected to? We owe him our thanks.
The Prime Minister knows better than any of us that this sort of attack—it looks like a lone-wolf kind of attack—is the hardest for our security services to prevent. Its prevention, as her remarks have made clear, is best achieved by our celebrating our values—the values that meant that among the victims, there were people of 11 different nationalities—our openness and our democracy. What can she do to help to ensure that everybody in Britain—every child and everyone of every religion—is given the opportunity to learn about those values and celebrate them, because I think that is the best way to keep us safe in future?
The Prime Minister
I join the right hon. Lady in commending the staff of Westminster Abbey, who played a role in supporting people from Parliament yesterday, and the firearms officer, who had to make a split-second decision about what to do. It is not an easy job; it is difficult. Officers are trained to do it, but when the point comes, it is a difficult decision to take. We are grateful that he did that, with the consequences that we know about.
It is important that we celebrate our values. An important element in countering the extremists is to ensure that the values that we share are championed and resolutely put forward. The right hon. Lady asked what I would do, but it is for everybody in this House, as we go about our business as Members of Parliament, to encourage that celebration of the values that we share.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I commend my right hon. Friend for the resolute, brave and courageous way she has stood up for our country and say how proud we are of her? Does she agree that one terrorist will not destroy our country, 10 terrorists will not destroy our country and 10,000 terrorists will not destroy our country—in fact, no amount of terrorists will ever destroy our way of life, because they are just trying to destroy what we in this place represent: freedom and democracy?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Terrorism will not destroy our way of life; it will not win. We uphold those values of freedom and democracy; they underpin our way of life. They are what the terrorists are trying to attack and they are what the terrorists dislike, but we must ensure that we uphold those values. As he says, no number of terrorists will defeat this place or defeat those values.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
PC Keith Palmer did not return home from work yesterday to his family so that the rest of us in this House could. We should never forget that sacrifice, and every single day we should pass our thanks to the staff and security of this House and the emergency services. Will the Prime Minister join me in cherishing what happened here yesterday when staff who were terrified and frightened came together and all supported each other? That, in itself, is a way to say to terrorism that it will never win.
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. As he says, the way that people came together, showed that camaraderie and supported each other at a difficult and uncertain time for individuals in the parliamentary estate was a very important message to the terrorists.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
It is reported that what happened yesterday was an act of Islamic terror. Does the Prime Minister agree that what happened was not Islamic, just as the murder of Airey Neave was not Christian, and that both were perversions of religion?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree. It is wrong to describe what happened as Islamic terrorism; it is Islamist terrorism—a perversion of a great faith.
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and wish her and her Cabinet well in their deliberations as we move forward. I echo everything that has been said about those who were killed, their families and the other victims. Will the Prime Minister ensure that every effort is made to support the victims and families, and the police officer whose role was to stop the terrorist in the end?
The Prime Minister
I assure the hon. Gentleman that that support will be available. Of course, the Metropolitan police already have in place the necessary support arrangements for those who have been injured and the bereaved families. I have also asked the Government to look at what further support can be made available for victims in a wider sense, because there will be people who were not physically injured in the attack yesterday, but witnessed it or were caught up in it, for whom there may be other scars. It is important to provide that support.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
Parliament is a different place this morning. On my way in from the tube, I realised that millions of people live with the after-effects of terrorism. At almost this time yesterday, in my summing up of a Westminster Hall debate, I said of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood):
“I understand that his experience of terrorism is something that is not known to the rest of us”.— Official Report, 22 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 360WH.]
I could certainly repeat that assertion this morning about his experience yesterday afternoon. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should use the honours system to recognise those who made a contribution yesterday, including my hon. Friend?
The Prime Minister
As I indicated earlier, proper consideration will be given to the issue that my hon. Friend raises. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) yesterday evening, and we should all recognise not only that he showed huge professionalism in putting his past training to use in the hope of saving PC Keith Palmer’s life, but that he did so in the middle of a terrorist attack, and he is someone who knows the trauma and tragedy of losing somebody in a terrorist attack.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
I very much associate myself with the Prime Minister’s statement and everyone’s comments, and I pay tribute to all those involved. We are thinking of the victims and their families. I am the sister of a police officer in uniform, and when police officers go out of the front door in the morning, none of us really knows what they will face. Yesterday hit all of us and was particularly hard for those of us who have family in uniform. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister will give all the support she can to the victims, their families and all those who were affected.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady speaks well on this. When I was Home Secretary, two events always brought home to me the commitment, bravery and dedication of police officers. One was the National Police Memorial Day service, when the police recognise those who have fallen, and the other was the police bravery awards, where groups of police officers are recognised for brave acts that they have undertaken. What always struck me—and, I am sure, other hon. Members who have been at that ceremony—was the matter-of-fact way in which our police officers, whatever they had done, whomever they had dealt with and whatever injuries they had suffered, would say that they were just doing their job. We owe them a great deal.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for the tone with which she has reacted. She has genuinely spoken for the nation in this moment. Yesterday, many of us from the House were gathered in Westminster Abbey, in lockdown. In a stunning moment, people from left and right, of the Muslim, Hindu, and Christian faiths and of none, gathered in Westminster Abbey, in sanctuary, surrounded by luminaries of our political past, of left and right. I support others who reminded us today that what happened was not an act of faith, but the distortion of faith and that, in the strength of all our faiths coming together in this country, we will defend the values we cherish.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That shows the importance of all our faiths working together, recognising the values we share. As he says, this act of terror was not an act of faith. A perversion—a warped ideology—leads to such acts of terrorism, and it will not prevail.
Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)
My prayers are with all those who were injured, with all those who lost their lives and their families, and particularly with PC Keith Palmer, who made the ultimate sacrifice. This attacker and people like him are not of my religion, nor are they of our community. We should condemn all who pretend to be of a religion when they are not, because if they were of a religion, they would not be carrying out acts like this one. We have to stay united, and show them that they cannot win on these grounds and that we are here to stay.
The Prime Minister
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the comments he has just made and for the stance he has consistently taken on terrorism. He has been very clear that, as he says, this is not of his religion. A perversion and a warped, evil mentality leads to these acts of terror.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I join hon. Members in saluting my fellow Dorset county Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), for his quiet bravery yesterday. It is a hallmark of his character that he stands below the Bar of the House today.
Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree with these words, which were written by a worker on the London underground yesterday afternoon? They were penned on a public notice board shortly after the events. My judgment is that he or she spoke for the whole country, irrespective of faith or creed, when they wrote: “All terrorists are politely reminded that this is London, and whatever you do to us, we will drink tea and jolly well carry on.”
The Prime Minister
I think that is a wonderful tribute. In a very simple way, it encapsulates everything hon. Members in the House have said today.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Like many Members, in the 16 years I have been a Member, I have walked every day through Carriage Gates and said a small prayer for the safety of those who stand there to protect us. From now on, I will add a prayer for the soul of PC Keith Palmer.
Among the bravery and professionalism we saw yesterday—I say this as a former teacher who took children on many school trips—were the actions of the teachers, both those injured in the attack and those who were in the House during the lockdown, who kept the children educated, entertained and calm, on a day and on a school trip when they saw, witnessed and heard of things that they should never have to see.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It must have been particularly difficult for those children who were here and caught up in this. We should commend the work of their teachers in offering that reassurance and calm. We must particularly recognise the role of the French teachers of the French group. The last thing people expect when they bring a group of young people to visit another country is something terrible like that happening. They will have acted to support the other members of that group who went through that trauma, and will continue to do so.
David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)
As we were evacuated from the House yesterday, I too met several stoical school groups, who had been involved with visits organised by the parliamentary education service. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such visits, as promoted by you, Mr Speaker, are vital and help to provide an antidote to hatred and intolerance?
The Prime Minister
I absolutely agree. Those visits are also important in helping to promote the values we share. The right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) asked earlier how we can ensure that we are promoting those values. The work that Parliament does by bringing in schoolchildren and showing them the work of Parliament and the values of our democracy is an important part of that.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
My thoughts are with PC Palmer’s family and the families of all the victims of yesterday’s terrorist attacks. We are so grateful to the emergency services, and everyone who protected us and the wider public.
The Prime Minister speaks for the whole country in her message of unity, but does she agree that the painstaking work begins now, in the days ahead, for all hon. Members in our constituencies in providing reassurance and maintaining that unity? It is in the days after such events that we must be vigilant against those who try to exploit attacks and cause backlashes and intolerance against different communities. Does she also agree that the role of the media is critical in ensuring that we maintain our resilience, and that sense of defiance and solidarity?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right. There is an immediate focus on the event that has taken place, but, as she says, it is in the days afterwards that some may try to sow division and hatred in our communities. We all have a role to play in ensuring that does not happen.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement and offer my condolences to all affected. I am from an armed forces family, so I know that at these times it is all the more important to show our resolve. I also hope that we will continue to support all those affected, because although trauma may not have an impact straight away, it can have long-term impacts and effects. We must reach out in compassion, for that is what sets us apart from terrorists.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. Sadly, over time with a number of incidents we have come to learn more about the importance of providing that support. It is not just about an immediate reaction. For some, the impact of an attack can kick in quite a while later, which is why we are looking at the support available for victims.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend’s statement. I hope she agrees with me that Great Britain’s police force is the greatest in the world. For those of us who have served as police officers, I pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer who stood serving and protecting this House unarmed when duty called. He went towards the face of evil and made the ultimate sacrifice. Lone wolf terrorist attacks are notoriously difficult to defend. What, if anything, can be done to make sure this kind of event does not happen again?
The Prime Minister
In terms of protective security, work will be done with the parliamentary estate to see if anything more needs to be done. The best way to defeat the terrorists is through intelligence—finding out information about the potential for attacks in advance and then preventing them. As I said in my statement, since June 2013, 13 terrorist plots have been disrupted in this country. That is due to the hard work of our police, security and intelligence agencies. They work day in, day out to keep us safe and they will continue to do so.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I think everyone who works on the parliamentary estate has at some point considered what they would do if a day like yesterday ever happened, but for those of us who work alongside our families on site it is of particular concern. Will the Prime Minister join me in saying a specific word of praise for the staff at the House of Commons nursery for their actions yesterday? Many of us can attest to the fact that looking after just one toddler in a confined space for a number of hours is not easy, but yesterday they looked after all the children in very difficult circumstances, all the time keeping in touch with some very worried parents. I was in the nursery during the lockdown. Their courage, care and steadfastness was exemplary and much appreciated.
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in commending the work of the nursery staff. It must have been particularly difficult with very young children in what was an uncertain and difficult circumstance. I am sure they did an excellent job and I am happy to join him in commending their work.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I join all the tributes that have been paid. I think those of us who were locked down in the Chamber will also want to pay particular tribute to Mr Deputy Speaker, the Chairman of Ways and Means, and to the Leader of the House for keeping calm and carrying on, and keeping us informed about what was going on. I also pay tribute to the Hansard reporters who kept democracy going and reported, three hours after the business had finished, the live recording of the proceedings up to the Adjournment of the House. That is a tribute to the continuity of our democracy.
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I join the hon. Gentleman in commending the actions of both the Chairman of Ways and Means and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House yesterday. Very calmly, they were able to reassure Members of this House at a time when nobody knew everything about what was happening and only very limited information was available.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
Yesterday showed us the worst of humanity, but it also showed us—much, much more—the best of humanity in the actions of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), PC Palmer, and the firearms officer who shot down the person who wanted to terrorise all of us, our country and our democracy.
I have been touched by the number of people from my constituency—of Christian faith, of Jewish faith, of Muslim faith, and of no faith—who have contacted me in the last two days. I pay particular tribute to the chairman of the mosque in Leeds, who contacted me to say that his thoughts and prayers, and those of all members of the Muslim community in Leeds, were with all of us at this difficult time. There will be prayers in mosques, synagogues and churches across our country in the days ahead.
The Prime Minister
I join the hon. Lady in that. I think that all faith communities in the country will be coming together and, as she has said, will be remembering those who have suffered as a result of the attacks. In their coming together they will be showing again that they represent the values about which we have talked, and which are so important to our way of life.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been exemplary in this instance, as, indeed, she was in relation to Hillsborough, in my view. I congratulate her on that.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) was absolutely right when he said that Keith was one of us. One of the things that we saw yesterday was that the parliamentary family is a very big family: it includes cooks, cleaners, Clerks, Doorkeepers, and all sorts of people who make our democracy function and who are, in many ways, far more important than we are.
When a Member of Parliament dies in action or is killed in a terrorist incident, as Ian Gow and Airey Neave were, a shield is put up in the Chamber, and I hope that—sadly—there will soon be one for Jo Cox. Surely, whatever other tributes and medals there may be in the future, it is time for Keith to have a shield here, because he was our shield and defender yesterday.
The Prime Minister
The bravery shown by PC Keith Palmer and his act of sacrifice should be recognised in an appropriate way, but as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, what that should be is a matter for the House authorities.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Yesterday, on Westminster Bridge and in New Palace Yard, many members of the public and Members of the House attempted to give life-saving aid to those who had been injured. Since then many of us will have asked ourselves whether we would have had the same skills had we been in close proximity to deliver that aid. Will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging those who now seek to acquire such skills to do so, and perhaps to contact their local branch of St John Ambulance with a view to taking lessons?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important and very good point, and I join him in that encouragement. The vast majority of Members of the House would probably not have had the skills that would have enabled them to act in that way, and it is a very good message that perhaps more of us should go out and acquire those skills.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
A key aim of any terrorist is to exploit the completely natural and inevitable sense of public interest, grief and sympathy in order to sow disunity, disruption and fear beyond the physical act of terror itself. May I ask the Prime Minister to build on her commendable words about the resolution of the British people? Does she think that we should also take time to reflect, both in the Chamber and outside—and that includes the media—on how we can balance the public interest and people’s feelings of grief with seeking not to give the oxygen of publicity to whatever cause a terrorist seeks to promote?
The Prime Minister
The question of the oxygen of publicity is obviously important, and I think we should all reflect on the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. He referred to the actions of the media. We have talked about a number of people who were caught up in what happened yesterday, but we should not forget that many journalists were caught up too, either on the periphery of the parliamentary estate or within the estate, and continued to do their best to do their job in reporting faithfully what was happening. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that how these matters are addressed and reported is an important consideration. We want to ensure that it is not possible for people to use such actions either to encourage others or to try to sow division.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I would like to add my words of condolence and gratitude to those already so eloquently expressed. Yesterday, two of my constituents were caught up in the attacks, one of whom was eight months’ pregnant, and they have asked me to pass on their gratitude and thanks to the House staff and the police for the consideration with which they were treated during the five-hour lockdown.
Does the Prime Minister agree that, just as we continue to go about our daily work, so those whom we represent must continue to see this House as their House, and must be encouraged to come here to see, and participate in, the democracy which puts our values into action?
The Prime Minister
That is an important point: it is part of our democracy that members of the public—the constituents we represent—are able to come to this place and to learn about this place, and are also able to access their elected representatives at this place. We should ensure that that will always continue.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) mentioned the House of Commons staff, who showed exemplary behaviour in the face of adversity yesterday. I want to pay particular tribute to the nursery manager, Anjali, who was very reassuring and calm in dealing with the nervous parents who had very small babies on site. This was every parent’s worst nightmare, and Anjali and her colleagues stayed calm under a terrorist attack.
May I add that people who commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam do not speak for the Muslims in this country, do not speak for the Muslims in this city, and certainly do not speak for me.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her words, and, again, for the warm way in which she has spoken of the action of members of the House of Commons staff who were looking after the small children in the nursery. She is absolutely right: the terrorists do not speak in the name of a faith; they have a warped ideology.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The murderer who used both his car and a knife as indiscriminate weapons of murder yesterday cared not what the faith was of the people he killed, or about their nationality. Does it not say everything about why our values will prevail and the values of murder will not that, after the police had shot him, they attempted to save his life?
The Prime Minister
It absolutely does show the values that underpin our way of life that the police’s first thought then was to try to save that individual’s life, and that is what the police do; it is what they have done in previous incidents as well. As the hon. Gentleman says, that shows the values that are at the heart of our society.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the Prime Minister on her strength of character and leadership at this time: cometh the hour, cometh the woman. We thank you, Prime Minister—God will bless you, and all that you do.
We are all aware of the policy review that will take place. It will make recommendations for enhancements, and may I ask for an assurance that they will be conveyed to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly, and, further, that there will be co-operation on this with the Republic of Ireland, which is very important for us in Northern Ireland, so that security is enhanced and strengthened?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. Obviously, it is important that any lessons learned here on this parliamentary estate are shared with the other representative Parliaments and Assemblies across the United Kingdom.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)
This morning I spoke with the imam of Swansea University mosque, Sheikh Mohsen, who wanted to share his deepest sorrow, shock and condolences with the family of Keith Palmer and all the bereaved families, and to say that Islam is of course the Arabic word for peace and that these acts were not carried out in the name of Islam. Extremists, whether Islamic fundamentalists or right-wing terrorists, are trying to divide our communities and we should stand united, shoulder to shoulder, against all terror. Will the Prime Minister send a message to Muslims in Swansea and throughout Britain that we will stand shoulder to shoulder to defend our shared values—our freedoms, our democracies, our human rights—in a land and a community that we all share?
The Prime Minister
This act of terror was not done in the name of a religion; it was done, as I said earlier, as a result of a warped ideology. All acts of terror are evil acts underpinned by warped ideologies of different sorts, but whatever the ideology, it is an attempt to divide us and to destroy our way of life that drives the evil acts of the terrorists. We stand together with the Muslim community and with other communities around this country and say that what unites us is greater than what divides us. We must be very clear that we share the values of democracy, of the rule of law and of freedom. These are what make the society in which we all live.
Mr Speaker
I thank the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and all colleagues for what they have said and for the way in which they have said it.
Business of the House
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
With permission, Mr Speaker, before I announce the business, I should like to update colleagues on one or two practical matters following the terrorist attack yesterday. As is apparent to us all, the security checks and the rules on access to the Palace remain, for the time being, more restrictive than those to which we have become accustomed. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will not only accept the need for patience and compliance but ensure that their staff understand the need for these arrangements at present.
Allusion was made in earlier exchanges to the possible health needs of staff and others who may have witnessed what took place yesterday, and I want to take this opportunity to remind all colleagues of the parliamentary health and wellbeing service based at 7 Millbank, which is available to provide that kind of support to staff as well as to Members. The books of condolence for PC Palmer are now open in the Library, the Royal Gallery and Westminster Hall. Finally, on this point, the Chapel in the Undercroft will be open all day for any Member or staff member who wishes to say prayers or to reflect, and your chaplain, Mr Speaker, will be conducting short services there at 12.30 pm, 3 pm and 6 pm, which anybody is welcome to attend.
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 27 March—Remaining stages of the Bus Services Bill [Lords].
Tuesday 28 March—Consideration of Lords amendment to the Neighbourhood Planning Bill followed by debate on a motion on the conflict in Yemen. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 29 March—Remaining stages of the Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] followed by opposed private business that has been named by the Chairman of Ways and Means for consideration.
Thursday 30 March—Debate on a motion on animal welfare followed by a general debate on matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 31 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 17 April will include:
Monday 17 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 18 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and for mentioning where staff who work in the House can get extra support if they need it. I should also like to thank him and his deputy for the leadership they showed yesterday. This is a sad day, because we have lost a superhero who has kept us safe every day. His family are suffering, and they are trying to make sense of his death. Their lives will be utterly changed, but we will always remember Keith Palmer.
I also want to thank colleagues, who were extremely patient yesterday, as well as the year 12 politics students from Dr Challoner’s High School, who were up in the Gallery, and the pupils from a primary school in Birmingham. I especially want to thank the police, the security service and the emergency services for all they did to protect us and keep us informed in their usual professional manner and for the dedication that they show as public servants, day after day, allowing us to go about our lives safely. I also thank the Serjeant at Arms and the magnificent team of Doorkeepers. We all know how good they are every day, but on behalf of us all, I want to offer them an extra-special thank you for their calm professionalism and kindness in dealing with the situation yesterday. It is a real tribute to the House service. The Clerk of the House and his team also ensured that decisions could be made promptly and sensibly.
The Prime Minister said that this is business as usual, so I will proceed with business as usual and ask the Leader of the House a question. The convention is that there is a debate when a statutory instrument is prayed against, so may I express my concern that that convention has not been followed in the case of early-day motion 985 on personal independence payment regulations and early-day motion 948 on tuition fees and awards?
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (S.I., 2017, No. 194), dated 22 February 2017, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be annulled.]
Under those regulations, those in psychological distress are denied access to additional support. Epilepsy Action is deeply concerned about the regulations and how they affect people with epilepsy or other long-term conditions. For students, the inflation-linked rise represents a 2.8% increase, and if that continues, fees could rise above £10,000 in the next few years. The House rose early on Tuesday, and the last Opposition day was a month ago. The Government seem to be thwarting the Opposition, preventing effective opposition by controlling the business in that way, so may we have time for a debate on those two important statutory instruments?
Article 50 is triggered next week, and there will be a vast amount of legislation to enact, so will the Leader of the House ensure that White Papers, draft legislation and an impact assessment are made available before the Bills are published? Will he ensure that the Government use secondary legalisation not to stifle debate, but to allow Parliament to scrutinise that secondary legislation?
May we have a debate about leaving the BBC alone? Back Benchers may have time on their hands, but they said in a letter sent round by many hon. Members that the BBC is focusing on regretful voters, which is absurd. I have had emails from people who voted to leave and have regretted it, but the letter contains not a single piece of evidence—it was all opinion. After all, the Opposition have had to put up with the fact that the new editor of the “Today” programme used to openly support the Tory candidates for Mayor of London and the fact that the current editor of the Evening Standard is a former Tory Chancellor. More importantly, there should be no intimidation of or pre-emptive strike on a public broadcaster.
Another manifesto promise has been broken. While the consultation on the new funding formula closed yesterday, the Government promised in their 2015 manifesto a real-terms increase in the schools budget during this Parliament and that
“As the number of pupils increases, so will the amount of money in our schools.”
However, nearly half of schools would face a funding cut. In Walsall South, schools face a reduction of £490 per pupil. May we have a debate on the impact of the new funding formula to set out the losers and the losers, because every school will be a loser? Schools will bear the brunt of unfunded rises in pay, pension and national insurance contributions that could amount to between 6% and 11% of their budgets by 2019-20.
This is the last business questions for the Leader of the House and me before the Easter recess, so I again want to thank the Clerk of the House, his staff, the Library, the Doorkeepers, and you, your Deputies and your office, Mr Speaker—everyone who has made my work as shadow Leader of the House easier. I wish everyone a happy Easter. Finally, I want to say, from every corner of this United Kingdom and every corner of the world, blessed are the peacemakers.
Mr Lidington
I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words and associate myself unreservedly both with her final remarks and with the tributes that she rightly paid not only to the police, but to the staff of the House for what they did yesterday in their various roles.
I have to say to the hon. Lady that I intend to be here for a business statement next Thursday. I would be very sorry to lose her across the Dispatch Box, but perhaps this is another Opposition Front-Bench change that has been heralded in advance.
The hon. Lady asked about a number of pieces of forthcoming business, and I can tell her that the Government will make provision for debates on the two statutory instruments about which she expressed concern. I cannot give her a firm date yet—work is happening and discussions are continuing through the usual channels about the precise date—but time will be found.
On the items of European legislation that will be needed, there will of course be ample opportunity to debate their content and impact. Although it is no secret that I expect the repeal Bill to include some secondary legislative powers, the scope and definition of those powers will of course themselves be subject to the full parliamentary process. The definitions and scope will have to be agreed by both Houses of Parliament through the normal process of enacting a Bill into law.
On education, it is a fact that more is being spent on schools than ever before, but the national funding formula, to which the hon. Lady expressed particular objection, has been the subject of a consultation that closed only a couple of days ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will now consider the responses of local authorities, schools and others to that consultation, and she will come forward with the Government’s proposals in due course. For a long time, it was common ground between political parties that the existing funding formula is grotesquely unfair in that it provides, in some cases, for a child attending school in one authority to receive almost twice as much funding as an equivalent child in a comparable school in a different local authority, despite the basic cost of providing education being the same. That is why the Government committed themselves to introducing a national funding formula.
Finally, the hon. Lady asked about the BBC. I note that she did not allude to the presence of a former Labour Cabinet Minister in a senior role at the BBC, although I suspect he has probably been airbrushed out by the current Labour party leadership. For as long as I have been in this place, robust, strongly held and strongly expressed views about the BBC, for and against, have been voiced by Members on both sides of the House. My feeling is that, if hon. Members have a sin in that respect, it is that we spend too much time watching or listening to political and current affairs programmes. When I think of the BBC, I think of the Proms and Radio 3, which enable me to approach the subject with a degree of serenity.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
We are urged to follow business as usual, which is difficult given what happened yesterday, not because any of us is affected by terrorism but simply because we are so horrified and saddened by those events and the terrible deaths and injuries. We wish everyone well, and our thoughts are with those who have suffered as a result of these terrible murders.
I will try to engage in business as usual by asking this of the Leader of the House. Many of us were surprised to learn that the apprenticeship levy, which is a good idea that has been rightly passed on to local, upper-tier and unitary authorities, has wrongly in turn been passed on to schools. Schools in my constituency of Broxtowe find that they are paying £300 or £400 but are receiving no benefit from the levy. They are having to pay the burden, which is wrong. When will the Leader of the House arrange for us to have a debate on that outrage?
Mr Lidington
Although we rightly return to business as normal to demonstrate that our democracy and our free society will not be disrupted by terrorism, it is important that we always remember that the families of those who lost their lives and the families of those who were severely injured will have to live with the events of yesterday for the rest of their days on this earth. We should have that in mind, too.
On the apprenticeship levy, the situation my right hon. Friend describes in Nottinghamshire is not, as I understand it, the case for every local education authority in the country. My understanding is that some local education authorities have decided to deal with the levy themselves, rather than pass it on to schools, but I will draw her concern to the attention of the Secretary of State for Education.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I join him and the Labour shadow Leader of the House in all their tributes to the members of staff who worked so exceptionally yesterday. I commend him for the leadership he showed in the Chamber yesterday, for which I thank him. It is appropriate and right that we continue our business as normal. We will not be deterred from our important work on behalf of all the people we represent.
This institution lost one of its own yesterday, and I express my heartfelt condolences to the family of Keith Palmer and to the families of all the others who lost their life. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, one of the things I have noted is the inspiring resilience and determination of this great city and its people. We are all Londoners today. As a tribute, perhaps we could consider a debate on the value of our emergency services to this nation, on the risks they take on our behalf, and on their immense contribution to keeping our nation safe. That would be a fitting tribute from us, as Members of Parliament, to the memory of Keith Palmer.
Because of the events here, the Scottish Parliament suspended its business yesterday and no vote was taken on seeking a section 30 order so that a legal referendum can be held to determine the future political arrangements of Scotland. That vote will now happen next Tuesday, and it is anticipated that it will be passed. The will of the Scottish Parliament will be expressed, and surely it is incumbent on this House to respond positively to the democratic voice of the Scottish Parliament. There can be no good reason for the voice of Scotland’s Parliament to be ignored, so will the Leader of the House tell us how this Government intend to respond, and how they intend to respond positively, to what is agreed in our national Parliament?
It is also beyond pernicious that this Government will seek to put through the rape clause via a negative statutory instrument without any debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) attempted to secure a debate on that issue. Will the Leader of the House please reconsider? Something so important should rightly be debated on the Floor of the House.
Article 50 will be triggered next Wednesday, but I cannot see anything in the business statement to say that there will be a statement or some sort of debate in the House of Commons, so will the Leader of the House confirm that there will be at least a statement next Wednesday to mark this immensely depressing event?
Finally, as we all go home to our friends and families this afternoon, it is right to remember that one of our number who worked in this House will not have the same opportunity and advantage as we have today.
Mr Lidington
First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I associate myself with his condolences to the victims of yesterday’s attack and his salute to the emergency services and others.
On the hon. Gentleman’s political questions, I have said that the Government will find time for the statutory instrument to be debated. Of course the fact that that particular statutory instrument is subject to the negative resolution procedure was authorised by the Act of Parliament from which it is delegated, so the power was debated and approved by this House during the Act’s passage.
On the substance of the policy on the third child of a woman who has been subjected to the ordeal of rape, the Government recognise that that is a very difficult and sensitive issue, which is why we have adopted a third-party model to allow us to make sure that neither Department for Work and Pensions nor Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff will question the mother about the incident. Instead, staff will simply take the claim and receive the supporting evidence from a third-party professional, which seems to us to be the right balance between making sure that mothers get the support they need without the need for unnecessary, intrusive processes while providing the right assurance that additional support goes to those for whom it is intended.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about article 50, I must say that we have not been short of opportunities up till now, but I am sure that before long there will be an opportunity for the House to debate that decision or for questions to be posed.
On the debate in the Scottish Parliament, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been very clear that we believe that now is not the time for a second referendum—particularly given that the 2014 referendum was supposed to be a once-in-a-generation opportunity—and that the United Kingdom Government and all three devolved Governments ought now to work very closely together to ensure that we get the best possible deal for all the people of every part of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming European negotiations.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I commend the Leader of the House for his calm and reassuring presence in the Chamber yesterday and, through you, Mr Speaker, I commend Mr Deputy Speaker; both performed magnificently in the Chamber yesterday.
May we have a timescale for a statement or debate on the fairer funding formula for schools? Preferably, the Government will scrap their current proposals, which are frankly unjustifiable. The formula will take money from schools in Bradford district, which is one of the worst-performing local authorities in the country with regard to education, and transfer it to some of the highest-performing local education authorities in the country, which is absolute madness. Every school in my constituency will lose money. How quickly will the Government realise that their proposals are unjustifiable and unacceptable?
Mr Lidington
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will come forward with a response as soon as possible, but as the consultation on the draft national funding formula proposals concluded only this week, it is reasonable that she should have a while to consider the detailed representations that have been put forward by a number of different parties. Nevertheless, she will come forward with a response, and I promise my hon. Friend that there will be an opportunity for the Government to debate any proposals that are then submitted.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
May I begin with an apology to Members of the House for my absence over recent weeks? I too add my thanks to Members, staff and security personnel for their activities yesterday. There is, though, one group of people we have forgotten about a little. Hundreds of members of the public were in this building yesterday for dozens of different meetings and dozens of other reasons. Over many hours, they showed great compliance, patience, forbearance and fortitude while the security situation was being resolved outside the confines of this building. We put on record our thanks to them.
I thank the Leader of the House for the notice that next Tuesday’s debate on the crisis in Yemen will be protected for 90 minutes, meaning that we will have a decent length of time to discuss the dreadful ongoing situation there. I also thank him for notice that we have two debates next Thursday: one on animal welfare and, of course, the pre-recess Adjournment debate. If at all possible, will he give early notice of any time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee in the weeks beginning 18 April and 24 April?
I am sure the Leader of the House is aware of this, but there is an anomaly in the Standing Orders. When we return on 18 April, the House will meet at 2.30 pm, but, under Standing Order 10(2)(b), Westminster Hall will commence at 9.30 am, which is an inconvenience not only to Members but to the staff of this House. A Backbench Business Committee debate is scheduled for that morning, to be led by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who will have to leave her constituency on Monday, a bank holiday, to get here in time.
Mr Speaker
It is good to know that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is in fine fettle once more. I think I speak for Members across the House in saying that it is a pleasure both to see him here today and to hear his inimitable voice.
Mr Lidington
It is indeed good to see the hon. Gentleman back in his normal place for these exchanges on Thursdays. I will do my best to make sure that he and his Committee have early notice of any allocated time in the weeks beginning 18 April and 24 April. I take his point about the anomaly in the Standing Orders. I have already spoken to my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip to see whether we can look for a way to make life easier for the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows).
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I am sorry that I was such a poor substitute for the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.
I was unsuccessful in the shuffle at Women and Equalities questions, so may I ask the Leader of the House for an early statement on the position of the promised consultation document on caste discrimination? It will allow the Hindu community in particular the opportunity to put its perspective on why this unwanted, unnecessary and ill-judged legislation can be removed from the statute book.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend raises a matter that I know is very important to his constituents, and he does so eloquently. I will suggest to the Minister concerned that she write to him about the Government’s current position. As he will be aware, this particular decision involves not only a policy commitment but the allocation of legislative time, which is currently under pressure from many Departments.
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House’s assurances about support for staff after yesterday’s tragic events, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for what you said about the Commission, under your chairmanship, looking at the lessons learned and particularly the issue of support for staff.
May we have a debate on the work of the Taylor review before it completes, so that we can feed in our views on insecurity at work, particularly the huge growth in zero-hours contracts, the increase in the use of agency staff, and bogus self-employment?
Mr Lidington
The right hon. Lady makes a perfectly reasonable point, although of course there is nothing to prevent individual right hon. and hon. Members from making representations to Matthew Taylor. The best advice I can give her is to seek a Backbench Business debate.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It certainly is good to see the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) back in his place. I am glad that it was a back problem, rather than a heart problem.
Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House find time for a debate on developments along the Thames estuary? Last week, the North Thames Fisheries Local Action Group was awarded £800,000, which will be spent on further enhancing the culture and heritage of the Thames estuary.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend asks his question in a great historical tradition, because Magna Carta itself mentions the importance of maintaining fish weirs in the River Thames. He has drawn attention to one of the great successes of recent decades: the renewal of marine and river life in the estuaries of the Thames and other rivers that serve our country’s great industrial cities. I hope the money that was announced recently will enable that development to be taken further forward.
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have an early debate on rules of origin documentation, particularly the fivefold or sevenfold increase that will be required when this country leaves the customs union?
Mr Lidington
I agree that that is an important subject, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be ingenious enough to raise it in the course of numerous debates we will be having on European issues in forthcoming months.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is not the day to labour the point—I do not expect the Leader of the House to reply to this in any detail—but when we finally have the long-delayed debate on whether the House should leave this building in the full decant that is proposed, we should, in the light of what has happened in the past 24 hours, give great consideration to both the symbolism of this place and the security considerations of dispersing MPs and peers around Parliament Square.
Mr Lidington
The security of not just Members, but of staff—let us never forget that there are something like 14,000 passholders to the parliamentary estate—is at the forefront of the consideration by the parliamentary officials who have been leading on this matter. I can assure my hon. Friend that, whatever is finally approved by this House and the House of Lords, as these works are carried through, on whatever timescale and in whatever fashion, security will continue to be at the forefront of everybody’s mind.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
It was very striking this morning coming into this place to see so many police officers on duty, not only protecting us but mourning their colleague, the hero PC Keith Palmer. His death in active service, protecting us here, is a reminder that there are families of murdered police officers and of lost loved ones from our armed forces who have still not received proper compensation. Can we look at that issue again, and ensure that the families of every single person who dies in active service in our police force or in our armed forces are properly compensated for the rest of their lives?
Mr Lidington
It would indeed be good to find a way in which one could spare people the need to go through long and complex litigation to get the compensation that they deserve. That may be something that the hon. Gentleman can raise either in Westminster Hall or through the medium of the Backbench Business Committee.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
As Chairman of the Administration Committee, may I support all the thanks that have been made to the staff, as they were fantastic yesterday. We will mop up and follow up afterwards.
Coming back to business as usual, may I anticipate that we will have a motion on the restoration and renewal of the Palace? When it arrives, may I ask that it is a full-day debate, and that it is held on a day when we anticipate the House to be as full as it ever is—in other words Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, but not Thursday or, obviously, Friday?
Mr Lidington
We will be making provision and announcing a date for a debate as soon as we possibly can. Clearly, the point that my hon. Friend has made is one consideration that we will take into account.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
I have represented this House for seven years on the NATO parliamentary assembly. During the lockdown yesterday, there were messages coming into me from all over the NATO parliamentary family, offering solidarity and support, including from the headquarters in Brussels where people had just commemorated the attack on Brussels a year to the day. I wanted to pass that on to the Leader of the House and Members present.
Can we have a debate on the issues of tolerance and understanding, which were so stressed during the statement from the Prime Minister, within the Church in Wales? We have many opportunities to question the Church Commissioners via their representative here in the House, but we have no such opportunity in relation to the Church in Wales. May we have a debate on how we can make that possible?
Mr Lidington
Like the hon. Lady, I have been very struck by the spontaneous and very strong expressions of solidarity that many hon. Members and the Government have received from democracies and elected representatives around the world. On her point about the Church in Wales, although I understand her wish for a debate, I cannot offer one in Government time precisely because the Church in Wales is disestablished. She may be successful in securing a Westminster Hall opportunity.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The negative procedure for statutory instruments should be used for uncontroversial matters. I am very grateful that the Government have accepted that when they are prayed against they will be debated.
Returning to normal, we are obviously going to have a lot of Bills in relation to the EU in the next Parliament, and we will also want to continue with normal business. Has the Leader of the House given any thought either to extending the sitting hours, or sitting on the Fridays that we do not sit for private Members’ Bills, and could we have a statement next week?
Mr Lidington
I cannot promise my hon. Friend a statement next week. How we allocate time, given the exceptional pressure that there will be on legislative time because of the legislation that is needed to exit the European Union, is something that I and other business managers are taking very seriously indeed. We are spending a lot of our time reflecting on how best that might be achieved.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I start by expressing my condolences to the family and friends of PC Keith Palmer? Today, more than ever, I would like us to think about the innate goodness and solidarity of people in this country.
In that vein, can we have a debate on the honours system? Jean Bishop, who is 94 and lives in Hull, dresses up in a bee costume and has been able to raise £117,000 for Age UK. Before her 95th birthday, she wants to get to £200,000 for that charity. She has been put forward for honours before, but has never received one. A 13-year-old girl in Hull has now started a petition. Some 3,500 people have said that they think that Jean deserves an honour. Can we have a debate about honouring people such as Jean?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady has put her case eloquently. Many of us here will know of comparable examples of local heroes and heroines who have voluntarily given of their time, effort and money often over many, many years in the service of their fellow citizens. The best advice I can give is for her to present a strongly argued, persuasive case with as many other supporters as she can from Hull to the secretariat at the Cabinet Office, which is in charge of making initial recommendations on honours.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May I associate myself and my constituents with the words of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and all other right hon. and hon. Members about yesterday’s events?
May I ask for a debate on the situation in Burundi? More than 1,000 refugees a day are fleeing into Tanzania. Although there has rightly been a concentration on other countries suffering from food insecurity and famine in central and eastern Africa, Burundi is being ignored at the moment. We therefore need a debate urgently.
Mr Lidington
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are not ignoring the situation in Burundi. Considerable amounts of humanitarian assistance are being directed there through the Department for International Development. Clearly, we have to work through both international agencies and the existing authorities in Burundi, and that is not always straightforward. I will highlight the points that he makes to the Minister for the Middle East and Africa.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Yesterday morning, the British Government announced their intention to build a second Titan prison in Wales; this time at Port Talbot. Cardiff University estimates that that will lead to 2,400 surplus prison places across the Welsh estate. May we have a debate to help ensure that the prisons policy as it applies to Wales reflects Welsh requirements?
Mr Lidington
That is a matter that the hon. Gentleman will want to take up directly with Justice Ministers. The purpose of the prison-building programme is that we should have a new generation of modern prisons that really are fit for purpose, in order to deliver a regime that is both secure and—precisely because it is secure— that provides greater opportunities for work and education, which are so vital if we are to make a success of rehabilitative policies. At the same time, the programme would free up older prisons, usually in city centres, which, frankly, should be phased out now, and which could mean a significant capital return for Government that we can then invest in modern facilities.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I, too, put it on record that my thoughts are with the family and friends of PC Palmer and all those who suffered as a result of yesterday’s events.
New Waltham Parish Council in my constituency has written to the Transport Secretary about what it regards as a complete waste of money—a proposal by North East Lincolnshire Council to install traffic signals at Toll Bar roundabout in the parish. That proposal has angered and perplexed many people in the area. It is being carried out with Government money, so could we have a debate on how local authorities spend the many billions of pounds that the Government hand to them?
Mr Lidington
One of the important roles of both lower-tier authorities, such as parish councils, and Members of Parliament is holding local authorities to account for their stewardship of the scarce and finite resource of taxpayers’ money. I am in no position to comment in detail about traffic lights at roundabouts in my hon. Friend’s constituency, but he is clearly not going to let this issue go.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The cuts to the personal independence payment explicitly exclude people applying for mobility support if the problem arises from psychological distress, despite the Prime Minister’s commitment to treat mental health problems on a par with physical health. I am grateful for the Leader of the House’s commitment that we are finally going to have a debate, but can I press him for a date? Those cuts have already taken effect, but it sounds as though the debate will now have to be after the Easter recess. Can he at least give us a firm date for when it is finally going to happen?
Mr Lidington
I want to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on the design of the personal independence payment. It is at the very core of the personal independence payment system that non-physical conditions should be given the same recognition as physical conditions. We already see the outworking of that in the fact that a significantly higher proportion of people who have mental health issues receive the top rates of PIP than was the case with disability living allowance.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
May I also associate myself with all the tributes that have been paid today? We have seen the House at its very best and, ultimately, our democracy will not be silenced.
The Corby urgent care centre is a vital NHS service, and I am pleased that the local clinical commissioning group has confirmed that its doors will absolutely not close on 31 March. Will the Leader of the House join me in urging the clinical commissioning group to resolve some of the contractual issues with Lakeside+ to give my constituents greater reassurance and to make sure that we continue to have the quality of service that people have come to expect—and, of course, can we have a debate next week?
Mr Lidington
I think that my hon. Friend will have to take his chance with Adjournment debates on that particular subject. It is clearly important that, while decisions about the configuration of health services are taken possibly in light of local circumstance, commissioning groups manage their relationships with their contractors effectively so that local people can be assured of receiving the decent service to which they are entitled.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I associate myself with all the remarks and condolences that have been expressed so eloquently this morning. I refer particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) who mentioned going home; I am going home tonight, and I am very grateful to be doing so. Unfortunately, I will miss a rally at the bottom cross in Wishaw; it has been organised quickly to support the refugees that we will soon be welcoming and against a proposed Scottish Defence League march in Wishaw against refugees.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee convener, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and the Leader of the House for their consideration of the changes to timings of Westminster Hall debates on Tuesday 18 April. My debate is on the child maintenance service; I have received support from Members across the House, and it really is important. I do not mind travelling on bank holiday Monday to get here—I know how important it is—but I understand the difficulties that many Members will have in getting to a debate at half-past 9 on that day. I appreciate all the efforts that the Leader of the House has said he will look to make.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and we will do our best to accommodate the problems that she has identified.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Item No. 3 on today’s Order Paper, titled “Business of the House (29 March)”, makes reference to a motion being tabled
“in the name of the Prime Minister relating to exiting the European Union and the Environment”.
That was not mentioned in the business statement, so could the Leader of the House clarify the matter? In the light of yesterday’s events, may we please have a debate on community cohesion and the Prevent strategy?
Mr Lidington
The answer to my hon. Friend is that yesterday’s business was interrupted for the reasons we all know about. That business on the Pension Schemes Bill has had to be rescheduled, and conversations through the usual channels agreed that that slot on 29 March was the best way to accommodate that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I was surprised to receive a letter from the Minister of State for Transport this week. My surprise was because it referred to improvement works on the M25 motorway, which is some distance from my constituency. I was even more surprised, because I had just written to the Secretary of State about a number of serious accidents at Switch Island, which is in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House please remind the Secretary of State of the need to respond to my letter? Serious accidents are happening far too often. My constituents care about Switch Island, not the M25, and all that has happened is a repeat of the idea that investment happens in the south-east of England at the expense of the north-west.
Mr Lidington
I know from personal experience that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport takes very seriously his responsibility to ensure that hon. Members receive accurate and comprehensive replies to points that they make about their constituencies. I will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State’s office the need for that reply to be sent.
Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)
May I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and your staff—I notice Mr Deputy Speaker there—for the way you all conducted yourselves yesterday? Indeed, I also thank the Leader of the House and the Serjeant at Arms? As chairman of the all-party beer group, I invite everyone and their staff to share a great British pint and then to carry on at a later date and place to be confirmed. May we have a debate on the contribution of the brewing industry to the United Kingdom and its culture?
Mr Lidington
I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. One of the remarkable things we have seen in the brewing industry in the past couple of decades has been the surge in the growth of small-scale breweries. It is a real tribute to the sector’s enterprise that we have seen microbreweries and craft breweries taking off and continuing to win new discerning drinkers as their customers.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I put on record my thanks to the staff and to all those outside this House—members of the public—who have sent their kind thoughts and wishes in the past 24 hours. It has been very touching, and I thank them very much.
I also add my voice to the chorus of Members who are calling for more time to debate the Government’s new funding formula—or, as Labour Members call it, education funding cuts. Headteachers across Norwich and Norfolk have taken the unprecedented step of sending letters to children’s parents about the impending budget crisis at a time when precious financial resources are being spent on more free schools and grammar schools rather than those schools that we already have. Some 25 out of 31 schools in my constituency will receive funding cuts, and I would like more time to debate that.
Mr Lidington
As I have said, the Secretary of State will be considering the recently concluded consultation on the new funding formula. She will announce her proposals in due course, and that would be the appropriate time for her to be questioned, or for any debate to take place.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I was honoured to open two new business premises in my constituency earlier this month—for 4D Data Centres and Inspiration Healthcare. I was also pleased to visit two new facilities at Crawley hospital: a clinical assessment unit and a 26-bed ward. May we have a debate on the importance of further engendering economic growth, as this Government are doing, so that we can afford better public services?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend makes an important point: we cannot distribute wealth unless business has created it in the first place. It is the job of government, and this Government’s commitment, to foster the economic climate in which businessmen in every part of the United Kingdom—[Interruption]—and indeed businesswomen, can help to generate economic growth and drive the numbers in employment up even higher than the record levels that they have now reached.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to share in the sentiments that have been expressed today and the condolences that we have sent from the House. I also thank all the staff for their work yesterday.
I have been quite concerned about recent comments from people on social media who have boasted about signing a UK parliamentary petition 2,000 times. Given that these petitions often influence what MPs debate, will the Leader of the House reassure the House by setting out what measures are in place to ensure the validity of signatories to any parliamentary petitions so that we can all be confident about the integrity of petitions, and that they are signed only once by those who are entitled to do so?
Mr Lidington
There is a system in place to try to check for the risk of bogus signatories to petitions. Given the pace at which information technology moves, those systems clearly need to be updated from time to time. The Petitions Committee and the House authorities are keen to act on the basis of any evidence of malpractice such as that described by the hon. Lady.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Following the horrific events of yesterday, the Prime Minister said in this House today that she wanted all MPs to learn life-saving first aid skills. With that in mind, can we revisit the debate on compulsory first aid education in schools, which was the subject of a private Member’s Bill that was sadly talked out by Government Members?
Mr Lidington
I think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister encouraged people to acquire those skills. Whether the best way to do that is by making such education a compulsory part of the school curriculum is a slightly different question. It is a perfectly reasonable element of the debate, but allocating time to such skills lessons would inevitably mean prolonging the school day or taking time away from other activities. The Government’s general approach is that we want to give local schools and headteachers discretion about such things.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
May I associate myself and my constituents with everything that has been said this morning about yesterday’s horrific attack, which goes to show that evil will never prevail? I recently met a constituent called Ellen Höfer-Franz. She is a German national who, despite having lived in Scotland for nine years, is very concerned about applying for permanent residency to guarantee her status following Brexit due to changes made in 2011 to the rules on comprehensive sickness insurance. May we have a debate about this specific issue to clarify the situation for EU nationals such as Ellen who are concerned about their future?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Gentleman could raise this matter on behalf of his constituent in any of the frequent opportunities that we have to debate European matters. I hope that he understands that the Government’s objective is to seek, at a very early stage in the forthcoming negotiations, an agreement with the 27 other members of the European Union that each other’s nationals should continue to have rights of residence and other connected rights, if they have been lawfully established here.
John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House and the Environment Secretary please consider the need for an urgent debate on the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, the alarming inadequacy of which has been exposed at South Lakes Safari Zoo in my constituency, which the Leader of the House might have seen in the news of late? There is a catalogue of reasons why the Act and licensing regulations need to be modernised and professionalised. The matter has not been debated in the House for many years; in fact, the last debate was four years ago in the other place.
Mr Lidington
I did, indeed, read the newspaper reports about what seems to have been a pretty appalling case of mismanagement and the ill treatment of a large number of animals at that zoo. There will be questions to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 20 April, but the hon. Gentleman will probably want to seek an Adjournment debate in the Chamber or a debate in Westminster Hall.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The Leader of the House keeps suggesting that people apply for debates in Westminster Hall, but what is the point when Ministers’ responses are so woefully short? There seems to be a particular problem with the 11 am slot on a Wednesday. Library research shows that the average ministerial response to such debates since January has lasted 10 minutes and that the debates are finishing early. I understand that Ministers need to rush up here to fill the Back Benches for Prime Minister’s questions, but surely those debates, which are important to our constituents, should have the courtesy of a decent response from Ministers.
Mr Lidington
A courteous and decent response can also be pithy and succinct. In the days when I had to reply to numerous Westminster Hall debates, we always seemed to need additional time to accommodate the many speeches, but I often found that my remaining time at the end of a debate was squeezed hard, including by spokesmen for the hon. Gentleman’s party.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
May I associate myself with all the tributes that have been paid in the House regarding yesterday’s tragic events?
It should send a strong message to the Secretary of State for Education when Opposition Members like me are entirely united with the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) on the funding formula for education? Many schools face severe deficits and need to be able to plan ahead urgently. I hear what the Leader of the House says about the consultation only ending yesterday, but I urge him to say to the Secretary of State that we need an early statement so that schools can plan ahead.
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is aware of the need for headteachers and governing bodies to be able to plan, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, but I will certainly ensure that she is aware of the opinions that have been expressed today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Prime Minister stated in her speech last night that the UK sets an example for advancing freedoms, including the freedom of religion or belief. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office also made a commitment at the October conference to pursue the freedom of religion or belief at the Human Rights Council. Will the Leader of the House arrange for the relevant Minister to make a statement to confirm that FCO and Department for International Development desk officers, as well as UK embassies, fully recognise the importance of religious freedom and promote it in their daily work?
Mr Lidington
I encourage the hon. Gentleman to seize his opportunities at questions to those two Departments. From my fairly recent experience of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I can assure him that human rights, including religious freedom, are taken very seriously throughout our network of posts abroad and in London. It is also sometimes the case that persecuted religious minorities themselves prefer for their plight to be addressed in the context of the expression of broader concerns about human rights, precisely because they do not want to be further singled out for additional persecution. There is an element of judgment in how we go about this task, but the centrality of that to the mission of the FCO and DFID is something about which I hope I can give him some firm assurance.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Last week, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence issued guidelines that introduce a financial cap on access to medicines. Major research charities such as Alzheimer’s Research UK and Cancer Research UK warn that lives will be lost because of this new rationing system. Should there not have been a statement about such an important change in policy? In the absence of such a statement, may we have a debate?
Mr Lidington
It is important that decisions about individual medicines are taken by a body such as NICE, where clinical judgment is to the fore, rather than being subject to political pressure or the question of who has the most effective group of supporters to lobby on their behalf. I will ask the relevant Minister at the Department of Health to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
May I associate myself with the expressions of sympathy today and with the appreciation that has been expressed for those who keep us safe, including the brave police officers?
May we have an urgent debate on the plight of the Chennai Six, who include my constituent Billy Irving, given the Foreign Office’s shocking lack of disclosure and communication with families and MPs about the horrific assault on one of the men, who suffered forced incarceration in an Indian mental hospital and the forced administration of drugs, and given that the Minister concerned is apparently currently unable to personally meet terrified family members to reassure them?
Mr Lidington
I do know that the question of the Chennai Six has been raised with the Indian authorities at the highest political level, as well as repeatedly at official levels. I will ask the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), as the Minister responsible for policy towards India, to write to the hon. Lady.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
My constituent Steven McColl from Darvel worked for Royal Mail for 28 years and absolutely loved his job. Fifteen years ago, he overcame adversity when he lost his young daughter, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, aged just two and a half. He went through that traumatic time, and his Royal Mail manager then wanted to sack him, which is unbelievable. He has since recovered, and he won postman of the year a few years later. However, 15 years after losing is daughter, he was off work ill, due to muscle injuries. Royal Mail forced an ill-health retirement settlement on him after he was off for just four months—it did not even wait a full six months—and his appeal is still ongoing. Royal Mail has refused to engage positively with my office, but the Government still have a Minister with responsibilities for Royal Mail, so will the Leader of the House outline what role that Minister can play and what assistance can be given to stick up for this fantastic and popular employee?
Mr Lidington
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the individual case, particularly because, as he has just said, it is subject to an appeal, presumably through an employment tribunal. I will draw his concern to the attention of the Minister responsible for Royal Mail, but it would not be at all usual for Ministers to intervene in individual employment cases. Royal Mail exists as a corporate entity, and it has to take management decisions about its personnel, among other things, without being second-guessed by Ministers.
Points of Order
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House repeated a claim that other Ministers have made: that more people with mental health problems are supported by personal independence payments than by disability living allowance. Mind, the mental health charity, has made it clear that 55% of people with mental health awards on DLA, when reassessed for PIP, have no or a reduced award. How can I get the record corrected and push the Leader of the House for a date for a debate on the new regulations?
Mr Speaker
The pursuit of a debate has been single-minded and persistent on the part of the hon. Lady, and it shows some sign of bearing fruit. She has made her own point in her own way, and when she asks how she can find a way of putting her concern on the record, she knows perfectly well, as the cheeky grin etched on her face testifies, that she has, in fact, by an abuse of the point of order procedure, found her own salvation.
Mr Speaker
Oh, very well. The day would not be complete without a point of order from the hon. Gentleman.
Bob Blackman
I seek your guidance, Mr Speaker, as to how I can put on record the fact that my Homelessness Reduction Bill passed its Third Reading in the House of Lords, and how I can pay tribute to Lord Best, who piloted it through.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman, also, has found his own salvation, and it is a delight to observe that that success has brought further happiness into his life, quite apart from the potential benefits that the Bill will confer upon those whom he has in mind.
Declarations of Interest
Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will be aware, the Committee on Standards has today published a report, following an inquiry into my declarations of interests during Select Committee inquiries last year, and it has found that there were breaches of the code. The report states that the Standards Committee found that these breaches were very minor. I am grateful that the Committee also concludes that I was seeking to act within the rules and, additionally, that there was no intention on my part to conceal my interests. However, I would like to take this—the earliest—opportunity to offer a full apology to the House.
Backbench Business
Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House welcomes the Government’s acceptance in full of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in relation to its maladministration with regard to Equitable Life; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been had maladministration not occurred; further notes that the overwhelming majority of victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures; regrets that the Government made no further funding available in the Spring Budget 2017; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal as the economy continues to recover.
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am the co-Chair of the all-party parliamentary group for justice for Equitable Life policyholders.
This saga has been going on for more than 25 years. There have been debates in this House on many occasions. I am delighted the Government took action as early as 2010 to provide compensation for the victims of this scandal. This is a unique scandal, and there are three sets of individuals involved. For the benefit of all Members, I will in due course briefly go through the issues faced by those three sets of people.
It is clear that this is a unique case. When I stood for election in 2010, individual candidates made relatively few promises and pledges, but one of the pledges I made was to seek full compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, and I can assure those affected that I and my colleagues will continue this fight until every policyholder has received the full compensation they are due.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Given the failure of the regulator to identify, let alone expose, the problem, what information was in the public domain that a savvy investor could have taken into account and that might have alarmed him?
Bob Blackman
That intervention goes to the heart of the matter. The reality is that people who were investing their life savings in pension schemes, from the time when it was possible to take out personal pensions, were persuaded by unscrupulous Equitable Life salespeople to transfer those life savings—their hard-earned money—into a Ponzi-like scheme. They were promised bonuses that were unachievable, and the regulator knew they were unachievable. All was well while enough money was coming in, but eventually, as we know, the money coming in was insufficient to pay the bonuses expected, and disaster loomed. The key point, as my right hon. Friend points out, is that there was no information in the public domain, and individuals could not have known that they would be affected, but they were none the less. The regulator, who should have been overseeing this, knew what was going on, and the Treasury knew what was going on, but no one took any action. This was hidden because the cost of collapse to the public purse was so immense that this could not be allowed to continue.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this issue to the House yet again because policyholders with Equitable Life have been very badly treated. The finances of this country are now much improved, and it is time that we looked yet again at the situation of these policyholders, because their policies were oversold and actuaries hyped up their value well beyond anything that could be delivered, even at the time. Many people have never been held to account, but the policyholders have had millions of pounds taken from them through their insurance policies and pensions.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that lengthy intervention. The reality is that, as he suggests, there are more than 1 million victims. The former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), accepted at the Dispatch Box that the total sum to be paid in compensation should be £4.1 billion, but 895,000 people have received only 22% of their losses. The payments process has been less than transparent, and policyholders have no way to check the calculations that have been made. That creates a difficulty for all who support the policyholders; at this point, I want to pay tribute to the Equitable Members Action Group, which has done such diligent work on their behalf.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Given the failure of regulation and the Treasury’s knowledge of it, as the hon. Gentleman outlines, this is a matter of obligation for the Government, is it not? No individual can discard their obligations because they do not have enough cash, and the Government do have enough cash at the moment.
Bob Blackman
I believe that this is a debt of honour. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to announce that he will open the Treasury chequebook and pay the full compensation today. I have sympathy with the suggestion that, because of the most recent decisions on national insurance, the Budget has not yet been brought into balance. As the motion states, however, I believe that in the long run, as the economy recovers, this debt of honour should be satisfied, and I think that there is a way to do so within the remit of the legislation and the capability of the Treasury.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. I, too, have been contacted by many constituents about this issue. I understand the Government’s position, but the public finances are looking better than they were when this all hit and we have cut the deficit by two thirds. On behalf of my constituents, I urge the Government to continue to look at the matter to see whether they can help these very deserving people, and I am sure that he will support me.
Bob Blackman
As I have said, this is a debt of honour and the economy is recovering. In the long term, we should compensate in full all those who suffered, through no fault of their own. We are encouraging people from across the country to invest in savings for their retirement, so they need to know that the regulator and the Government will safeguard and look after their savings and make sure that they are not short-changed as the vulnerable people we are discussing have been.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I draw to the attention of the House my interest as a policyholder—mercifully, a very small one—in Equitable Life. I lost a few hundred pounds, but others lost very much larger sums. I endorse everything that the hon. Gentleman says. He has mentioned the lack of information accessible to the public. Does he agree that one of the most shocking things was the fact that, right up to the end, advertising continued to encourage people to put their savings into Equitable Life? I remember distinctly seeing large advertisements on the tube in 2000, weeks before the company went down.
Bob Blackman
Quite clearly, there was irresponsibility. I would absolve the current leadership of Equitable Life from that, because it has been co-operative in every way. It has identified the policyholders and assisted the Government and EMAG to ensure that everyone could be compensated. That does not apply to the previous management, however.
Let us turn to the current position. I applaud the Government for honouring the pledge to provide compensation to Equitable Life policyholders immediately after the 2010 general election. At that point, £1.5 billion was set aside to provide compensation. That was too little, and there is still a debt of honour, as I have said.
There are effectively four sets of people involved. The with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 39,858, have been paid out £336 million. The pre-’92 trapped with-profits annuitants were left out of the scheme quite deliberately, because the Government took the view that anyone who took out a policy before 1 September 1992 was outside the compensation limit. That, to me, was wrong, because those people could not have known that this scandal was going on. But I am delighted that the then Chancellor provided an ex-gratia payment of £5,000 to 9,000 people and that he extended it to £10,000 for those on pension credit.
We also have the non-with-profits annuitants, of whom there are 1,000,605. They have received, thus far, £749 million, but that represents only 22.4% of their losses. That is an arbitrary number. If the Government have accepted that they are responsible for the pensions of those individuals, it cannot be right that they receive an arbitrary percentage merely because that is the balance left of the money that was set aside. All I ask is for my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to say that the Government will keep that under review and that, as the economy recovers, the compensation should be paid out.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Policyholders in my constituency who did the right thing have been left in dire straits through no fault of their own. Given that even modest additional sums can make a difference, does my hon. Friend agree that it must be possible, at the very least, to do better than 22% and to link that to the improving public finances?
Bob Blackman
I agree with my hon. Friend that we can, and should, do better. The current position is unfair on those individuals, many of whom are approaching retirement and seeking to draw on their pension pots but do not know what security they will have in their old age. For them to get just 22.4% is absolutely unacceptable, and the battle will continue until such time as they receive the compensation that they are due.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for all the work that he has done, over many years. He deserves huge credit for that. Does he agree that when we are quite rightly seeking to show that the United Kingdom is the world financial centre, we need to show that we have the best possible regulation and that we are prepared to stand behind people who have been let down by regulation in such cases?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend, and I trust that he will make a further contribution to the debate later. The position is as he has set out. We should ensure that the City of London remains the financial centre of the world, and we must show that we can be trusted to look after people’s investments.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I, like other Members, have a number of constituents who are affected by this. He talks about people reaching their old age. In addition to the fact that the compensation is too little, is there not an increasing risk that it will come too late? The longer justice is delayed, the greater the chance that it will be denied.
Bob Blackman
Indeed. Unfortunately, as we know, many of the individuals affected by the scandal are deep into old age. They may be very vulnerable, and, regrettably, there are fewer and fewer of them every day. For every day that goes by without them receiving proper compensation, the scandal is maintained.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend just made an important point about the significance of London’s international reputation. That depends, in part, on the strength of our regulatory environment. Does it not follow, as a matter of both good policy and common decency, that when there is a massive regulatory failure, the Government should be seen to stand behind those who lose out as a consequence?
Bob Blackman
I absolutely agree with that comment. I want to say something about the commitments we have made, which are very important. As I have said, the former Chancellor accepted the reality of the situation at the Dispatch Box. He said:
“I accept the findings of the parliamentary ombudsman in full.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 960.]
Let us be clear about the parliamentary ombudsman’s findings at the time. There had been 10 years—a decade—of regulatory failure, which was responsible for the losses suffered by pensioners when Equitable Life collapsed. In her report, which was 2,872 pages long by the way, she recommended that the Government
“should restore complainants to the position they would have been in, had maladministration not occurred”.
I believe that we should ensure we honour the commitments we have made and honour the situation in law.
I note that my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary is a former member of the all-party group and a strong supporter of justice for the Equitable Life policyholders. I know him to be an honourable man, and I know he will want to do the best he can for the people who have suffered such losses.
The ask today is very simple. The pre-1992 trapped annuitants, who are the most vulnerable group—I am afraid that, every day, fewer and fewer are with us any longer—should be compensated in full, even though that is outside the scope of the legislation. Full compensation for those individuals would cost the Government less than £100 million. For the people who have received compensation for 22.4% of their losses, a plan should be set out to enable them to receive full compensation. I am not expecting that to happen straightaway—it may take time—but those people should receive compensation as the economy recovers. We could have a plan so that, in line with the recovery of the economy, much more money is paid out. That would fair, reasonable and—dare I say?— equitable.
In conclusion, I look forward to my hon. Friend giving us some commitments and clear guidance on what the Treasury will do to assist people who invested and did the right thing. This House owes a debt of honour to those individuals, and those of us who support these honourable people will not rest until such time as they receive every penny piece of the compensation to which they are entitled.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. May I tell Members that if they take about 10 minutes, everyone will have an equal time, including for the second debate?
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), with whom I have worked for the past few years as—I should declare this—the co-chair of the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policyholders.
I am very sad that after so many years of debating this issue in this House, we are back once again talking about the continuing losses suffered by hundreds of thousands of Equitable Life policyholders. As we have heard, they invested in the world’s oldest life assurance company in the belief that they would be able to have a comfortable old age, but instead, after a lifetime of saving, they find themselves sometimes destitute, and often much poorer through no fault of their own.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the issue is not just one of restitution for our constituents who have lost out, but one of confidence in the whole savings culture for future generations, which is very important, and that the two issues are linked?
Fabian Hamilton
Indeed, I do agree, and I will go on to say something about that, but there is also a third dimension, which is that we have a moral duty to ensure that the Equitable Life policyholders are compensated.
How have we arrived at this situation at this point in time, 17 years after Equitable closed its doors to new investors, and seven years after the previous Government promised to ensure that the losses incurred by Equitable policyholders would be compensated? My first involvement in the Equitable saga was to speak in an Adjournment debate that I secured in Westminster Hall on 24 June 2009. In that debate, I spoke about the serious issues facing all our constituents since the crash of Equitable Life, following its inability to meet its obligations and the promises it had made to investors over the decades. Equitable Life started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on the capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when the society realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were, in reality, totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
In that year, there was the, to me, rather surprising Appeal Court judgment regarding those who had contracts saying that if they put in more money, they would get greater rates of return. The judgment totally missed the fact that all the policyholders were members of the society. The senior judges did not fully understand the consequence of what they were doing, and it was unfair to too many.
Fabian Hamilton
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Unfortunately, the time available limits what I can say about the judgment, and I want to talk about what we need to do now.
By the time Equitable was forced to close, it had more than 1.5 million members, and was one of the biggest societies in the world.
Kate Green
Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the members were in modest employment with modest earnings, often in the public or voluntary sector?
Fabian Hamilton
I certainly do agree, and I will go on to make that point. It is the very reason I took up this cause in the first place. Like many of my colleagues, I had believed that only the wealthy invested in Equitable—people with hundreds of thousands of pounds to put into their pensions seeking to make a huge return—but I discovered that, in fact, the average pension pot was just £45,000. Ordinary people, saving £20 or £30 a month over a working life, were investing in Equitable.
Alex Chalk
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an important business case, as it were, for the Government to do more? If people cannot support themselves without the income that they expected, the burden of doing so will fall on the state, which means there is all the more reason to do more now.
Fabian Hamilton
Absolutely. That is a very good point. People were encouraged to save for themselves exactly because neither the state nor the individual wanted people to have to depend on the state always coming up with the money necessary to enable them to have a full and enriching retirement. It was about self-reliance, which has been at the core of the arguments today and over many years in debates in this House. The people who were helping to provide for themselves and who were encouraged to invest in Equitable are the very people who have been let down. They are not the wealthy, but the ordinary people who were putting aside a little bit more for their retirement so they could have a comfortable retirement, and that money has now gone.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions that over 1 million people subscribed to the Equitable Life pension funds. Over 900 of them are in my constituency, many of whom, as he says, are people who are just about managing. They have done the right thing, but they are now, at the very best, just about managing. This is about maladministration under previous Governments, so is it not incumbent on this Government at least to open the door a little more to an improved offer that will possibly improve over time to give such savers a fair deal?
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because one of the great things we do in this House is to work on moral issues such as Equitable together, across party lines. I am proud to work with the hon. Member for Harrow East—I hope he will allow me to call him an hon. Friend—because he has done an awful lot, and I pay tribute to him for the work he has done. I have done my best to work collectively and collaboratively as the co-chair of the all-party group, because we need to do this together. This is a moral issue, as I shall come on to elaborate.
In July 2008, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable Life, “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, which said:
“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced… Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”
Well, there has certainly been no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, suffered huge losses in the life savings they had accrued over years of hard work.
At the core of the problem is the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations it had made for itself, because it had made no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.
Following the ruling of the House of Lords in July 2000, the society effectively stopped taking new business in December of that year, which spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders found that they faced severe cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of income on which many small investors were depending. After all, as I have said, the average investment among the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which even at its height, according to the Equitable Members Action Group, would have yielded no more than £300 per month.
In its December 2008 report, one of the many recommendations of the Public Administration Committee stated:
“We strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration. Where regulators have been shown to fail so thoroughly, compensation should be a duty, not a matter of choice.”
Reacting to the Government’s lack of response to the ombudsman’s report, the then Conservative Opposition expressed their determination to introduce an Equitable Life (Payments) Bill early in the next Parliament, should they form a Government after the general election of 2010. The legislation planned in the coalition agreement did, indeed, include such a Bill and it was introduced in June 2010, shortly after the new Government took office.
On 10 November 2010, I tabled an amendment to the Bill in Committee, supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, that would have included the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants—WPAs—who had been specifically excluded from the proposed compensation scheme contained in the Bill. The Bill offered 100% compensation to all with-profits annuitants who had taken out their annuities after 1 September 1992 and, as we have heard, 22% compensation to every other policyholder. Many Members from all parts of the House felt that that was inherently unfair, as the date of 1 September 1992 was somewhat arbitrary. That relatively small group of with-profits annuitants were the eldest and by far the most vulnerable policyholders. Many of them would not even live to enjoy the compensation, were it to be paid. Indeed, that has been borne out in reality.
My amendment to the Bill simply read:
“Payments authorised by the Treasury under this section to with-profits annuitants shall be made without regard to the date on which such policies were taken out.”
The Public Bill Office helped me to draft that amendment. The debate on the amendment took just over two hours, but the Division was lost by 76 votes in favour to 301 against. The debate did, however, strongly set out the case for including the pre-1992 with-profits annuitants.
The Bill received Royal Assent in early 2011 and the compensation scheme was set in motion. At first it was slow, but it began to pick up over the subsequent years. By the end of January 2015, more than £1 billion had been paid out to 896,367 policyholders, although more than 142,000 policyholders were still to be found and could not be traced. The scheme, as we know, has now closed. We also know that 37,764 with-profits annuitants, or their estates, were issued payments by the scheme. Those initial and subsequent payments totalled £271.4 million.
In conclusion, I have to give credit to the coalition Government for introducing a compensation scheme from which the majority of Equitable policyholders received 22p in the pound. I am sure we would all agree that that is a lot better than nothing. However, when we examine the compensation that was paid to Icesave investors following the collapse of the Icelandic banks in 2008, from which every investor received up to £50,000 of their losses in full, the Equitable scheme looks rather less than generous. Given that the average policy involved a total sum invested of £45,000, as I have said, it seems rather unfair to Equitable policyholders that they did not receive more. That is why EMAG continues to campaign for full compensation for all Equitable policyholders in a reasonable way—in line with the growth of the economy, not all at once—and why so many Members from all parts of the House continue to support that view.
Equitable policyholders have been very patient. They understand that the recession, at the time, meant austerity and a huge shortage of money for many parts of Government and the state. What they cannot understand is that, as the economy grows, they are denied any further payments against their very real losses. I have heard, as many right hon. and hon. Members will have heard, heartbreaking stories from individuals and constituents, some of whom have lost everything, including their homes, all because of Equitable’s failure and the company’s “catastrophic” regulation.
I have said in all my previous speeches in the House on Equitable Life that this is fundamentally a moral issue. When the Government are supposed to protect the life savings of individuals who have been encouraged to provide for themselves, as was the case with Equitable, they have a duty to ensure that the losses incurred are adequately compensated. That obligation should I believe, come above pet projects such as, perhaps, HS2 and even Trident renewal; otherwise, the whole fabric of trust in the state is damaged, which I believe is exactly what has happened in this case. Finally, I urge all Members of this House to continue to uphold the cause of Equitable policyholders and to try to restore their faith in the ability of Members of this House, as the elected representatives of the people, properly to compensate the victims of one of the greatest financial scandals of our age. After all, I believe we have a moral duty and we should not be afraid to carry it out.
Sir Peter Bottomley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an oversight. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), I should have declared that I have a small Equitable Life policy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction of the record.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), both of whom deserve great credit for the work they have done. My hon. Friend also deserves credit for securing the debate. I would call both of them friends outside this Chamber. They have worked tirelessly on this issue.
As the hon. Member for Leeds North East just said, the vast bulk of Equitable Life losers were modest people who had bought in to what successive Governments of all parties had told them was the right thing to do. They were told to save for their retirement, to put something aside, and that they would benefit thereafter. Why did they lose because of catastrophic errors by the company and a catastrophic error of regulation? The Government create the regulator and the regulatory system. The Government, ultimately, must bear the responsibility for that failure. I do not mean that in a partisan sense, but morally they must be prepared to do so.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I have hitherto resisted the case for full compensation on the basis of two arguments. One of them was that if the returns were too good to be true, investors ought to have spotted that. However, I have begun to wonder whether that argument is sustainable, because if the benefits were too good to be true, the regulator should have spotted it. This is a regulated market in which ordinary investors ought to have had confidence.
Robert Neill
My right hon. Friend is spot on about the gravity of the regulatory failure. It was not just the process—the nuts and bolts—that went wrong; there was a fundamental failure to see that something that had been put into the market should have been ringing alarm bells. That is a very important point. That is why the case that the Government should provide proper compensation is all the stronger. The superficially attractive argument that it was too good to be true so people acted at their own risk was put about quite early. It was also claimed that all those affected were lawyers—barristers and solicitors—consultants and the comfortable middle class. I have dozens of victims of Equitable Life in my constituency and most are modest people who had jobs that enabled them to put a little bit aside, which they did in good faith and were let down by the system. A Government-regulated system let them down. That is why the obligation is very strong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East referred to EMAG’s work. I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on the matter. I particularly pay tribute to my constituents, David Truran and Richard Collins among others, who galvanised our local group of Equitable Life victims. They work hard to keep people in their area, many of whom are elderly and quite frail, in the loop about what is happening. That is a valuable local service. As has been said, the information about the compensation scheme and the way it worked was less than user friendly, to put it mildly. There was a lack of transparency and it was sometimes difficult for people in difficult circumstances, in the latter years of their lives, to navigate the information. EMAG’s work, nationally and locally, to help them is important.
The moral case is overwhelming and I think that the Minister, given his background and experience, knows that. The coalition Government were right to move when the previous Government had sadly done nothing, and it is a fair point that something is better than nothing. However, that is not really a sound basis for policy, morally or in terms of good governance. Something was given, and circumstances now permit the Government to give more.
Kate Green
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that policyholders do not regard what they are entitled to as compensation? They simply want back the money that they saved—their own money, which they put in to their long-term pension savings, believing it would be given back, with a reasonable return, when they retired and needed it.
Robert Neill
That is an entirely fair and proper point. We use “compensation” only in a technical sense rather than to reflect the morality of what has happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East was right to describe the scheme as effectively a Ponzi scheme. In other jurisdictions, it would undoubtedly have been regarded as a fraud on the investors. They put in their money, lost out and the regulator that was supposed to protect them failed abysmally.
When the coalition Government introduced the compensation scheme, finances were difficult. Things have improved and it is not unreasonable to expect those people to be recompensed by more now. The distinction between pre-1992 and post-1992 annuitants was at best arbitrary. Although the case is made in a legalistic, dry, desiccated-calculating-machine way, it does not hold water for anyone who examines it. I hope for a measure of human decency and a broad view of the impact on public confidence. The Government let themselves down somewhat with that arrangement, although it was better than nothing. Now we can do better and I urge the Government to do that.
As well as the moral case, there is a case to be made for the importance for this country of good governance in our financial services sector. I am a passionate advocate of Britain’s financial services; 36% of my constituents work in the financial and professional services sector. It is a massive earner for this country and a jewel in our economic crown. However, it succeeds because of its reputation for integrity, which is based on the strength of its regulatory structures. When there is a failure, which is not followed by proper redress for those who lose out, confidence in our financial sector is dented and damaged.
As we emerge from the European Union—hon. Members know I regret that, but that is where we are—the financial services sector’s international reputation will be all the more important. It is in our national self-interest to ensure that we are seen to be 100% behind those who invest prudently and sensibly in our financial institutions. Britain is a world leader in the insurance sector, but this failure has the potential to damage us and it will always be held against us unless we do something to get it right. Given the national benefit that the sector brings, doing justice to the Equitable Life losers would be a drop in the ocean financially. Perhaps even for that reason, as well as for our long-term national economic self-interest, if not out of moral decency, the Government will think again.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I pay tribute to those who secured the debate, particularly the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has worked tirelessly on behalf of the victims of the Equitable Life failure.
Equitable Life policyholders have been failed by three bodies. They were failed, first, by the life insurance scheme in which they invested; secondly, by the regulator; and thirdly, by the Government, who have not done enough, although I acknowledge that this Government and the previous Government moved to do something. The point of the debate is that they have a duty to do more for moral reasons, as other hon. Members have said. They should also do more, again as others, particularly the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), have said, in order to underwrite confidence in the financial sector throughout the United Kingdom.
In Edinburgh South West, the financial sector is extremely important. Many of my constituents work in it, and Edinburgh has the second largest financial sector in the UK outwith London. However, quite a number of my constituents are victims of the collapse of Equitable Life and I want to say a little about the personal experiences of two or three.
Others have already dealt more eloquently than I can with the nub of the issue. Basically, it is the shortfall: the difference between the amount in the scheme that the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), created—£1.5 billion—and the total loss, which he admitted was £4.1 billion. There was therefore a difference of £2.6 billion. In the great scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money, especially when we consider it against the principles that should govern such a situation.
The Government initially attempted to exclude all those who took out schemes before 1992. That would have excluded some of the oldest, most vulnerable, and most incapable of making their voice heard. The Government’s sticking plaster on compensation for the pre-1992 scheme holders—an extra £50 million—does not cover the full amounts lost and continues the unfairness to those least likely to be able to continue the fight against the injustice. The Government’s choice—it is a choice; every Government have to choose their priorities—not to compensate fully those who are unlikely to live long enough to provide the sustained pressure necessary to reverse the decision is most unfortunate.
This is not the first time that the Government have failed on compensation or regulation. Like other hon. Members, I have been present in the Chamber for the debate on the losses of investors in the Connaught Income Fund. I have constituents who suffered as a result of that. Of course, there is also the ongoing issue of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Those women invested in their future according to the rules that they understood to apply at the time. During the debate, I have received messages from WASPI women, reminding me to mention them and emphasising that they have suffered a similar injustice to those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life.
I want to say something about the effect on three of my constituents. I will not name them for reasons of personal privacy. I will call them Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. Mr A started to run his own business in his 40s and at that time, he took out three personal pensions with Equitable Life, two for him and one for his wife, who was a partner in the business. When Equitable Life was unable to deliver what it had promised, Mr A and his wife lost their guaranteed annuity rates as the company tried to avoid liquidation. That meant that they were getting only 50% of the rate that the company had guaranteed them. When the coalition Government announced their planned compensation scheme, Mr A expected to be reimbursed to a degree that would at least allow him to lead the sort of life in his old age that he had hoped for when he took the schemes out in the 1980s. However, when he was compensated, he realised he had received only about 4% of the money owed to him. His appeal was successful and was upheld by the independent panel, but the recalculation has never been carried out, despite the strenuous efforts of my predecessor, the previous Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West.
Mr A still does not have the 50% compensation that he expected to receive, which means that he and his wife have very much had to lower their expectations of old age, and have had to use the equity release scheme to release funds on their home to help them to manage. They would never have expected to have to do that, and indeed had planned against doing so.
Sir Desmond Swayne
The second argument I have used to resist full compensation is that we would be requiring taxpayers, many of whom would never have been able to afford such investments, to compensate the annuitants—I accept that the annuitants were also taxpayers. However, the evidence about the modesty of so many annuitants has affected the argument. Equally, I wonder whether it is sustainable to subject justice to a means test.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. Gentleman has obviously thought this through carefully. The conclusions he has come to with his first concern, and the conclusions he is moving towards with his second concern, are very wise. As another hon. Member pointed out, the purpose of having a regulator is to spot when what is promised is not realistic. In a democracy such as ours, with checks and balances and regulators, ordinary investors are entitled to assume that the regulator would say, “This is nonsense and dangerous”, even when a well respected and reputable company had made those promises—these were not fly-by-night investments as far as my constituents were concerned, but investments in a very old and well respected company.
Mr B is quite elderly—he is in his 80s now—and his memory is fading a bit. He was a shopkeeper, which is just the kind of small businessman and entrepreneur that the Conservative Government purport to support. The Scottish National party, too, very much encourages entrepreneurialism and small business—it is in the interests of all of us to encourage entrepreneurialism.
Mr B took out his Equitable Life policy about 40 years ago and has suffered hugely. He told me that, whenever he thinks about what has happened to him and the losses he has sustained, he finds it very hard to describe the pain it makes him feel. He ran a shop in an area of Edinburgh where a lot of his customers were professional people who had also invested in the scheme and told him it was a good thing. He proceeded with all due caution.
Mr B has told people in my office that he is not looking for very much. He wants his rights and his reasonable expectations to be respected. He wanted me to make it very clear today that the current under-compensation underlines his belief that the ideas of trust and bond, which he says used to be so important to investment, seem to have no place in the modern world of financial transactions. It is unfortunate that an elderly gentleman such as Mr B, who has worked so hard all his life in his own business, should have reached that conclusion. He is anxious that, at this stage, late on in his life, if he is unable to pay the debts that the Equitable scheme should have covered for him, he will lose his house—the home where he lives.
The losses of Mr C, another constituent, are substantial —he told me that he believes his losses to be upwards of £200,000. Mr C was a shopkeeper too. He believes that, as he is getting very old, any year could be his last, and that time is quickly running out to find the justice he deserves.
I am making a heartfelt plea to the Minister on behalf of constituents such as Mr A, Mr B and Mr C to look at this again. I wrote to the Chancellor in advance of the last Budget. The Minister was generous in his reply and dealt with matters in detail. I realise that, to a certain extent, his hands are tied, but I make a plea to him to go to the Chancellor to revisit this issue, so that the compensation payments—I use the word “compensation” loosely, as we have discussed—can be considerably increased for all our constituents, but particularly for gentlemen and women in the position of Mr A, Mr B and Mr C. To echo what others have said, it is the right thing to do and the moral thing to do, but it is also in all our interests, because it would increase and underline confidence in the financial sector, which is so important to the United Kingdom.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I will be brief because we have heard so much wisdom and common sense from all hon. Members who have spoken. I wish to make three points, the first of which is about equity. People have spoken about the proposal being the right and moral thing to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said that it is the equitable thing to do—indeed it is. We are about to enter negotiations with the European Union about our future responsibilities towards EU pensioners. As a Government, we will take the right and responsible attitude and fulfil our commitments, as the Prime Minister has said. If that is the case, the principle should also apply to our Equitable Life pensioners.
I have heard from many constituents about the problems that have arisen because promises and commitments made to them were not fulfilled, principally because of a massive failure of the organisation, but also of the regulators. Let us not forget that when we invest in organisations such as Equitable Life, we place our reliance on the regulators. As ordinary investors, we do not have the knowledge or experience to know whether the promises being made and, in small print, underwritten by the regulator can be carried out. We expect them to be carried out.
If my memory serves me correctly, the situation at Equitable Life occurred after the Bank of Credit and Commerce International debacle in the 1980s when, for instance, the highlands and islands lost something like £20 million. Many others lost money. I remember clearly from the time the phrase, “If it looks too good to be true, it is too good to be true.” One would have thought that, if I and others took that message on board, the regulators would have done so. It is absolutely equitable for us to do whatever we can and more than has been done for the Equitable Life investors.
I pay tribute to the coalition Government for the action they took in difficult times to set aside £1.5 billion partially to right this wrong. We should not forget that, but I want the Government to build on that as the economy improves.
The second issue, as other hon. Members have said, is confidence in financial services. The UK is a world centre for financial services, whether they are in London, Edinburgh, Leeds or Birmingham. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) said, many of our constituents—not just in London and the south-east, but right across the United Kingdom—depend on financial services for their living. Behind all financial services lies one simple word: “trust”. If a country or an organisation cannot be trusted, it will fail. Fortunately, the United Kingdom has a long and excellent reputation for the trustworthiness of its financial services sector. It is therefore all the more important for any blemishes to be set right quickly and properly.
My third point is about long-term security. People rightly want to even out their wealth over the course of their life, which is why they invest in pensions. They forgo spending now so that they will have money to spend later on, when they do not have an income from employment. That is a very worthy thing to do. We should support that. We do support that through the tax system and we also support it through regulation, which is why it is vital in cases such as this. As hon. Members have said, it would be one thing if this was a matter of an investment fund or a hedge fund for people with millions to invest, who know what they are getting into and the risks involved, but this is another situation entirely. As we have heard, this concerns people who were expecting pensions of, on average, about £300 a month. That is not at all the kind of money that allows someone to go on lots of cruises around the world, but it is money to top up the basic state pension, as every Government have wanted people to do for almost the past 100 years.
I believe that the country needs to do something similar. I have long advocated our country investing in a sovereign wealth fund, whereby we put aside money every year and do not just rely on a pay-as-you-go attitude—if you like, a Government-operated Ponzi scheme—for the national health service and state pensions. We need to consider operating our public finances in the same way that we expect pension funds to run their operations, whereby future liabilities are met with future assets. That would in turn allow us, when we get hiccups such as this, to compensate for them in full.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. I notice that Members are asking questions that they would like the Minister to answer, so the House will want to hear from the Minister at some length at the end of the debate. I want to make sure there is enough time for the Minister to speak, so I hope colleagues will now restrict their remarks to eight or nine minutes.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I will aim not to disappoint, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for securing this extremely important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on their extremely hard work over a number of years to try to secure adequate compensation for everyone who lost out as a result of this scandal. The issue of Equitable Life and the fate of those who lost out after investing has been debated by Members on both sides of the House for more than 15 years. As has been said, there is a great deal of cross-party work on this matter. Throughout that time, the Equitable Life Members Group and the all-party group have campaigned tirelessly to ensure that the issue is not simply kicked into the long grass. I am pleased to have another opportunity to press the case for those who lost out.
After a long battle, I appreciate the action that the Government have taken to date for those affected by this scandal. However, as we have heard from Members and our constituents, many policyholders remain short-changed, receiving a payment of less than one quarter of the compensation to which the ombudsman found they would have been entitled. The second ombudsman’s report was clear that the aim of the compensation scheme should have been to put people back into the position they would have been in if maladministration had not occurred. Despite that—we have heard this from many Members today—1 million people have received only about 22% of the compensation they are due.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman, like all speakers in the debate, is making a very powerful point. I, too, have received a great number of letters from constituents who have corresponded with me about the money that they or their relatives lost. He is right to say that they received only 22% of the compensation they expected. Is it not the case that we are dealing with pensioners and that we are losing about 15 a day? If the Government were to look again at whether, with a growing economy, more could be done for the people who have lost out, that would need to happen sooner rather than later.
Justin Madders
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are dealing with people who are getting on in years. As he points out, sadly about 15 policyholders a day are dying before the situation has been resolved. I am strongly of the belief—we see this for a whole range of issues—that the longer people wait for justice, the harder it is to appreciate that justice has been served.
The core of this issue is that many people feel that, even after all these years, justice has not been done. That message has come across loud and clear from my constituents and those of other hon. Members who have spoken. These people worked all their lives only to find that their pension pot has failed to materialise in the manner they were promised and they genuinely believed would occur.
In practice, this means that people who spent decades working for a comfortable retirement have had it denied them. It means that they are downsizing or even re-mortgaging their homes in their old age just to make ends meet. That is clearly not what we want for people who have contributed throughout their lives.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is speaking extremely powerfully. He is absolutely right to focus on those who will not have the opportunity to recover the money they have lost unless the Government change their mind. Does he agree that a real message can be sent to young people and those of us who, like myself, are less young? We must show that saving and responsible action during a working life is rewarded. There is a danger that if we continue to get this wrong, the lesson we are providing is that people should not bother to save, because it is not worth it.
Justin Madders
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I am sure that he has many years to go before he reaches retirement age, but that is something that is absolutely central to the debate, so I will expand on it a little more. We are entering an era in which retirement ages will increase and there will be more and more onus on people to take responsibility for their own retirement. If we have a system that people lack confidence in, it simply will not work. That is why compensation in these situations should be delivered in full.
One of my constituents told me:
“what I personally find sickening is that Her Majesty’s Government, no matter which party is in power, has utterly refused to act on the Ombudsman’s findings, which point to its own shortcomings.”
That point, which has been made by many Members, really does sum up where we are. I hope that the Minister will update us on what the Government are doing and focus on what good news those individuals who feel that the system has short-changed them can expect. That is important not just for them, but for the trust we should have in the system to secure our own futures. There is a need to restore confidence and build trust not just for the individuals affected by the scandal, but for everyone. As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, there are uncomfortable parallels with the WASPI campaign. People’s confidence has been shattered by what they consider to be broken promises by the Government and the institutions in which we place our trust.
I agree that we all need to encourage people to plan for their retirement and to contribute to their pensions, but what kind of message does it send if the Government fail to properly regulate a provider and then fail to compensate people fully for their losses? It is not just trust in the finance sector that is at stake here; it is trust in politics itself. As has been said in previous debates as well as today, the 2010 Conservative manifesto included this comment, which links these issues in a neat way:
“We must not let the mis-selling of financial products put people off saving. We will implement the Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”
I think that all Members agree that that is a worthy aim, but the question of whether the pledge has been met in full is a matter of some debate.
I am conscious of the time, because we do want to hear from the Minister. What has already been said today has really summed up the situation, but let me end by making what I think is a key point. A failure to correct the wrongs of the past will lead to a failure to secure confidence in the future. I do not believe it is an exaggeration to say that the erosion of confidence that this episode has engendered could, in fact, be of greater impact in the long run than the cost of full compensation. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will do the right thing, not only for the policyholders of Equitable Life, but to restore confidence in the entire system of savings and pensions.
The hon. Member for Harrow East spoke of a debt of honour, and I think that that is an excellent way of referring to our obligations. We need to act honourably, and to correct this injustice in full. Given the age of many of the policyholders involved, it is clear that the adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” was never more true than it is in this case.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am pleased to be able to speak today and to keep up the pressure on behalf of constituents who have been hard hit and who deserve better. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for initiating the debate and for his continued hard work on behalf of all those affected.
Like, I am sure, other Members, I remember the reassuring adverts that must have attracted many people at the time. They were warm, homespun and affirming, telling us that “It’s an Equitable Life,” which it clearly was not. If there were any equity or justice in life, we would not be here today on behalf of our constituents whose lives have been changed in such a damaging way. Although I understand the steps that have been taken so far, their confidence in both government and financial regulation has been shattered.
I think of constituents of mine, such as James Moore of Newton Mearns or Howard Lyle, who lives in Eaglesham. Howard is now 81, but he was a self-employed business man. He worked hard for his living and did all the right things to provide financial security. In fact, he ended up working until he was 72 years old. He felt that he had done everything possible to ensure that he had good financial plans in place and would not be dependent on the state in his retirement. But, of course, all his well-laid and well-paid-for plans are in tatters. Howard says:
“All I am looking for is a repayment of what I and hundreds of other pensioners are owed.”
Who could possibly argue with that? I have named only two constituents, but, like other Members, I know of many others who are similarly affected and have been similarly failed by what is clearly a toothless regulatory system, which has utterly let them down.
Stuart Blair Donaldson (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making some great points. Given the hardships that some of our constituents have faced, given the injustice and, indeed, the age that some of them are reaching, will she join me in expressing admiration for their tenacity and their determination to keep the issue on the political agenda and to continue to fight this injustice?
Kirsten Oswald
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We should commend those people for all their continued work in keeping the issue at the forefront of our minds.
A cynical person might wonder whether—as with the collapse of the Connaught Income Fund, which was mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry)—there is a strategy of dragging action out for an extraordinarily long time to ensure that fewer of those affected are still with us. It is simply not good enough for this sorry saga to continue for even longer. The UK Government must now finally deal fully with the outstanding injustices experienced by these unfortunate policyholders.
We really do need to grasp the nettle, and acknowledge the wrong that has been done and the impact that it has had on people’s lives. It is essential for action to be taken on behalf of the people who have lost out, but we also need to ensure that they can maintain confidence in our pension provision and in financial and regulatory bodies.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making some powerful points on behalf of her constituents. Many of my constituents have also been in touch to say that they see this as such an unfairness because they did the right thing. They worked all their lives, and they paid into a scheme that they thought was the right one. That sense of unfairness is compounded by the way in which so many other schemes that have failed have been dealt with. Banks have been bailed out by the Government, and policyholders have been refunded. Does the hon. Lady agree that the grievance of these policyholders is perhaps all the more because so many other organisations have already been bailed out?
Kirsten Oswald
The point is well made. I think that Equitable Life policyholders, like Connaught Income Fund investors, feel particularly hard done by, and that is perfectly understandable. We need to deal with the compensation, and that can only happen when we have fully quantified the loss by negotiating the sums involved. At present, we are simply not there. After all this time, the Government need to acknowledge and deal with the injustice that people understandably feel. They have worked hard, and they have saved hard. They have done all the things that Governments emphasise are financially responsible and the way to guarantee security in retirement. Imagine how they must have felt when not only did their hard-earned money vanish, but the Government failed to protect them and then, to compound the problems further, failed to offer fair compensation.
Of course I recognise that there has been some compensation, but those affected understandably feel that that is not good enough and that it is not right for them to lose out because the Government claim that there are financial constraints. Why should they pay the price for failures of Treasury regulation in the 1990s? The Government must realise how much damage scandals such as this cause to public confidence in saving and in regulation. Surely, as the hon. Member for Harrow East said, righting wrongs like those suffered by Equitable Life and, indeed, Connaught investors is part of the way to restore that confidence.
There is real confusion, much of it arising from inaccurate communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, about the national insurance contributions that are needed for the new state pension. As we have heard from a number of Members today, WASPI women are marching on Parliament because the UK Government have whipped the pension rug from under their feet. Here, the saga of the Equitable Life policyholders drags on and on, and their pension provision has also vanished into the ether. If the Government are at all serious about pensions and about people saving for their future, they must listen and they must act now, finally, to deal with the Equitable Life scandal once and for all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on setting the scene. I also thank him personally, because for the time that I have been in the House—since 2010—he has always championed the Equitable Life policyholders. Today, some seven years later—for me, if not for him—we find we are still fighting for something for which we were fighting back then. The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) is no longer present, but he should be commended as well, because he has clearly fought equally hard to bring about justice for the policyholders. Like both those Members, we all support the continued attempts to ensure that our constituents are not left financially ruined after doing their best to save for a rainy day.
There is not a big representation in the Chamber today, but that does not detract from the importance of the debate or lessen the impact of what we are about to say or have said so far. All those who have spoken have made valuable contributions, all of them saying the same thing and all of them looking to the Minister—there is no pressure on the Minister, is there?—to deliver the answers that we want. With respect, and the Minister knows that I mean this in the best possible way, we must convey to him what our constituents are telling us. We need the Government to know exactly where we stand.
Before I came to the House, when I was a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, we debated this matter there, and we also had debates and correspondence about it when we were councillors, and we were probably following these issues in other roles even longer ago, many years before I came here.
People always use that phrase about saving for a rainy day. Well, the rain is falling now, and it is the Government’s responsibility to hold out the umbrella. The newspaper over the head is starting to wear out: it is useful at the start, but it does not last. It is time for the Minister to step up to the mark and do the right thing by these savers. I have received dozens of e-mails and letters from my constituents, and I have never come across an Equitable Life policyholder who was in a high income bracket. The hon. Member for Leeds North East spoke of people in a low income bracket, and those are the people we are talking about. The impact on them is greater, and, unfortunately, they do not have time on their side either.
My constituents and those of my Northern Ireland colleagues have spoken to us about this issue, and I believe that this is an opportunity for me to make my constituents’ case and, like other Members—including some who have now left the Chamber—to give examples. I am very aware of the fact that the Government have paid out a substantial sum of money—at present, almost £1 billion—which is commendable; we should give credit where it is due. However, that is an indication of the fact that the Government have a further responsibility that needs to be fulfilled. I understand as well as anyone else in this Chamber that we currently have an £89 billion deficit, and I congratulate the Government on their economic policies. Unemployment in my area has fallen— that is a devolved responsibility—but the fall is in part a result of the greater economic policy carried out centrally by the Westminster Government. We must seek to lower the deficit, but we must also honour our obligations, and that is what we are asking the Minister to do today: to honour this obligation.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East mentioned in an intervention that some of the policyholders might never see this issue being brought to a conclusion and get the benefits, and they will therefore live on low incomes until the day they die and pass on from this world. If Governments have a mind to settle and help out the savers, could that be retrospectively passed on to their families? Will the Minister address that in his summing up?
I was brought up in a household where saving was drilled into us from an early age. That was not just because of our Ulster-Scots background, which meant that every pound was a prisoner; we were encouraged at a very early age to have savings, and we have done that throughout our lives. It was good to learn that lesson, because it showed us the value of money, and there was not much of it.
That points to what we need to do. “Put a bit aside for the future” was a phrase that was repeated often, and I have instilled that principle in my boys—successfully, I believe. But times have changed as well; it is difficult for my boys to buy a house and live their lives, never mind save on their wages. For that reason, the Government have put schemes in place to encourage saving, yet the question must be asked: why bother when we have an example of a generation—the one just before us and alongside us—who scrimped and saved and are still having to do so, through no fault of their own? We must incentivise a generation to know that savings are safe, and we should demonstrate that by doing the right thing by the Equitable Life savers.
A good point was made to me, and I shall repeat it now as it is important for it to go on the Hansard record:
“The Government ensured that no savers lost out because of the banking crisis. £133 billion was found to support the banks. According to the NAO, £76 billion is still to be recouped. At recent share prices, the taxpayer is likely to end up losing £15 billion”,
and it was suggested that there could be a loss of up to
“£22 billion on RBS alone, with annual losses in billions continuing year after year. EMAG does not believe that Equitable Life savers—who did the right thing in saving for their retirement—should have to pay for the recklessness of the banks.”
I am sure that the Minister is aware of that, but if he is not, he needs to be.
The banks got special treatment. I know the importance of giving that to the banks, but it is equally important for Equitable Life policyholders, although we must also be ever-mindful that the Government have made a substantial contribution in that regard. However, as the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who set the scene today, and others have said, we need to do that little bit extra.
The facts are that £2.6 billion of relative losses should be paid to the 895,000 Equitable Life victims who are still 78% short of what they are due—a substantial sum for them—and pre-1992 with-profit annuitants should be treated the same as post-1992 WP annuitants.
Equitable Life policyholders are justified in their grievance and in pursuing full compensation. We in this House, as their representatives at Westminster, have been tasked with putting their case. That is the reason for today’s debate, and it is why I am standing with those Equitable Life victims, alongside my colleagues in this Chamber from across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are all together, asking for justice for the Equitable Life victims. I ask the Government to pledge simply to do the right thing by these pensioners.
Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)
At times, the debate has seemed like a meeting of old lags, since some of us have been discussing this issue for many years.
I would like to be able to say, like other Members, that many of my constituents are still coming to see me about Equitable Life. I cannot, however, although many constituents used to do so; unfortunately, time has done its work and there are now few left. They are people like my constituent Gertrud, an elderly lady who thought she had made the right choice and would have a decent standard of life in retirement, but who is now living off 25% of what she thought she would get, which is very difficult. The situation is the same throughout the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) unfortunately cannot be here today, but she told me of her constituent Ishbel, who is in the same situation. These are elderly people who had made the right decision and found that they had lost out.
The motion before us today notes that the Government have made no further funding available in the spring Budget. Several Members have mentioned that this is similar to the situation of the WASPI women. These are totally different issues—one is about retirement age while the other is about the amount received from private pensions—but, as others have mentioned, they bring us to the same thing: ever more people believe that it is not worth saving for pensions. That will cause huge difficulties in the future. Young people today say, “What’s the point of doing that? Look at what’s happened to others, like my granny. That’s what is likely to happen to me.” Reports such as one today saying that the pension age is likely to go up yet again, and young people may now be working into their 70s before getting a pension, continue to undermine confidence in pension provision. We will face a huge problem in the future if we continue in this way.
I was an MP when we tried to persuade the last Labour Government to do something about this issue, and they turned their face against that and refused to do anything. I acknowledge that the coalition Government and the current Government have grasped the thistle to some extent, and have made some money available. They must be given credit for that, but of course it took a report from the ombudsman to get the ball rolling for compensation, and she concluded that the state of the public finances was “a relevant consideration”, which I suppose is why we are still here today.
Part of the difficulty is that there is a huge difference between the amount sought by the action group and the sum the Government say was actually lost. There is no real agreement as to what the total losses are. In a sense, the Government came down in the middle with a figure of £1.5 billion, and in coming to that figure cited the state of the public finances. It is disappointing that the Minister stated in his letter to the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) of 30 January, which was circulated to us:
“The announcement was clear that the funding available to the Payment Scheme was not a fixed amount of £1.5 billion but rather that up to £1.5 billion would be made available.”
Should we take that as confirmation that the Government have no intention of even putting the remainder of that amount—about £140 million, I understand—towards the plight of those who have lost out? To be frank with the Minister, given the Government’s previous record, that seems rather small minded and mean, and it undermines the Government’s commitment, which they have shown previously, to tackle this matter.
EMAG argues that the policyholders’ pension savings, carefully accumulated over decades, should be safeguarded in exactly the same way as funds deposited in banks and building societies. They have a point, although they should not stretch it too far, as there is a limit on those funds and it is not an exact analogy. But it is also worth recording that, in her response to the Government scheme, the ombudsman stated:
“I am unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals comply with the recommendation for the establishment of a compensation scheme which I made in my report.”
Such comments will continue until the Government do something to address the continuing sense of injustice.
Others have said that Equitable Life was touted as a long-established, steady company, and that small business people and the self-employed were encouraged to invest their pension savings in it. When I was a practising solicitor—many years ago now—Equitable Life was considered one of the best investments, which is why so many people were encouraged to go into it. Increasingly, however, we are being encouraged to invest in pension provision to augment our state pensions, and people will find it difficult to have confidence in any pension company while this issue remains unresolved. It is also clear that fewer than half of new pensioners will receive the whole of the new single tier pension when it is introduced, so this issue is becoming more and more important.
The fact that pensioners now have much greater freedom to access their pension savings will also greatly alter the pension landscape and the attitude of savers towards pensions, but it could also make it more difficult for companies’ investment strategies. It is doubly imperative in this new environment that there is confidence in the stability and worth of pension investment. Pension investment is not the same as putting money in a bank or building society; as we know, it depends on fluctuations in the market and the type of investment made.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman is making many powerful points. He has mentioned confidence. Does he agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that, having encouraged members of the public to do the right thing and invest in what was seen as a secure and safe scheme, there is a danger that a precedent could now be set and that those people could now decide that investing in a pension would not give them safety or security in retirement? Does he also agree that the unfairness that that creates is unhelpful to the pensions industry as a whole?
Mike Weir
Indeed it is. That is the point that I was making.
Some of us are now getting to the age at which we are beginning to think seriously about what our pensions will bring us—it is going to hit us pretty shortly—but I have children who are in their 20s, and this is a very long-term investment for people in their 20s and 30s. Young people today who look at the WASPI women or at Equitable Life pensioners will not have the same confidence that people of my generation might have had that they are putting aside savings to augment their state pension. The state pension is changing, and we are looking at different ways in which people will invest for the future, such as auto-enrolment. All these things require confidence, but that confidence has been undermined by continuing scandals such as Equitable Life.
The Government have to look at the bigger picture, rather than simply looking at Equitable Life in isolation. They have to look at how we can get over this hump and ensure that all young people make provision for the future. If we do not do that, a much bigger problem will be coming over the horizon when those young people get older, having made no provision because they lacked confidence in the system. What are we going to do then? The fall-backs that exist today will no longer be there for them. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to go back to the Chancellor and say, “Look at the bigger picture. Look at how we are dealing with pensions. How can we get confidence back?” If we do not do this, the picture will get even worse later.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a point I should have made earlier. It is recognised that parents often need to make financial provision for their children, and that we are using some of the money that we have to make that happen, yet some Equitable Life policyholders have told me that they are unable to do that. Has the hon. Gentleman come across similar cases?
Mike Weir
I have a daughter who is now into her third university degree, so I know exactly what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Yes, parents are having to use their own money to help out their children, and that can cut down the amount that will be available to them in the future. That is a decision that they have to make, however; it is a slightly different issue. The bigger issue is the future. Many young people today are not earning enough money, and many have been landed with large debts following their university degrees. That, and the lack of confidence in the system, will have an impact on their ability to save for a pension. I think I have gone on long enough now, so I will end on that point.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
First, I should like to associate myself with all the comments that Members have made about the dreadful events that occurred yesterday. I send my condolences to the families of those who died and I wish a speedy recovery to those who were injured.
This has been an incredibly thoughtful and considered debate on both sides of the House. I should like to thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for bringing this subject before us today. He has devoted a huge amount of time and commitment to this issue over the years. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) have pursued it doggedly, and I would like to thank them for that. The hon. Member for Harrow East set out the situation clearly today. Words such as “scandal” and “confidence” have been thrown in during interventions, and they sum up the issue for many people. I thank the hon. Gentleman for setting out the landscape for us today.
I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East, who said that there was a moral duty to compensate the hundreds of thousands of people who have been affected over the years. He said that this was a moral issue and a question of trust in the state, and I think that that resonates with many of us. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) reminded us that people had been encouraged to save, and that that was the right thing to do. He said that they should not be dis-benefited as a result of that now. He also talked about the catastrophic regulatory and company errors that were made—I shall say more about that later—and about the alarm bells that were ringing. He said that the Government’s providing the necessary resource would be a gesture of confidence for the public.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) also raised the issue of the failures in the system, and said that the unfairness was continuing. She spoke movingly about her constituents’ experiences, and about the trust that people must have in the system. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) talked about equity, and I think that he probably meant equity not only with only a big E but a small one. He said that the regulations should not only be carried out but be seen to be carried out. He also talked about confidence and trust in the system, and the question of long-term security through confidence in the regulatory process.
Sir Desmond Swayne
It is alleged that when Gordon Brown was put under pressure by members of his own party in the early 2000s to compensate the policyholders, he retorted, “These aren’t our people.” Whether that is true or not, would the hon. Gentleman accept that they are very much his people, as indeed they are ours as well?
Peter Dowd
I have no doubt whatever that these people are all our people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) talked about cross-party support and about the appropriate action that the Government need to take. He said that policyholders were still being short-changed. He, too, talked about the restoration of trust and confidence in the system, and referred to the WASPI women. He said that the erosion of confidence could cost more in the long run, and that justice delayed was justice denied. The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) talked about her now elderly constituents who are in distress, and about the failed and toothless regulatory system. That saga cannot continue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about his constituency and looked to the Minister for solutions, saying that people are justified in their pursuance of full compensation.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a characteristically erudite speech. Does he agree with me, and possibly the hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir), that it is important to redouble our efforts at the opposite end of the spectrum? It is imperative that young people receive financial education so that they understand the long-term benefits of securing a long-term and sustainable pension income.
Peter Dowd
That is an excellent suggestion—I would expect nothing less from the hon. Gentleman—but if people do take out a pension, they must have confidence in the system.
The Minister has heard the clear and unambiguous views of many Members from across the Chamber. The Opposition will not make any cheap party political points on this matter. We give credit where credit is due to the coalition Government for setting aside £1.5 billion in a compensation fund for those who invested in the Equitable Life Assurance Society, most of which was invested in pensions. The compensation scheme was set to close in 2014, but the previous Chancellor extended it to December 2015, with the fund set to close mid-2016. EMAG—the group that represents the policyholders—has called since February 2016 for £2.7 billion of additional compensation, arguing that that is the shortfall, and many Members have made the same point today.
The Conservatives committed in their 2010 manifesto to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policyholders, and the debate continues about what that amount should be, but £4 billion is the generally accepted figure. In the previous debate on this subject, the then Minister, the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), stated:
“The improvements our economy has made since 2010 are greatly to be welcomed and show that the Government’s long-term economic plan is working, but the plan is not complete and we have some way to go to fully restore the public finances.”—[Official Report, 11 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 1186.]
The current Minister will also note that. The Chadwick report of July 2010 concluded that relative loss should be defined as those who have suffered financial loss, pointing out that the Ombudsman recognised that losses in policy values were only partly due to maladministration and that the backdrop to cuts in policy values was a sharp fall in world stock markets that all life insurance companies were forced to respond to. Similarly, the report also argued that compensation should be assessed on the cost of maladministration as opposed to the size of investor losses. However, we are politicians and we can make different decisions and choices, and the Minister has been asked to consider carefully whether we want to make different decisions or choices.
I want to make an important point that has been pushed time and again about regulatory failure. There is a broad consensus among the parties that compensation should have been paid out by the Government for maladministration, which has happened to a degree, but we are unsure whether regulatory failure continues to exist. We have to ensure that the regulatory frameworks that operate in this country are continually stress-tested and reviewed again and again. The regulatory organisations need the appropriate resources to ensure that proper regulation occurs. We have to consider that 100 or 150 people are looking at 200 insurance companies. I am not suggesting that there should be more staff; I am saying that we should take the resourcing of regulatory authorities into account.
This scandal does not relate to one particular Government. As Members have said, it was ignored by regulators throughout the ’80s. With the knowledge that the regulatory system did not work, however, it is all the more important that we continue to check it. The second ombudsman report states:
“The central story of this report is that this robust system of [financial] regulation was not, in respect of the Society, implemented appropriately—that is, consistently, fairly, and with proper regard to the interests of those directly affected—by the prudential regulators and those providing assistance and advice to those regulators.”
That is absolutely salutary. We have had scandals in the past, such as with PIPs and the 1980s endowment scandal, and we must always keep a lookout for them. There is the growing concern about the sale of leaseholds and some new properties, which we should not allow to become a scandal. There is even the problem of airlines refusing to pay people compensation for delays, so it is important to keep looking at the regulatory system.
I want to conclude by pushing the question about confidence in the regulatory system. What efforts are the Government making to trace policyholders who have still not been found after the scheme has closed? Can we have an update on the number of people who have received compensation from the £1.5 billion? How many policyholders does the Minister estimate are still affected? I know that this is a moveable feast. What are the broader steps that the Treasury has to take to restore faith in the financial regulatory system? In summary, it may be that the Government are not legally required to pay the compensation, but many Members have pushed the moral imperative, and the Government will have to consider that matter today and in the coming months and years.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Simon Kirby)
I start by associating myself with the earlier comments about yesterday’s terrible events. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this important debate. It is fair to say that their tireless work on this issue and their involvement in the all-party parliamentary group for justice for equitable life policyholders are of great importance to many of our constituents up and down the country. Hon. Members from across the House have done a great deal for their constituents on this matter. It has been a thoughtful debate, and I have listened carefully to the individual cases that have been mentioned. I am also grateful for the opportunity to set out what the Government have done to address this long-standing issue.
This topic has a long and well-documented history, which I do not propose to go over in my limited time. Instead, I will focus on the action we have taken to make payments to the people affected, and these figures are well known. The ombudsman’s findings assess the loss from Government maladministration to be £4.1 billion, and it is worth noting that that is significantly more than the evaluation commissioned by the then Labour Government. That report, known as the Chadwick report, rejected some of the ombudsman’s findings and concluded that only £340 million should be paid to policyholders.
This Government, in contrast and despite the constraints facing the public purse, have agreed that £1.5 billion will be made available, tax free, for payments to eligible policyholders. We consulted carefully on how that £1.5 billion should be paid out and reached the conclusion that we must pay the with-profits, or trapped, annuitants in full. As a result, that group will receive an annual payment for life, with the total cost of those payments assessed to be around £625 million. The £100 million contingency fund, which is often referred to, is to ensure provision for policyholders who exceed the life expectancy forecast. On the advice of an independent commission, the remaining £775 million of available funding was distributed pro rata to other policyholders, representing a payment of some 22.4% of their relative loss. I recognise that, for many, that was disappointing, but it is about striking the right balance while also taking into account the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers.
The point about affordability was raised explicitly by the ombudsman in her report, in which she stated that it was appropriate to take into account the impact on the public purse when considering the funding of the payments. Indeed, the ombudsman has written to the all-party parliamentary group on Equitable Life about the level of funding and said that the Government’s decisions on affordability cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. I also understand it has been suggested that, as the economy improves, further funding should be made available to the payment scheme.
Robert Neill
I accept that the decision on funding is not incompatible with the ombudsman’s report, but that is not to say that the decision follows the spirit of the ombudsman’s report or that it is right.
Simon Kirby
I repeat that this is about striking the right balance between the position of the public finances and fairness to all taxpayers, and I will cover that point in more detail as I proceed.
I was talking about further funding being made available to the scheme, but with debt at its highest level since the second world war, tackling the deficit and getting debt falling are challenges that call for long-term discipline, which is why we have no plans to reopen the payment scheme or to review its level of funding.
Fabian Hamilton
I thank the Minister for giving way because I realise that time is short. I spoke earlier about Icesave and the £50,000 maximum compensation ceiling. Those who lost money with Icesave and other collapsed banks in 2008 received up to £50,000. Given that most of the investments in Equitable Life totalled around £45,000, will the Minister consider looking at those particular individuals who have suffered most?
Simon Kirby
I was going to cover the issue of Icelandic banks later, as might be expected, but there is a big difference between the two. Those ex gratia payments were different from the Equitable Life scheme in that the Government expected to recover, and indeed did recover, all the money paid to UK depositors as the banks were wound up. It is not fair to compare the two.
I will now address some of the specific issues that have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East said that the payments were not transparent. Transparency is one of the core principles of the scheme, and the methodology of calculation was published in full along with a simplified explanation for the layperson. I am also aware that Her Majesty’s Treasury has met EMAG to discuss the matter and found there to be no errors.
My hon. Friend sensibly asked why the Government cannot commit to paying Equitable Life policyholders in full when the economy has fully recovered and the debt starts shrinking, and it is right that the Government balance the needs of affected policyholders against those of taxpayers, and of public service users more generally. The Government have to tackle a debt of nearly £1.7 trillion, or almost £62,000 for every household in this country, which is a salient point. He also said that the cost of paying the pre-1992 annuitants would be less than £100 million. No assessment has been made of the pre-92 losses, but the Government recognised the hardship faced by the group so paid lump sums of up to £10,000, at a cost of around £50 million. That was new money over and above the original £1.5 billion.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), mentioned the failure of regulation and the need to stand behind any failure in a financial services group. It is fair to say that this Government, and the coalition Government before us, have fundamentally reformed financial regulation, including, importantly, through the expansion of the financial services compensation scheme.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East, who has moved places and is confusing me only very slightly, said it was unfair that we excluded pre-92 policyholders. I have every sympathy with the position such policyholders find themselves in during retirement, but the policies commenced before any maladministration could have affected investment decisions. Pre-92 policyholders have instead been affected by falling comparative annuity rates in the light of the issues at Equitable Life. I have already referred to the ex gratia payments of £5,000, or £10,000 for those in receipt of pension credit, that were made in December 2013.
The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said that the Government have not done enough—a point also made by others. I sympathise with the plight of her constituents. I am glad she recognises that the coalition Government did more to address the issue than any Government who preceded them. She asked about the Chancellor of the Exchequer; he was clear in his spring Budget that the scheme is closed and no more money is forthcoming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) made some eloquent points about regulation. I agree that trust is vital, and I am proud of the reforms made to the regulatory system. Many people say we have too many regulations; I always think that financial services are there for everyone so it is important that we provide an appropriate level of protection for everyone, big or small.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) suggested that the Government had ignored the ombudsman’s recommendations. The ombudsman’s report was the foundation of the payment scheme. As I said, the ombudsman subsequently wrote to the all-party group. Whether or not we agree about the term “incompatible”, the ombudsman said that the Government’s decisions on affordability and eligibility cannot be said to be incompatible with her report. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the 2010 manifesto. It is worth saying that payments were fair to both the taxpayer and policyholders, with the most vulnerable groups receiving 100% of their losses. The whole scheme is based on the ombudsman’s report.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I hate to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but I wish to take him back to my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about the regulator’s failure to identify problems. My hon. Friend said in response that the Treasury itself was aware of Equitable Life’s problems long before they emerged; does the Minister know whether that is true?
Simon Kirby
It is fair to say that there were a lot of issues and that a lot of things were done that we would do differently today. All that was taken into account in the vast number of reports and inquiries, and is now represented in a fair and equitable scheme for payments.
Connaught was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West. As I understand it, I will be meeting her in the very near future to discuss that issue, and I am very pleased to do so. The matter is currently being investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his understanding. He made a very thoughtful contribution in which he mentioned children. I say to him that we must be careful to strike the right balance and that we do not saddle our children and grandchildren with unfair levels of debt. It is about making sure that those people affected receive a fair amount.
The hon. Member for Angus (Mike Weir) set out cases in which constituents have a reduced annuity in their retirement. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, as I know the difficulties that a reduced income in retirement causes. The Government recognised that, which is why annuitants should receive 100% of their losses.
I will, if I may, finish with some figures, because I need to clear up the confusion. To date, the Government have paid out £1.12 billion. They will be paying out another £355 million, totalling £1.47 billion, leaving a balance, for those who can add up, of £25 million. We intend to provide a safety net to ensure that payments to the most vulnerable are maintained as they live longer—let us hope that they all live longer—and so I do not recognise the £140 million figure that was cited.
In conclusion, I appreciate that some policyholders who have carefully invested for their retirement are now not receiving the income they expected, but we have done more than any other Government to resolve the Government’s part in the Equitable Life issue. We have committed £1.5 billion. We have paid out the £1.12 billion, with more to come, and we have struck the right balance, which is fair to the British taxpayer and supportive to those most vulnerable policyholders.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to the debate. We have had a very good debate, with representations and interventions from Members of no fewer than five political parties represented in this House. Everyone has spoken with the same voice. This is a debt of honour that we owe to vulnerable people across this country. We will not allow this matter to rest until such time as those vulnerable people are properly compensated for their losses, which happened through no fault of theirs.
I thank the hon. Members who have taken part in this debate. It is good to hear some fresh voices in this debate, as well as those that we have been hearing for many years. May I say to my hon. Friend on the Front Bench: I was disappointed that we did not get a mention in the spring Budget, but there are many opportunities to come—I am talking about the autumn Budget and further such Budgets. It is not fair to say that the scheme is closed; the scheme is closed to new applicants. We know that it will continue paying out for as long as those receiving compensation live. It is absolutely open to the Government to top up this compensation scheme so that everyone who suffered losses would receive their proper payment. If those pre-1992 trapped annuitants receive their proper compensation, they would put that money immediately into the economy. That would help boost our hard-pressed retailers, which means a double benefit to the Treasury.
All I ask of my hon. Friend on the Front Bench is to go back and have a word with the Chancellor and let us see if we can truly provide justice to our Equitable Life policyholders.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the Government’s acceptance in full of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings in relation to its maladministration with regard to Equitable Life; notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended that policyholders should be put back in the position they would have been had maladministration not occurred; further notes that the overwhelming majority of victims have only received partial compensation compared to the confirmed losses directly attributed to regulatory failures; regrets that the Government made no further funding available in the Spring Budget 2017; and calls on the Government to make a commitment to provide full compensation to victims of the scandal as the economy continues to recover.
Social Mobility Commission: State of the Nation Report
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House notes the contents and recommendations of the annual State of the Nation report from the Social Mobility Commission; notes that despite welcome measures by successive governments to improve social mobility the Commission warns that social mobility is getting worse, the reasons for which are deep-seated and multi-faceted; and calls on the Government to lead a renewed approach in the early years, in education, skills and housing, to improve social mobility.
This motion stands in my name and those of the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg).
May I start by putting it on record that my thoughts are with the victims of the terror attack yesterday? I thank the emergency services for their dedication, bravery and service, and the House staff who looked after us so well yesterday. That we are meeting today shows that we can carry on with our democracy and debates in such times. It also shows that we often come together in this House, as we are doing today in the spirit of this important debate on social mobility.
This debate, with Members on both sides of the House joining together to champion social mobility, is welcome and timely. I have been delighted to work closely with the right hon. Members for Loughborough and for Sheffield, Hallam over recent weeks, and it is our hope and intention that we continue that work beyond today to truly build a cross-party consensus for a strategy to tackle social mobility. I also thank the Government’s Social Mobility Commission for all its important work. As it has consistently warned, by all measures social mobility is getting worse, not better. It recently said:
“Low levels of social mobility are impeding the progress”
of many in our society, “not only the poorest”. That is the context for our debate.
We need a better understanding of what we mean by increasing social mobility in the modern economy. Too often, social mobility is thought of in terms of plucking the one or two lucky ones out of disadvantage and taking them to the top—the so-called “council house to the Cabinet table” journey. That understanding is really unhelpful when we are looking at the challenges and opportunities that our country faces, and the strategy required to deal with them. In today’s context, social mobility is about everyone being able to make economic and social progress, unconfined by the disadvantages they begin with. With Brexit, automation, digitaisation and huge changes to work, that process is going to get harder and ever more squeezed. No longer can this just be about those who go to university, as everyone needs to gain a rich, stretching education and the skills to succeed.
To put it another way, if we look ahead to the needs of the economy in, say, 2022, forecasts by the Social Mobility Commission show that there will be 9 million low-skilled people chasing just 4 million jobs, yet a shortfall of 3 million workers for the higher-skilled jobs. That is before the effects of Brexit. The biggest barrier to dealing with this issue is known as the long tail of underachievement. At the same time, companies such as Google say that we are not producing enough of the right engineering graduates for their growth. Britain has the third highest proportion of graduates in non-graduate jobs in Europe, with only Greece and Estonia behind us. No wonder our productivity is so poor compared with that of other OECD countries. In fact, it takes a British worker five days to produce the same amount of work that a German worker can do in four days—that is the stark challenge we face. Any social mobility strategy must therefore also be inextricably linked to our industrial strategy.
These huge challenges require a new national mission built on consensus and evidence to turn them into real opportunities for the country, and that is what we hope to address with this debate and our work. But, let us be honest, although much progress has been made by successive Governments, the political cycle means that every party is guilty of looking for a quick fix or a new wheeze that might appeal to voters, rather than the more difficult job of putting in place a clear and determined strategy. Let us look at the evidence and stick with it, even if at times that means giving praise to our opponents, as we will be doing today.
We know from the Social Mobility Commission and others that when it comes to education, some areas are absolutely key. I will focus on a few of those now and I know that Members will pick up others in their speeches. First, I want to look at the facts on early years, which will not come as a surprise to those who know me well, because it is a personal passion of mine. By the age of five, children from disadvantaged backgrounds are already far behind their peers, with a developmental gap of as much as 15 months between those from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds. One study found that children in low-income households hear up to 30 million fewer words by the age of three than their better-off peers. The levels achieved by the time a child is five are still the biggest predictors of outcomes at GCSE.
What happens in the first few years of life is massively critical, yet that still does not demand nearly enough Government and policy attention. We have made some progress under successive Governments. The Labour Government did so through the extension of maternity leave, Sure Start centres, the integration and expansion of health visitors—that was continued by the Conservative Government—and the introduction of quality early education for three and four-year-olds. The introduction of the two-year-olds offer was much championed by the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam, and the right hon. Member for Loughborough developed the beginnings of a real life chances strategy. However, I worry that the recent focus has been on childcare and the demand of maternal employment rates alone, and less on social mobility reasons for investing in the early years.
A greater focus on what works and on joined-up working does not actually need to cost more money. For example, the quality and outcomes in Ofsted ratings do not match. After looking at this recently, I found that 91% of early years providers are rated good or outstanding, yet a third of children are not leaving those settings school-ready—that does not match up. There are other ways in which we could incentivise quality providers to work with—not in competition with—others in their locality. There could be more support for parents through regular contact, as well as things such as the ages and stages requirements. We have been doing some interesting work on this in Manchester. Remarkably, some of the most deprived communities in many parts of the country have some of the highest quality early years provision—this is often what we think of as the silver bullet in education—through maintained nursery schools and some of the nursery places attached to schools. Let us cherish those and not put them under threat. A proper focus on narrowing the gap before the age of five would have a real impact on social mobility.
Let us now consider slightly older children. By the age of 16, just one in three disadvantaged children gained five good GCSEs including English and maths, and that figure has remained stubborn over the past few years. We know what works in schools and we have seen it happen. It was epitomised by the London challenge, when leadership, collaboration, resources, the attraction and retention of outstanding teachers, and the development of Teach First all came together.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
Would my hon. Friend like to thank Lord Adonis for all the work that he did on the London Challenge? Throughout all my time during the Labour Government, I found him to be the most effective and passionate Minister when it came to improving schools. He has a truly brilliant record.
Lucy Powell
I very much thank Lord Adonis for all his work and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who was a Minister at the time of the London initiative.
The London challenge was one of those Government initiatives that achieved real change, including the biggest rise in attainment we have seen in an area. The opportunity areas developed by the right hon. Member for Loughborough during her time in office are good successors, but they need to be matched by resources and the ability to attract and retain the best teachers. The pupil premium has been a remarkable development that has allowed those who are behind to begin to catch up during their time in school. Let us follow these learnings and not get distracted by things that do not work.
By the age of 25, many of these children will be in low-skilled, low-paid jobs. Only one in 10 low-paid workers will ever escape low pay. That is a pretty terrible outcome for them and our country and, as I said, those jobs are disappearing, too. Our skills strategy for post-16 and in-work training needs strengthening. I welcome the Government’s moves in this area. Proposals such as T-levels, the apprenticeship levy and the skills plan linked to the industrial plan are all very much to be welcomed. Although I have some criticisms of the way in which initiatives such as university technical colleges are working, they are a good idea, but they do need more focus and work.
Let us not implement some of these good initiatives badly, however, and lose what we know works. For example, on T-levels, we need to make sure that we continue to have the blend of technical and academic that will be so important for the jobs of the future. If we look at all our OECD competitor countries, it clear that it is critical that children continue to work on maths and English to a high level right to the age of 18. The post-16 reforms also need matching with other reforms, such as pathways out of university. As I said earlier, the underperformance and under-skilled jobs of many of our graduates fundamentally need addressing. Access to the professions is key, and other Members will talk about that.
Those are just three of the key areas that can drive social mobility—the early years, what happens in schools, and post-16—but we also know what does not work in terms of social mobility, and I want to talk about that for a minute. One thing that does not work is grammar schools. Unfortunately, under the current Prime Minister, grammar schools and selection seem to take centre stage in her vision for dealing with social mobility. They are sucking up all the oxygen in the debate, yet the evidence is clear: they do nothing for social mobility; in fact, they make it worse.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I compliment my hon. Friend and the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) for securing the debate. In Trafford, as she knows, we already have a selective system, and although our schools perform very well overall in the national rankings—that is despite selection, not because of it—one group that does not benefit are children with special educational needs and disabilities. Only a tiny proportion get into grammar schools in Trafford, and it is believed that that is in part because those schools have no incentive to take them. Does my hon. Friend agree that any selective system is bound to lead to children being brushed aside when it comes to opportunities to get the best education?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for many years. While Trafford has many good and outstanding schools, recent data show that the top 25% and the bottom 25% of pupils do worse than those in neighbouring Manchester, so there are questions about attainment gaps to address.
The list of organisations that are against more selection in schools is ever growing. The OECD says that countries with selective education perform less well on average than those with comprehensive systems. The previous and the current chief inspector of schools do not agree with more grammars. The Government’s own Social Mobility Commission, the Education Policy Institute, the Fair Education Alliance, Teach First, the teaching unions, multi-academy trust leaders and all the headteachers in Surrey are among those who have come out against selection. Perhaps that is because grammar schools contain such tiny, tiny numbers of poorer pupils—just 2.6% across the piece.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
Some 11% of students at sixth-form colleges are on free school meals, compared with 3% at selective grammar schools, yet sixth-form colleges perform so well. There needs to be more focus on the success of these engines of social mobility than we have perhaps had recently.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to sixth-form colleges. All the data show what great outcomes they deliver for a comprehensive intake of pupils. Indeed, Loreto sixth-form college in my constituency is one of the top 5% in the country in terms of outcomes for its pupils, and it is in the heart of inner-city Manchester.
New analysis by Professor Simon Burgess and a team of academics shows that poor, bright children are much less likely to attend grammar schools than more affluent children who are not as bright. In England, the best performing boroughs are comprehensive. For example, London, which I have mentioned, outperforms selective areas and the national average in its top GCSE results. In contrast, the attainment gap is worse than the national average in eight out of nine fully selective areas, so the evidence is pretty overwhelming.
I am sure that when he rises to speak later, the Minister will repeat the one fact that he is particularly keen on —of course, there is another one that he likes about modern foreign languages—which is that in grammar schools, the tiny number of children on free school meals do better than all the other children in the country on free school meals. What the Government fail to tell us is that the children who get into grammar schools are already highly able, by definition, so the Government are not comparing like with like. In fact, highly able children do just as well in good and outstanding comprehensive schools as their counterparts do in grammar schools.
The grammar school policy is wrong in itself when it comes to social mobility, but it is also a huge distraction. I am setting out an agenda, which is shared by the Social Mobility Commission and other hon. Members, around the early years, schools, post-16 and other areas. That agenda would keep any Minister or Department extremely busy, but the Government have also embarked on other major overhauls, including the new national fair funding formula—that has caused much consternation on both sides of the House—the biggest reform of GCSEs in a generation, new SATs, the creation of hundreds of thousands of new school places to deal with the massive increase in demand, and a reduction in the amount of funding and number of teachers per pupil. The divisive pursuit of more selection in grammars will require huge political capital and a great deal of officials’ attention, and it will mean that all the other really important work, some of which the Government have already embarked on, will fail.
I do not think that we would be having this debate about grammars and selection if we had done more in recent years to create a cross-party consensus on what needs to be done to tackle the lack of social mobility. Our intention in this debate is to look at and develop an understanding of what works, and to build a broad consensus.
Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)
I apologise for not being around for the beginning of the hon. Lady’s speech. When it comes to building consensus, if she were willing to cross the Rubicon in terms of more selective education, would it not be a good idea to focus it on the opportunity areas and coldspots that the Social Mobility Commission has highlighted?
Lucy Powell
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that he thinks that selection would work in such areas. There is no evidence for that at all, especially when I look at the fantastic schools in my constituency. My constituency has some of the highest levels of deprivation in the country—I think it is the second ranking constituency for child poverty in the whole country—but I have some outstanding schools that get amazing results in a comprehensive setting. I do not understand how selection will help them; it will simply make their job all the more difficult.
Mr Burrowes
We may well disagree on some of the principles and practice, but if there is to be increased opportunity for selective education, would not the best place to focus it be in the areas of most need—those opportunity areas coldspots highlighted by the Social Mobility Commission?
Lucy Powell
No, I disagree fundamentally. As we have seen historically and evidentially, opportunity areas such as the London challenge work when we bring schools together and encourage them to collaborate, rather than creating an environment of competition. Such areas work when we ensure that they have the best teachers, the right resources and strong, collective leadership. Bringing a selective agenda into that ecosystem will work against all those core principles.
I think that there is a broad consensus about what needs to be done, and I hope that we can devote political time, and the time of Ministers and officials, to that. The important things are: quality in the early years; targeting resources; creating and developing opportunity areas; getting the best teachers where they are needed; developing a skills strategy focused on jobs; creating job opportunities and access to the best jobs; and securing progress through those jobs for the many, not the few.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and of many other speakers in the House today in paying tribute to those who lost their lives or were injured yesterday, and to the House staff for keeping us safe. It is very important that the House’s business has resumed today. As the Prime Minister said earlier, yesterday was an attack on democracy. It is therefore important that our democracy should continue unabated today, and where better to start than on so important an issue as social mobility?
I was just looking at Twitter, as you do, and I see that somebody has tweeted, “How can there be a debate this afternoon if everyone agrees?” I suspect many of us spend our time trying to explain why everybody disagrees in this place, and why we are busy arguing and falling out with each other, so on the whole I think it is rather nice to have a debate in which people can broadly agree that there is an issue with social mobility in this country that we all want to tackle.
I thank the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) for co-sponsoring this debate, and I thank all those outside the House who have sent briefings to Members sharing their thoughts on today’s debate. The November 2016 Social Mobility Commission report said:
“Britain has a deep social mobility problem which is getting worse for an entire generation of young people”.
The Teach First briefing for this debate says:
“Failing to improve low levels of social mobility will cost the UK economy up to £14billion a year by 2050, or an additional four per cent of GDP.”
Frankly, we cannot afford not to tackle it.
I want to talk about three things: Britain’s social contract; schools, to pick up some of the issues that the hon. Member for Manchester Central has mentioned; and social capital. Every generation expects there to be greater opportunities for their children and grandchildren. In Britain at the moment, that social contract and the expectation of social mobility has broken down in parts of our country and among some groups of people. Education is a key driver of social mobility—I know that the Minister is committed to this, because I have had the privilege of working alongside him—but in the parts of the country that most need social mobility, there is often little educational aspiration, and underperformance is entrenched. I agree that tackling that should be the focus of this Government’s education policy, rather than having yet another discussion about expanding selection.
Last year’s vote and the rise of populism not just in this country but elsewhere, including in the United States, was a cry showing that our social contract has broken down. As I have said, each generation expects better opportunities for the next, but I think we should be honest in saying—I know this from my casework, but also from talking to friends and family—that that is not how many people see life today. There is pressure on housing services, and housing is unaffordable for the next generation in many parts of this country. The labour market feels incredibly insecure, but also very demanding, which has a knock-on effect.
The hon. Lady mentioned the numbers of words that children from different backgrounds know by the age of three. There is some very interesting research in the Social Mobility Commission report about the number of minutes each day that parents from different backgrounds spend interacting with their younger children. People working long hours in an insecure job will inevitably have less time to interact with their children than those not in that position. What can we do to help with that?
Mr Burrowes
I thank my right hon. Friend for highlighting the issue of parental contact, but may I focus on contact with fathers? The Government have made great strides in trying to ensure greater opportunities in work, but we must also look at how to create greater opportunities to ensure that fathers are not only in contact but are involved in their children’s upbringing. I saw from clients in the criminal justice system that one of the prevailing factors for them was either an absent father or a father who was not involved in their lives.
Nicky Morgan
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The importance of families and of having two parents or two important role models in life—and of both boys and girls having a strong male role model—should not be underestimated. It is no secret that I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) on some policy issues, but the work that he did at the Centre for Social Justice and the work that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) is doing now on the importance of family relationships and public policy should not be underestimated.
Siobhain McDonagh
On the issue of working hours, I find in my south-west London constituency that the bigger determinant is ethnicity. If people have travelled a long way to get here, an education is the most important thing for them. In my experience, their children do exceptionally well whatever hours they work, because they imbue them with the importance of education. The young people who go to the grammar schools in south London, other than the privileged ones, are overwhelmingly from particular ethnic minorities. In my experience, that particularly includes children from the Tamil community.
Nicky Morgan
The hon. Lady makes a really interesting point. There is a broader point, which is that we are sometimes reluctant to explore too far the differences in social mobility between different communities and people from different ethnic backgrounds. She is right, in that anyone walking around Chinatown on a Saturday morning will see children sitting there, often in their parents’ restaurants, actually doing their homework. I do not need to tell the Minister about the successes, particularly in maths, of students from the far east.
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to talk about drive and aspiration, and I will come on to aspiration in a moment. It always struck me when I was Secretary of State for Education that around the world young people and their families are fighting for education, and sometimes in this country we have parents fighting to take their children to Disneyland. That tells me that education is not given the importance in everybody’s lives that it should be given. I suspect that part of the success of the London challenge—it is difficult to unpick exactly what was behind it, because there were lots of factors in the London challenge that made a difference—was due to the diverse ethnic backgrounds and the importance that people from different ethnic backgrounds attach to education, and everything that goes with that.
As I was saying, there are parts of the country that feel they are very much left behind other parts. That is picked up in the commission’s report, which also says that
“today only one in eight children from low-income backgrounds is likely to become a high income earner as an adult.”
Politicians and the Government have to find a way of renewing that social contract; otherwise, we are playing into the hands of those who would feed on the dissent and take advantage of it at forthcoming elections. That means that we need to focus on communities and areas where social divisions are at their widest and where social mobility has stalled or is going backwards.
Recently, I have been studying the Louise Casey review of opportunity and integration. We are awaiting the Government response to it. It is a fascinating report, in which she says that integration is a key part of a successful immigration policy. I do not think we have used the word “integration” in our immigration discussions enough. I do not expect the Minister to respond to that point, because he is not a Home Office Minister, but Louise Casey goes on to say that social mobility is a key part of integration:
“As well as providing economic advantages, social mobility also provides knock-on benefits such as reducing grievances, heightening a sense of belonging to a country or community and increasing geographic mobility and social mixing too.”
As I said, schools and education are the great driver of social mobility. It is worth drawing attention again to what the Social Mobility Commission report says:
“Despite a welcome focus on improving attainment in schools, the link between social demography and educational destiny has not been broken”.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central was right to say that that is not the fault of one Government, but has happened over successive years. However, it cannot be right that that link between social demography and educational destiny has not been broken. The report states that
“over the last five years 1.2 million 16-year-olds—disproportionately from low-income homes—have left school without five good GCSEs.”
It goes on to say:
“A child living in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas is 27 times more likely to go to an inadequate school than a child living in one of the least disadvantaged. Ten local authorities account for one in five of England’s children in failing schools.”
We know where the problem is; we must work out how to fix it. What does that mean in practice? Those of us who have talked about choice in education must realise that for families who are surrounded by inadequate schools, “choice” is a hollow word. There are no good or outstanding schools in those areas, and the families cannot afford to buy their way out of poor services or even the transport to a different area.
The focus on areas is right. In the White Paper that the Department published last March, “Educational Excellence Everywhere”, areas of entrenched educational underperformance were announced, where access to high quality teachers, leaders and sponsors was insufficient. They are now opportunity areas and I hope that the Minister will say more about them in his concluding remarks. It will be helpful to know the plan for investing in them, the services that will receive attention and how we will tackle getting high quality teachers, leaders and sponsors into them. We can be more directional. That is where Government can give a lead.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said that it is about not just academic attainment but aspiration. One of my most formative experiences—I have probably shared it with hon. Members previously—was visiting a primary school in Lancashire. It was a good primary school. It would be fair to say that the staffroom was not inclined towards my politics, but we had a robust discussion. I was struck by the fact that the headteacher had moved to this rather nicer area and this good school from an inner-city primary school. She said of the latter, “Oh well, those children were never going to be more than ‘requires improvement’”. How can someone write off children before they reach the age of 11 as never amounting to more than “requires improvement”? What a waste of human potential. What a waste for our country. That attitude must be overcome.
Attitudes in families of, “My child can access a profession, go to university, get a great apprenticeship”, even though perhaps the parent did not, should be encouraged. We must also foster the attitude in schools that children will fulfil their potential.
Siobhain McDonagh
I believe that all parents aspire for their children, but some do not know how to make things happen. We know that doing more homework on more evenings is more likely to get children to where they aspire to be. The inability to connect reality and the required work with the aspiration is a problem.
Nicky Morgan
I agree. It is not that parents do not want the best for their child. If you ask most parents on the birth of a child, they want their child to be happy, healthy and successful in life. I will talk about extra-curricular activities shortly because again, there is a social injustice in access to those activities. The hon. Lady is right about support. All the nagging that middle-class parents do about homework, or chivvying children to read more books, often does not happen elsewhere, not for lack of wanting to do it but perhaps because it was not done to those parents. Going into a child’s school and challenging teachers is anathema to someone who has had a very unhappy school experience. Attendance at parents’ evenings is indicative of the support that children get at home.
Aspiration is about aiming high for young people. I did not have a chance to look up the name of the school, so I apologise for not remembering it, but I went to a fantastic primary school in Northamptonshire, where a high proportion of children had free school meals, but it was working with the Royal Shakespeare Company and every child had access to Shakespeare and his language. I heard the tiniest children talk about Shakespeare’s characters and watched the older children perform complicated scenes—I would have had difficulty remembering all those lines, but they were doing brilliantly. The headteacher there had high aspirations. He said, “All my children will be able to do this and benefit and learn.” They were doing incredibly well.
I pay tribute to the National Association of Head Teachers for setting up its “Primary Futures” campaign, which is about getting adults into schools to talk about their careers and broaden horizons. When I was in the DFE, we set up the Careers & Enterprise Company. Broadening horizons, and aspirational and inspirational careers advice, are important. There will be a difference of opinion in the House about work experience, which we have debated. One week’s dry work experience in an office will not necessarily set the flame alight, but I remember talking to some apprentices, who told me that a week at Rolls-Royce, where they could see how the maths they were learning would be applied in the workplace, does set the flame alight. People then go back to school more determined to do better in their maths classes.
There is a changing labour market. In the article at the weekend that the hon. Member for Manchester Central and I wrote, we talked about the number of high-skilled jobs that will be around. The Teach First briefing says that, by 2022, the British economy is expected to experience a shortage of 3 million workers to fill 15 million high-skilled jobs. At the same time, there will be 5 million more low-skilled workers than there are low-skilled jobs. I did not want to mention the “B” word this afternoon—it is very nice not to be talking about the European Union—but, if we are to change our immigration policy in this country and have fewer people coming in from overseas, we must ensure that all our young people are training for the labour market of the 21st century.
That is my problem with the Government’s focus on introducing more selection. We do not live in a world where we need only the top 20% or 30% to be highly skilled. We need everybody to have access to a knowledge-rich, excellent academic curriculum. A renewed battle over selection distracts from what is needed in our education to deal with the demands of a 21st-century labour market, to give everyone a chance to close social divisions, and to build a consistently strong school system.
Research from the Education Policy Institute talks about the negative effects on those who live in the most selective areas but who do not attend grammar schools. The negative effects emerge around the point when selective places are available for around 70% of high-attaining pupils. The research says that there are five times as many high-quality non-selective schools in England as there are grammar schools.
Every child is entitled to an academic curriculum. Like the Minister, I have seen some great schools in some very unexpected places. I remember my visit to King Solomon Academy in London—the Minister will have been there too—and to the Rushey Mead in Leicester. They have a higher proportion of children on free school meals but are doing incredibly well in terms of the exam results they are achieving. I also pay tribute to the Harris academies and Ark in Portsmouth.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central mentioned the secondary heads in Surrey who had written about selection. The Leicestershire secondary heads, too, wrote to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education. Impressively, every single headteacher in Leicestershire signed the letter. If the Minister has not seen it, I hope he can get hold of a copy. One paragraph states:
“As professionals who have dedicated our lives to educating children across Leicestershire, our concern is for all the children in our region. Removing the most able pupils in our schools will have a negative impact on those who remain. Removing the option of ambitious, all ability comprehensives, with a scarcity of academic role models, will impact most particularly on the least affluent and least able. Therein lies the most significant injustice of this policy.”
Academic attainment is important and we should set high aspirations and ambitions for all pupils, but pupils in the best schools gain something else, and I want all pupils to gain it. This was one of the things I tried to champion when I was in the Department for Education. I am thinking of the character traits—persistence, resilience, self-confidence, self-esteem—and the values and virtues of integrity, honesty and whatever it might be, that help to build a whole pupil. I was at Elizabeth Garrett Anderson School in north London recently. The school focuses on building social capital among its pupils. It is conscious of the fact that its pupils will have to compete with the independent school down the road. I visited the King’s Leadership Academy in Warrington, which is a new free school, now over-subscribed, where behaviour is excellent, and where aspirations are incredibly high. All the young people are trained for leadership. Kings Langley School in Hertfordshire and Gordano School near Bristol are fantastic schools—I could go on.
Educating young people is about not just what happens in the classroom, but access to other schemes. I pay tribute to the former Prime Minister and the current Government for their focus on the National Citizen Service and other schemes: social action, volunteering, uniformed activities such as the cadets, the guides and the scouts, and the Duke of Edinburgh award. They all help to build up experience and confidence in young people. Those of us who have been employers and have interviewed see the ability of some young people to walk through our door, look us in the eye and shake us by the hand. Some children are taught that and encouraged in school, but some are not. These things matter in helping young people to get on.
I mentioned extracurricular activities. The commission’s report specifically talks about the effect different social backgrounds have on how people participate:
“One study found that 43 per cent of children whose mother had a postgraduate degree had music lessons, compared with just 6 per cent of children whose mother had no qualifications. At the age of 11, 85 per cent of children whose mother had an undergraduate degree participated in organised sport outside of school, compared with 56 per cent of children whose mother had no formal qualifications.”
I was very pleased that in last year’s Budget the then Chancellor announced funding for a longer school day. It would be helpful to know what emphasis the Department will place on that to help schools provide such activities. It is not necessarily about the schools themselves providing the activities; it could be enabling all young people in their schools to take up a place and participate.
Mr Burrowes
I very much support what my right hon. Friend says, particularly about social capital and building character through education. The Government have committed to a statutory requirement for relationships education. Many children, sadly, come from a background of conflict, trauma and survival. There is now the opportunity to provide them with the building blocks that others receive outside school to build resilience, self-esteem and respect for others, and help to build that character which is so vital for their long term future.
Nicky Morgan
I agree with my hon. Friend. I was very pleased to support his amendment on sex and relationships education, and I am very pleased that the Government have taken that on board and accepted an amendment to the Children and Social Work Bill. He is right to say that. One of the most important characteristics is resilience, or to use the awful phrase, stickability and bouncebackability: the ability to deal with what life throws at them and not be blown off course. Anything that schools, adult role models and other organisations can do, in addition to families, to help young people to develop that characteristic will go at least part of the way to building the more resilient and confident young people we need for the 21st century.
I do not think we will all agree with everything in the commission’s report, but it shows that we have a problem with social mobility. For those of us who are one nation politicians, that should make us very uncomfortable. There is talk of a meritocracy, but the difficulty is this: who decides who has merit? I would prefer to say that everyone has potential, but that in some cases the keys to unlocking that potential are more readily available to some than others. Today’s debate is about working out what those keys are and how they are handed out, and about building a consensus, or perhaps cross-party momentum, on how to do just that. But it has to be about more than words. Much has been done by this Government and by previous Governments, but there is much more to do if we are to show how we are going to renew our broken social contract and build real social mobility in this country.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) for the cross-party collaboration and work that has secured this debate on this all-important subject. In time-honoured Westminster fashion, there is an inverse relationship between the importance of a subject and the level of attendance, but that does not mean we should not persist. I join them, and everyone who has spoken today, in expressing my condolences to the family and friends of those injured and killed in yesterday’s horrific attack. I would like to pay my own heartfelt tribute to, and admiration for, the emergency services and the police who work so tirelessly, as they did yesterday, to keep us safe.
There is a choice that hangs like a backcloth to this debate: do we want to live in a closed society in which people are, in effect, told to know their place, or do we want to live in an open society in which people are able to choose their place? There is, I hope, an unarguable cross-party consensus that we should aspire to the latter.
I am delighted that the Social Mobility Commission, under the chairmanship of Alan Milburn, produces these excellent annual reports. I would say that, because I set up the commission: I announced its establishment on 5 April 2011, and we subsequently legislated for it. On the same day—it is interesting to look back on this—I announced the introduction of a new set of indicators that would help Whitehall to judge whether social mobility was being progressed or not. I also established a ministerial committee on the subject, which I chaired for many years.
At the time, all those things were new. Whitehall did not have a set of indicators, and we did not have a Social Mobility Commission. Extraordinarily, when I entered the Government I discovered that there were interns working in Whitehall and paid by the taxpayer who were judged purely on the basis of who they knew. Even in the heart of Government. prior to 2011, people were being given a leg-up because of who they knew rather than what they knew. It is fantastic that, in the intervening five or six years, social mobility has become a regular feature of the annual cycle of announcements.
I remember the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, observing to me rather ruefully that he thought I might have made a mistake by insisting that a member of the Opposition should chair the precursor of the Social Mobility Commission, because the first report produced by Alan Milburn and his colleagues had been critical of something that the coalition Government had done. I said to him, “That is the whole point: we need an institution that is independent of Government and contains people who will be fearless in their criticisms of any Government of whatever political persuasion, and which”—this is guaranteed by law—“reports to Parliament, not to the Government.”
The commission has—I will put it politely—had its wings clipped a little by the present Government. Shortly after the last election, the Government announced that they would remove the child poverty remit from what was formerly called the Child Poverty and Social Mobility Commission. I very much hope, and I am sure the Minister will reassure us, that that is not the first step in an attempt to make the commission in any way more docile, or less ferocious, in its all-important work.
I want to dwell on three issues, all of which are touched on in the annual report that the commission produced last November, and many of which have already been touched on by my co-sponsors. The first, the role of early years support, was highlighted by the hon. Member for Manchester Central, to whom I pay tribute, because she has made it a personal mission and has done so in an admirable way.
I think we all know this intuitively as parents, but, crucially, over the last decade or so, the academic evidence —from neuroscience to research done by educationists—has confirmed the axiomatic importance of what happens to a child’s brain, a child’s ability to learn, a child’s willingness to learn, a child’s willingness and ability to adhere to authority, a child’s ability to mix with other children, and so on. So much of that, of course, is formed, or not fostered, in the home, but a huge amount can be fostered, or neglected, in the early years and pre-school support that is given to our children.
There are two matters that concern me slightly. What I am probably most proud of from my time in government was the initiative that we took to provide 15 hours a week of pre-school support for two-year-olds. No Government had done that before: all early years and pre-school support had previously been confined to three and four-year-olds. I was keen for us to act on the evidence that the earlier we start—and, crucially, the earlier we start with those from the most deprived families—the greater the multiplier effect on children’s subsequent educational performance. So we introduced that measure. It initially applied to two-year-olds whose families were in the lowest 20% income bracket, but we later doubled that to 40%. That is where it stays to this day: there is a 15-hour entitlement for two-year-old toddlers from families that fall into the 40% lowest income families category.
The Government have now embarked upon a dramatic expansion of the entitlement for three and four-year-olds. I say, as someone who did not get into the bunfight between the two larger parties in the last general election, that that was—let us not beat about the bush—frankly because of a great Dutch auction in which the Labour and Conservative parties at the last election tried to outdo each other on how much they could improve the 15-hour entitlement for three and four-year-olds: at first it was 20 hours, then it was 25, then 30, and so it went on.
The Government will encounter terrific difficulties in delivering this expanded entitlement in a sustainable, high-quality way. That is worrying enough, but, this being a cross-party debate, I simply make a plea to us all to pause and consider whether, in a time of constrained resources when we have to make choices, this is really the most sensible use of scarce resources, given the importance of early years. The expansion of a universal entitlement from 15 hours to 30 hours for three and four-year-olds does absolutely nothing to build on this ground-breaking initiative of providing early-years support for two-year-olds. It also does nothing to bridge a gap that we will, as a society, have to bridge one day: the gap in a child’s development, which can be perilous, between the point at which mum and dad, or mum or dad, go back to work and the point at which the child can enjoy the state-funded allocation of early-years pre-school support devoted to him and her—which, if they do not come from those lower income families, comes not at two, but at three and four.
We have this gap at that age. I know nothing about neuroscience, but I am told that this is when the brain does the most extraordinary things and forms at a pace that is barely repeated at any other point in life—although I am also told that some neuroscientists say that they think rewiring might happen later, in the early teens. Certainly, judging by my teenagers, there is a lot of rewiring going on, most of it devoted to staring at an iPad.
We all know that early-years is one of the most important engines of social mobility, and we all know that money does not grow on trees. A decision has been taken—I think because of a non-evidence-based rush to double up again and again on a universal entitlement for three and four-year-olds—not to build on the ground-breaking initiative provided to two-year-olds. However, the early evidence—I would love to hear whether the Minister can share any of the evidence that I assume the Department for Education is accumulating—shows promising results for the knock-on effect on the two-year-old entitlement, and we have this persistent gap between the point at which many parents have to go back to work and the point at which their children can be put into a setting where they receive some of those entitlements.
I therefore make a plea to the Government. I am not for a moment imagining that they are going to say, “Absolutely, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam is right and we will stop entirely the direction of travel and orient policy in a different direction,” but the challenge remains. We need to continue to target resources earlier and at children from the most deprived families, and we are not doing that right now.
Mr Burrowes
In a spirit of consensus, I would point out that one of the successes of the coalition Government was the focus on early years and the early years foundation stage, which came not least out of the work of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). There is growing evidence, not least through the Department for Work and Pensions programme on parenting, of the quality of the relationship between parents having a huge impact on children’s long-term wellbeing, mental health and life chances. There should be a focus on that. There is a lot of well-evaluated evidence from the parents as partners programmes showing that we need to focus on these quality relationships all the way through as providing the foundation for long-term prospects.
Mr Clegg
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I have gone on a bit of a journey on this: I have always had a somewhat kneejerk liberal reaction of slight squeamishness and reticence about the idea of politicians, the Government, Whitehall and public policy experts seeking to tweak or improve how parents choose to raise their children, which I intuitively think is no business of politicians, but I agree with the evidence. Much like the right hon. Member for Loughborough, I agree on almost nothing with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) on many issues, but on this I think that he led the pack in saying that this is something that politicians need to grapple with, although we need to do so with care.
The first page of the summary of the report recommends that the Government should introduce
“a new parental support package, including a guarantee of help if a child’s 2 to 2½-year check shows that they are falling behind.”
I entirely agree with that. Public policy is inching towards greater involvement in an area that many folk have previously felt should be kept immune from such interventions.
I want to make one more point about early years that I am sure everyone here is aware of. It is unglamorous, rather fiddly and difficult to fix, but it is acutely important: it is the quality of early years provision. The pay and status of early years teachers are real problems. We do not have enough men going into early years teaching. Pay is very low, and there is no qualified teacher status. As the Government seek to expand the entitlements for three and four-year-olds, it is terrifically important that quantity does not come at the further cost of diminished quality. If the Minister can tell us how the quality, status and—in the long run—pay of early years teachers can be improved, so much the better.
I also want to talk about money. In those glory days back in 2010, I intervened aggressively in internal discussions when we had to announce what was in many ways the fateful comprehensive spending review setting out all sorts of unappetising cuts. I insisted that the per-pupil and indexed core budgets for schools should be protected. Those budgets needed to be protected in terms of prices and of pupil numbers, not least so that we could then add on the pupil premium in a meaningful way and ensure that it added genuine value.
I look now at the trouble the Government are getting into, and yes, a lot of this is complex. A lot is to do with the higgledy-piggledy, unjust, idiosyncratic way in which schools have had their budgets allocated to them over many decades, but some of it is pretty obvious. The Government simply cannot cancel the £600 million education services grant, as they did shortly after the 2015 general election, while protecting the per-pupil allocation only in cash terms and not in real terms and while diverting hundreds of millions of pounds to free schools—many of which are doing a great job, but frankly, far too many of which have been opened in places where there is no desperate need for extra places—and possibly compounding that error by spending hundreds of millions of extra pounds on new selective schools, and then ask schools to shoulder their own newly increased national insurance and pension contributions and, in some cases, apprenticeship levy costs, and, on top of that, introduce a national funding formula with no additional money to make that work. If they do all that, they are bound to get into terrible trouble.
I do not say this in a spirit of recrimination, but the Government should not be surprised that they are encountering huge resistance to these plans across the House and huge disquiet from parents, headteachers and governors up and down the country. There is a limit to how much they can keep expecting improved performance from a schools system that is being put under those multiple and entirely self-inflicted financial stresses and strains.
I know a little bit about this because, in the coalition Government, we looked exhaustively at the case for introducing a national funding formula. In principle, the case for doing so is impeccable; of course it is. The current situation is woefully unfair. There are many non-metropolitan schools, smaller rural schools, suburban schools, schools in the shires and so on that have received far less funding over a long period. However, the problem is that if we introduce a national funding formula in a way that does not raise the overall financial tide for all schools, what happens is exactly what is happening now. The schools that think they are going to gain pots and pots of money are disappointed at how little they gain, and those that are going to lose will lose an unacceptably large amount of money. No one is pleased.
The one issue in this debate on which I disagree with the right hon. Member for Loughborough is that, if I understand it correctly, her solution is to adjust the deprivation calculation buried within all the numbers in the national funding formula, which—all credit to the Minister and his Department—is a bona fide attempt to protect the funding to the poorest. The right hon. Lady will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, but one way to try to square the circle is to take a little money from the deprivation allocation and raise the floor or the minimum amount—
Nicky Morgan
The intricacies of the national funding formula are probably not quite right for this debate, but the right hon. Gentleman wants to consider the different grades of deprivation and how they are funded. Of course, there is the pupil premium outside the national funding formula, but there is also the income deprivation affecting children index, or IDACI, which looks not only at the overall deprivation weighting, but the weighting within the different deprivation gradients. That needs to be reconsidered and the Department needs to rerun the numbers.
Mr Clegg
I am grateful for that explanation. I will not try to improve upon the technical proficiency and expertise that the right hon. Lady has just displayed, because I cannot match her for that. I hope in many ways that she has just made my point, which is that we are condemned to fiddling around in the undergrowth to shift a little bit of money here or there to try to square a circle.
We came to the conclusion in the coalition—the Minister may remember—that it is not possible to introduce a national funding formula in a way that is just and fair if it is not pump-primed with a lot of money. I cannot remember whether it was in 2013 or 2014, but we did the next best thing, which was to use about £400 million as a stopgap measure—the Minister may have announced it at the time—to target the underfunding of the most underfunded schools. I plead with the Minister to learn from the past and, because I doubt whether any new money will be forthcoming from the Treasury, do that again. It is not ideal. It is a stopgap. It is temporary, but it is much better to allocate targeted resources to the schools that rightly complain about having been most hard done by under the current funding formula than to annoy and upset everyone in the way that the Government appear destined to do if they carry on with their current trajectory. That is my helpful suggestion for a way out for the Government from this politically invidious position in which they find themselves.
My final point has been made already, but it is worth repeating and relates to the importance of evidence-based policy. It really should not have to be restated that when we consider something as precious and as important as how we design the education system for our children, we should always be led not by dogma, ideology or personal hobbyhorses, but by the evidence. I do not want go over many of the points made earlier, but this old idea of improved selection perplexes me—that is the politest way of putting it. No international, national or local evidence whatsoever is being wheeled out. If the evidence is not there, let me at least make a political plea: the proposal is not actually popular with parents. Opinion polls show that older voters like it, particularly those who remember grammar schools in the old way, but parents, who actually have to make invidious choices about where to send their children, hate it.
The Government appear to have forgotten why previous Governments, including previous Conservative Governments, stopped the expansion of selection. It was precisely because they were encountering such resistance from their own voters, who do not like it. I ask people in the Westminster and Whitehall village why on earth we are proceeding with something that parents do not like, for which there is no evidence and for which there is no manifesto commitment at all. I do not remember the Conservatives populating our television screens in the run-up to the 2015 general election saying, “And we will introduce grammar schools.” There is no mandate for it. I am told—the Minister will not be able to confirm this—that one unelected political apparatchik in No. 10 went to a grammar school and has apparently persuaded the Prime Minister that they are therefore a good idea.
I am sure that it is not as simple as that, but surely it cannot be the case that the whole of Whitehall is being led by the nose because of the personal prejudices of one unelected political appointee in No. 10. I have to put on record this magnificent quote from Russell Hobby, the leader of the National Association of Head Teachers, writing in The Times Educational Supplement:
“In no other sector would this be acceptable. If the minister for health proposed to increase state funding for homeopathy on the basis that it did wonders for his uncle’s irritable bowel back in the 1970s—and must, therefore, be right for everyone today—there would be an uproar. This is a precise metaphor for the expansion of grammar schools. It is educational homeopathy.”
I hope that the Minister, who of course will not be able to disagree with the new orthodoxy, will none the less privately go to the Secretary of State for Education, and to the other powers that be in Whitehall, to stop the fetish for selection before it gets this Government into terrible trouble.
Where does the evidence suggest that we should do more? I am not exactly declaring an interest, but I chair a cross-party commission for the Social Market Foundation—there are Labour and Conservative Members on the commission—and we are looking at some of the key evidence-based drivers of increases in, and the existence of, inequality in the education system. One of our most striking early conclusions from the data we have seen and our original research—we will be producing a concluding report in the next month or two—is, I should think, intuitively obvious to us all, much like the importance of early years.
There is an intimate relationship between educational underperformance in some of the more deprived parts of the country, and the high teacher turnover and lack of experienced teachers in those schools. It really is very striking. The proportion of unqualified teachers working in primary schools with the highest concentrations of pupils on free school meals is 4%, but it is half that in the most affluent quintile. There is a similar pattern in secondary schools, where 5% of teachers in the richest schools, if I can put it like that, are unqualified, compared with 9% in the poorest schools. Schools that serve the most disadvantaged communities also experience far higher levels of teacher turnover than neighbouring, more advantaged schools.
This policy challenge, which does not detonate with the same attention and fury from the media as selection and so on, is a mundane but, none the less, crucial one. What can we do to attract highly qualified teachers to those parts of the country to which they are not presently attracted and/or to make sure that teachers in those schools stay and are supported to improve their own experience and qualifications? The Department for Education is looking at that, and I very much hope that—as we all continue to grapple with the elusive problem of how to build an open society in which people can go as far as their talents, application and dreams take them, rather than having their life fortunes determined by the circumstances of their birth—it is one of the many areas in which the Government will seek to make a positive intervention in the years ahead.
Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)
I associate myself with the comments of all Members in relation to yesterday’s incident. It still seems completely unreal, and my thoughts are with the brave police officer outside defending us who lost his life just doing his job—it is hard to come to terms with that. Without prejudging the person who did this, I suspect that issues of social mobility might apply here. I particularly reference Louise Casey’s report on the need for social integration among all peoples.
I thank the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) for securing this important debate. As a girl who went to a secondary modern, I wholeheartedly support their article in The Observer last week making it clear that grammar schools are not the answer to social mobility.
I was proud to be part of the previous Labour Government, for whom social mobility and education were absolutely priorities. Earlier, I was able to give thanks to Lord Adonis who, in my assessment, was one of the best Ministers we ever had. I note today’s figures on teenage pregnancy rates. The Labour Government’s efforts to reduce teenage pregnancy were so successful that those figures suggest that that is at its lowest ever level.
As the Social Mobility Commission’s “State of the Nation 2016” report sets out, under the current Government we are slipping back decades on the progress that has been made. Those born in Britain in the 1980s are the first generation since 1945 to start their careers on a lower income than their parents. A child living in one of England’s most disadvantaged areas is 27 times more likely to go to an inadequate school than a child in an affluent area. Just 5% of children who receive free school meals will secure five A grades at GCSE. Children from low-income homes are 30% more likely to drop out of education than their wealthier classmates with similar GCSE grades. Overall, by secondary school age, pupils on free school meals lag behind their wealthier counterparts by around 20 months.
For working people in my community, the link between social class and professional success is more entrenched than ever. Only one in eight children from low-income backgrounds is likely to earn a high salary as an adult. Working-class people make up only 4% of doctors, 6% of barristers and 11% of journalists—a whole generation of talent is being frozen out. But I wish to make it clear that grammar schools are not the answer. A House of Commons Library research briefing from earlier this month states:
“Pupils at grammar schools are much less likely than average to…be eligible for free school meals”.
Indeed, only 2.6% of pupils at grammar schools are eligible for free school meals—a well-understood signifier of poverty—whereas nationwide 14% of all students are eligible.
Part of the reason why poor students are so under-represented at grammar schools is that the attainment gap between richer and poorer students is clear even when they are only a few years old. The Library briefing states that
“of the 6.9% of pupils eligible for FSM with high prior attainment who are near selective schools, only 2.4% actually attended a grammar school.”
Let us be clear: grammar schools do not work for even the very brightest poor students, never mind the average or below-average student. Grammar schools educate a minority—just 5%—of state school students, so while the Government waste time banging on about grammar schools, the needs of 95% of our state school students are being ignored.
When I talk about social mobility, I am not just talking about the brightest poor students; I am talking about the poor students who are average but who deserve no less to succeed in life through hard work. We really need to prioritise comprehensive school education; if we do not, we will never address the national scandal of white working-class underachievement in this country.
Let us be clear: underachievement is a class issue and an ethnic issue. White British boys and girls who receive free school meals are consistently the lowest performing group at GCSE level, and the genders show no difference. It is not about boys; it is about boys and girls. Last year, only 32% of working-class white British students who receive free school meals achieved the GCSE benchmark, compared with 44% of mixed-race students, 59% of Bangladeshi students, 42% of black-Caribbean students, and 47% of Pakistani students receiving free school meals. Over the past 10 years, the educational attainment of white working-class students has improved much more slowly than that of almost any other ethnic group.
A good school can be life changing. I had the honour of being on the Education Committee and to play a part in a report that looked at white working-class underachievement. What we learned was how much we do not know. The one thing that stood out is the truism that a poor child does so much better at a good school. The benefit of being at a good school is a much more important driver for them.
This is where I get to pay tribute, as always, to the Harris academy chain in south London. I am forever grateful to it for having two secondary schools in my constituency. Last year, Harris Academy Merton achieved some amazing GCSE results, with a staggering 77% of students achieving five A to C GCSEs including maths and English, compared with the national average of just 54%. These schools, not grammar schools, should be our ideal. The pupil premium needs to be used to ensure that disadvantaged pupils receive the focused support that they need. We need to give academically average students from poor backgrounds better alternatives to university. Social mobility is about not just the children at the very top doing well, but all children being able to aspire and surpass expectations, including the average and below-average student.
If I have a couple of minutes—I do not want to take any time from other Members—I would like to address housing in not only south London, but all of London, as it is a major dampener on social mobility. If someone is in temporary accommodation and they live miles away from their home area, they do not get to school. Every Friday at my advice surgery, I meet families who are being fined for non-attendance at school, simply because they now live two or three hours away from their schools. I have letters that would make Members cry about clever pupils missing their exams because they physically cannot get to school to take them because of their housing situation.
Social housing is not fashionable. It is not something that everybody will come together about, but unless people have a secure and consistent roof over their head, the possibility of their not achieving is huge.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I too wish to associate myself with the comments that have been made by hon. Members today regarding the tragic events yesterday. I also send my condolences to the families of those who lost loved ones in yesterday’s incident.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on securing this incredibly important debate. As the chair of the all-party group on social mobility, I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate this very important issue. I am sure that all Members who attended this debate will have read the Social Mobility Commission’s latest report. For those who have not or who are watching at home, they really should read it, because it represents an urgent call for action on opportunity and the state of our nation.
For too long, we have allowed privilege and connections to override ability and potential. We have failed to recognise that there is a criminal waste of talent—generation after generation—and we have mistakenly and unquestionably accepted the myth that greater economic prosperity means greater opportunity for all. All those beliefs have been questioned by this report.
There is a crisis of opportunity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central said, this is a crisis for everyone; it affects everyone. The motion before the House calls for the focus to be on improving educational outcomes for all children. The commission’s report makes it very clear that if we are genuinely to improve outcomes for all children, we need to intervene and give them more support well before they start school.
My hon. Friend set out the issues in this area very well. We know that by the time students receive their GCSE results, 32% of the variation in performance can be explained by indicators observed before the age of five. A number of studies show that cognitive outcomes vary hugely among toddlers according to their parents’ socio-economic group, and that by the age of five that gap has widened further. Yet much of the debate on social mobility is centred on attainment at later stages of development—it feels a little like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
In the past decade, 500,000 children from poorer backgrounds were not school-ready by the age of five. We know that, for many, the gap at the age of five will still be there when they leave school, if it has not widened even further. If we do not get the building blocks right from the start, it just makes everything so much harder. The Social Mobility Commission’s proposal for a guarantee of help for children shown to be falling behind at the age of two to two-and-a-half is something that we must take very seriously.
I found the commission’s comments on early years childcare interesting, particularly in the context of the Government’s planned expansion of free childcare to 30 hours a week. From what I have heard from local childcare providers, it is pretty clear to me that it is going to be an enormous challenge for them to maintain standards on the funding that they expect to have available. The commission has said that a situation is already developing where poorer children are twice as likely to have access to low quality childcare than those from wealthier backgrounds are.
The right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam raised a pertinent issue when he asked whether the emphasis is right in where the investment goes in early years. I am concerned that we are heading for a situation where the focus on fulfilling that pledge on hours of access will override the important points that are being made about the need for early years childcare to play a vital role in ensuring that every child starts school life in the best possible position. We cannot think it acceptable for there to be an almost laissez-faire attitude to those most important early years of a child’s life, when all the evidence tells us that it could have a profound influence on their life chances.
Getting those early years right is hugely important, but once our children leave school they face a world where even the most talented have huge barriers in front of them. The all-party parliamentary group on social mobility report on access to the professions looked at opportunities in law, finance, the arts, media, medicine, the civil service and, indeed, politics, and found many similarities between the evidence we heard and the commission’s findings. Indeed, it was startling that, whatever the profession, the lack of opportunity and the reasons for that were often very similar. Across the board, privilege and opportunity go hand in hand. The Sutton Trust’s research shows that three quarters of senior judges attended private schools, as did more than half the top 100 news journalists and more than two thirds of British Oscar winners.
One of the areas where we found that the evidence very much chimed with the commission’s recommendations was in relation to internships. Research has shown that 50% of vacancies in law, banking and finance are filled by graduates who have already worked for that employer in some capacity. Too often, internships are not just a way to get a foot in the door, but the only way to get through the door at all. They have become almost a further compulsory step into many professions, but by their very nature they exclude many.
The APPG has recommended a legal ban on unpaid internships lasting more than one month. We found that not only was their unpaid nature a barrier, but that many of the placements are in London, which means that unless someone is from that area and has parents who can afford to support them for extended periods, there is no prospect of their even being able to consider an internship. There needs to be a fair, transparent and open recruitment process for such placements as well: we often found that placements were determined by existing connections—be it family or business contacts. These placements need to have the same rigour applied to them as if they were a permanent job; otherwise, any proposals made on payments may just be easing the path for those who are already on it.
Another area where we found the evidence remarkably consistent concerned the aspirations that our young people have. As the right hon. Member for Loughborough said, it is often not that families do not want the best for their children; it is a much more complicated story than that. I am sure that if I were to speak to a group of children from poorer backgrounds in most constituencies and asked them what they wanted to do when they were older, the vast majority would not say that they wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer, and certainly not an actor. For too many, the very notion that they should even consider careers such as those is almost universally absent. They need role models, mentors, inspirers—people from their communities who have been there and done that. We need to inspire kids from an early age to aim for wherever their abilities and interests take them. We should not accept that coming from the wrong part of town means low horizons. Getting a job should mean following a dream and forging a career, not just simply working to survive.
We need to develop a mindset within business whereby we treat social mobility on a par with protected characteristics in terms of a diverse workforce. We rightly challenge it when we see minority sections of society not getting an equal opportunity, and we should do the same here. We cannot allow the situation to continue where someone’s background is likely to be the biggest factor in determining their chances of success in life. The social mobility index should be rolled out to all employers over a certain size, so that there is a clear and public record of what our biggest companies are doing to ensure that opportunity is there for all.
A study by the Boston Consulting Group for the Sutton Trust in 2010 found that failing to improve low levels of social mobility will cost the UK economy up to £140 billion by 2050. In the inquiry, we certainly heard from some employers who recognised that their business benefited from having people who were like, and therefore understood, their customers. Sadly, they were the exception rather than the rule. Businesses need to be persuaded that it is not only the right thing to do morally, but that it makes sense for them as businesses.
The media was one area where we felt that companies needed to do more to appreciate the benefits of having a diverse workforce. Indeed, only last week the London Evening Standard provided the perfect example of what is going wrong with social mobility. Although I am sure the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) has many talents and a broad range of skills in a number of areas, does anyone seriously believe that he has the experience that qualifies him to be the editor of a daily newspaper? My 15-year-old son has more recent experience with the daily news, and he is a paperboy. But there is a serious point here. What kind of message does this send to those kids who are spending months and months on unpaid placements in the media? And this is an issue not just in the media; it is widespread in the arts and politics as well.
As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said, this country is too closed. It is a country where, far too often, where we are born and who we are born to define our life chances. Parents believe that their children will have less opportunity than they did, and that is a shameful state of affairs for this country. Automation and artificial intelligence will only exacerbate the problem, and we are miles away from even beginning to understand the social impact that that will have. The only way we will be able to meet this challenge is by intensive, long-term Government intervention, over not just the long term of a Government but the long term of our lives—not just at five or 15, but at 35 and 50 and so on. The world of work will change more rapidly than ever before and we need to recognise that opportunity is something that will need to be addressed not just in our younger years but throughout our lives. We have to invest in ourselves throughout all of our working lives and we will need Government support to do that. Too often, there is talk about the number of jobs created, but too little talk about the quality and permanence of those jobs. Social mobility cannot take place against the backdrop of an explosion in part-time and insecure employment.
In conclusion, there have been many fine words today about the need to improve social mobility, but it is time for us to listen to the evidence about what works and put those words into action.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I associate myself with all the remarks made about the senseless, horrific events of yesterday, and with the tributes paid to the people who lost their lives, including the brave police officer who was defending us all.
It is important that we continue undeterred to debate this important “State of the Nation” report by the Social Mobility Commission. I was an academic sociologist before I came to this place. Having turned into a politician, I sometimes feel that there is something of a mismatch between theory and practice. Academics kind of think that something works if it works in theory, but, as politicians, we might have the media in our face and have to think of a quick soundbite, or there might be someone in our surgery who needs a problem resolved quickly. I am still grappling with the same questions of social class and life chances that I grappled with as an academic.
It is important that we all reject the notion that we have had enough of experts, and part of the reason that I wanted to speak in this debate is that the people on the commission are eminent academics and practitioners. I want particularly to focus on chapter 2, which is on schools. I am incredibly privileged to represent the constituency I grew up in. I recall the same schools that I visit now in the ’80s, when they had buckets strategically positioned to catch the drips under leaky roofs. Those schools were transformed under Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme: some of them look like spaceships now. My alma mater, Montpelier Primary School, where I achieved my lifetime ambition in June 2015 by cutting the ribbon at the fête, should particularly go on the record.
This morning, the Prime Minister praised London as the greatest city on earth, and I am proud to be a London MP. People have mentioned the so-called fair funding formula, but 70% of London schools will be worse off under these new arrangements.
In my constituency, school budgets will be down by a whopping £5,524,197 by 2019—that is 137 teachers. An average child will receive £485.52 less funding. The problem is most acute in Acton, where we have wards in some of the poorest deciles. I will be doing my surgery in Acton High School tomorrow, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned how people come along to our surgeries with horrific stories about their housing conditions—they bring their mobile phones with pictorial evidence of the conditions they are living in—and about how they have been shipped far away because of the bedroom tax. However, Acton High School will be down £961 per pupil and 26 teachers, and its budget will be down by £1 million.
The recommendations in chapter 2, on page 53, talk about how children from poorer backgrounds are experiencing a worrying drop-off in progress at secondary. The gap in progress between low-income families and their more affluent counterparts has been widening year on year since 2012, and we should be very concerned about that. One of the report’s recommendations is to ensure that funding cuts do not exacerbate the problem of less well-off pupils failing to make good progress at secondary, so the idea that this funding formula is fair is simply laughable.
As has been said, school education does not exist in a vacuum; the whole context of children’s learning is important. I was very fortunate to address a conference by a group called What About the Children?, which deals with nought to three-year-olds. As a parent, I was lucky enough to use Sure Start centres. Sure Start was an amazing, joined-up programme, with education and health services to give kids a good grounding. But the children’s centres I used to use now face devastating cuts and closures. We have also seen cuts in health promotion, with fewer health visitors. All that is contributing to a picture that is getting bleaker. It is little wonder that it was revealed this week that baby teeth removals—extractions of baby teeth from children!—have gone up 24% in the last decade.
The right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) mentioned parents’ evenings. I have to say that because of the five-hour lockdown yesterday, I managed to miss my parents’ evening—some people might say, “The lengths people will go to to get out of parents’ evenings!” However, the right hon. Lady is absolutely right that all these things—and having books in the house—make for a positive learning environment.
There is a lot that could be said about this report. Chapter 3 goes on to post-16 education and training. I worry about rising tuition fees. In my seat, I have the University of West London, and I have had representations from staff and students that applications are down because of tuition fees and also because of the vote on 23 June—Brexit has created a climate in which international students no longer feel welcome. The removal of the nurse bursary—the university teaches nurses—is also detrimental to post-16 training and education and to jobs, and chapter 4 talks about jobs, careers and earnings for future generations.
In their Budget just the other week—it feels like it was ages ago, but it was only the week before last—the Government announced not only that they are ploughing on with their dangerous selective school experiment, but that they will provide free transport to grammars, which seems such a misplaced priority at a time of straitened circumstances.
There is much more that could be said. The eye-catching new 30 hours of free childcare sound good in theory, but try finding a provider in practice who can live up to that manifesto pledge by delivering those 30 hours and who thinks that the funding will be adequate to cover the increased costs it will incur in my seat. It is like looking for hen’s teeth. Things are harder than they should be anyway. In London, families spend £15,700 a year on average on nursery fees. We all want the holy grail of affordable, good quality, flexible childcare, but it is a challenge to find it, to put it mildly. The childcare proposal is one of those things—like the decision to have an in/out referendum on Europe—that seem good in a manifesto but do not measure up to their promise.
Many sociologists these days consider the concept of life course, and my casework involves people right across the age range. We heard in the previous debate about the Equitable Life pensioners. The WASPI women, who were born in the 1950s, had high hopes for their futures and their life course, and they feel as though the trajectory of their lives has been thwarted twice by Tory Government changes to their pensions.
As everyone has pointed out, there has largely been consensus in this debate, with its cross-party ethos, and that is very welcome. Rather than pursuing an academic idea of making things work in theory, we need to work together to fix them in practice. It is assumed that every generation will do better than the previous one, but the evidence in the Social Mobility Commission’s report suggests that we are going in the wrong direction. Yesterday we were faced with lockdown, and we really were all in it together. At times like that, cross-party friendships and alliances flourish. Let us continue in this spirit, and let us heed the warnings and correct our erroneous direction of travel.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I join hon. and right hon. Members from all parties in the House in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who gave his life to protect us, this place and all that it represents.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) and the right hon. Members for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) on securing the debate. My hon. Friend talked about Government policy, and about the idea of picking the few who would go from the council house to the Cabinet. Today might not be a day for humour, but the tale I tell is that I grew up in a damp two-bedroom council flat in Manchester, and since I became an MP I have lived in a one-bedroom ex-council flat in Westminster, so for some people the trajectory is downhill. I am one of the few in this place who can say that.
Yesterday, while democracy was being attacked, the Labour party members in Manchester, Gorton were selecting as their candidate another council house kid. He was orphaned out of Pakistan, grew up in abject poverty and worked as a labourer. After attending night school, he became a police officer and a solicitor, and he ran his own practice. I wish Afzal Khan all the very best over the next few weeks as we approach the election.
The “State of the Nation” report by the Government’s Social Mobility Commission explained the scale of the challenge we face in improving social mobility in Britain today. It told us in no uncertain terms:
“Britain has a deep social mobility problem.”
It identified
“four fundamental barriers that are holding back a whole tranche of low- and middle-income families and communities in England: an unfair education system, a two-tier labour market, an imbalanced economy and an unaffordable housing market.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) spoke eloquently about that. To say the least, the Government—and the Minister, who has been sent to defend the policies that have led us to this point—have their work cut out for them.
The “State of the Nation” report presented the Government with a number of proposals on parenting and early years, schools, post-16 education, jobs and housing, but there is no evidence so far that the Government have listened to the proposals. That is why our debate today is so important.
For instance, the report calls on Government to
“set a clear objective for early years services that by 2025 every child is school-ready at five and the child development gap has been closed”.
As a former teacher, I know that nursery teachers can predict with 95% accuracy what exam results the children in their care will attain at key stage 1, key stage 2 and key stage 3. The report also recommended that the Government provide
“high-quality childcare to low-income families.”
The Department for Education has given no indication that it will adopt these plans. In fact, its policies could do exactly the opposite. The Minister probably needs to tell us why the Government are not directing resources towards those who need them the most. The Department will spend about £1 billion a year on a policy of so-called tax-free childcare, which will be of the greatest benefit to those who have £10,000 to spend on childcare. I will give way right now to any Member in the House if they know a low-income family who have £10,000 to spend on childcare.
I hope that the Minister will also tell us what the 30 hours of free childcare will actually mean for the tens of thousands of low-income families who, under the eligibility criteria, are not actually eligible for the extra childcare. As the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam eloquently put it, this policy is in considerable trouble at the moment. After all, while I am sure the Minister is growing tired of being reminded of promises in his manifesto that are being broken, the pledge was clear: the Conservative manifesto promised that his party would
“give working parents of 3 and 4-year-olds 30 hours of free childcare”.
This is not just about quantity, but about quality, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Our maintained nurseries are under attack, with the future of many of them in doubt in the next weeks and months. Labour Members know the immense importance of early years intervention to improve the life chances of children in Britain. That is why the Labour Government opened over 3,000 Sure Start centres, and increased education spending in every year that we were in Government. This Government just need to follow that example.
There are a number of recommendations on schools in the report, and I will briefly address them. The right hon. Member for Loughborough said that education is the key driver of social mobility. She is a one nation Conservative. Disraeli said the same on the steps of Manchester town hall in 1872, so, a century and a half later, I am looking for a one nation in terms of social mobility.
First and foremost, the commission made it clear that the Department’s flagship vanity project to expand academic selection is wrong. It said:
“We recommend that the Government rethinks its plans for more grammar schools”.
I know the Minister has been told time and again to rethink these plans. He will come back to the Dispatch Box in a few minutes and say that children on free school meals in grammar schools have a better chance of getting to a Russell Group university, but it is a false statistic. The sample of children on free school meals in grammar schools is so small that it makes nonsense of the statistics. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden pointed out, 2.6% of children in grammar schools are on free school meals, compared with 14% of children nationally.
We have heard a great deal about the White Paper that we expect to see in the coming weeks. We want the Minister to commit to basing it not on dogma, but on evidence, and we want him to abandon the discredited policy of selection. The Chancellor has made an announcement about a lot of money for grammar schools, but it seems that there is none for school budgets. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) talked about the buckets used when it rains. I trained as a teacher in the late 1990s, and I remember going round with buckets. However, by the time Labour left office, schools had been rebuilt and roofs had been repaired, while the only thing going through the roofs were standards.
Cuts to school budgets will make it almost impossible to deliver on the many recommendations, so we need to think about the £3 billion that is currently going to be cut from school budgets across this country during the next few years. Let us not pursue the divisive policy of selection; let us fund education properly and come together on improving mobility. Government is about choice, so let us make the right choices.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
If I may, I will take a moment to express my personal gratitude to all the brave men and women who work here every day to protect us, showing immense bravery—they run towards danger to keep us safe. Our thoughts are with those who were injured yesterday, and with the families of those who tragically lost their lives.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on securing this debate. I agree with all the speakers in this debate about the importance of improving social mobility in this country, which is why the Secretary of State has demanded that social mobility should sit at the very heart of everything the Department for Education does.
The Government have already done a huge amount in our determination to achieve that. The pupil premium ensures that schools are given additional funds to support disadvantaged pupils. We are delivering 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-old children of working parents. We have begun our pioneering work in 12 opportunity areas, where we will partner with local communities to drive social mobility. Teach First is now sending even more high-quality graduates to work in areas of high deprivation. We have introduced a £75 million teaching and leadership innovation fund to improve professional development for teachers in disadvantaged areas. Our school reforms have led to 1.8 million more children having a good or outstanding school place than in 2010, helping to ensure that they get the education they need and deserve. The number of children studying the combination of academic subjects that make up the English baccalaureate has risen from just over one fifth to nearly two fifths, ensuring that more pupils have access to the broad academic education that they need. The Government are transforming technical education, with new T-levels adding prestige and raising quality for students.
I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam said about early years. The Department’s ambition is to ensure that the circumstances of a child’s birth do not determine what they can achieve in life. We are delivering 30 hours of free childcare for three and four-year-old children of working parents. We have laid out our strategy to improve the quality of the early years workforce by improving access to high-quality professional development. We have introduced the two-year-old offer to allow disadvantaged two-year-olds to attend early years. I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman with regard to that policy.
Crucially, the introduction of systematic synthetic phonics and the accompanying phonics screening check have seen a dramatic rise in early literacy. This year, 147,000 more six-year-olds are on track to becoming fluent readers than in 2012. Phonics is our most potent weapon in our fight to close the intolerable gap in literacy between the most disadvantaged children and the more affluent.
The Government have been unapologetic in their unrelenting push to raise educational standards. Nearly nine in 10 schools are rated by Ofsted as good or outstanding, but there is still more to do. More than 1 million children still attend a school that is not yet rated good. The Government want every parent in the country to have the choice of a good school place for their child. That is why we will create more good school places, harnessing the resources and expertise of universities, faith schools and independent schools, and lifting the ban on selective school places.
We do not think it is fair that children have the opportunity to go to an academically selective school only if they live in a particular county in England, when 98% of grammar schools are good or outstanding. We know that selective schools are vehicles of social mobility—I accept that that is for those pupils who attend them—and almost eliminate the attainment gap between pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers. That is one argument, but there are many others. Pupils in grammar schools make significantly more progress than their similarly able peers, with Progress 8 showing an aggregate score of plus 0.33 for grammar schools, compared with a national average of 0. The House will also be aware that 78% of high-ability children who leave primary school with a level 5 in their SATs go on to achieve the full EBacc suite of GCSEs if they go to a grammar school, but only 53% achieve that if they go to a comprehensive. That is why we want to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds and ordinary working families have the opportunity to benefit from selective schools. We also want to ensure, as we set out in the consultation document, that selective schools work with neighbouring primary and secondary schools to the benefit of all pupils.
As the Social Mobility Commission report sets out, there are “social mobility coldspots” across the country that are falling behind. Twelve of those areas have been designated as opportunity areas by the Secretary of State, building on the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. We will target interventions in those areas that are designed to improve opportunity and choice for pupils. Those opportunity areas will enable us to identify new approaches to tackling the root causes of educational disadvantage. We will build an evidence base of what works so that we can transfer those approaches to other areas to remove the barriers to social mobility.
As the Social Mobility Commission recognises, the single biggest educational factor that improves social mobility is the quality of teachers, so we intend to invest in the profession. We will invest a substantial proportion of the £70 million for the northern powerhouse schools strategy in piloting new approaches to attracting and retaining teachers in the north of England, and we will target the £75 million teaching and leadership innovation fund at improving professional development for teachers where that can make the most difference.
Thanks to the academy and free schools programme, teachers and headteachers have enjoyed greater freedoms to tackle poor behaviour and raise expectations in the curriculum. Teachers have been instrumental in setting up some of the highest performing and most innovative free schools in areas of disadvantage.
Last month, I visited Reach Academy Feltham, run by Teach First ambassador Ed Vainker. I was struck by his passion as he explained the lengths to which he and his school go to ensure that they attract as many pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds as possible. Reach Feltham’s determination to do everything it can to admit pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds is an example of a school with a mission to drive social mobility. That free school and other innovative schools show what it is possible to achieve.
Whether it is Reach Feltham, Michaela Community School, City Academy Hackney, King Solomon Academy, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough mentioned, or Harris Academy Merton, which the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) mentioned, where 39% of pupils are entered for the EBacc suite of GCSEs, they all understand the importance of knowledge and teach a stretching, knowledge-rich curriculum. Each of those schools has clear routines that are consistent in all classrooms. They understand the importance of a strong approach to behaviour management. They all serve disadvantaged communities, demonstrating that high academic and behaviour standards are not and must not be the preserve of wealthy pupils in independent schools or socially selective comprehensive schools.
Nicky Morgan
Is not my right hon. Friend demonstrating in the second half of his speech why the first part about reintroducing selection is a red herring? He has just given examples of several hugely impressive schools, with pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds who are achieving excellent results. Does he not agree that we want more such schools rather than accepting that schools cannot always achieve that and therefore taking pupils out to put them into selective education?
Mr Gibb
We want to leave no stone unturned. The purpose of the Green Paper that we published in September is to ensure that we harness all the expertise and talent in this country, whether in universities, independent schools, faith schools, outstanding comprehensive schools or selective schools to ensure that we have more good school places. There are still problems that we have to address.
According to the Sutton Trust, just 53% of high-ability children who are eligible for the pupil premium take triple science GCSEs, compared with 69% of non-free-school-meal children. Some 20% of high-ability free school meal children are at schools where triple science is not even offered. We are trying to tackle those issues, and we are leaving no stone unturned.
We are also addressing technical education. We are spending £500 million a year on improving technical education and we will deliver the recommendations of Lord Sainsbury’s review in full. Those new T-levels will replace 13,000 or so different qualifications.
As right hon. and hon. Members argued in their article, our country and economy are changing fast. We must ensure that all pupils, irrespective of background, receive an education that gives them opportunity and choice in their adult life. We should all be able to agree that social mobility should be about not where a person starts, but where they end up.
A few weeks ago, I visited Michaela Community School in Wembley, a new free school committed to improving the education of those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Every day at lunch all the pupils recite in unison one or two of the poems that they have learnt by heart. When I was there, they recited William Henley’s “Invictus”, which reflects the determination and stoicism that is fostered at Michaela Community School:
“Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeoning of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes the contents and recommendations of the annual State of the Nation report from the Social Mobility Commission; notes that despite welcome measures by successive governments to improve social mobility the Commission warns that social mobility is getting worse, the reasons for which are deep-seated and multi-faceted; and calls on the Government to lead a renewed approach in the early years, in education, skills and housing, to improve social mobility.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Ratty’s Lane Incinerator
Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)
May I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s statement this morning on yesterday’s distressing events? She spoke for the nation and for my constituents.
May I say how disappointed I am to have to bring this matter to the attention of the House and the Minister this afternoon? In the main, Members of Parliament should keep out of the way of planning applications. However, the conduct of Veolia in making an application for an incinerator in my constituency, at Rye House and Fieldes Lock, a site running off Ratty’s Lane, is so egregious that it is worthy of being aired in the Chamber.
I thank County Councillor Tim Hutchings for all his support in helping me to prepare for this afternoon’s Adjournment debate. He is a diligent representative and has worked tirelessly to inform me of his community’s concerns, as have the Hoddesdon Society and, Madam Deputy Speaker, many of your constituents—this application has an impact on your constituency as well.
The concerns centre on an application by Veolia to build a 350,000 tonne incinerator at Rye House, Fieldes Lock in the north of my constituency. Veolia had argued as recently as July 2015 that the site was wholly unsuitable for such a facility, a view shared by Hertfordshire County Council, which is the relevant planning authority and the owner of the waste contract, and, more importantly, by the planning inspector and ultimately the Secretary of State.
By way of background, in July 2015, after a long and protracted period of review, the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government threw out a planning application by Veolia for a waste incinerator at New Barnfield, a site in the Borough of Welwyn Hatfield in the neighbouring constituency. As part of that application, Veolia researched and then ruled out a number of alternative sites. One of those was Rye House, Fieldes Lock, the site of its current application.
In July 2013, Veolia, on page 35 of its alternative sites assessment report, said that the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site
“is identified as a safeguarded strategic rail aggregate depot, is located adjacent to the River Lea within an area subject to flood risk and is proximate to a RAMSAR designation. The site is also very compact and has local highway capacity access constraints that required the need for the rail linked solution. Such constraints do not facilitate the development of an RERF at this site, where the local rail network presents operational and logistical difficulties to serve Hertfordshire and where the strategy of the Hertfordshire Waste Collection Authorities and Hertfordshire Residual Waste Treatment contract are essentially based on road borne delivery.”
The findings of Veolia’s 2013 ASA were repeated virtually word for word by the company’s agent, Steven Kosky, on page 96 of his proof of evidence report, which was presented to the planning inspector as part of the New Barnfield inquiry. In responding to that evidence, Mr David Richards, the planning inspector, said on page 27 of his report to the Secretary of State:
“The fact is that no suitable alternative site has been put forward in the evidence by any of the parties to the inquiry. Veolia and HCC have given evidence in writing some 6 weeks before the inquiry began (and in rebuttal evidence a week before the inquiry) and in oral evidence that there is no alternative suitable site.”
The inspector went on to say:
“Fieldes Lock is dealt with in the ASA and by Mr Leech. It is not in an Area of Search in the WCS and is in the south-east of the county not well located to waste arising and collections. It was promoted by Veolia for a SRF power station with additional natural gas fired generation to serve North London and with the SRF to arrive by rail. It needed the rail feed because it is a compact site which could not accommodate the road based collections needs of this county and so could not accommodate the kind of EfW plant proposed, let alone the front-end recycling facility too.”
The findings of the planning inspector were endorsed by the Secretary of State who, in his letter of 16 July 2015, said:
“the Secretary of State agrees that there is no obvious alternative site that would perform significantly better in environmental terms and that is suitable for the use proposed and available for a development of the scale proposed at New Barnfield... For the reasons given, the Secretary of State also agrees with the Inspector that there is no available sites within the Employment Land Areas of Search which would be of sufficient size to accommodate the proposed development.”
Well there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker: a seeming slam dunk against New Barnfield and, in connection, the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site. The Secretary of State, his planning inspector, Hertfordshire County Council and Veolia are all in agreement that the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site is not a suitable alternative for the incinerator.
Like the undead, however, this zombie application is now rising from the grave, badly decayed but somehow still living. Having invested significant sums of its corporate treasure to trash the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site, Veolia is now promoting it as the ideal alternative location for its incinerator. Veolia’s previous statements, such as that the site
“is located adjacent to the River Lea within an area subject to flood risk and is proximate to a RAMSAR designation”,
or
“the site is also very compact and has local highway capacity and access constraints”
or
“Such constraints do not facilitate the development of an RERF at this site”
have, on page 22 of Veolia’s 2016 ASA, incredulously been replaced with the following statement:
“Generally, the site has few operational, planning and environmental constraints, although it is noted that the presence of power lines across part of the site constrain the developable area.”
That is a simply stunning volte face on behalf of Veolia: no mention of the site being poorly located for waste arisings, and no mention that the site was previously deemed too compact by the planning inspector or was ill-suited to road-borne deliveries. In essence, it is a complete reimagining by Veolia of its previous position: a new and alternative reality completely at odds with both Veolia’s previous position and the stated position of the planning inspector and the Secretary of State.
Quite frankly, on this evidence Veolia could argue with a straight face that the moon is actually the sun and the sun is in reality Mars. Just last week, when interviewed by Broxbourne’s local newspaper, the Hertfordshire Mercury, Richard Kirkman, a director of Veolia, said:
“I think people always worry about transport. We have looked at the impact on the local highways and what has been demonstrated is that even now traffic can be supported”.
But in making this statement, Mr Kirkman must have known that it entirely contradicted Veolia’s position, as stated in its 2013 ASA that
“The site is also very compact and has local highway and access constraints.”
So I say to Mr Kirkman, on behalf of my constituents, “Why are you taking us for fools? Your statement is false. It is false not just because it falls foul of your own ASA statement, but because in 2012, when Veolia was trying to promote the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site for a rail-fed incinerator to burn London’s waste, Hertfordshire County Council Highways objected to just 46 of Veolia’s proposed HGV movements, as opposed to the 212 the company is now asking for.” So, Mr Kirkman, if five years ago our roads could not cope with 46 HGV movements a day, how can they cope with 212 a day now?
Veolia’s creation of alternative facts is matched by its wholly cynical public information campaign. In a letter, dated 9 March, that it sent to thousands of homes in the Rye Park and Hoddesdon area, the company stated:
“This application is for a smaller facility than previously proposed at New Barnfield”.
Well, if not directly dishonest, that is a wholly distorted statement designed to mislead my constituents. The New Barnfield application was for a 380,000-tonne incinerator. The application for Rye House, Fieldes Lock is for an incinerator with a capacity of 350,000 tonnes. That is a fractional difference of about 9%. However, Veolia’s conduct in this claim is, once again, most effectively damned by its own Steven Kosky, who, when concerned residents were arguing in favour of smaller sites than the one being proposed, wrote on page 10 of the company’s 2013 supplementary proof of evidence to the planning inspector:
“In addition two facilities, of say 200,000 tonnes throughput capacity, each would not be materially smaller in terms of height and land take than the single facility proposed… In summary, to make a materially smaller ERF facility, the annual throughput would need to fall considerably below 100,000 tonnes”.
That is a breathtaking rebuttal of Veolia’s claims, by Veolia. You really could not make it up, unless you could find it in writing.
Just as concerning as Veolia’s cynicism on the issue of size is this claim in its 9 March letter:
“Already £6.5 million has been allocated through the Local Enterprise Partnership to improve the local road network.”
That statement is concerning. For more than 20 years Broxbourne borough council has been seeking funds to pay for that upgrade without success; then, miraculously, after more than two fruitless decades, a £6.5 million investment arrives at a time that is most advantageous to both Veolia and Hertfordshire County Council—which, I remind the Minister, in relation to this application is both the relevant planning authority and the owner of the contract. In making that investment, the LEP announced that it would create
“up to 400 new jobs”.
That figure is not dissimilar to the one being trumpeted by Veolia in its press release, but let us be clear: of those jobs, 300 will end when the construction phase is completed, with the proposed incinerator employing no more than 40 whole-time equivalents.
Why are my constituents concerned about Veolia’s laying claim to having motivated that £6.5 million investment? They are concerned because Hertfordshire County Council has senior representatives sitting on the LEP board and a direct interest in securing those funds: not primarily, I suspect, for the benefit of my constituents, but to ease the progress of Veolia’s—its business partner’s—planning application.
My constituents are concerned that our county council is even entertaining the application for the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site, given that on 24 June 2014, in a special report addressed directly to Hertfordshire County Council, Andrew Freeman, the planning inspector, stated unequivocally:
“In addition to flooding and groundwater issues, there is a safeguarded rail aggregate depot within the Rye House site. Waste developments not served by rail could have a significant impact on the local highway network. The viability of a smaller (road served) facility could be questionable given the cost of likely necessary mitigation measures. Allocation of the sites would not be appropriate”.
Despite that statement by the planning inspector, and despite its being ruled out by the Secretary of State, the council still seems to want to promote the site along with Veolia.
Why is the £6.5 million important to Veolia? It is important because, as I said a few moments ago, in 2012, when Veolia was promoting the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site for a mostly rail-fed incinerator, Hertfordshire County Council lodged a highways objection against just 46 HGV movements a day. In making its objection, the council stated, in October 2012:
“Should the facility be unable to import 90% of the SRF material by rail, then it is considered that the resultant impacts on the highway network would be unacceptable in highway terms because…additional road movements would have a significant impact on the highway network”.
The 46 HGV movements to which Hertfordshire County Council objected in 2012 pale into insignificance compared with the 212 for which Veolia is now asking. So, bluntly, without the LEP stumping up the cash, this current planning application to burn Hertfordshire’s waste would be even more dead in the water than it is now. Let us be honest—if this application was a fish, it would be floating around, belly up and bloated. Even with the LEP money, the application is on its last gasp before the point of expiration. I believe that it is possible that coincidence can be the bedfellow of happy circumstance and that therefore not everything is a conspiracy, but given the highly contested nature of this incinerator, it is now incumbent on Hertfordshire County Council, the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership and Veolia to demonstrate beyond contention that public money has not been used to promote and ease Veolia’s planning application.
In pursuit of establishing the facts, you will not be surprised to learn, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I wrote to all three parties on Monday 13 March asking that they place in the public domain any communications they had in relation to this £6.5 million of funding and its possible connection, either in whole or in part, to the incinerator. While I still await a substantive response from Veolia, I can say that the chief executive of Hertfordshire County Council has responded and categorically denied any suggestion that the local authority placed any pressure on the Hertfordshire LEP in relation to the £6.5 million of LEP funding in connection to Veolia’s application. I accept this assurance at face value, and I can say that the LEP has also written to me along similar lines.
However, I also asked the county council in my letter to release information in connection to any discussions it had had with Veolia regarding the road and bridge improvements. That question remains outstanding, but it needs to be answered. It needs to be answered because, in bringing forward its application, it is inconceivable to imagine that Veolia did not raise the Hertfordshire highways department’s 2012 objections to its previous Rye House, Fieldes Lock application for just 46 HGV movements a day. Following that objection, Veolia would surely have asked the council how that could be overcome, given that the company is now proposing 212 HGV movements for the same site in 2017. Until there is full disclosure, the nagging concern will remain that the allocation of public money for the road improvements was primarily motivated by an interest to improve the circumstances of Veolia, a private company that is in danger of being rewarded for its shoddy enterprise and shoddy conduct.
My constituents’ concerns about the relationship between the principal parties—Veolia, Hertfordshire County Council and the Hertfordshire local enterprise partnership—are legitimate. They are legitimate because this is meant to be an undetermined planning application. They are legitimate because, despite its having a foot in all camps, it is reasonable for my constituents to expect that Hertfordshire County Council’s planning regime is robust and independent. They are also legitimate because as recently as 2015, the interested parties now promoting the Rye House, Fieldes Lock site deemed it to be unusable, a position endorsed by the planning inspector and the Secretary of State.
The Minister will be aware that, for the reasons I have set out, I am of the view that this application cannot be safely determined by Hertfordshire County Council. That is the case because Hertfordshire County Council, as both the relevant planning authority and the owner of the waste contract, has a glaring conflict of interest in relation to this long-running application that has been going on in some form for more than six years. The county council has put itself in an impossible position from which it now needs to extricate itself. Let me be absolutely clear that although I am making this criticism of the county council, I believe that in all other areas it is an outstanding example of good, sound and principled local government. It is an authority for which I have immense respect, and I do not damn it for its sole error of judgment: entering into a contract with Veolia, a company whose conduct in this matter plumbs new depths of entitlement and corporate dishonesty. That dishonesty is exampled in its dealings with the planning process, the inspectorate, Hoddesdon’s local newspaper and, most importantly, my constituents and yours, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I wholly accept that the Minister will not be able to respond to my concerns this evening. However, I want to conclude with these facts. The applicant, Veolia, the contract holder, Hertfordshire County Council, the planning inspector, Mr Robinson, and the Secretary of State have all previously agreed that Rye House, Fieldes Lock is unusable as a site for an incinerator. None of the facts that underpinned the decision has changed. The site is still compact, it is still at the far edge of the county, it is still on a flood plain, it still has highway and capacity constraints, and it is still next to a Ramsar site. These are the facts as they are, not as Veolia would reimagine them to be.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) on securing this debate on the proposal to develop an energy recovery facility at Ratty’s Lane in Hoddesdon, Hertfordshire. I know that the issue is of great importance to him, as he demonstrated by the eloquence of his speech. It is also an issue of great concern for many of his constituents, and he does them a good service by raising it in the House tonight. I know that this is also a matter of concern for many of your constituents, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend said, a planning application was submitted by the developer, Veolia, on 22 December last year for an energy recovery facility located in the Lea valley in Hertfordshire that would deal with 320,000 tonnes of municipal, general, commercial and industrial waste produced each year in Hertfordshire. It would be expected to generate 23.5 MW of electricity per year.
Gavin Barwell
I have experience of dealing with these issues, because a similar facility is being developed in Sutton, near my constituency. I believe that 320,000 tonnes is the projected annual usage, but that there is a maximum capacity of 350,000 tonnes, as my hon. Friend says.
I should say at the outset that, as my hon. Friend kindly pointed out at the end of his speech, proprietary considerations prevent me from commenting on the detail of the specific planning issues that he has raised, for two reasons. First, this is a live planning application that is currently being processed by Hertfordshire County Council. I understand that the application is subject to a public consultation that closes at the end of this month. There is obviously a possibility, were the application to be refused, that an appeal could be made to the Secretary of State, so it is important that I should not say anything that might prejudice the Secretary of State’s position in determining any such appeal. Secondly, my hon. Friend has asked the Secretary of State to call in the application, and it is equally important that I should not say anything that could prejudice that call-in request.
I will therefore focus on how the planning system operates in contributing to the robust regulatory framework that we have in place to plan for the sustainable management of the waste that we produce. The national planning policy for waste was published in October 2014 and provides part of the wider regulatory framework in which the application to develop an energy recovery facility in my hon. Friend’s constituency will have to be considered by the council.
The Government are committed to a zero-waste economy. By that, we do not mean somewhere in which no waste exists. We mean a society in which resources are fully valued, financially and environmentally, in which one person’s waste is another’s resource, and in which nothing is actually wasted, so that, over time, we get as close as we can to zero landfill. The planning system plays a vital role in delivering that ambition, and it is pivotal to the adequate and timely provision of the new waste facilities that are needed to move the management of waste up the waste hierarchy so that we do not continue to bury large amounts of our waste in the ground as previous generations have done.
Waste facilities are an essential part of the infrastructure necessary to make our towns and cities function properly in the 21st century, and they often provide an important service beyond their immediate neighbourhood. The key to getting this right is the preparation of waste plans. There are sound financial and environmental benefits in having up-to-date plans. They provide certainty to attract investment in new facilities, and they guide and deliver waste infrastructure that will help us to divert waste from landfill and to reduce greenhouse gases. To that extent, and without commenting on the merits of the plan for the reasons to which my hon. Friend alluded, I am pleased that Hertfordshire County Council has in place an up-to-date waste core strategy, which was adopted back in 2012 and covers the period to 2026.
I appreciate that many people may have concerns about the type of technology under discussion: an energy recovery facility that would generate electricity by incinerating waste. The planning system is technology-neutral. It is not for planners to describe a specific type of energy-from-waste technology required for a particular site; it is for the planning system to decide whether it is appropriate to site such a facility in a particular location. That is my hon. Friend’s argument. Energy-from-waste facilities—they include incinerators, but also embrace other technologies such as anaerobic digestion or gasification—make a valuable contribution to achieving waste objectives, but we recognise that recycling waste is better than energy recovery. The evidence for that is the national target to increase the recycling of municipal waste to 50% by 2020. In the majority of cases, however, maximising the energy recovered from non-recyclable residual waste is better than sending it straight to landfill.
The choice of technology must reflect local circumstances, which clearly will vary from place to place. However, it is important that plans for the technology emerge out of local waste strategies, which seek to drive waste up the waste hierarchy. Whichever type of technology is chosen, national planning policy requires that waste planning authorities—Hertfordshire County Council in this case—assess the suitability of locations against a range of criteria when they are preparing a plan or deciding an individual application. It might help my hon. Friend if I set out those criteria, which should include: the physical and environmental constraints on development; existing and proposed neighbouring land uses; the capacity of existing and potential transport infrastructure to support the sustainable movement of waste, which my hon. Friend touched on in his speech; the cumulative impact of existing and proposed waste disposal facilities on the wellbeing of the local community; and any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality, social cohesion or economic potential.
Waste processing facilities are unpopular neighbours, and it is understandable that local residents will be concerned about the possible adverse impact of such a facility on their local environment. As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, those matters must be considered by the county council when reaching a decision on the application. Should planning permission be granted, we must not forget that such facilities will not be able to operate until the operator has also obtained an environmental permit from the Environment Agency. Once such facilities become operational, I assure the House that the Environment Agency governs their operation strictly, ensuring that ambient air and water quality meet standards that safeguard against negative impacts to the local environment and human health. In addition, planning authorities such as Hertfordshire County Council can ensure that waste is handled in a manner that protects the environment and human health through the application of appropriate planning conditions, adequate enforcement, and monitoring of the operation of facilities once they are up and running.
I am very much alive to the concerns that my hon. Friend and other Members have raised about this planning application. In this particular case, the council should process the application and, when reaching a decision, should thoroughly examine the concerns raised by my hon. Friend and his constituents, and by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and your constituents. I encourage anyone with an interest in this application to let Hertfordshire County Council know their views by 31 March. I assure the House that the Government are not complacent.
We welcome the contribution that my hon. Friend has made during the debate. We will continue to maintain both the right national planning policy and a robust regulatory framework to secure the sustainable management of waste across the country.
Finally, it falls to me to end our proceedings today. As other hon. Members have done during the course of the day, I want to put it on record that it does this House, our society and our country great credit that, in the light of yesterday’s tragic events, business in this House has gone exactly as planned. We have got on with the job that we were elected to do, and we will not be deterred from doing it by those who have committed such heinous crimes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I am sure that the whole House would agree with what the Minister has just said in concluding today’s proceedings, which have gone, as he said, exactly to plan. Our democratic system is working perfectly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Enactment of Extra-Statutory Concessions Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, on this rather sombre day, but we meet as scheduled to carry on the work of the House.
As some Committee members may be aware, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs continues to review its extra-statutory concessions following clarification of HMRC’s administrative powers by the courts in the Wilkinson case in 2008. The order before us is another step in that process and will put three ESCs on a statutory footing. The concessions legislated for in the order, although not affecting a great number of taxpayers, exist to ensure that the tax rules operate fairly and consistently. The order will ensure that reliefs continue to be available in the scenarios covered by the original concessions.
The order has been fully consulted on, and I am grateful to those who took the time to help the Government to improve the legislation. I will give a little detail for each ESC.
ESC D40 concerns the charge to capital gains tax in respect of gains made by trustees of a non-resident trust. It makes a minor modification to the scope of the anti-avoidance legislation that applies a capital gains tax charge on individuals who settle a property into an offshore trust, and on individuals who are beneficiaries of offshore trusts. The capital gains tax legislation has rules that prevent a tax charge from being avoided if payments to and from the trust are made through a company controlled by the individuals. ESC D40 does not change those rules, but it prevents them from applying to individuals who are treated as controlling the company only because they are beneficiaries of the trust, not because they actually own shares in the company.
ESC F15 provides some relief from inheritance tax on transfer of a property that includes woodlands benefiting from a deferred estate duty charge. When a property containing such woodlands is transferred between owners, inheritance tax is charged on the whole property. The ESC mitigates that by providing that inheritance tax applies only to the woodlands portion of the transfer, rather than to the transfer as a whole. The remaining portion of the transferred property is treated as a potentially exempt transfer for inheritance tax purposes.
ESC 3.20 is designed to ensure fairness for the general body of creditors in an insolvency. Without the concession, certain VAT debts incurred pre-insolvency would be payable ahead of any fees or charges incurred by the insolvency practitioner. That could deter practitioners from acting in some cases and lead to all creditors losing out. I will explain a little about the mechanics of the VAT provision, including why the concession and this legislation are necessary.
The law allows taxpayers to claim bad debt relief on certain supplies that they make if they have not received payment themselves, but where the taxpayer’s customer is a taxable person for VAT purposes, that customer must repay to HMRC the VAT that they themselves have already recovered in respect of such purchases. That is known as clawback. The clawback provision is designed to maintain the integrity of the VAT system and to counter avoidance by preventing manipulation of the bad debt relief rules by associated suppliers and customers, but as I have explained, in insolvency cases the usual operation of the law prejudices the general body of creditors, because any clawback in respect of the insolvent trader’s unpaid debts pre-insolvency becomes due from the insolvency practitioner post insolvency ahead of any other costs.
Should the Committee pass the draft ESC order, it will be made and come into force on 1 April 2017. I am grateful for the cross-party support to date for the rolling programme of legislating for concessions and the valuable benefits that the ESCs provide. This order will ensure that concessionary treatments continue to provide relief as originally intended, so I am pleased to commend it to the Committee.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Buck. I thank the Minister for outlining the detail of the order. The Opposition will not prolong the sitting, particularly given the business happening in the House today, so I will simply say that we have listened to the Minister and read the order; we formally note it and do not object.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Corrections
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margot James
However, more than 100 employers, representing 1.2 million employees across the UK, have signed up to the initiative, which is an important milestone. Many of the employers pledging action such as Barclays, Nationwide, Royal Mail and Ford are putting in place returners programmes and means of staying in touch with pregnant women and new mothers on maternity leave, which is another point that was made.
[Official Report, 15 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 127-28WH.]
Letter of correction from Margot James:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Westminster Hall debate on Maternity Discrimination on 15 March 2017.
The correct response should have been:
Margot James
However, more than 100 employers, representing 1.2 million employees across the UK, have signed up to the initiative, which is an important milestone. Many of the employers pledging action such as Barclays, Nationwide and Ford are putting in place returners programmes and means of staying in touch with pregnant women and new mothers on maternity leave, which is another point that was made.
Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions
The following is an extract from the reply by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), to the Westminster Hall debate Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions on 21 March 2017.
Margot James
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, 21 March 2017, Vol. 623, c. 313WH.]
Letter of correction from Margot James:
An error has been identified in the response I gave to the Westminster Hall debate on Nuclear Decommissioning Industry: Pensions on 21 March 2017.
The correct response should have been:
Margot James
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 January 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.
Petitions
Changes to funding for 3 and 4 year olds
Changes to funding for 3 and 4 year olds in Walsall South
The future of nursery schools
Traffic enforcement measures along the A52
Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill (Seventh sitting)
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
With your indulgence, Mr Gray, may I say a few words? As we stood together in silence and sorrow earlier, so we stand together for all time; Parliament and people. Our Committee, in its modest way, tells all that should be known about this place, our work: debate without rancour and difference without disputation; and mutual regard and respect. Parliamentary politics is, in my judgment, far from broken, and it will not be broken by the enemies of decency.
In that sombre way, we continue our consideration of this important Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield proposed the new clause when we last met, which seems an age ago. It would require the Secretary of State to bring forward a new strategy for using vehicle technology to address climate change and air quality. The hon. Gentleman and others heard me say that we are indeed looking to do so. We will bring forward an updated strategy for promoting the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles in the next 12 months. Our intention is that that strategy will go further than just low-emission vehicles and reference support for low-emission road transport more widely, such as the use of advanced fuels, to help air quality in exactly the way that Opposition Members have invited us to. That strategy will of course be parallel to, but synergous with, the national air quality plan that we will develop. Our work on that plan will focus on low-emission vehicles—it is of course not wholly about that, but we see low-emission and zero-emission vehicles as a critical component in the delivery of that plan.
I was pleased yesterday to attend the opening of a new factory for electric black taxis in Coventry, where we announced our support for precisely the kinds of things that Members across the Committee have called for. Taxis can be one of the biggest contributors to urban air pollution, for obvious reasons, so we announced £64 million of funding to encourage the uptake of electric cabs and installation of a dedicated charging infrastructure. It is worth sharing the detail of that funding with the Committee, because it affects most of the areas of the country that we represent. We will work with a series of local authorities to invest £14 million to deliver around 400 rapid and 150 fast dedicated charge points for electric taxis in those areas.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I will not detain him for long. While I was trying to gain access to the estate yesterday—I was not able to cross Westminster bridge —I was with Transport for All, which pointed out to me the need to consider wheelchair access to taxis. As they are currently constructed, taxis will take only the smallest and narrowest of wheelchairs, not the sorts of wheelchairs—especially electric wheelchairs—that some disabled people need.
Mr Hayes
That is an excellent point. The hon. Gentleman and other members of the Committee probably know that I am passionate about disabled access, having been the co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on disability for many years. I always say that Jack Ashley was the real chairman—I was there only as his assistant, really. Disabled access is something that the Department takes seriously, and the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who has responsibility for access, has done immensely good work on it. I recently held a cross-party meeting with him and others about precisely that matter. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough makes his point forcefully, and he can be sure that it will certainly be part of our considerations as we move forward.
I was coming to the exciting news about the areas that will benefit from the extra investment in charge points for taxis. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield will be delighted to know that Birmingham will receive £2.9 million for that purpose, and the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West will be delighted to learn that Wolverhampton will receive nearly half a million pounds—£478,000. The hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford will want to know that London will receive £5.2 million. I know my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who is not in his place, will be excited to find out that Yorkshire will receive £1.98 million. My Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, will want to know that Oxford will receive £370,000. The Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, will want to know that Scotland has not been forgotten, because half a million pounds will make its way from here to there in the form of support for the city of Dundee. Other areas to benefit are Coventry, Nottingham, Cambridge and Slough.
We are determined to create an electric charging infrastructure that is suitable and appropriate to need. It will be dedicated to taxis, which we see as a critical element—I do not want to exaggerate—in delivering the change that I think we all seek and wish for.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
Wolverhampton is very grateful for that money. The council tells me it will install 24 charging points in the next three years. Can the Minister try to encourage quicker take-up than that?
Mr Hayes
The work that we do will need to be conducted with the same kind of rigour and vigour that I bring to all of my work. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I like to drive my team hard in the Department for Transport, and I am always prepared to listen to the advice of Members from across the House. He has made his point very effectively.
What I did yesterday is again relevant to the amendment and our considerations, because the new factory being opened in Coventry will build the electric taxis that will populate this city and others in the coming years. It is the first brand-new car plant to be built in Britain for more than a decade, the first dedicated electric vehicle manufacturing facility in the UK and the first major Chinese investment in UK automotive manufacturing, bringing with it many new jobs. It is an exciting development that I am proud to be part of, which is why I was out of the House yesterday.
Before we adjourned on Tuesday, several hon. Members raised the issue of liquid petroleum gas. The Government are already taking a number of steps to support gaseous fuels through the renewable transport fuel obligation, the low-emission bus scheme, the low-emission freight and logistics trial and the clean bus technology fund to name a few. Projects funded via the Government’s £8 million clean vehicle technology fund include the conversion of more than 60 black cabs from diesel to LPG in, again, Birmingham. This is the neat idea that was advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire. When complete, the project will provide valuable information about the costs and benefits of retrofitting black cabs with LPG. My hon. Friend made the powerful point that this is about what we do with the existing fleet as well as with the new cabs that are required.
More widely, my officials are currently analysing the environmental impacts of different fuels, including LPG, in different vehicles. We are grateful for the data that the industry provided to feed that work. We shall use that analysis to inform our approach to alternative fuels across Government, including in respect of future decisions about fuel duty, of course. That was mentioned, but as Members will know, any fiscal matters are beyond my scope.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
I should have mentioned on Tuesday that I drive an LPG car. Will the Minister say a little bit about what the Government will do in relation to the current constraints on the LPG market? We do not have any vans made with warrantee, which is a barrier to take-up at the moment, particularly for fleet purchases. There is also the issue of the fuel duty escalator, which he might want to mention to the Chancellor in the run-up to the autumn Budget, so that we can get this interim solution to help us to meet our critical air quality targets.
Mr Hayes
I will deal with those points, for the sake of interest and glamour, in reverse order. I dealt with the second matter that my hon. Friend raised—perhaps rather too briefly for his taste, but none the less definitively—in my final remarks a moment ago when I said that all such matters are beyond my ken. Of course, others—no doubt including him, with his usual assiduity—will make precisely that argument to the Chancellor as he goes about his considerations.
On the first point, however, we can perhaps do more. Warrantees in these terms are important, and I have given that some consideration. People want to know that if retrofits take place, it will not detrimentally affect their vehicle or have a deleterious effect of any kind, and that the retrofit itself will be something of which they can be sure. I take the point. I will take it away and certainly want to say more about that during the passage of the Bill, perhaps between now and Report. As ever, my hon. Friend makes a helpful contribution to our considerations. I was about to conclude, but I can see my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire eyeing me, with the possibility that he is about to add further expertise to our considerations.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for noticing that I was giving him a rather quizzical look. He said he would say more about that matter between now and Report. Does he mean in today’s proceedings or is he envisaging some other get-together before Report?
Mr Hayes
My right hon. Friend’s urgency has coloured all he has done in his long and distinguished career in this House. If I can meet that objective, I will. I think that would be fair enough.
I ought to have said at the very outset that I committed to write all hon. Members a note following our last meeting. I have done so, in an email. I have further hard copies that could not be distributed last night, for obvious reasons. If any Committee member seeks a hard copy for their convenience, I have them available here and will happily distribute them.
With those remarks, I wish to conclude this part of our consideration. We are taking action already to increase the uptake of ultra low emission vehicles, which is an important part of our wider plans. As with new clause 3, we consider it both disproportionate and unnecessary to insert a further requirement for a strategy in primary legislation, because we are going to do what the new clause seeks in any case. I feel that the Opposition will reasonably conclude that they have encouraged, endorsed and perhaps even stimulated a new determination on the part of Government to do exactly what has been set out in this discussion.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
May I start by completely associating myself and Opposition Members with the Minister’s opening remarks? There was no doubt that yesterday’s attack was an attack on the kind of things that our deliberations represent; he was right to mention that.
If you will indulge me, Mr Gray, I want to say something as a Birmingham Member of Parliament. Last night the library of Birmingham was lit up with the colours of red, white and blue, as a mark of respect to PC Keith Palmer, and indeed all the victims of yesterday’s atrocity. It was also a gesture of solidarity with us and the values we represent in this place. I have no doubt that there will be those who will try to seek to use yesterday’s events as a way of dividing people, but I am equally in no doubt that those colours lit up on Birmingham library yesterday spoke for my city of Birmingham. That is what spoke for the people of Birmingham, irrespective of their colour and whatever faith they may or may not have. Thank you for allowing me to say that, Mr Gray.
I was very pleased that the Minister was in the West Midlands yesterday. He is right that decarbonising taxis and ensuring clean taxis will play a vital role in crafting a strategy that can tackle the air quality crisis facing our towns and cities. I welcome the investment he has announced today. It is also welcome to hear that the strategy that we seek in the new clause, to try to determine how stimulating greater uptake of low-emission vehicles can contribute to an overall air quality strategy, will come forward within 12 months. I would ask him to approach that with some dispatch, because he will know that the air quality strategy that the Government are charged with producing, to avoid the infraction proceedings that Britain is on course to incur, needs to come forward well within those 12 months. I hope that the contribution that low-emission vehicles will make to improving air quality will be laid out as quickly as possible.
The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire made the good point that when we look at the contributions to be made to improving air quality, we must talk about low-emission, ultra low emission and zero-emission vehicles. There is a massive role for conventionally charged electric vehicles—that has occupied most of our discussions in the Committee—but there will also be a role for hydrogen-electric vehicles and other hydrogen vehicles. He is right that, on the way to getting there, intermediate technologies such as LPG have a role to play. It is important that that is reflected in public policy and the fiscal arrangements adopted. That is a good point that the Committee is grateful for.
As ever, the Minister has got what the Opposition have been saying. He has guaranteed that the kind of strategy we seek will be brought forward. We look forward to that, and when it is brought forward we will give it the scrutiny that it will no doubt deserve, as I am sure the Minister would want us to do. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Licensing and accreditation scheme for technicians working on automated and electric vehicles
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a scheme for the licensing and accreditation of technicians working on automated and electric vehicles.
(2) The scheme must include details of—
(a) which professional body will operate the licensing and accreditation of technicians,
(b) how the licensing and accreditation scheme will operate,
(c) a minimum level of training for technicians working on automated and electric vehicles, and
(d) how a list of accredited individuals will be prepared and kept up-to-date.
(3) In this section “working on automated and electric vehicles” includes isolating, inspecting, repairing and maintaining vehicles that are listed under section 1 of this Act.”—(Richard Burden.)
This new clause would require the Government to bring forward regulations for technicians working on automated and electric vehicles in order to ensure they are properly trained, accredited and licensed to carry out that work. This would be regulated by a professional body who would operate a licensing scheme for those technicians.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Burden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We know that the automotive industry relies on hundreds of thousands of individuals in a range of roles to support work on and to maintain vehicles, and it will continue to do so in the future, but as technology develops, so too must the skills of those working on vehicles. We have already heard that the automotive industry faces a skills gap, and as technology develops that gap could widen.
The Bill as it stands does not address that worsening skills gap. We could soon face a gaping hole in the support structures needed for ultra low emission vehicles and for connected and autonomous vehicles, including automated vehicles. The Government need to have a laser-like focus on building our skills base, as people across the automotive industry have told us time and again, not only for electric and automated vehicles but for other car technologies too. That means we need a skills base in automotive research, development and manufacturing, as well as for technicians working on vehicles, so that we can boost job prospects and personal development for the hundreds of thousands of livelihoods linked to this industry.
All that is much needed and important, but the new clause goes deeper than that. It asks whether it is not time for the proper accreditation of qualifications for maintaining and servicing this new generation of sophisticated vehicles. I think the evidence indicates that it certainly is.
I declare an interest as a fellow of the Institute of the Motor Industry. It has shown that 81% of independent garages find it difficult to recruit technicians with the skills and competences they need to undertake work on the kind of technologically advanced vehicles that we have been talking about. It thinks that of the 180,000 technicians in the UK, only about 2,000 are qualified to work on electric vehicles, all of whom are employed in manufacturer dealerships.
Sir Greg Knight
Does not the hon. Gentleman’s new clause have three defects—it is bureaucratic, costly and unnecessary? Does he agree that, if a licensing system of the kind he is envisaging were brought in, the customer would have to pay for it through higher bills? Why would one need a licensed, accredited mechanic if one just wanted a lightbulb or a tyre changing?
Richard Burden
The short answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions is: no, no and no. The new clause would not require a licensed technician to check the tyres or change a lightbulb. That is why it asks the Government to bring forward regulations for the kind of accreditation scheme that would be brought in. I also do not believe it would lead to a high cost—in fact, quite the reverse, for reasons I will come on to talk about.
The main thing is that there is a high risk if untrained technicians attempting to work on these kinds of vehicle. I make no bones about this: it could put lives at risk. The battery pack on an electric vehicle carries up to 600 V. If someone needs certification—it used to be called CORGI certification—to repair a gas boiler, is it too much to say that they need some kind of accreditation or qualification to work on future vehicles? Even electricians conducting electrical work in our homes have to be licensed to do so. That is for households that typically run on 240 V AC. For EVs, we are talking about 600 V, and sometimes more. This is about the safety of the vehicles themselves, the people who work on them, those who drive them and other road users around them.
The new clause’s main purpose is safety, but it is not just about that. It is also about enhancing skills, providing mobility and progression for technicians, and giving market certainty about safety standards. I think it could have a wider impact on issues such as insurance uptake and viability. That is the answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I think that if it is not addressed, the skills shortages could result in higher repair and insurance costs. In some ways, that is already happening. There are already concerns about the insurance costs of some electric vehicles and ultra low emission vehicles. Some insurance charges for EVs are estimated to be as much as 50% higher than their petrol and diesel equivalents. That is because of the assessment made of the nature of the technologies involved.
We believe, as do a number of stakeholders, that the Government should consider introducing an accreditation scheme for technicians who will work on those future vehicles. They have to look at the details of that and at how it can avoid the kind of unintended consequences that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. If the Government introduce a scheme, they will be promoting safety and supporting the growth of the new generation of vehicles, in the way that we all want to see.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
May I, too, associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister? We share the view that acts of violence such as those we witnessed yesterday must never deter us from our duties in this Parliament. We also share the gratitude and appreciation for those who seek to protect us in discharging our duties here.
I rise to support the new clause. It is important to consider safety, not just for vehicle users, but for those who work on them. Clearly, that should be of the utmost importance. It is also important for another reason: to provide reassurance and underpin safety for consumers. We want to encourage further uptake of these vehicles and ensure that people have confidence in them. Prospective owners need a degree of trust and security that the vehicles will be safe, secure and not liable to faults or malfunctions. Having accredited technicians will help to alleviate those issues greatly and will build consumer trust with approved regulated training.
It is important to look at opportunities for people to gain the skills we need. I particularly ask the Minister to look at measures that might encourage girls and young women into the sector to take advantage of new opportunities. As a result of the UK leaving the EU, it is more important than ever to have the protections and regulations in place to make sure that safety measures are covered. We support the new clause for those reasons.
Mr Hayes
Once again, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield has made a helpful contribution. He will know that I am interested in and reasonably knowledgeable about—it does not pay to overstate one’s knowledge—the subject of skills, having been the Skills Minister, as well as the other things I have mentioned during the Committee, and I take extremely seriously the development of practical competencies and their effect.
The hon. Gentleman is right that ensuring that we have a suitably skilled workforce is important to secure the bright new automated future that we seek. That future will be both automated and electrified, not merely by my rhetoric, but by the technological changes. The skills associated with the vehicles will need to develop in parallel with those changes. The design, development and deployment of vehicles must be matched by competencies in their repair and maintenance, of which people can be sure and of which we can be proud. As he said, motorists with these new types of vehicles will clearly expect the same levels of knowledge, expertise and customer service as they expect for the vehicles that we drive now.
It is important to recognise that the technology is different at developing stages. Just as development will be incremental, the acquisition of skills needs to keep pace with the changes. Although other vehicle technologies are more mature, automated vehicles are still in their infancy—they are just starting to be tested. As the professional body for the automotive industries, the Institute of the Motor Industry is well placed to help the Government understand the challenge of ensuring that vehicle maintenance and repair are carried out in a professional and safe manner for both technicians and drivers. We have already made some progress. The institute has already developed an accredited levels 1 to 3 qualification in EV maintenance and repair. It is estimated that there are between 30 and 50 UK colleges and training providers offering these courses. City & Guilds also offers equivalent qualifications.
Richard Burden
The Minister is right about the prospect of a situation in which the only place that people can find trained and qualified technicians to work on the new generation of vehicles is in manufacturers’ dealerships, often in urban centres. That is the scenario that we could face unless we do something along the lines of the new clause. The same kind of thing is happening now: the 2,000 qualified technicians I spoke about are all in manufacturers’ dealerships. The Minister is right that we need to determine how we can spread and deepen the skills base.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West has decided that if there is to be an accreditation and licensing scheme, it should have a title just as catchy as CORGI—which is no longer used; it is now called Gas Safe. He came up with “Member of the National Generic Register of Electric Vehicle Licensees”, which comes out as MONGREL. My hon. Friend has many talents, but I gently put it to him that working out the names and acronyms for accreditation for a skill set and array of qualifications in occupations that we want to promote is probably not his strong suit.
Richard Burden
The Minister should not have tempted him. He will be working hard on it.
Richard Burden
My hon. Friend says he will take a leaf out of the Minister’s book. Although it will not be on the record of this Committee, it might end up on the face of the Bill.
Labour Members feel strongly about this issue. I am grateful to the Minister for his assurance that he is thinking about it and is engaging with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and with the Automotive Council to see what role they might play in developing such accreditation. We are still keen to see something about it in the Bill if possible. I accept that the new clause, as it stands, may not be exactly the right way to do so, but we would still like something in the Bill. We will think about it before Report, and I ask the Minister to do so as well. If there is consensus about doing something along these lines, let us put it in the Bill. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Consultation on the collection and use of data from automated and electric vehicles
“The Secretary of State must consult with such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on the collection and use of data from automated and electric vehicles. The consultation must address—
(a) who is responsible for collecting data from automated and electric vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles,
(b) how the data is shared between different parties, and
(c) any limitations on the use of such data.”—(Andy McDonald.)
This new clause would require the Government to consult on how that data should be handled, who should own the data and what it should be used for.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Andy McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I associate myself with the remarks made by colleagues on the events of the past 24 hours. It is a delight to be here going about our proper parliamentary business; we are all delighted to be getting on with that.
Automated vehicles are likely to produce huge amounts of data on such things as car location, traffic information, maps or footage of surrounding areas, details of accidents, weather information and the car’s route, as well as information about passengers or indeed parcels inside the vehicle. Information associated with the charging of electric vehicles will inform Government policy on the legislation and infrastructure needed to support and encourage the uptake of electric and automated vehicles. The data will be a valuable resource.
There are many advantages to gathering such information. For example, if a car is self-driving and makes a mistake, the information gathered by the vehicle can be used to prevent other cars on the road and future generations of cars from making the same mistake. Information about accidents can better inform how we design our roads, and information about traffic could lead us to reconfiguring our towns and cities in order to reduce congestion and improve air quality. However, there are risks as well, as some of the information gathered by the car might be sensitive. Information about a car’s history could make identifiable a person’s place of work, who their friends are and what they have been doing, which is information that people may wish to keep private and which could be damaging in the wrong hands. Therefore, it is important that the Government ensure that the gathered data are secure, private and open, if we are to best take advantage of the new technologies.
That is not going to be an easy task, and the new clause recognises that it is important that the Secretary of State consults widely on it. That is why the new clause is tabled in these terms. It would require that the Secretary of State consults appropriate persons on the collection and use of data from automated electric vehicles, that the consultation addresses who is responsible for collecting the data from such vehicles and from any associated charging or network infrastructure used by such vehicles, how the data are shared between different parties and any limitations on the use of such data. I trust that the Minister is supportive of the intention behind the new clause and I look forward to his comments on whether it is acceptable to the Government.
Sir Greg Knight
I can appreciate the thinking behind the new clause, because this is a very important area. I personally think that the new clause is defective, in that it does not require action but requires the Minister to consult. The Minister does need to go through with his officials the areas where it is permissible for data to be collected and those areas where it is not. For example, I think that we would all agree that where an automated vehicle has been involved in an accident, the data should quite clearly be made available to the insurance companies and, if the accident has involved personal injury, to the police as well.
I can also envisage certain circumstances in which the automated vehicle has not been involved in an accident, but where the authorities might wish to access the data and should be given the right to do so, for example where it is suspected that an automated vehicle has been used in a burglary or a crime such as that which we witnessed yesterday. There could be circumstances in which the police suspect that the vehicle has been used for a criminal offence and they wish to access the data to confirm that that is the case, and perhaps to find out where the vehicle has been on other occasions.
There are then other circumstances in which I am far from convinced that it is either desirable or necessary for the data to be shared. If an automated vehicle is used in a company situation by an employee, should the employers have the right to access the information to see where the employee has been? In the absence of the Minister taking any action in that area, what would the status of a freedom of information request be to the owner of the vehicle asking to see the data? Would that be allowed? I pose the question because I do not know the answer—as a lawyer, perhaps I should not do that, because we are taught to ask only the questions to which we know the answer. I honestly do not know whether the Freedom of Information Act would apply if the Bill remains silent on this issue.
Andy McDonald
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether the intended target of the request is subject to the Freedom of Information Act if they are not a Government body or a manifestation of the state.
Sir Greg Knight
That is an interesting point, but we should have further and better particulars from the Government, who have people who are paid to definitively know the answer to that. What about a situation in which there has been a breakdown in trust between two partners in a business or perhaps between a husband and wife? Should a divorce lawyer who suspects that the wife has committed adultery be allowed to have access to information from the wife’s automated vehicle? I would be very uneasy if that was the case. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough has performed a service in tabling the new clause, because we need to focus on these issues, and I think that there are circumstances in which such information should not be made available to those who seek it.
Drew Hendry
Many important comments about data have already been made this morning. Clearly there is the opportunity for data to be collected to improve performance, for safety, and for reasons of tracking a potential crime. That is one set of uses for the data, but we have heard about other possible uses as well. Given the enormous amount of data that will be collated by this future technology, real thought has to go into how the data will be handled. The Minister might reflect on the fact that, in the case of mobile technology, already too much personal data are given away to companies and bodies that we might not want to have the right to have access or ownership of those data, so it is important to consider how the data will be used in future. I suggest that the Minister considers the principle of the user being the owner of the data wherever that is possible and wherever it is practical or useful for the data to be used for the purposes of safety, protection or development.
Sir Greg Knight
Reflecting back on the intervention I took about the Freedom of Information Act, would the Government car service be covered by such a provision?
Drew Hendry
It is an interesting question that I cannot answer, for obvious reasons. It underlines the fact that because this is a big issue there needs to be a serious piece of work undertaken on data alone to decide who is allowed to access the data in future.
Rob Marris
The new clause calls for consultation. I must say, with appropriate humility, that had the Labour Government accepted my amendment to road traffic legislation in, I think, 2006, this measure would already be on the statute book. I tabled an amendment on vehicle data recording devices. Black boxes in other jurisdictions around the world since—again from memory—about 2002-03 have been used for such purposes. For example, when a road traffic collision occurs, the vehicle’s black box—the vehicle data recording device—in many vehicles will tell us the speed of the vehicle 10 seconds, five seconds or one minute before the impact, so that we can have an indication as to whether the alleged tortfeasor was in fact speeding.
We need something, but I would speak in support of new clause 8 rather than the concept put forward by the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire that he hoped to move in new clause 2, the difference being that new clause 8 seeks consultation, not regulations now. We need consultation on these tricky devices because of the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, and also because of what the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said about the adultery clause, as it were, or the freedom of information clause, because there are technical aspects concerning who possesses and who owns the information. Generally, the owner of a vehicle with a vehicle data recording device can be said to possess the information in the black box. However, without specialist equipment and technology from the manufacturer, the owner cannot access that information to disclose it to anybody else, whether under freedom of information or whatever. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at consultation on these issues.
Mr Hayes
I am minded to be quite brief on this new clause. I am clear that none of the contributors has sought to illaqueate the Government in an unhelpful or disputatious way. The clarity of the argument that has been advanced seems persuasive. It is absolutely right that, as our transport networks become increasingly digital, the collection and sharing of data becomes a more vital element in those developments. Of course, that includes data from electric vehicles as well as connected and automated vehicles.
We will have to consider carefully who owns the data and on what basis they are exchanged. The balance between public good and private interest here is equally clear and we will need to consult widely on that. To do so would be beneficial and necessary to engage the industry, as we have up until now, to understand both the pace and character of those developments.
We have throughout our work, as the Committee has heard, been engaged in just such consultation. The automated vehicle insurance clauses in the Bill came as a result of careful consideration, following the kind of consultation recommended by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough and others. We have a set of good consultation principles, which will underpin all we do as we move forward, but I think I can go further than that. I do commit to exactly the sort of consultation that the hon. Gentleman has called for. As we progress with these matters, we will engage with the House on the outcomes of that consultation. More than that, we will consult colleagues here. The House will have its own part to play in the discussion about how these matters develop.
For the record, I should point out that freedom of information applies only to the public sector, whereas data protection laws apply to all. I hope that provides some assurance to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. He is right to say that there is a potential risk to security unless we get this right, a point the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey also made in his contribution. Yes, we are going to consult. Yes, we know that this is important. Yes, we will come back to the House during that process of consultation. I give that absolute guarantee now, which will be supported in writing, if the hon. Member for Middlesbrough wishes, because it is the right thing to do.
Andy McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his acceptance of what we are trying to achieve. In response to the comments from the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, we live in a world of equal opportunities, so we should point out that husbands are also capable of committing adultery and could be on the receiving end of such fishing expeditions.
The Minister has committed to the consultation we have called for, is happy to put that in writing and will come back to the House. I am grateful for his approach to our proposed new clause, which I do not need to press. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Membership of European Aviation Safety Agency
“Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent the Government must publish a report setting out its preferred option on the future of the UK’s membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency.”—(Richard Burden.)
This new clause requires the Government to set out its position on UK membership of the European Aviation Safety Agency after leaving the European Union.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 12—Single European Skies Movement Research project—
“Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent the Government must publish a report setting out its position on the Single European Skies Air Traffic Movement Research (SESAR) project.”
This new clause will require the Government to set out its position on the Single European Skies Air Traffic Movement Research project (SESAR) after leaving the European Union.
New clause 13—Membership of the European Common Aviation Area—
“Within three months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent the Government must publish a report setting out its preferred option on the future of the UK’s membership of the European Common Aviation Area.”
This new clause requires the Government to set out its position on UK membership of the European Common Aviation Area (ECAA) and maintaining current access with the EU and third party countries after the UK leaves the EU.
Richard Burden
We are back to aviation, Mr Gray, with the three proposed new clauses. They are all about trying to find the means to end some of the uncertainty that exiting the European Union will bring to the aviation sector. Our aviation sector is the largest in Europe and the third largest in the world. It is worth in excess of £50 billion to GDP, it supports a million jobs, and it secures for the Treasury some £9 billion-worth of taxation each year.
What happens to aviation will be absolutely critical from day one of any life outside the European Union. However, before we arrive at that destination, we must recognise—this is what the new clauses deal with—that there are a number of partnerships that will need to be confirmed not after we leave the EU, but as soon as possible after article 50 is triggered.
The new clauses would give the Government the opportunity to express in detail their preferred options for three key partnerships that are integral to civil aviation, safety and the aerospace industry, as well as to inbound and outbound UK business travellers and holidaymakers. I will go through each of the three partners, to put on the record their importance and to explain why the Government should consider accepting these new clauses.
First, there is the European Aviation Safety Agency, which is the chief certification authority on the safety of aircraft products. It is the steer for research and development, for action on the environment, and for new markets, such as drones, which I will talk about in a little while. As a member of EASA, the UK benefits from having a seat at the table, helping to develop one set of regulations for the whole of Europe. EASA also develops bilateral agreements with key markets, including the USA and Canada. Retaining our membership of EASA and remaining part of its framework must therefore be a top priority. It has been put forward as a considerable priority by large parts of the aviation sector, including the Airport Operators Association, the ADS Group, which represents aerospace, defence, security and space companies, and Airlines UK.
Not seeking to retain that membership would be costly and time-consuming, and it would also put huge pressure on the CAA, because our membership of EASA, which the CAA feeds into, is hugely beneficial, and not only to ourselves but to our European partners. The UK has valuable expertise and our staff are integral to shaping and developing the practical solutions that do as much to guarantee aviation safety in Estonia and Lithuania as in the UK and Ireland.
On new clause 12, which concerns the second partnership to which I am referring, it is important that the Government make clear their goals and their preferred future relationship with the Single European Sky programme and other airspace partnerships. Airspace management matters, particularly for improving capacity and protecting the environment. Capacity and efficiency have already been improved through the Single European Sky programme, but we need to know whether it will be part of the Government’s negotiating process after they trigger article 50. Will the functional air blocs, such as the UK and Ireland, be retained?
We have already talked, earlier in our consideration of the Bill, about the changes to NATS and how the licensing modification procedure and the appeal process will be streamlined. That is with the expectation that SESAR—Single European Sky Air Traffic Movement Research—will bring forward many changes in practice. However, we need to know whether those SESAR arrangements will continue to apply. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when considering these new clauses.
Finally, new clause 13 seeks to report on whether we expect to be part of the single aviation market after Brexit. As the Minister and his Department will know, aviation is in many ways distinct from other areas of the economy. We must realise that clarifying these three relationships has to be a precondition before the UK negotiates on other aspects relating to trade and market access. We currently rely on the single aviation market for airlines to operate inside the EU without restrictions on capacity, frequency or pricing. The single aviation market is also the basis for many global agreements, spanning no fewer than 155 countries. If we leave the European economic area as well as the EU, we could no longer be part of the single aviation market and we could lose access to those external air service agreements.
The worst possible scenario, as I am sure the Committee agrees, would be simply to fall back on the World Trade Organisation. That would be the worst of all worlds for aviation, because aviation agreements are not covered within the scope of the WTO. If we are talking about aviation, the Prime Minister’s mantra that “no deal is better than a bad deal” with the EU means nothing; it says nothing about the agreements that we will need, whatever happens, about how aircraft fly and how we manage our skies.
Andrew Selous
I will not detain the Committee for long, but on the role of the European Aviation Safety Agency, I want to go back briefly to laser threats, which are covered in clause 22. During Tuesday’s sitting, the Minister said that if he had time he would try to discuss with the Secretary of State the next day—yesterday—whether we might regulate the sale of very high-powered lasers for legitimate uses. I remind the Committee that the written evidence submitted by the British Airline Pilots Association states that
“figures from the Civil Aviation Authority…show that in 2016 there were 1,258 reported lasers attacks in the UK against UK-registered aircraft”
and that that is
“likely a drastic under-reporting.”
That is three or four reported laser attacks every day. Given the events of yesterday, we should always be mindful of prevention. The new offence created by clause 22 is welcome, but I have to confess to being slightly sceptical about whether it will be adequate, because I am worried about the police’s ability to detect and really get on top of this growing problem, which could have catastrophic consequences.
Drew Hendry
I will try not to repeat too many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield, but I agree with his analysis. The European Aviation Safety Agency plays a crucial role in excluding from European airspace and European airports any aircraft that originate from countries or companies that have a poor safety record. It safeguards the security and wellbeing of people across the continent. Given the importance of that role, the Government need to clarify whether the UK will retain full participation in the agency.
The open skies agreement created a number of freedoms for EU-registered airlines, which allowed them to have a base in one member state and to operate cabotage in another. As we have heard, airlines are now actively preparing to move operations. There is no guarantee at present that the UK would stay in the open skies agreement, and the outcome could have serious knock-on effects for the aviation industry in the UK, and in Scotland in particular. It is unclear at the moment what will happen when the UK leaves the EU, and the UK Government need to explain to us how things will work. Passengers and consumers, the aviation sector and the Government know that staying in the open skies agreement is right for the sector. The Government need to tell us their position, and how they will fight to ensure that we stay in.
Tourism is enormously important to the Scottish economy. In the UK aviation is vital to the economy as a whole and to business, and no more so than in tourism. In 2015, UK aviation transported 251 million passengers and contributed £1 billion a week to the UK economy. It supports 1 million jobs. There is a need to set out clear and transparent information about the future of aviation. Will the UK consider joining the European common aviation travel area, or are the Government going to go down the route of umpteen bilateral agreements? We simply do not know, and not knowing causes great uncertainty, which affects airlines’ business decisions about where they want to locate. Those are critical decisions for aviation and the people employed in the sector.
Businesses now openly say that they are having difficulty with their business plans; they are terrified that they will get no forward vision from the UK Government about how things will work in future, and that directly affects investment.
Mr Hayes
We have had an interesting debate. I might describe the contribution of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield—this is, by the way, meant without hostility or even implicit criticism—as more of an exhortation, recommendation or perhaps even plea than a speech in support of a new clause. I understand why he makes it, as it is perhaps something that I might do were I in his shoes. He will, equally, understand that it is impossible for me to prejudge the negotiations that will take place.
The hon. Gentleman has put his view, and it is a measured one, mindful of the fact that planes and boats are by their nature pan-national, transnational or international, that they know no national boundaries, and that agreements developed over time have reflected that. As I have said, his case is an exhortation from a position that may well be shared by many across this continent and others.
As you probably know, Mr Gray—in your case there is no question of “probably”—I am never terribly inspired by the common conceptual preoccupations of this age. By and large I find them fairly unappealing, and so I am always a bit doubtful about certainty, having always rather preferred uncertainty. I am still holding out for an opaque, hard-to-access and exclusive world, really—largely because love is all those things, is it not?
I appreciate, however, that in some areas of life and work certainty matters, and the case that the hon. Gentleman made for it is entirely understandable. I cannot give him more than that today. To do so would be to, as I said, prejudge a negotiation that is taking place a long way above my pay grade and of which our future relationship with all aspects of the EU aviation sector is bound to be part. It would therefore not be appropriate for me to reveal our tactics in that regard.
However, I will say this—I hope it is sufficient—above and beyond what I have already said about respecting the hon. Gentleman’s position. The Government recognise the crucial economic role of the aviation sector, as demonstrated by various actions we have taken over time, not unlike actions taken by other Governments of other colours. We will seek, in this regard as in all others, the best possible outcome for the UK from those negotiations. The hon. Gentleman, and indeed other hon. Gentlemen, have made their case; they have it on the record, and I have no doubt that their contribution, like many others, will inform our thinking in those negotiations.
Richard Burden
The Minister has said, perfectly properly, that the ramifications of the new clauses go well above his pay grade and will involve negotiations in which I am sure he will play an important part, but which will involve many other Members. I accept that. It may well not be appropriate, because of those restraints and restrictions, to vote on the new clause in Committee.
However, the essential case remains that the future of our membership of the aviation partnerships that we have referred to has to be tackled, and it has to be tackled soon. The new clauses provide a mechanism through which it could be tackled. Even though I will not press the new clause to a vote, we may well wish to return to it before the Bill completes its passage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Safe use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the UK
“(1) The Secretary of State must bring forward regulations on the safe use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in the UK within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent.
(2) The regulations may include, but are not limited to, measures which—
(a) require all new UAVs sold in the UK to have inbuilt geofencing,
(b) establish the Civil Aviation Authority, as UAV regulator, to be the official authority on approving—permitting exemption—of “restricted areas” applied to geofencing, and
(c) establish the formulation of a registration system—considering exemptions for members of model aircraft organisations.
(3) In subsection (1) an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) refers to an aircraft without a human pilot on board with a weight of no more than 20kg without its fuel but including any articles or equipment installed in or attached to the aircraft at the commencement of its flight, and whose flight is controlled either autonomously or under the remote control of a pilot on the ground or in another vehicle.
(4) In subsection (2)(a) geofencing refers to the use of GPS or radio frequency technology to create a virtual geographic boundary, enabling software to trigger a response when a mobile device enters or leaves a particular area.”—(Richard Burden.)
This new clause instructs the Government to bring forward regulation on the safe use of UAVs in the UK, which could include: mandatory geofencing, and establishing a responsibility for the CAA as existing UAV regulator to approve restricted areas.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Richard Burden
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause instructs the Government to bring forward regulations within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent on the safe use of unmanned aerial vehicles—that is the technical term, but most of us know them as drones.
When the Government announced in the Queen’s Speech last year their intention to bring forward a modern transport Bill, it seemed to all of us that drones and the regulation of drones would be a key part of that Bill. When the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill was published, many eyebrows were raised at what seemed to many to be a missed opportunity for the UK to get in place a more robust regulatory framework for drones that will equip us for the future.
I say that because the drone market offers huge promise and potential for growth. That was recognised by the other place’s European Union Committee in a thorough report in 2015. Back then, there were already hundreds of companies—mainly small and medium-sized enterprises—using drones in photography, film, land surveying, building inspection, crop analysis and a number of other areas. A PricewaterhouseCoopers report in May last year estimated that the drone market may boom to more than £100 billion.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
May I begin by thanking the Minister for the kind invitation he extended to me on Second Reading to respond to the consultation? I regret that it had closed by the time I picked it up on the Monday before the Bill Committee and that he will not receive a submission from me.
I want to make a couple of points. First, in general I dislike agreeing with Opposition Members, but when I look at their clause, I think it is a pretty good start. I particularly endorse the principle of mandatory geofencing. There are two principles that we should apply. The first is an absolute approach to excluding amateur-flown drones from airfields. It is fair to say that that could be easily done with geofencing of regions as directed by the CAA, so I am attracted to those first two parts of subsections (2)(a) and (2)(b).
I am wary of registration because of the cost of registering, particularly as some of the drones available are, really, tiny toys and it would be going too far to implement a registration system for such things. The other principle I want to raise relates to the idea of applying a scheme such as one might have with the autonomous cars we have been discussing, where basically we allow progress to be permissive, provided people take responsibility for their actions. The Government might consider what kind of insurance might be made available for drones, and then the combination of insurance and geofencing might be the right approach to ensuring that people can make best use of those items of equipment.
I am incredibly enthusiastic about drones. I do not own one, but I am enthusiastic about them. They can be used for precision farming, for instance, and can revolutionise the way in which various things are applied to crops and the way that crops are inspected with various cameras in various frequencies. Videos that I have found are available on YouTube. Also, I could swear I heard a drone fly down the railway line next to my house early one morning. That struck me as an indicator that the example I used on Second Reading is not the only one relevant to industry. My example was of the tiler who uses a drone to inspect roofs, because he would otherwise need to put up scaffolding at considerable expense. On the one hand, we can apply regulations for safety, which requires expense for householders and businesses; on the other, we must be cautious that we do not further exclude the solution to the regulatory problem by applying aircraft-style regulations to drones.
There is joy to be had in drones. This is not necessarily a dry subject. The photography that is possible with a drone is beautiful and artistic. I know that the Minister is a great fan of beauty and nature, so I hope he appreciates that if people wish to have a 360-degree aerial photo of their first wedding kiss, that is not something we should inadvertently prevent by over-regulating the use of drones.
Although I am substantively attracted to the idea of mandatory geofencing, with the CAA defining the boundaries—I certainly approve of that—I am also slightly concerned. We do not want to go ahead too soon and I would not support registration.
Andrew Selous
Having a very large Amazon logistics distribution centre in my constituency, I wondered whether my hon. Friend had given any thought to how in future logistics companies such as Amazon might use drones to wing even more quickly than they do at the moment those things that those of us who shop on the internet seek to buy all the time.
Mr Baker
My hon. Friend raises a very good point. Only the other day, I happened to be walking through the corridors of the House when I discovered the former Member Lembit Öpik with Starship Technologies and their small-wheeled delivery robot. If that was scaled up and people were put in it, that would be the future of motoring that we have been discussing—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire shares my despair at that prospect.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire is absolutely right. Why should we have slow, ground-based robots delivering things where people might trip over them and so on, when we could have unmanned aerial vehicles flying briskly through the air? Provided that they are safe and there are insurable risks, it is a jolly good idea that we should be able to innovate in those ways. I certainly endorse his point.
I have covered what I wished to say. I am genuinely excited about the prospects, in industry and agriculture and recreationally, that will arise from UAVs and drones. A few minutes spent by any Member on YouTube looking at what is possible with drones would cause them to share my enthusiasm. I very much hope that the Government, in considering the issues, will not over-regulate so that we lose the potential for joy and beauty that they will bring.
Mr Hayes
I spend a good deal of my life trying to take those I know and care for to the stars in all kinds of ways. Today, we have begun that journey. As I heard of dogs, I felt we should cast Pavlov in an entirely new light. It is right that we think of the changing technology in that broad-minded and far-sighted way, as illustrated in the contributions from across the Committee Room.
Drones are here and they are likely to stay. How we now cope with that is the question for parliamentarians. That is precisely why the Government have set about a consultation on these matters.
Attention was drawn to the evidence that was submitted to the Committee. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield emphasised that 70 incidents of drones being flown into conflict with manned aircraft have been reported to us. The concerns of BALPA and others that we need to do more are patent, on the basis of that evidence. What we do, and how we do it, is the purpose of our consultation.
There are several proposals in the consultation, all of which are designed to help the safety of the devices. They include the possibility of a registration scheme, making drones electronically identifiable and strengthening the penalties for breaking the law. The proposal for a registration scheme for all owners and their drones weighing 250 grams and above—whether bought new, second hand or home built—would obviously go a considerable way to dealing with some of the doubts and concerns that have been raised today, without jeopardising the whole existence of drones. I know that enthusiasts such as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe would not want us to do that. They may have virtuous purposes—we should not assume the use of drones is entirely a matter of threat and doubt—so the framework for drone regulation needs to create a culture of accountability among drone users, aid enforcement and enable direct targeting of leisure drone users on the law and safe flying. The data set that that kind of policy will produce will also be used to inform the policymakers of the future and to assess risk as the technology develops and changes. As I have said, safety is of paramount importance—I know that is a concern of the whole Committee.
I am unsurprised that the new clause has been tabled, given the character of the Bill and the importance of this problem—or rather the importance of this issue, if I might put it with that prejudice. There will be problems unless we get the regulation of drones right; that is clear from what has been reported to us in evidence.
When the consultation is completed and the Government produce their response this summer, we will have a chance to consider what further steps, including legislative steps, might need to be taken. To anticipate that outcome would not be appropriate at this stage. I hope Committee members will bear with us: there is a determination to take the necessary steps and ensure an understanding of both the opportunities and risks posed by drones.
To that end, it may well be that the matter can be raised again while the Bill is enjoying its passage through Parliament. I have to be frank and say that Members of the other House have expressed a number of the same thoughts, arguments and doubts expressed here today. When the consultation response has been produced, there will be further opportunity to take this matter on in the way that several have recommended. I think I had better stop there.
Richard Burden
The hon. Member for Wycombe rightly cautioned us to be wary of over-regulation. What is needed is appropriate regulation to ensure both safety and the right regulatory framework to promote and liberate the kind of innovation that drones offer. He was right to give that warning, but I do not think the new clause would have over-regulated; rather, it would have regulated appropriately.
I am grateful for the Minister’s response and I thank him for the very helpful briefing that his officials gave us about the work done on drones so far. There is useful work going on, but I would express a bit of frustration about the timescale. We have been asking for action on this for a considerable time.
The Government launched a good consultation, with a comprehensive consultation document that asked some pertinent questions, but everybody expected this to be an area that the Bill would cover. Frankly, the timing of the consultation and the Bill were matters entirely in the control of Government. Through the fault of no one other than Government, those two things are now out of sync. We cannot put anything in the Bill because the consultation has not finished, but by the time the consultation has finished and its recommendations come out, we will have missed the opportunity to do anything about it in the Bill, if that were felt appropriate.
Richard Burden
I am grateful to the Minister. My wording was sloppy. I am aware that the consultation has finished, but we do not yet have the response to the consultation and its conclusions. Those are the kinds of things we should have had to inform our deliberations on the Bill. We are facing a delay.
I take in good faith the Minister’s assurance that the recommendations that the Government will make in response to the consultation will come forward with as much dispatch as possible. I would simply say that we did not need to be here with that dislocation in the timetable. We are where we are, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 16
Review of Part 1
“(1) By September 2019, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness of the system for defining and insuring automated vehicles introduced by Part 1 of this Act.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the impact on the insurance industry,
(b) the impact on the cost of insurance premiums for automated vehicles,
(c) the impact on the uptake of automated vehicles, and
(d) the levels of disagreement between manufacturers and insurers on liability.”—(Andy McDonald.)
This new clause would require the Government to lay a report before Parliament assessing the effectiveness and impact of the system introduced in Part 1.
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 automated vehicles again. In our previous sitting, the Minister absolutely understood and articulated the theme of our amendments and new clauses to part 1, which is that there has to be adequate consultation, scrutiny and willingness to review. The Minister has said on several occasions that he is prepared to have all those things, which we welcome. That is why the new clause makes sense. It is about the third of those objectives: a review. It asks for a report to look at the Bill’s
“impact on the insurance industry…impact on the cost of insurance premiums for automated vehicles…impact on the uptake of automated vehicles, and…the levels of disagreement between manufacturers and insurers on liability.”
Those are all things that we have talked about. In our first sitting we spent a good deal of time exploring those issues, and we were aware that we did not yet have all the answers. The Opposition have therefore asked for consultation before measures are introduced, which the Minister has agreed to.
We are giving the Bill as much scrutiny now as we possibly can, but even after it is passed we still will not have all the answers. We still will not know the impact on the insurance industry, precisely what will happen to premiums, or whether the Bill’s provisions for sorting out the insurance market in the way that it needs to be sorted out will be adequate to give people the confidence to buy automated vehicles. That is all the new clause says: be prepared to look at the Bill again after a reasonable period to see whether it is working. If it is, great—we can all pat ourselves on the back—but if it needs to be changed in some way, the new clause would give us the opportunity. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the new clause, not only because of the Opposition’s arguments, but because of his own acknowledgment of the need for review, following consultation and scrutiny.
Mr Hayes
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman calls once again for the approach that he has recommended throughout our deliberations; it is a measured and cautious approach that takes account of the dynamism of the changes we have discussed, and that recommends that the Government be mindful of that dynamism and repeatedly—one might say continually—reconsider what steps must be taken.
As the hon. Gentleman kindly said, I have previously mentioned our agile, step-by-step approach to regulatory reform in response to automated vehicles. Where the evidence base for change exists, we will act to safely remove barriers to use, so that the public and business can benefit from the technology. Each of those steps, taken through primary and secondary legislation or guidance, will be subject to a process of scrutiny and ongoing review, and they will be preceded by the kind of consultation that we have enjoyed and continue to enjoy in anticipation of the Bill, for example in relation to drones.
I entirely identify with the purpose of the new clause. It is critical that we—not only the Government, but Parliament—recognise that in this rapidly changing area, which has widespread public interest, we need to move forward on the basis of the measured approach that the hon. Gentleman recommends.
I have a long list of things that I have committed to do. I could read it out, Mr Gray, but I fear that it might tire you, delay the Committee unduly and do nothing to further persuade the hon. Gentleman that I share his opinion about these matters. However, having asked my team to produce it, it would seem harsh if we did not turn it into a piece of written work in a form suitable to be sent to the Committee.
We spoke about the development of standards in respect of skills in these developing technologies. We spoke about the regulatory regime and the need to adapt it in respect of automated vehicles. The continuing evaluation of fitness for purpose, for example of the insurance products that are the inevitable consequence of the catalyst provided by the Bill, we will need to consider in the round. The roll-out of electric vehicle infrastructure is something that we need to look at afresh as technology changes. That ongoing process of engagement and review is absolutely necessary. I wholly and entirely commit the Government to it in the areas of legislation and regulation associated with the Bill. In doing so, I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in eager and excited anticipation of my letter setting that out in detail, will see fit to withdraw the new clause.
Richard Burden
I am grateful for that response. Who could ask for more than a commitment that is whole and entire? The Minister has said, with regard to the purpose of the proposed new clause, that he will write in suitable form to the Committee to set out the Government’s commitment to meet those objectives.
Without in any way undermining our welcome of that commitment, I still do not see why there is reluctance to put the matter in the Bill. I detect that the Committee is drawing to its denouement, and no one will applaud me for delaying that unnecessarily. However, this is a matter that may need to be referred to before the Bill completes its passage. Although I absolutely accept the Minister’s assurances, I am not still convinced why this should not be in the Bill. For now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Mr Hayes
On a point of order, Mr Gray. As we conclude our work on the Bill, I would personally like to thank you and your fellow Chairman, the Committee Clerks, all those who have informed us, kept us secure, delivered messages to us and recorded our words for posterity in the Official Report, for their work and service.
I also wish to thank all the members of the Committee. Committees vary in their tone and character, but I think that this Committee has been what I would describe as a gilravage. For those not familiar with that word, gilravage is a merry meeting with noise, but without injury to anyone. That is precisely what we have had: a gilravage.
Governments sometimes like to pretend that they have all the answers. All but those who are blinded by self-aggrandisement know that no Government have all the answers because no Government know all the questions. This Committee on this subject has allowed us to be reminded of that fact, as we have improved our ideas, thoughts and the condition of the Bill, through really good debate.
I must end with a quote. I think that I have done Burke and Chesterton to death during the course of my consideration of the amendments and my responses to them, so I have picked something inspired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, who I know is a great admirer of this late gentleman: it is Ronald Reagan. That will not cause celebration in all parts of the Committee. None the less, hon. Members will perhaps remember one of Reagan’s most famous quotes:
“With our eyes fixed on the future, but recognising the realities of today, we will achieve our destiny to be as a shining city on a hill for all mankind to see.”
The Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill will certainly be the UK’s opportunity to pave the way towards a world-leading future. Looking to that future, but mindful of the realities of the day, it will place this country at the forefront of this technology, so to shine not just in our cities, but across our kingdom.
Andy McDonald
Further to that point of order, Mr Gray. I will not detain the Committee for any length of time. I will simply record my thanks to you and to Ms Ryan for your expert chairing of our proceedings. I would also like to thank the Clerks, the Doorkeepers and, in particular, the police officers. I was greeted this morning with a polite and gentle request to put my badge on. I thought, “My goodness, here we are coming into this place to conduct what we call the ordinary business of our parliamentary democracy.” It is far from ordinary; it is precious. The line-by-line scrutiny of this Bill has been a living example of why we hold this so dear. With that, Mr Gray, I thank you again. I will not provide a quotation with the eloquence of my right honourable friend the Minister. I will perhaps quote Paul McCartney and say that this has been “a long and winding road” and we are at the end of this particular one.
The Chair
Both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister know that those are entirely bogus points of order. None the less, I will pass on their thanks to the right hon. Member for Enfield North, and I know that the Clerks and other staff are grateful for what they had to say.
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
Syrian Refugee Crisis
(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 Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the First Report of the International Development Committee of Session 2015-16, Syrian refugee crisis, HC 463, and the Government response, HC 902.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. In January last year, the International Development Committee released our first report of this Parliament, which focused on the refugee crisis that has arisen from the conflict in Syria. On 15 March, the Syrian conflict marked its sixth anniversary. The scale of the conflict has been well documented: it is enormous, in terms of both the humanitarian challenge and the number of lives lost. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights estimates that since the start of the conflict, 450,000 people have lost their lives. Last year, the United Nations identified 13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance, almost half of whom—6 million —are internally displaced in Syria. In January 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimated that there are 4.8 million registered refugees.
I refer to my relevant entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: in 2015, I visited Jordan with Oxfam. A third of Jordan’s population are refugees. When I visited the Zaatari refugee camp alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), we heard the same message repeatedly from the refugees: all they want is the opportunity to return home to a peaceful Syria.
We have seen six years of repeated atrocities. Let me highlight two examples. Last September, the Syrian Government bombed a UN aid convoy, killing 14 aid workers. The convoy had been organised by the United Nations and the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, and was carrying food, medicine and other humanitarian supplies destined for families in areas of the country controlled by the opposition. A UN report released earlier this month said that the attack was deliberate, meticulously planned and ruthlessly carried out. Then, of course, there was the long siege of Aleppo, which the same United Nations report called a war crime. It was reported that the Syrian Government and their allies were carrying out attacks on areas packed with civilians while the city faced chronic shortages of food, medicine and fuel. We have seen all those events unfold in real time on our television screens. We saw the shocking image of Omran Daqneesh, the five-year-old Syrian boy sitting in the back of an ambulance. We need to work together to bring an end to this conflict as soon as possible.
As with all conflicts, there are many parties acting for good in both Syria and the surrounding region. I want to draw particular attention to and praise the work of the White Helmets—the 3,000 members of the Syria Civil Defence—who work tirelessly to protect civilians caught up in the conflict and are often the first on the scene after bombings. We should also praise the work of the various non-governmental organisations and United Nations missions that deliver aid on the ground in some of the most challenging conditions ever seen.
Our Committee’s report made a number of recommendations to the Government, and principally to the Department for International Development, including on increasing the opportunities for cash-based assistance to the region, identifying and developing opportunities for investment and job creation in Jordan, ensuring that vulnerable refugees outside camps receive appropriate levels of support, and pressing the Lebanese Government to resume the registration process for new refugees. We urged the Government to come to a quick decision on Save the Children’s proposal that 3,000 unaccompanied children from Europe be resettled in this country.
DFID has led the way with its efforts to alleviate the suffering and the ongoing humanitarian crisis that still grips Syria and the surrounding region. The UK plays an active role in encouraging other countries to pledge money and resources to the region. A year ago, in February 2016, the Government hosted the “Supporting Syria and the Region” conference, in which nearly $6 billion was pledged to help the UN co-ordinated appeals. An additional $5.4 billion was pledged up until 2020, bringing the total to more than $11 billion. That was followed up with an event this January, co-hosted by Finland and the United Nations, which launched a further appeal for $8 billion to relieve the humanitarian crisis. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us what progress was being made towards achieving that, and what the United Kingdom’s contribution is.
In our report, we made it clear that we welcome DFID’s cash-based assistance efforts in the region and want them developed further. Many refugees exhaust their savings just to get out of the country, and many are heavily in debt. That is exacerbated by the fact that they are often not allowed to work in the country in which they have refuge. Cash-based assistance has proven to be a value-for-money approach to humanitarian assistance. I welcome the fact that DFID has already distributed nearly 1 million vouchers in the region.
Job creation, investment and economic growth are vital factors in ensuring that refugees in the countries around Syria are able to regain a sense of normality when the conflict eventually ends. During the Syria conference in London last year, Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon—the main recipient countries of refugees—promised to open up their economies to help generate job growth, for both refugees and, very importantly, their host communities. I want to put on the record that the Jordanian Government and people have responded particularly positively to that. Syrian refugees are now able to apply for work permits in Jordan in sectors of the economy in which Jordanian participation is low— for example, construction, agriculture and other service industries. Those changes have allowed roughly 37,000 Syrian refugees to gain employment in Jordan—up from 4,000 at the time of the London conference. Jordan has also gained preferential access to European Union markets, which will give designated development zones the potential to provide more than 100,000 jobs to both Jordanians and Syrians in the future.
The United Kingdom is the second largest bilateral donor to Syria and the surrounding countries. As a result of the funding that humanitarian organisations have received, we are able to keep refugees close to home, so that when the conflict comes to an end they can return to Syria. Providing basic humanitarian assistance is vital, but it is not enough. There needs to be a sense of hope for a better future.
The UK Government, and DFID in particular, have taken some very positive steps to ensure that the humanitarian situation in Syria and the surrounding countries is well managed and well funded, but there are some areas where our Committee feels DFID could and should do more. In our report, we recommended that the Department make use of the Commonwealth Development Corporation’s expertise in that regard. We believe that the Government already have a good story to tell on job creation and investment, particularly in Jordan, but more could be done to provide sustainable job opportunities for both refugees and host communities if CDC’s expertise were engaged. Legislation has now gone through Parliament to increase significantly the amount of capital available to CDC. I urge the Government to look again at the question of whether CDC can invest in at least some economies in that region, particularly in the run-up to the forthcoming publication of the corporation’s five-year strategy.
Other outstanding issues were addressed in our report. The Syrian conflict has disproportionately affected certain minority groups, especially ethnic and religious minorities and disabled people. The best solution for them is often resettlement in other parts of the world, but for reasons of stigma or fear of persecution, many do not register, so they fall through the net. Only 23% of Syrian refugees live in formal camps, and there are no such camps for them in Lebanon or Egypt. There is the tragic situation in the berm, the area between Jordan and Syria, where a large number of refugees live, in often very desperate circumstances, in a state of limbo, unable to get out.
As the conflict has worn on, more people have sought out support from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. I am keen to hear from the Minister what the Government are doing with UNHCR and civil society to ensure that support reaches everyone who needs it, whether they are registered or not. Registration is an important step, but more needs to be done to ensure that all those eligible for resettlement, either here in the UK or elsewhere, are granted it.
On 9 February, The Independent reported that the Home Office wanted a “temporary limit” on requests from people with mobility problems and learning disabilities because of a lack of “suitable reception capacity” for them in the UK. Will the Minister include in his response the Government’s position on the temporary limit, and will he say whether they are planning to lift it? I simply make the point that the most vulnerable are those who need our support the most.
There is also long-standing concern about a policy in Lebanon that has inhibited UNHCR’s ability to register new refugees in that country. DFID has allocated £46 million to UNHCR’s efforts in Lebanon, but I am concerned that the policy may prevent people from accessing basic services. The Lebanese Government say that there are more than 500,000 unregistered Syrian refugees in Lebanon, and that more than two thirds of the Syrian children born in Lebanon have not even had their births registered. Will the Minister update us on that Lebanese policy? Is it still in place, and if so, what is the United Kingdom doing to work with the Lebanese Government to make progress, so that, ideally, all refugees in Lebanon are registered?
Last December, the UK Government co-sponsored a UN General Assembly motion that sought to establish an independent mechanism to assist in bringing to justice those responsible for the most serious crimes in Syria. The UK has also worked closely with the French and American Governments on a motion to hold Daesh and the Assad regime to account for their use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, the motion was vetoed by Russia and China. Will the Minister update the House on that, and in particular on the potential for an independent UN mechanism that would enable us to make progress in bringing to justice all those who have used illegal weapons in Syria?
The UK clearly has an important role to play in diplomatic efforts to bring an end to the Syrian conflict. It is promising to see that the UN-mediated political talks between the Syrian parties resumed in Geneva last month, and the next round is due to take place later this month. There have been calls for the 30 December ceasefire to be strengthened, so will the Minister tell us what role the UK will play in ensuring that the ceasefire holds and that we can make progress through diplomatic means?
The final issue from the report has probably attracted the most attention and public debate, and that is the Save the Children recommendation on 3,000 unaccompanied children. Last year, before the Government had an opportunity to respond to our report, Lord Dubs put forward an amendment to the Immigration Bill that would have legally bound us to resettle 3,000 unaccompanied children from Europe. Ahead of the vote, the Government announced that they would resettle 3,000 vulnerable people from the middle east and north Africa over the course of the Parliament. Those people would not solely be unaccompanied children, but that was nevertheless very welcome.
When the Bill became an Act, it stated that the number of children to be resettled
“shall be determined by the Government”.
By September last year, no child had been brought to the UK as a result of the provision, which is still known as the Dubs amendment. By November, according to what the Home Office’s Minister for Immigration told the International Development Committee, about 140 children had been resettled, including 80 from France. We welcomed the progress. Last month, however, the Government announced that a total of 350 children would be resettled over the course of the Parliament, with 200 already in the UK. The Immigration Minister told the House in a written statement that the 350 number met
“the intention and spirit behind the provision”.
That figure is of course a fraction of the 3,000 proposed by Save the Children, a figure that was based on an estimate of the UK’s fair share of the 30,000 unaccompanied children who had made their way to Europe by 2015—and estimates suggest that the figure has since trebled. The Government can do more to ensure that children who have made the journey to Europe alone are protected. In 2014, an estimated 13,000 unaccompanied children arrived just in Italy, about 4,000 of whom have gone missing. There is real concern that some of those children might have become the victims of people traffickers and been forced into prostitution, child labour or the drugs trade. We cannot stand by while that happens on our doorstep.
Meanwhile, in the past two months, President Trump has signed two executive orders that prevent Syrian refugees from claiming refuge in the United States. The US has a positive and progressive track record of resettling refugees from many conflicts around the world; President Trump has broken with that. He said that European countries had made “a tremendous mistake” by admitting millions of refugees from Syria and other middle eastern “trouble spots”. How can giving people refuge from conflicts that are destroying their country be described by the President of the United States as a mistake? President Trump’s executive order does nothing but further complicate the humanitarian situation in the region. It is vital that the United Kingdom does not follow the Trump Administration’s lead.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman, like me, welcome clarification of whether the Dubs amendment scheme is in fact closed? There seems to be uncertainty about that. Will the Government welcome any additional contributions offered by local authorities that feel that they may have more capacity in future?
Stephen Twigg
The hon. Gentleman is a relatively new member of the International Development Committee but already an active and committed one. I thank him for his work on it. I absolutely agree with him. If the Minister could respond to that point, I would be delighted. I agree that it is not entirely clear whether the scheme has been completely closed. I hope that it has not, and that there will be further opportunities for unaccompanied children to be resettled, beyond the 350 to which the Government have already committed.
I am grateful to the Liaison Committee for the opportunity to debate our report and the Government response. I thank fellow members of the International Development Committee for their work—a number of members from all parties are present for the debate—and I put on record my appreciation of the fantastic team of staff who support the work of the Committee. I look forward to listening to all contributions to the debate, which—this is my final point—we are holding in the context of great public and media concern about, and scrutiny of, international aid and development. I and other members of the Committee from different parties have argued consistently that those of us who believe in UK aid, and who defend the 0.7% target and DFID as a stand-alone Department, have a particular responsibility to demonstrate that that aid is being delivered and makes a real difference to the most vulnerable—that we truly have value for money.
In her statement to the House last week on the counter-Daesh strategy, the Secretary of State for International Development said that our work in Syria and the region
“shows Britain at its best and exactly why we have UK aid. It shows not only how the British Government lead across the world, but how we influence security and stabilisation”—[Official Report, 15 March 2017; Vol. 623, c. 448.]
in many of these areas. I echo her remarks; she is absolutely right. The investment that this country has made in aid to Syria and its neighbouring countries in recent years is one of the finest examples of how humanitarian aid can make a real difference in a crisis. Our aid is crucial, but it is equally important that we redouble our efforts to find a diplomatic solution, so that the people of Syria can at last have the peace and justice that they deserve.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who chairs our International Development Committee and gave an excellent and thorough speech. I thank Syria Relief, Islamic Relief and Save the Children, which gave evidence to the Committee and provided vital information about the impact of our aid to ensure that we were up to speed with what was happening on the ground.
I will not reiterate all the issues that the Chair of the Committee so eloquently raised, but I shall highlight several issues that came to the fore of my mind during our visit to Lebanon and Jordan. What are the Government doing about child labour in Lebanon? That issue was raised with us. I understand that the registration process means that families cannot gain employment, so children as young as six are sent out to work for as long as 12 hours for only a few dollars a day. That is basically child labour, abuse and exploitation. What is happening there? What are we doing to address that very concerning issue? Those children are traumatised and are being exploited. We should take that situation seriously and highlight it to the Government to ensure that they are aware of it and that measures are taken to try to ensure that children are not exploited in that manner.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of the berm. What is happening there? When the Committee visited Jordan and Lebanon, we were not able to visit the berm, due to security issues. However, we heard about the absolutely desperate situations of people trapped there. They are trapped alongside extremists and encouraged to join extremist groups. They have little opportunity to do anything else with their lives and are absolutely desperate for money, so they are forced into situations in which they are exploited.
What is happening with the berm? When I raised the issue with Ministers we spoke to there, they downplayed and minimised it, which ran counter to the information that aid agencies on the ground gave us. We need to highlight and to press the issue in our liaison with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and to do all we can to ensure that people in the berm have not only aid but the opportunity to leave that area and access refugee camps, where they and their children will be secure and their children can receive education, which we help to provide.
Will the Minister also comment on mental health support for children? When the Committee visited the region, we saw children who had been traumatised by their journeys, the atrocities they had witnessed and having lost family members. I am sure that some of them could not even speak. Fortunately, they had some mental health support. How do we contribute to mental health support to ensure that those children recover as much as possible, start to lead their childhoods again and are enabled, so far as possible, to go on and achieve their full potential?
I was also troubled by the lack of electricity at the al-Azraq camp, which we visited. I was told when I raised the issue, “Well, that’s just about to happen,” but when I spoke to aid agencies, they said, “Yes, but for months lots of visitors have come and that’s what everyone has been told.” What is happening in that regard? Is any electricity available in that camp? How are we supporting the basic needs of refugees?
I am also concerned about the plight of Christians in the area. We heard evidence that Christians were frightened to go to camps where they would be in the minority, so they tended to live outside camps, in quite desperate situations with little access to aid. What is the Government’s strategy or policy? What do they hope to do to secure aid and protection for minority groups such as the Christians we heard about?
When we were in Lebanon, we heard about Palestinian camps. We must remember that these communities have hosted refugees for years, and we should commend the work that they have done. However, some quite distressing issues were raised about the services in the Palestinian camps. I know that we provide support in that regard. One crucial issue—I was tremendously upset when I heard about this—is that Palestinian people are electrocuted almost every other week because there is no appropriate electricity system. When it rains, people are electrocuted by live wires. We have been putting money into those camps for many years, so why are such basic things not in place? Surely, in this day and age, that should not be happening.
On the issue of vulnerable children and the Dubs scheme, will the UK consider taking more children than the 350 they announced? The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby stated that some councils have come forward to say that there may be additional capacity. Surely, if that is the case, we can work with councils to do all we can to ensure that as many children as possible are safe in the UK. The Independent reported that the Government have stopped taking disabled children through the MENA vulnerable children resettlement scheme. What is happening? How many disabled children have been relocated to the United Kingdom? I asked the Home Secretary that question on the Floor of the House more than a month ago and was told that, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on disability, I would receive a written response, but I still have not received any response and I remain very concerned. Disabled children are some of the most vulnerable children in this situation, and we should do all we can to identify their whereabouts and ensure that, wherever possible, we offer them refuge.
What liaison is taking place among United Kingdom Government Departments about Syria’s disappeared? Evidence of human rights abuses continues to mount against the regime of President Assad. What do we know about the underground network of detention centres where reportedly men, women and children have remained missing over a number of years, with families hearing little or no news as to what has become of them? In terms of diplomatic efforts, what are we doing to ensure that, where human rights abuses are taking place, we are directly addressing those with the appropriate authorities and Ministers?
Our aid has had a tremendous impact on the people it reaches; I have seen that first hand. It is true that our compassion sets us apart in terms of our leadership in this field, but much more can be done, particularly for vulnerable children: those who may be on their own in Europe without parents, who have suffered trauma and long journeys, who are going missing and who are being exploited and abused. I would like the Government to try to address those issues compassionately and show the leadership those people very much deserve.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and the International Development Committee on securing time from the Liaison Committee for this debate and the one that is about to follow. The Scottish National party has issues about the estimates procedure, but while it exists in its current format I hope he will be able to persuade the Liaison Committee to find some time for debates on his Committee’s reports on the Floor of the House. DFID might be one of the most scrutinised Departments in terms of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact and the excellent work of his Committee, but a lot of scrutiny in debate by other Members of Parliament goes on here in Westminster Hall, so DFID Ministers do not get their fair share of time at the Dispatch Box. Whenever they do, Members across the House show willingness to participate in such debates. I hope that we have more of them.
It is telling that the report is more than a year old, as is the Government’s response to it. That is the length of time we have had to wait for this opportunity, despite the fact that business in the main Chamber keeps collapsing. Without getting bogged down in procedural matters, I wanted to put that on the record.
Both of the reports are highly relevant, and sadly there has been little improvement in many of the areas covered in them. I offer my backing to the Committee’s findings and recommendations. It is worth reflecting on media reports suggesting that, just yesterday, while this place was under attack, 33 people were reported dead after an airstrike on a school acting as a shelter for internally displaced people in northern Syria. Yesterday, we had a terrible and tragic taste of a reality that people in Syria and elsewhere in the world—not least Nigeria, as we will hear later—live with on a daily basis.
I echo the general points made about the importance of the Government’s commitment to the 0.7% aid target. The global leadership that demonstrates is particularly important in the context of Brexit. It is important that we all defend and make the case for the continuation of that commitment.
I will look at two key areas of the report: support provided in Syria and the surrounding region, and the impact of the refugee crisis on the UK and western Europe in particular. We all recognise, as the Chair of the Committee did in his opening speech, the significant logistical challenges of delivering humanitarian aid on the ground, especially when land access is difficult. The tragic case mentioned of the aid convoy is a real example of that. That is why the SNP has repeatedly asked about the possibility of aid drops to areas under siege. If manned missions are not possible or risk airborne conflict, what serious consideration is being given to the use of drone technology? In the main Chamber, various Members have raised the US joint precision airdrop system, and we know that DFID—admittedly on a smaller scale—was trialling drone delivery of medicine and aid in Nepal and Tanzania, so what discussions is the Minister having with the Ministry of Defence, the FCO and international partners on that? If we can drop bombs, surely we can find a way to drop aid.
I will also ask the Minister about support for NGOs on the ground and faith-based organisations in particular, who are often best placed to deliver aid. If it is difficult for the multilateral agencies to get through, what support can we provide for organisations on the ground? A big element of the counter-Daesh activity is cutting off finance and supply and using disruptive technological interventions. Can the reverse be true: is there a way of making finance and resources available under the radar? It would be interesting to hear about that.
In the wider region, NGOs, civil society organisations and faith-based organisations in particular have a role in the border countries, where much of the immediate displacement has occurred. Again, it would be useful to hear about support. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) made important points about Christian and more general religious persecution in the area.
The Government are rightly a significant contributor to support in the formal refugee camps, but support outwith those camps, particularly in Lebanon, is also important. The report touches on the concept of cash transfers, which are a very—and increasingly—important method across development interventions. That shows respect for the individual’s dignity and empowers people in an often otherwise oppressed situation. The Government should be commended for trying to press ahead with that. It would be interesting to hear any reflections the Minister can provide on that. Provision of education is also crucial in these scenarios. Otherwise, there is a risk of future generations being radicalised or simply missing their life chances and opportunities. As the crisis becomes increasingly protracted, there is the risk of not just one but more than one generation growing up like that.
I draw the Minister’s and the House’s attention to my early-day motion 1054 on the work of a former constituent of mine and his organisation Journeys of Hope, or Mishwar Amal, which supports refugees in Lebanon. It provides diverse opportunities, including travel, expeditions and entertainment for young people in particular in the camps who have been displaced from Syria and indeed Palestine. That is also indicative of the incredible response and generosity of people in the UK to the crisis. He was a constituent of mine, as I said, but he uprooted and has now made a home there, running that fantastic initiative.
There is also a role for the CDC, as the report says and as the Chair mentioned in his speech. The opportunity is there for the Government to live up to the potential they spoke of the CDC having when increased funding was asked for during the passage of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Act 2017.
On the impact of the refugee crisis here, Scotland and my city of Glasgow have been proud to welcome refugees from Syria and indeed around the world. However, I echo the comments of the earlier speakers: 20,000 over five years from the camps is not a fair share, and 350 under Dubs is certainly not. The issue of unaccompanied children in particular is of huge concern to the general public, to constituents of mine and I suspect to all of us. There have been clear indications from local authorities that they are willing to take more children. The time is still there to put that right, do the right thing, reopen the scheme and ensure that more children can be safely relocated. I was interested to hear—I had not heard—that the number of unaccompanied children has potentially trebled since 2015. That is incredibly worrying, and that calls on us to do more.
Questions are raised by the Department, the Committee and me about the spend of official development assistance by Departments other than the Department for International Development. The resettlement of refugees is a legitimate way to use ODA, and I think none of us would disapprove if some of the money was going to that and that allowed the Home Office to increase the number of people it was willing to take.
There must be support for those refugees when they come here. I notice that the report speaks about English for speakers of other languages, which is important. I have encountered difficulties on that issue in my constituency. The voluntary organisations that provide that service are under pressure because there is so much demand, and that has an impact on the ability of refugees to access services. That is something that some of us encounter when we are trying to deal with refugees in our constituency surgeries.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow spoke about the need for mental healthcare particularly in the refugee camps, but it is also true for people arriving here. I have met severely traumatised refugees who have come here to make their home but who still live with the scars of the dreadful things that they have witnessed. We have to ensure that support is there, both for them and the people who can provide the right kind of support.
The situation is a tragedy and is increasingly protracted and long term; as the Committee Chair said, we are past the sixth anniversary. My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow gave the example of electricity in the camps. There are lessons to be learned even from the initial response to the crisis and from how we continue to respond. There should be no excuse for not learning the kind of lessons outlined in the report and modifying and adapting our responses as appropriate. I welcome the Committee’s work on this and hope it will continue to monitor and scrutinise the situation. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. May I say—this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in an official capacity—that I am sure all hon. Members will join me in offering our sincere condolences to the family and friends of victims of the attack yesterday afternoon? We offer our greatest thanks to PC Keith Palmer, who fell in the line of duty yesterday, and to the emergency services both in London and across the UK, who go to work every day to keep all of us safe. They are people we must remember in our thoughts and prayers. The business of the House continues as normal today. We are sitting and debating the issues that matter to us and to our constituents, which shows that we will not be beaten.
I applaud the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who has brought this important debate before us. He made some important and pertinent points in what I thought was a very passionate speech. In particular, he referred to the six years of atrocities in the region, the long siege of Aleppo, the attacking of civilians and the real shortage of food, medicine and immediate emergency medical supplies. I align myself with his praise for all the NGOs, voluntary organisations and many others that do fantastic work on the ground in some of the most difficult conditions. He also rightly made the point about the Commonwealth Development Corporation, which has received increased money to spend. The region is clearly in need of investment, and my hon. Friend is right that we should do more to support the economies there.
I am also grateful for the contribution of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who raised one or two very important points, particularly on the children’s mental health services that we provide. That is a massively important point that can be so easily overlooked in the totality of the situation. I am sure the Minister will inform us of how that particular issue is being looked at. The hon. Lady also made an important point about the protection of minority groups in the region, which is a worry. We have all seen reports showing that more needs to be done on that.
The Opposition broadly welcome DFID’s commitment to supporting refugees caught in the Syrian emergency. It is extremely commendable that it is taking more than its fair share of the responsibility for the situation, with significant levels of funding. After all, the UK has so far committed more than £2.3 billion to the emergency, the majority of which has gone to supporting countries in the region. I also express my support for the assistance that DFID is providing to in-region countries. As has been pointed out many times, it is far more economical to support refugees residing in the region, allowing us to spread more funding to those who desperately need it. That is not to say that more could not be done to refugees in Europe; I will come on to that shortly.
While we are broadly supportive of DFID’s work in the region to help Syrian refugees fleeing the brutal conflict, there are questions about that work that need answering. First, despite DFID’s exemplary funding, there is still a significant funding shortfall in the Syrian emergency, with just 3% of the needed funds raised as of February. About £4.5 billion is required for the UNHCR to properly meet its regional objectives and assist almost 5 million registered and the many unregistered refugees, so that low figure is particularly concerning. The Government must therefore redouble their commitment in negotiations, discussions and diplomacy to bring weight to bear on other nations to step up to the plate and fulfil their obligation to spend 0.7% of their GDP on development. That would ensure that the UNHCR and other emergency programmes in and around Syria are properly and adequately funded to do their job.
I also find interesting the way in which funding is distributed to refugees across the region. While not always popular, cash programming has proven to have considerable benefits for both refugees and their host countries, as has been stated. For every £1 given to refugees in Lebanon, for example, £2.13 is generated in the local economy, so there is a clear advantage in using cash programming as part of a wider development strategy while also aiding refugees. I will be grateful if the Minister can inform me whether it remains a measure used by his Department, and what the Department is doing to ensure that it is joined up with the broader development strategy in the region.
As I have said, helping refugees in the region is the most economical way of supporting them. It also creates the least upheaval for the refugees involved, because a common language is often spoken, many have either friends or family nearby and it is often in their best interests. However, as the conflict in Syria continues—it is now in its sixth year—there is a danger that countries in the region that are supporting refugees, such as Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, will become saturated, threatening refugees’ wellbeing.
A lack of legal access to work often means that refugees are forced into informal sector jobs that do little to help them out of poverty, with low pay, insecure working arrangements and poor employment conditions. It is important to help to get them legal access to work, and to foster economic growth, which will provide jobs. That is particularly pressing as the conflict has no end in sight. We must ensure that refugees are suitably relocated for the medium to long term. I will therefore be grateful if the Minister updates us on DFID’s work on economic investment in Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt. As I stated earlier, I believe the CDC is an appropriate vehicle to provide economic investment in the region.
As all hon. Members who have spoken have stated, we must consider the situation of unaccompanied children, who have seen far too much of the world and its tragedies at far too young an age. The UK has a duty to accept our fair share of those vulnerable children. The Government originally committed to resettle 3,000 vulnerable children and family members from the region, which I believe was widely supported by all, by accepting the Dubs amendment. However, I share the deep concerns raised today about their recent backtrack on that commitment and the capping of the number to be resettled at 350. For the many reasons that have been stated, I believe that we must overturn that and accept vulnerable children who are fleeing conflict.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is suffering elsewhere, the middle east is the true epicentre of suffering? Does he welcome, as I do, the effort of the British Government to take 3,000 unaccompanied children from the region—an effort that is not necessarily matched by our international counterparts?
Imran Hussain
Of course I welcome that, and it is a point well made. However, I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree that there are at least that many unaccompanied children in Europe who are at serious risk. Some have already been exploited and many are at serious risk of exploitation through criminally organised gangs. I believe we have an absolute duty to those children. To say we will accept a very small number is not the right way.
Paul Scully
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to address capacity? If people and children can be abused and exploited in a developed, peaceful country such as France, things could happen over here if we do not organise ourselves in the UK. We need to ensure they have the best care, and we can only do that by addressing capacity, which is what the Dubs amendment that was actually agreed and voted on in this House was there to do.
Imran Hussain
I absolutely agree that capacity is important. Whether or not we have the capacity is something we could talk about further. I certainly believe we have more capacity than the cap that has been put in place. The hon. Gentleman raised the point earlier that some local authorities are coming forward to say they believe they have more capacity, but he makes a generally valid point. My strong view is that if we do not reverse the cap and address this issue, history will not forgive us.
In conclusion, we broadly support the work that DFID is doing in Syria and the region to resettle and support refugees. The Government are providing a substantial level of funding and ensuring that refugees are properly supported as a result. However, they can put more pressure on our friends and allies to do more, and they need to ensure that countries such as Lebanon are not overwhelmed. We also need to meet our obligation to provide a safe refuge for vulnerable Syrian children fleeing conflict. I hope and am sure that the Minister will address all those points and elaborate further.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Wharton)
First, I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), in offering my condolences and those of all of us here today to those who have been so terribly affected by events yesterday, including Keith Palmer, who gave his life in protecting this place and the democracy that we are continuing the work of in this debate and in the House and across the estate and Government today.
It is a stark reminder of the challenges faced by many people across the world every day and of the stories we hear emanating particularly from the middle east and Syria—of the terrible events that so many people face as part of their ordinary lives and have done for many years now. We are looking at six years of the most terrible conflict, with tragic human consequences. It is welcome that when we debate these issues, the tone is—without exception—the one we have seen adopted by Members today. Despite what are so often our differences of party policy, ideology and outlook to the world, we unite in agreement that we want to see the UK play a lead role in addressing these issues. We share a common view that we want to see the most good done that can be done with the resources we allocate and the work we do.
To that end, we should recognise the significant role that the UK has played and is playing in addressing the humanitarian crisis in the middle east and the fallout from the conflict that sadly continues in Syria. More than £2.3 billion has been committed, and this year’s expenditure, which was agreed to be £510 million at the “Supporting Syria” conference, has now been exceeded to around £550 million. The UK, I am proud to say, is the second largest bilateral humanitarian donor after the United States.
We continue to work through international agencies to support some of the world’s most vulnerable and in-need people. I can reaffirm the Government’s commitment to that. On behalf of my Department and the Government, I recognise the level of interest taken by hon. Members, reflected in the breadth and depth of questions and understanding today, and thank members of the International Development Committee and its Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for their work in the report. I have some sympathy with the comment from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) that it would have been nice had the report been debated in a shorter order of time, but the fact that so many questions and issues have been raised today reflects the ongoing interest.
The Chair of the International Development Committee raised a broad range of issues, including the CDC and what its involvement might be. The next five-year strategy, as he said, will consider what role the CDC can play in Syria and regarding Syrian refugees in the region more broadly. There may well be opportunities there, and we are keen to ensure that where such possibilities exist, they are properly explored and considered. I do not want to go further than that or potentially tie the hands of an arm’s length organisation, but the point that he and other Members have made is a good and important one.
Questions were asked about Lebanon, a particularly small nation that has been heavily impacted by the conflict on its borders. In October 2014, the Government of Lebanon introduced tougher measures to reduce the flow of refugees, including the closure of borders to refugees, stopping registration by UNHCR and introducing a prohibitive and, to be quite frank, expensive process for acquiring residency permits. The UK Government, other UK agencies and international actors have been working with and making representations to Lebanon, and significant improvements have since been made. A statement of intent was signed in London at the “Supporting Syria” conference, and the Lebanese Government have removed the pledge not to work from residency permits and recently waived the residency permit fee for most Syrian refugees. That is a significant step forward. We continue to make appropriate representations and support where we can, but we should recognise where progress is being made.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) asked about children in Lebanon and the most vulnerable groups affected by not only the more obvious health concerns but the mental impact, toil and toll that conflict can take. With the support of the Government of Lebanon and other international actors, but primarily through the UK’s support, I am pleased to say that we have been able to assist the Government of Lebanon in getting 203,000 Syrian children into its public school system, supporting the necessary infrastructure to go with that and the provision of the health services that are needed, and looking particularly at the humanitarian, educational and economic needs of women and girls.
We have worked with international agencies to design programmes targeting those groups specifically, because we recognise that it is sometimes the most vulnerable who find it most difficult to have their voices heard in such situations. It is the duty of the international community to recognise and reach out to all groups, not only those who shout the loudest or whose need is the most obvious, as important as those groups also are.
The Chair of the International Development Committee raised the issues of the ceasefire, illegal weapons and the diplomacy aspect of our involvement in the region. We continue to work with our partners, through international agencies and bilaterally, to keep pressure on where we can and to support initiatives where appropriate, to try to stabilise the continuing situation there as much as is possible in the circumstances. That is something we will continue and are, I am proud to say, a leading nation on.
The hon. Gentleman also asked specifically about the Helsinki appeal. It is, I understand, currently about 18% funded. He will be aware that the UK is co-hosting a conference in Brussels very soon, from 4 to 5 April. That will be an opportunity to take this and other issues further. We hope and expect to see further progress made, but we should recognise that, as dire as the need is, the international community has contributed a significant amount to address some of the needs in and around Syria, which is welcome.
There is more to do. We will continue to work with our partners to go further, and of course continual work is needed on the scrutiny of how money is spent and the effect it is having. However, we should recognise that so far the international community has done a good job of recognising the severity and importance of what is happening. We intend to continue to press that message home with our friends across the globe and meet our obligations in supporting those who most need it.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow brought up the berm—the border between Syria and Jordan—and the dire situation that affects so many people there. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in December a further £10 million of funding, £6 million of which was specifically for the Syria-Jordan border. There are challenges in getting support to those who need it there, but we recognise them and are aware of the depth and breadth of the need. Again, we are working with international partners to see what more the UK may be able to do and what more is needed to address the terrible situation in which so many find themselves.
I welcome the reaffirmed commitment of the hon. Member for Glasgow North. He never misses an opportunity to impress on those who will listen, whoever they may be, the importance of our commitment to 0.7%. I was proud to support that legislation in the previous Parliament; it is one of the great achievements of global Britain. He is right to recognise that particularly post-Brexit, as we are given the opportunity to shape the UK’s place in the world going forward, the work that we do on international development is an important aspect of that, including our 0.7% commitment, which is world leading both in its scale and in our implementation of it. It is welcome that there is cross-party support for it, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising it, as he invariably remembers to do.
The hon. Gentleman asked about aid drops and the possibility of getting to harder-to-reach areas. We must of course be careful. We always review whatever possibilities there might be to get support to those who need it, and in the right way, but we must ensure at the same time that no harm is done. Many conflict-affected areas, by their very nature, have groups in them that we would not want to supply with aid and that might misuse what we supply were we not able properly to monitor it. We must retain public confidence in the money that we spend, the aid that we deploy and how it is used, and we must recognise that in conflict areas there is danger to operators who will try to deliver by conventional means and challenges with the deployment of drones for large-scale, heavy drops of the type that we might be discussing. We remain committed to reviewing innovative methods of delivering support and aid where appropriate, but the challenges at present make air drops to areas under siege difficult. I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue before, including on the Floor of the House, I believe. I suspect that he will continue to pursue it, and, as always when he raises and pursues issues, the Department for International Development listens and ensures that we respond appropriately and ambitiously. We will continue to review all options, where they might arise, to do more good with the resource that we have.
The hon. Gentleman asked about under-the-radar support for NGOs operating in areas where we might be able to provide support, but perhaps in a way that is less obvious to those who would want to frustrate it. It would be easy for me to say that, by the very nature of under-the-radar support, it would be inappropriate for me to talk about it in a forum such as this, but I also want to recognise that challenges come with it—challenges of accountability, deliverability and ensuring that the work we do does no harm. I do not want to pretend to have secret information up my sleeve that I am not sharing; rather, I ask hon. Members to recognise that, even if I were able to comment on such activities, this is not a forum in which I would be able to do so. However, the hon. Member for Glasgow North made an important point, and it is on the record.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned early-day motion 1054 and the work that his former constituent is engaged in with Journeys of Hope. I have never been a signer of early-day motions; I am a long-standing sceptic. However, I will undertake to review that early-day motion and its signatories following the debate. He has done the job of an ever diligent and good constituency MP in ensuring that his former constituent and his good work is raised and recognised and put on the record in the House, not just in the form of the early-day motion and the signatories to it, but in the Hansard report that will follow this debate. That ought to be recognised. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will continue to promote the good work of his former constituent through appropriate means.
The shadow Minister raised a range of issues, including cash programming and cash transfers, which can be controversial. They require careful thought and planning, but are appropriate in some circumstances. I have seen a number of cash transfer programmes in my time in the Department and have been impressed by what I have seen. They have, potentially, a role to play. I welcome the shadow Minister’s statement of support for what can be a controversial area of activity, as I do the agreement that the Chair of the Select Committee expressed from a sedentary position as he nodded and smiled and “Hear, hear”-ed. It is recognised that this is an area that we should not close the door to in ensuring that we deliver the maximum good and the maximum utility for the taxpayers’ money that we spend. We have not just a duty to British taxpayers to do that, but a duty to those who receive the support, because every pound through which we can drive more efficiency is an additional opportunity to help more, to do more and to do more good with the resource that we allocate.
There was a debate, which I hesitate to reopen, about the Dubs amendment, which has been quite widely discussed on the Floor of the House and debated at some length. I do not mean to reopen the debate in its entirety, but I will of course speak to some of the comments that hon. Members have made. First, we should recognise the significant work that the UK is doing regarding support to refugees, both in region and at home. Under a separate scheme, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said, 3,000 refugee children are being supported by the UK. UK local authorities were asked in a consultation what more they felt they could do, which is where the number of 350 has arisen. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow asked, “What if we can find more?” Local authorities are of course free to offer more and talk about the resources that they have available, but there is also a need, which we should recognise, to ensure an equitable and appropriate distribution among host authorities throughout the UK. That factor may also be considered in how we approach the ultimate delivery of this policy.
We must recognise, as the shadow Minister said, that it can be more economical to support refugees in country. For the likely cost of supporting 3,000 unaccompanied children in the UK, the UK can provide support to 800,000 refugees in region. We have to be very careful with the money that is available to us, to ensure that it does the maximum good that it can. A local authority receiving an unaccompanied child refugee aged under 16 currently receives support of more than £41,000 a year. It is right that when we place people in communities in this country, we provide appropriate support, ensure that facilities are there and recognise that we have to do it carefully and sensibly to avoid the risk of exploitation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) made that point very ably, and it was welcome that he did so.
We should also recognise that for every good action we take, there is the opportunity cost of another action that we could have used that resource for. That leads to difficult decisions and quite a challenging reading of morally difficult circumstances, but we should recognise that we need to deliver the maximum benefit that we can to those who most need it with the budget available to us—the very significant 0.7% commitment that we have made. We must constantly reinforce support for that in the broader community, with our constituents and the taxpayers who ultimately pay for it.
There was a range of other questions, which as always I will be happy to discuss with hon. Members. I am of course happy to ensure that if Members want to write specifically, with detailed follow-up from the debate, the Department will answer as fully as it can. I place on the record my thanks to all hon. Members who have attended the debate. I particularly thank the Select Committee for its continued work and diligence in this area and the shadow Minister for the collegiate and non-partisan way in which the shadow team approach this very important issue.
We should be proud of the UK’s contribution. We should be proud of what we do diplomatically, of what we do in terms of aid and of the guidance and leadership that we are sometimes able to provide to the international community in ensuring that we do aid and support in the right way and that it gets to the right people. That has cross-party support, and perhaps today, following the events of yesterday, it is even more poignant than normal.
I thank hon. Members for taking the time to come and contribute and ask questions. I thank all those who, in the field and at home, work so hard to deliver the interventions, policies and work that allow the money that we allocate to make the difference that it does. It is not the politicians sitting here—although importantly, they set the debate—who are on the frontline delivering the work; it is the many hard-working people in the Department for International Development, in the agencies with which we work and in the international agencies with which we partner. They do incredibly challenging jobs in an incredibly difficult environment, and I take this opportunity to thank them on behalf of the House and to pledge our support to assist them in whatever way we can to continue the important work that makes a difference to so many.
Stephen Twigg
I echo the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has participated in the debate. Not least, I thank him for his response and, on the Committee’s behalf, I thank all those who have enabled us to undertake the inquiry by providing evidence. As a Committee, we are trying to follow up our reports. Although this report was published just over a year ago and was our first report of the Parliament, we are keen to ensure that we review our recommendations and progress on them. In the light of that, we followed up the report a few weeks ago with a further evidence session, which included our taking evidence from Lord Dubs.
I absolutely agree—I think this is the Committee’s view—that we can be immensely proud of the UK’s work in region, both with internally displaced persons in Syria and with refugees in the surrounding countries. My argument is not that we should not be proud of that, but that we could do more here. I was encouraged by the Minister’s response, which I take to mean that the door is still open on Dubs if certain conditions are met. That is the challenge for local authorities, civil society organisations and others, and I am sure they will rise to it.
Let me welcome three things that the Minister said. First, the update on Lebanon and the progress there was very welcome. Secondly, I was encouraged by his response on the CDC; our Committee will pursue that with the CDC and the Department. Thirdly, I absolutely echo what he and the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), said about the role that properly managed, carefully targeted cash transfer schemes can play in supporting some of the most vulnerable people. The evidence base is very powerful.
Thank you for chairing the debate this afternoon, Mr Stringer; it has been a good opportunity for us to update the House on an important issue. Let us hope that by the next time we meet to discuss it we will have seen real progress towards peace and reconstruction in Syria.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the First Report of the International Development Committee of Session 2015-16, Syrian refugee crisis, HC 463, and the Government response, HC 902.
DFID’s Programme in Nigeria
(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
Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the International Development Committee, DFID’s programme in Nigeria, HC 110, and the Government response, HC 735.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship in this important debate, Mr Stringer. Following yesterday’s tragic events, we have been urged to continue with business as usual in Parliament. Many of the things that we could debate feel rather trivial compared with the many injuries and deaths that happened yesterday, but this debate is far from trivial.
Despite being a lower-middle-income country, Nigeria plays host to 120 million people who live below or only just above the poverty line, as well as 10% of the world’s mothers who die in childbirth and 16% of the world’s out-of-school children. There is great inequality, with very few people benefiting from its economic success, which is—or was—largely based on oil wealth. The Department for International Development’s programme in Nigeria is its second largest bilateral programme in Africa, and its third largest in the world, with £303 million allocated for 2016-17.
The second report of the 2016-17 session by the Select Committee on International Development, on DFID’s programme in Nigeria, was published on 27 July 2016. It looked across DFID’s work in the country, making the following key conclusions and recommendations. The Committee commended DFID for its work on governance, which had had a direct impact
“in contributing to a credible, fair and peaceful presidential election in 2015.”
The Committee urged DFID to maintain its support for systems strengthening, institutional management and civic education. It also recommended that DFID should, as a priority, develop a deeper understanding of Nigeria’s political economy and strengthen its judiciary.
The Committee expressed concern that DFID’s power sector reform programme—the Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility—was based on an insufficient research base and was
“hurting poor Nigerians in the short term, even if there is a net overall benefit to privatisation of the power sector in the long term.”
It therefore suggested that DFID encourage the Nigerian Government to take measures to mitigate the impacts.
The Committee recognised the key role of the private sector in successful economic development, but noted that there was not a coherent, joined-up strategy between various parts of the UK Government on achieving that. It recommended that as well as producing such a strategy, DFID should do further research on quality job creation in Nigeria.
The Committee was particularly concerned about Nigeria’s prospects for achieving sustainable development goal 4 on education, and called on DFID to do more to support Nigeria in mapping a route to achieving the goal, including emphasising the value of basic public services and spending on education. It expressed further concern about the affordability of private schooling, including that provided by Bridge International Academies, for the poorest families, and called on DFID to ensure that it aligns with the principle of “leaving no one behind”. We visited a school that had a morning and afternoon session; it had to do that, because so many children need an education and there are insufficient schools. The Committee also found that the UNICEF-managed girls education project was failing to perform, and asked that DFID lay out the steps being taken to improve its effectiveness.
The Committee commended DFID’s commitment to humanitarian support in north-east Nigeria, but noted that there is a funding gap. It recommended that DFID do all that it can to ensure that the 2016 UN appeal was fully funded, both through its own resources and its influence. It also commended DFID’s commitment to development in a fragile area, and recommended continuing support to address the drivers of conflict, and including community-based approaches in its peace-building work.
The Government responded to the Committee’s report in September 2016. They welcomed the constructive review, and stated that it agreed
“with the principles sitting behind all the recommendations provided by the committee, and in the majority of cases we fully agree with the practical next steps these imply.”
They made the following specific points. DFID agreed to continue its work on governance, and it has extended its “Deepening Democracy in Nigeria” programme until 2021
“to ensure full election cycle support.”
It noted that it is investing in research into the political economy of Nigeria and agreed to reach out to more UK-trained lawyers in order to strengthen the judiciary there.
On power sector reform, DFID agreed to do more to mitigate the short-term effects of its programme, and accepted that
“only a small proportion of consumers currently benefit.”
It agreed to
“encourage the Nigerian Government to increase the number of poor customers benefiting from the lifeline tariff”,
and to build more evidence on the poverty impacts of the work.
On economic development, DFID partially agreed with the Committee’s recommendation on a joined-up strategy from Her Majesty’s Government, claiming that the
“bilateral aid review…considered all elements of UK government efforts toward inclusive economic development in Nigeria.”
It stated that it had already taken steps
“to strengthen cross-departmental join-up”,
and agreed to
“ongoing operational research by programme teams during implementation”
on quality job creation.
On education, DFID stated that it is
“supporting the Federal Ministry of Education to develop the Government’s Ministerial Strategic Plan which sets out how it will move towards achieving SDG 4.”
It went on to restate its commitment to leaving no one behind, and said that its support for
“partners such as Bridge International Academies is intended to accompany DEEPEN’s sector wide work, with a focus on testing innovative school improvement models that will support stronger learning outcomes.”
It further noted that it has been
“working intensively with UNICEF to improve the effectiveness of GEP3”,
with an annual review due later in the year.
On humanitarian support and conflict, DFID only partially agreed to do all that it could to ensure that the UN appeal for Nigeria in 2016 was fully funded, but it agreed to continue support for addressing the drivers of conflict, and to scale up its community-based work. I have a series of questions for the Minister, which I will come to at the end of my speech. If he can answer them today, that is fine, but if not, perhaps he could write to the Committee to follow up.
Following the publication of our report, the Committee sought and obtained a Westminster Hall debate through the Backbench Business Committee on the Chibok schoolgirls in Nigeria. In that debate, which I do not believe this Minister attended, Committee members expressed their full support for the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign, and spoke passionately about their experiences during the Committee’s visit, when we all met the campaigners outside our hotel. They had been there every single day since the Chibok girls were kidnapped, and they continue to be there. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who acted so heroically yesterday, responded to that debate on behalf of the Government. He laid out the support that the UK has provided, including specifically on the issue of the Chibok girls, such as support for hostage negotiation, military support, and support on governance issues more broadly, and he reiterated the Government’s support for defeating extremism in Nigeria and bringing back the Chibok girls.
In October, 21 more Chibok schoolgirls were freed. We know that they are not the only people who have been kidnapped in Nigeria, but a lot of international attention has focused on them. The problem is that many of the girls, whether freed or not, have been raped, forced to marry, or forced to change their religion, and many of them now have children. Sadly, some of the girls who have been freed have been rejected by their own community. They were in a terrible situation, and thought that they would be welcomed back by their families, but that has not happened universally.
Since the publication of the Committee report, the humanitarian situation in Nigeria has worsened. Nigeria is one of a number of countries in Africa and the middle east suffering from a severe crisis of food insecurity. More than 5 million people in the country’s north-east are estimated to be food-insecure, including nearly 500,000 children suffering from severe acute malnutrition. Despite the Committee’s calls for DFID to ensure that the 2016 humanitarian appeal was fully funded, it reached only 52% funding. The 2017 appeal is for more than double the 2016 appeal, and is currently 5.2% funded, with a funding gap of around $1 billion. Some progress is being made, though, as the Nigerian Government continue to make gains against Boko Haram, allowing development actors better access to those in need.
DFID began a major programme of humanitarian support in Nigeria in late 2015. In July last year, DFID committed an additional £50 million to the response for the remainder of the year. DFID has identified that the major challenge to humanitarian support in Nigeria is the lack of donor experience in providing it in that country, leading to weak co-ordination and leadership and, at times, lacklustre delivery. DFID is looking to scale up the capacity of its humanitarian team in the country, especially for work on nutrition, which is incredibly important.
After the Committee’s recommendations and the programme redesign, DFID now assesses the Girls’ Education Project 3 to be making good progress. In its latest annual review, carried out around the time when the Committee’s report was published, DFID gave the programme an A rating, and noted both that it is now delivering results, including increased enrolment, and the introduction of an early-grade learning initiative and an education management information system. That is good news. Perhaps the Minister can give us an updated progress report.
Early this year, President Buhari disappeared from the Nigerian political scene. Rumours about his health spread through Nigeria before it was officially announced that he was in London for medical treatment. After two months in the UK, he returned to Nigeria earlier this month and resumed his official duties, but rumours continue due to the length of his absence, creating a feeling of instability in the country.
Since the new Government were established, there has been some progress on security and corruption, which are perhaps at the heart of Nigeria’s problems. Boko Haram has been pushed out of most of the territory that it controlled in north-east Nigeria since President Buhari, whom some see as being on the back foot, took office. In the last six months, Boko Haram has lost most, if not all, of the territory that it held in the Sambisa forest in Borno state, which had been an important rear base for it.
In May 2016, not long after former Prime Minister David Cameron described the country as “fantastically corrupt”, the British Government said that they would give Nigeria £40 million over the next four years to help the fight against Boko Haram, and that they planned to train almost 1,000 Nigerian military personnel for deployment in counter-insurgency operations, which is clearly welcome.
On anti-corruption, there has been a wave of arrests of those who held office under President Buhari’s predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan. The trial of former national security adviser Sambo Dasuki has begun; former Petroleum Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke has yet to stand trial; and several major investigations have been launched. However, critics claim that the Government’s copybook is blotted on security and anti-corruption, saying that some of the steps taken against corruption have been politically motivated, rather than taken without fear or favour. As is often the case in Nigeria, investigations are proceeding at a snail’s pace.
Meanwhile, the Nigerian security forces remain prone to committing human rights abuses, but continue to enjoy impunity. A more fundamental criticism is that Buhari has not yet got to grips with the interlocking root causes of violence: poverty, inequality, marginalisation and, not least, corruption, whether in the north or elsewhere. With the possible exception of in the oil-rich Niger delta, he appears uninterested in seeking negotiated settlements. The authorities have also been criticised for their performance in response to the humanitarian crisis in north-eastern Nigeria.
The biggest challenge to emerge during the second half of 2016, apart from Buhari’s possible ill health, were the cracks in the fractious coalition of interests that makes up the ruling party, the All Progressives Congress. The main divisions emerging, which have never been far from the surface, are between Buhari’s faction and those loyal to former Lagos State governor and APC kingmaker Bola Tinubu, who is reportedly in cahoots with former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar. According to Africa Confidential, that faction is actively contemplating setting up a separate party, coined “the mega party”. The party would bring together APCers disillusioned with Buhari and sections of the former ruling party, the People’s Democratic Party, which is also faction-ridden.
As a large producer and exporter of oil, Nigeria has taken a bad economic hit from the sharp fall in the price of oil in 2014. Government revenues have fallen, resulting in cuts to Government expenditure, while the value of total exports has fallen significantly, given that oil and gas make up around 90% of Nigeria’s exports. Nigeria has had huge problems with corruption in the oil industry, and its value has decreased so much that it continues to cause major poverty problems for the country.
The Government were also forced to abandon their currency peg, which fixed the naira to the dollar, despite having spent billions of dollars from their foreign exchange reserves to try to prop it up. The naira fell from about 197 to the dollar to 280 to the dollar in June 2016, and the official exchange rate is currently around 300 to the dollar. That is compounding the country’s problems. However, it appears that the currency was not allowed to float fully; Government intervention is still occurring. During 2016, there was a serious foreign exchange shortage and consumer price inflation rose rapidly, which had an impact on the poorest and on the people with the most severe problems.
These factors mean that full-year growth in 2016 is likely to have been negative for the first time since 1991. The International Monetary Fund estimates that GDP contracted by 1.5% in 2016, compared with growth of 2.7% in 2015. It does, however, forecast growth of 0.8% in 2017 and 2.3% in 2018. The outlook is supported by the oil price, which is higher than it was a year ago, in part because it has been boosted by a deal by OPEC members restricting oil supply.
Nevertheless, the longer-term challenges facing Nigeria’s economy remain. Corruption remains a huge problem, despite efforts by the Buhari Administration to clamp down on it, and broader conditions for conducting business remain poor. Poor-quality infrastructure, very low education levels, security worries and high poverty levels are additional barriers to faster long-term growth. One of my major concerns when we were in Nigeria was how the Government were going to tackle corruption. They came in with great ideas, wanting a clean sweep of the country, but they have delayed and delayed, and they are not delivering. They will have problems, because the people of Nigeria will not wait forever for things to change.
[Sir David Crausby in the Chair]
I have key questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer—if not now, perhaps later. First, how has recent uncertainty surrounding President Buhari affected DFID’s work with the Nigerian Government and its work on governance in Nigeria? Secondly, what is DFID’s assessment of humanitarian need in north-eastern Nigeria? What support is it providing to deal with the humanitarian crisis and food shortage in that area? What are the UK Government doing with other donors to ensure that the 2017 humanitarian response plan is fully funded?
Thirdly, what is the UK Government’s assessment of the prospect of release of more of the Chibok schoolgirls? Does the Minister know how many have been released and how many are still being held? What continuing support are the UK Government providing to Nigeria to secure the release of more of them, and other schoolgirls who we know have been captured? Fourthly, on DFID’s power sector reform programme, how much progress has been made on extending the lifeline tariff and assessing the programme’s impact on poverty? Fifthly, how have the UK Government strengthened joined-up working on economic development in Nigeria? How is DFID working with the prosperity fund and the Department for International Trade on economic development in Nigeria?
Finally, what is DFID’s assessment of the likelihood of Nigeria achieving sustainable development goal 4 on education? That seems to me one of the key questions if, in the long term, the country is to lift itself out of poverty and its terrible situation. If Nigeria does not meet SDG 4 and provide a decent education for every single person in the country, it will never fully become a middle-income country or better.
I thank the Committee specialists who worked with us on the report, and those who went with us to Nigeria. It was an incredibly interesting visit to a country that I had never been to before. It held out so much hope, but I believe that its Government are failing. As I said earlier, the country will not forgive them if they do, because people there believed that their Government would transform the situation. All the money that we have put in should be helping them to get there. I believe that it is meant to do that, but I am not sure that the Nigerian Government are taking as much advantage of it as they could.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) and the rest of the Committee for their work. She gave an extremely extensive and thorough speech that covered the Committee’s findings on Nigeria. I do not intend to repeat what she said, but I will raise a number of issues that were apparent to me on the Committee’s visit.
As the hon. Lady said, although it is a lower-middle-income country, Nigeria plays host to 120 million people living below or only just above the poverty line, to 10% of the world’s mothers who die in childbirth and to 16% of the world’s out-of-school children. I have to say that what struck me when I arrived there was the inequality, which is absolutely stark: many people have great wealth, but the majority of the population have very little at all.
I ask the Minister what the long-term plan is for DFID’s work with Nigeria and its Government. Nigeria is a lower-middle-income country and it has a number of resources, although they have not provided the same economic benefit in recent years as they did before. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the issue is what systems can be put in place to address inequality and ensure that the economy’s benefits actually reach people who are vulnerable and in need of support. What will the Department do to ensure that such systems will be put in place? What work is taking place with the Government to try to address that? Without those systems, the problem will be self-perpetuating: we will continue to give vast amounts to Nigeria, a lower-middle-income country—I think it is DFID’s second largest bilateral programme in Africa and its third largest in the world—when what it really needs is assistance to self-sustain and make long-term progress in the right direction, so that some of that money can go to other countries that are not in the same financial position.
The other issue that stood out to me was corruption. It was even apparent at the airport: I tried to buy something at the duty-free and was told, “No, you can’t pay with a card—you will have to pay with cash.” Even in places where you would not expect it, there is money flowing through the systems, with very little accountability for how much of it there is and where it ends up, and I imagine that very little tax is being collected. One of the key issues that the Department should look at in Nigeria is electronic cash transfer programmes—we have recently seen some excellent work on those in Kenya—to ensure that the Nigerian Government have a record of where money is being transferred, in shops and throughout the economy, and are therefore much better able to collect taxes. That was not at all evident to me in Nigeria, not even at the airport, which I would have expected to have some system in place.
We were taken to see an anti-corruption tower—that is the only way I can describe it. It was a massive building that the Nigerians hoped we were going to help to fund. It was exorbitant in size. It was to house the anti-corruption teams of the Minister. I was not sure that, by funding a tower, the money was going to go in the right direction—towards anti-corruption policies. What is happening in terms of the work we are doing with the Government and the anti-corruption Minister who was in place at the time to take forward strategic anti-corruption policies? Again, I feel that the crux of the matter is about knowing where money is coming from and where it is going to, and making sure that it is electronically registered.
The Committee recognised the key role of the private sector in successful economic development, but noted that there was not a coherent joined-up strategy between various parts of the UK Government on achieving that. What progress has been made? The other issue of grave concern to me was the prospect of achieving sustainable development goal 4 on education. When I visited the school in Kano in northern Nigeria, there appeared to be great ambivalence about ministerial-led support for girls’ education. Education was taking place in the school, but I would say the quality was extremely poor. On what was being taught, I cannot say from my visit that I had much awareness of any learning other than the continual reciting of religious books. I am all for religious education and I believe parents should have a choice in that regard. However, if we are providing money for education programmes, we should address the quality of those and ensure progress is made. I understand that some progress has been made of late, but I would like that to be repeatedly reviewed because I did not end the education visits with a great sense that the money was being spent in a way that would make a great difference to the girls.
I also had a sense—an undercurrent—of women’s place in Nigeria. That was even apparent when we visited Ministries, where there were no women aside from our own delegation around the table. I asked why there were so few women parliamentarians and I was told they cannot afford to stand. That is a huge gender equality issue. If there are few women in political life in Nigeria, there will be few policies that create gender equality, so we should focus on that. On the idea that someone has to have a set amount of money to stand, obviously, we cannot enforce our absolute democratic principles on every other country, but if we are working with Governments to try to improve governance and democracy, these are conversations that must be had. Unless the system and its failings are addressed, I fear that little will change for girls in Nigeria, particularly in the north, and we will continually have to try to monitor strongly what is happening and doubts regarding the effectiveness of what we do there.
One thing that emotionally struck me was meeting the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaigners, who are out every day speaking about the importance of bringing back the girls safe and alive. I really want the UK Government to work with the Nigerian Government to ensure that we do as much as we can to support them in that regard. We know only too well that defeating extremism should be our priority. It tarnishes society and reduces the hopes of people around the world. We know that only too well today after the impact even in this House.
We must provide support to defeat extremism. At the time, I thought that the Nigerian Government were taking that extremely seriously. I understand that they have made good gains. The President has a military background and defeating extremism is one of the key objectives that he is committed to. We need to support that positive objective to ensure that people in the north, the children, women and families have opportunity and hope outwith being kept in conditions of extremism. We must always fight to try to help to bring back those girls. Where else in the world would hundreds of girls go missing for such a length of time with nothing happening? That is very stark. Some have been released. But they were not found. We need to ensure that we do all we can to bring those girls back safe and alive for their families. I am a mother of girls. I feel very strongly and passionately that we should assist the Government.
Food insecurity is a humanitarian issue now in Nigeria. We must do all that we can to help the vulnerable people there who are suffering from acute malnutrition. We know that the humanitarian appeal has reached only 52% of the funding requirement, so we need to look at that and decide whether there is more that the United Kingdom can do. Again, I come back to saying that there also has to be a long-term plan. Nigeria has grave inequality and pockets of extreme wealth. There has to be a Government plan for situations that arise over the long term. Perhaps the UK might assist Nigeria to put in place a plan to help its own population in future, but in the meantime we have to do everything that we possibly can.
I have concerns regarding the governance of the work that we do in Nigeria. I am hopeful that DFID will be extra scrupulous in looking at programmes, their quality and outcome. Fundamentally, in order to help support Nigeria, there needs to be radical change in the politics in Nigeria and the will to make changes to deal with corruption and inequality. I hope that, wherever possible, the Minister will help to push on those particular issues. Also, I hope he will update us today on what we can do to bring back the Chibok girls.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I apologise for not being here at the beginning, Sir David. I was participating in the debate in the main Chamber. I am glad to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). She has highlighted a lot of the very important issues. I would differ slightly with her on education, but I will come to that.
One thing that struck me more than anything in our visit to Nigeria, which was my first visit to that country, was when we were in Abuja and we visited a refugee camp where the refugees were cared for not by an outside agency or the United Nations, but by Nigerians themselves and by Christian organisations and mosques. The teachers gave up their time, often voluntarily, in a school that was almost in the open. I felt that Nigeria was a hugely self-reliant country, but, as the hon. Lady has said, perhaps the people are sometimes not supported sufficiently by their own Government. Nigerians are hugely entrepreneurial and dynamic people, but I believe they are sometimes a little held back. However, I felt that their caring for their own in the refugee camp in the middle of Abuja, where there were refugees from the north and particularly from Borno state, was a microcosm of what so many Nigerians do for each other across the country.
Education is clearly something for which the Chair of the Committee has a huge passion—as do we all—and he has made it a hallmark of its work. I welcome that. I agree that perhaps aspects of the schools that we visited in Kano surprised us, but other aspects encouraged me. For instance, in the Koranic schools we saw that, almost for the first time, many of the children were learning subjects to which they had not had access before. The curriculums that they were using—which have been largely supported through DFID—were encouraging; they were not, perhaps, the finished article, but they were probably a step forward from what there was before. Clearly, we want much more of an advance. We want girls’ education to be absolutely right; we want them to get the same education as boys. However, it was a step forward.
The other school had something like 13,000 children. It is one of the biggest primary schools in sub-Saharan Africa, if not the biggest, and, again, I felt that progress was being made. We visited a class with disabled children, where an effort was being made on their behalf. Clearly, in comparison with our education system or those of other middle-income countries—Nigeria is, of course, such a country—there are great shortfalls. Nevertheless, improvements are being made, particularly by one of the two education programmes that DFID is running in the north. Progress is being made, and much more could be done, but clearly that is fundamentally an issue for the Nigerian Government. In a country as large as Nigeria, DFID can only really supply technical advice and a little support here and there.
That brings me on to corruption, tax collection and so on. I share the views of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow about the anti-corruption building. I was more interested in finding out about the anti-corruption work than I was in seeing a half-finished building in which that work might take place in future. There is little more to be said other than that I hope the building will be finished and that the work that is done in it will have a huge impact. I am not sure that the UK Government should finance the building. We should support the work that goes on there but not the infrastructure.
I was encouraged by the work on health that we heard about through some of our meetings in Abuja. I am the chair of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases and I have a particular interest in the area, as does pretty much every Member attending the debate. We heard of the great progress that has been made in reducing the incidence of malaria across Nigeria, which, along with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, still has the largest burden of malaria in the world. We heard particularly of progress in the northern regions—the Sahel region of Nigeria, where there can be intermittent malaria, particularly in the rainy season.
We visited a midwife training school based at the hospital, and the pharmacy there. I was extremely impressed with the pharmacist, who was clearly dedicated to her work to prevent malaria. She contacted me and the all-party group after the visit and said, “I want to do something on World Malaria Day”—which was a month after our visit; “can you help us?” The all-party group agreed to send an amount of money—I think it was about $1,000; and with it the pharmacist co-ordinated a magnificent World Malaria Day event. She invited local people, local government leaders and health leaders, and also managed a mass distribution of bed nets. It was all done voluntarily and it showed the spirit of individual Nigerians—how they really want to work on behalf of their country and people. I very much hope that the same thing will happen again this year, and that our group will support it if it does. For $1,000 I think the impact was substantial, based on the report we received.
It is not only on malaria but on neglected tropical diseases that the work supported by DFID in the north has had a great impact. I believe that that programme is just coming to an end, and I urge DFID to look at supporting a continuation of the work. We know that, if work in areas such as neglected tropical diseases and, indeed, malaria is halted for a while, those diseases can come back. Clearly, we want the Nigerian Government to take up the work on NTDs. In the meantime I should like the Minister’s reassurance that DFID is considering supporting a continuation—perhaps in a different way—of the programme on NTDs in the north of Nigeria. I should declare an interest, in that I am a member of the board of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. I want to make that clear as I know that the school has great engagement in Nigeria and with DFID programmes, although I am not sure in what respects.
The economy in Nigeria has been far too dependent, clearly, on oil in the past decades, but a real effort is being made to expand and diversify it. That has been made necessary by the fall in the price of oil. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow rightly mentioned the lack of women in senior positions, and particularly the lack of women Members of Parliament. However, the Finance Minister of Nigeria is a woman, whom we had the pleasure of meeting in Abuja, and who was committed to reform of the Nigerian economy. I should hope that she—and, indeed, her reform-minded, progressive colleagues—would get the fullest possible support from the British Government, whether through DFID or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in their efforts to ensure that the economy of Nigeria works for everyone.
I want to touch on the issue of food, food security and famine. We have heard from the Government and from colleagues across the House of the issues in Nigeria and east and central Africa. I welcome the generosity of the British public in supporting the Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for east and central Africa. Perhaps the Minister will outline for us the current situation in Nigeria, as it is a year since we were there. Nigeria has a proud reputation of wanting to help itself to deal with such issues, but I want to find out what the current food security situation is. Our efforts are concentrated on east and central Africa, but we would not want countries in the Sahel—not just Nigeria but Chad, Mali, Niger and others—to miss out on the efforts that are being made. Whether we like it or not, the UK is a leader in the area; particularly given concern about the potential withdrawal of United States funding it would be a problem if areas where the UK is not so prominent fell behind because they are not on our radar. I should appreciate an update from the Minister about that.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and to follow my three colleagues from the International Development Committee, who have set out very fully some of the findings of our inquiry, and some continuing concerns. I shall speak briefly. I take this opportunity to apologise for the fact that I shall have to leave at about a quarter past 4, so I may miss the closing part of the debate.
I support the remarks of my friend the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about the current food crisis in Africa and the Yemen. I would welcome a response to his points from the Minister, as well as an early opportunity for the matter to be considered in more detail in the House, whether by way of a statement or a tabled debate. There are massive challenges, and as the hon. Gentleman said, the public response to the DEC appeal has been extraordinary. The Government are already doing a lot of good work in the countries concerned, but it is vital that we should do all we can to relieve a massive humanitarian crisis.
I will briefly talk about two issues—governance and education. I do so really to reaffirm what others—in particular the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), who is an assiduous and hard-working member of the Committee—have said. She opened the debate by talking about the challenges regarding governance and made the important point that, partly because of the support of the UK, we saw in 2015 a credible, fair and peaceful presidential election in Nigeria, which resulted in the sitting President being defeated, standing down and handing over to a successor. That was a very significant development and was hugely welcome.
Alongside the many humanitarian and other development challenges that this debate has rightly emphasised, I urge the Minister and the Government not to lose focus on some of the governance issues and the importance of the UK—in the form of both DFID and the Foreign Office—continuing to engage on governance, both at the federal level in Nigeria and at state and local level. Part of that involves meeting the challenge that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) rightly reminded us of, which is about not only women’s representation in public life in Nigeria, including in politics, but frankly representation for anyone who is not wealthy, which is difficult because of some of the barriers she told us about.
The other issue I will speak about is education. Nigeria is an enormous country. I think the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire said in her opening remarks that 16% of the world’s out-of-school children are in Nigeria—one in six of all the children in the entire world who are not in school are in that one country. So if that country makes the sort of progress on education that we would like it to make, it will be hugely important not only for Nigeria itself but globally.
When we were on our visit to Nigeria last year, some Members went to Kano; we heard some reflections on that trip from the hon. Members for Stafford and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. Some of us saw schools in Lagos and saw some of the challenges there. Again, we saw some of the difficult issues that exist, which the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow rightly highlighted, but also some more encouraging aspects. I remember that we went to a state school in Lagos. On the one hand, the sheer number of children in each class and how challenging that was for the teachers was very striking; on the other hand, children with disabilities and special educational needs were in the same class as the other children, and the teachers were able to deliver for them all.
Clearly, Nigeria faces a massive challenge if it is to achieve sustainable development goal 4; it will be very hard for the country to do so. At the moment, the Select Committee is conducting an inquiry into DFID’s work on education, and Nigeria is probably one of the most striking test cases given the level of resource, support and ambition that is required, both within Nigeria, as the hon. Member for Stafford rightly said, and in the international system, to ensure that goal can be reached. Let us hope that it can be.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David, and I again congratulate the International Development Committee on securing time for this debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on her comprehensive introduction of it.
In the context of all the speeches we have heard, it is clear why this debate is particularly relevant at the moment, especially given the growing food crisis in north-east Nigeria, which is starting to reach critical—famine—conditions. I echo the calls for the opportunity to question the Government in more detail about their response to that on the Floor of the House, outwith the Department for International Development questions session that is coming up next week.
As we have heard from a number of Members, Nigeria captures many of the challenges of delivering aid and international development in the world today. It is classed as a lower-middle-income country and it is in a period of economic and developmental transition, and therefore there are significant inequalities across the country, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) spoke about, including those caused by the famine situation and the terror attacks led by Boko Haram. Indeed, yesterday I saw reports of there being seven dead people and 18 injured people in refugee camps in the north-east of Nigeria, which again gives us cause to express our solidarity, following our own tragic experiences yesterday.
The structure of the Select Committee’s report emphasises the holistic challenge that exists in Nigeria and the need for a holistic approach to development to get everything right in governance, economic development and the delivery of basic services, as well as in the areas of conflict and security.
Getting governance right is an often unseen and occasionally questioned part of the development equation, but it is hugely important. The debate that we have just had on the situation in Syria demonstrated the need for strong internal governance and strong civil society, because if people cannot demonstrate peacefully or seek democratic change peacefully, situations can rapidly spiral out of control and into violence.
I welcome the recommendations in the report, especially those on corruption, support for the regional governments across Nigeria and the opportunities for the sharing of best practice, drawing particularly on the strength of the Nigerian diaspora in this country and elsewhere.
Openness of government and transparency of information are both absolutely critical, so I also welcome the developments on IT and open-access budgeting that are covered in the report. We recently had a more general debate in Westminster Hall on west Africa, including Gambia, where there has been a peaceful transition of power. In large part, that was due to the role of new technology, including mobile communications. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned there.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow also reflected powerfully on the corruption situation in Nigeria, and said that gender equality is a very important way in which that corruption can be overcome. Economic development and economic inequality are also major challenges in such transitioning economies. If the cycle cannot be broken, there is a risk that it will be a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty and growing inequality.
There are important recommendations in the report, including a focus on jobs. There is also a role for the Commonwealth Development Corporation, as we discussed in the previous debate. There is an opportunity for the Government to show how the CDC really can make a difference by delivering poverty reduction in places that are very hard to reach.
In the report, there is also an emphasis on the role of the diaspora, particularly in trade and the sharing of skills across borders. There is also emphasis on the issue of basic service provision. That is because despite the transitioning economy, despite the growth and despite the existence of pockets of wealth in Nigeria, there are places where such basic service delivery and service provision are needed.
Once again, there is a role for local NGOs, civil society organisations and faith-based organisations. The ability to gather data and monitor the impact of different measures has been highlighted, both in the report and by Members today. Two of the most basic aspects of service provision in education have already been widely covered in the debate, and there is also the issue of healthcare. I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) about providing support to combat malaria and neglected and tropical diseases more widely.
Finally, we must consider conflict and security, and the dreadful impact of Boko Haram. We have heard very powerfully about the campaign to find the captured Chibok and other schoolgirls—the “Bring Back Our Girls” campaign. I pay tribute to all who are involved in that campaign. Access to education, especially for girls, is particularly important to help to protect and support future generations.
Unlike the Members who have already spoken, I have not yet had first-hand experience of visiting Nigeria. I hope to join the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), who leads for the Labour party on international development issues, on a visit with the all-party group on Nigeria at some point in the next few months. I think the timing of Abuja airport’s reopening will largely determine the timing of that visit, but I look forward to having the opportunity to visit Nigeria, having made many friends from the Nigerian diaspora over the years, not least in recent weeks the two new priests in the parish that serves my constituency office, Father Ambrose Ohene and Father Dominic Alih, whom we welcome to St Columba of Iona in Woodside.
I will also reflect briefly on the fact that tomorrow is Red Nose Day for the Comic Relief appeal. Over the years, many millions of pounds from Comic Relief have made a huge difference not only in Nigeria but around the world. The very first Red Nose Day was on 5 February 1988, which was my eighth birthday, so I have always had a fondness for that particular charity, and I wish everyone involved with it the very best.
As I think the Select Committee’s report has demonstrated, DFID has a complex and detailed programme in Nigeria, which is making a real difference, but there are always lessons to learn, and the report draws some of them out. I always think it is interesting when the Government partially agree with recommendations; that is a polite and political way to respond to aspects of a report. Hopefully, the case has been made for the Government to come even closer to agreement on some of the Committee’s recommendations, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) on securing another important debate. In particular, I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) on making a very informative contribution. She expressed particular concerns about education and electricity. I share those concerns and will speak about them. I also thank the hon. Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for making very important contributions in their usual styles.
The International Development Committee’s report on DFID’s programme in Nigeria was stark. It offered a scrutinising insight into DFID’s work in what is one of the world’s fastest growing economies and one of its most deprived nations. The report highlighted several pieces of positive work that DFID is doing in Nigeria; the hon. Members for Stafford, and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, both mentioned that.
DFID is spending money effectively on fighting malaria in the country, and the positive lessons that health professionals have learned and applied from anti-malaria programmes has had a knock-on benefit for the health sector more widely. DFID used a range of expertise to help deliver the fairest elections in Nigeria’s history. That allowed President Buhari to stand strong on his mandate of delivering economic growth, reducing inequality and tackling corruption. DFID is rolling back the neglected tropical diseases that have taken hold in the country, enabling more children to go to school and more adults to go to work. We commend that work and believe that the Government should hold up those successes as examples of DFID’s money being put to use to benefit the people of not only Nigeria, but the UK.
Nevertheless, as has been said, the report and hon. Members have expressed concerns about areas that need improvement. First, there is the economy. I welcome the work done on that. It is absolutely clear that there has been economic growth, but has it been inclusive of the whole country? I do not believe it has. The disproportion between growth in the south and the north is massive. That needs addressing, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments on that. In the earlier debate, a point was made about the CDC; with its increase in funding, there is an opportunity to look seriously at investment in industry in the north of Nigeria.
The second issue that could do with improvement is healthcare. While DFID spends quite a large amount of the total funding that goes to Nigeria on healthcare, the report highlights a number of basic hygiene problems in hospitals, which is counterproductive to the efforts. I urge the Minister to liaise with the Nigerian Government on addressing those issues. On the face of it, they are not major, but they are important.
Quite a lot was said about corruption and governance by the hon. Members for Stafford, and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, and by the Chair of the International Development Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby. The first point they made was that we have seen disproportionate growth—Nigeria has in a very short time become one of the countries with the fastest growing number of millionaires—but, unfortunately, that wealth has not been spread across the breadth of the country, and that needs addressing. If strange-shaped buildings could resolve corruption issues, we would all be in a much better place, but tragically, it is not that simple. I align myself with the comments made earlier on that front.
On governance, we have to accept that DFID has done some magnificent work around the 2015 election—the freest and fairest election in Nigeria. Power changed hands with very little trouble, but we cannot be complacent, and that work must continue. I know that there is a plan to continue that work until 2019, and that is clearly important. To address the corruption and governance elements—I hope that the Minister will accept and agree with this point—we must further strengthen institutions across the board. We need to strengthen the judiciary and the rule of law to allow investors and Nigerians to have confidence in the system. We are on the road to that, and I have every confidence that DFID will follow that through to 2019, when the next election will take place.
The two problematic areas where we have concerns are education and electricity, which the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned. Education is a universal right. We would all agree that everyone has the right to at least a good primary and secondary education. Unfortunately, that is not the case in Nigeria. The International Development Committee rightly pointed out that 25% of all those between 17 and 22 years old in the north of the country have fewer than two years of education. Just three out of five children will have completed grade 4. Those statistics have led to a dire literacy situation in the country; 85% of girls in the north-east cannot read, and 44% of those who have completed grade 6 are unable to read a complete sentence in English or their preferred language.
Bridge International Academies, which works with DFID, provided evidence to the Committee that stated that 90% of the communities in which it works are able to afford to send their children to school. That is good, but what happens to the other 10%? Do they send none of their children to school, or do they make a choice and send either their boys or girls to school? The stark reality is that when given that choice, the evidence shows that they are more likely to send boys to school. That further highlights the issue that Members raised about the lack of education offered to girls. Not only does that mean that DFID is supporting work that does not reach the poorest in Nigeria—the very people we should be reaching out to—but it raises further issues about the children who reside in the poorer states, which are often not reached by private education. One figure struck me: the Committee calculates that, on a conservative estimate, sending three children to school would cost $234 in annual fees, in a country where more than half the population lives on less than $2 a day. That is an easy calculation for everyone to make.
If DFID is to support an expansion of private sector education across Nigeria, what will happen to the children in poorer regions of the country, where less than 90% of people can afford schooling? We recognise that private schools are key providers of education in Nigeria, but we are steadfastly opposed to any DFID programme that sees an expansion of private, fee-paying schools in the country, particularly if it is done at the expense of public schools. There is a prevalence of private schools in Nigeria, but that does not mean that DFID has to accept that. I hope that the Minister will tell me what the Department is doing to promote an expansion of public education in Nigeria that can reach the whole population, not just the wealthiest.
Electricity production and distribution is of concern. Access to a stable, secure and reliable electricity network is of great importance, if not an absolute necessity, for promoting growth and freeing households from the burden of self-generation. Despite the immense importance of the electricity sector and Nigeria’s growth rate, the country has the highest number of Africans without access to electricity. DFID clearly recognises that that is a problem. If electricity is not supplied to millions of Nigerians, DFID will struggle to fulfil its aims and objectives in the country, so it put in place the Nigeria Infrastructure Advisory Facility.
On the face of it, allocating more than £100 million to help bring light into the homes of 96 million Nigerians seems a positive step, until we look at the details of what the money bought. It brought in Adam Smith International—an international organisation that ultimately advised the Nigerian Government to put Nigeria’s electricity production and distribution networks up for sale, with the goal of creating a commercially viable and privately owned power network. While the intentions may have been good, at best the programme proved to be ill designed; at worst, it focused not on the needs of Nigerian consumers, but on private interests. It is putting electricity even further out of reach of many Nigerians, and it is loading purchasers in the energy sector with huge amounts of debt, preventing them from making any meaningful investments in the network. Tariffs had to be raised, rather than lowered, and the situation was so bad that a prominent university, Ahmadu Bello, was forced to cut power for 12 hours a day. Privatisation of the energy sector has not helped poor Nigerians or businesses to get secure access to the electricity network. It is hard to describe the endeavour as anything other than a failure for the poorest in the country.
It has been a year since the report, so I hope that the Minister can shed some light on how the matters it raised have been addressed. DFID has made very strong progress in certain areas of Nigeria. There have been commendable efforts to tackle malaria and neglected tropical diseases, and to strengthen confidence in democratic institutions, but we must address the other issues on which further progress can be made. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Wharton)
I thank hon. Members for their contributions and the very broad range of issues that they raised. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham), whose tour de force opening comments covered a broad range of subjects—I hope I have been able to note them down sufficiently to answer her questions. In line with her gentle suggestion, if I fail to address any of her questions, I would of course be delighted to enter into further correspondence or discussion with her, as indeed I always am.
I am going to do my very best to go through the broad range of issues that hon. Members have raised, but I am going to base my comments, in the first instance, on my hon. Friend’s excellent contribution. She asked some specific questions at the end, but also talked in informative and in-depth terms about the Committee’s report and the Government’s response. The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) spoke in his typically witty and engaging way, and said, in a politically carefully worded phrase, that the Government were partially in agreement. I think that is probably fair. To be partially in agreement is often that for which we should strive in this place. Were he and I to find ourselves completely in agreement, I suspect that either I would be wrong or he would be right—I am not sure which it would be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire talked about power. I will start there, as the shadow Minister chose to end there. Power sector reform is crucial for Nigeria. I do not need to remind hon. Members that power supply can be a key perquisite for sustainable growth. I am sure they are aware that in early 2016 Nigeria’s power sector supplied an all-time record amount of power, but that since then disruption, and even terrorist activity in some cases, has impacted on its capacity. However, I am pleased to inform the House that supply levels are approaching those of early 2016.
We are clear that reform is needed. It is clear that significant investment is needed in Nigeria’s power system. Over 60% of Nigerians do not have grid connection, which holds back economic growth. Intermittent supply presents real challenges for those who wish for certainty and investment. Reform was necessary. The shadow Minister alluded to the involvement of the occasionally controversial Adam Smith International, which has had its fair share of coverage. We are reviewing some of our relationships with it.
It is important to recognise that there are pluses and minuses to all change. Along with the price increases that have come from privatisation and the removal of some of the artificial subsidy within the power system, fixed charges for those who do not use power have been removed, and the lowest volume users have been protected through reforms that have taken place. Much more needs to be done for the power sector in Nigeria. We need to build on the reforms we have seen and continue to review and improve on changes that have been made. The interest that hon. Members take is welcome.
We have had a wide-ranging discussion about the importance of education. The Girls’ Education Project, which is in phase 3 in Nigeria, is one of the programmes that DFID in the UK supports. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire recognised, it has seen reform and improvement and is now an A-graded programme, having had some issues in the past. We are helping more than 23,000 girls to stay in education through small cash transfers, which we discussed in the previous debate and which was raised in particular by the shadow Minister. There is no doubt that a significant amount needs to be done and that education is important in driving change and ensuring that a country such as Nigeria can develop its way out of some of the challenges it faces.
The sixth question asked by my hon. Friend was about sustainable development goal 4, which was also raised by the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy). There is no doubt that there has been insufficient progress to date in Nigeria on education. Access increased by only 4% between 2003 and 2013, and the poorest are even less likely to complete schooling. That is why education is a real focus for DFID in Nigeria and why we have the programmes we have. However, it would be unrealistic not to recognise the scale of the challenge and the fact that more needs to be done and constant scrutiny is required. I welcome the work of the International Development Committee in that space.
Jeremy Lefroy
The Minister will know that African countries committed quite a long time ago—I think it was in the early 2000s—in the so-called Abuja declaration to spend 15% of their budgets on health. Indeed, some of them, including Rwanda, have reached that target or are not far short of it. That commitment was made in Nigeria. Does he agree that it would be very welcome if a similar commitment were made by sub-Saharan African countries and other developing countries around the world to spend a specific amount of their budgets on education, which we have seen far less commitment on than health?
James Wharton
My hon. Friend makes a relevant and important observation. The long-term sustainability of education in countries such as Nigeria must be founded on Government support and investment. We want to see and encourage more of that. We can offer direct support, as we do now, for those who need to benefit from it. We can offer technical assistance and support in training teachers and establishing curricula. However, for long-term sustainability, domestic Government support is required. My hon. Friend’s suggestion deserves a good airing and consideration, and I suspect we have not heard the last of it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire mentioned the Chibok girls. That issue caught the attention and imagination, in the most dire of circumstances, of much of the broader global community. It has drawn attention to the terrible conflict in north-east Nigeria and the effect of Boko Haram not only there but in neighbouring countries. I will go on to talk about some of the challenges with the humanitarian response that is required, but specific questions have been asked about the girls by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow. One hundred and ninety-five of them remain to be released, which is a significant number. There are significant challenges in addressing that. Much of north-east Nigeria remains a challenging area in which to operate. Boko Haram is not yet defeated, although there are some signs of progress. The UK provides significant support in that work, including a recent commitment of a further £5 million in funding. We offer and indeed give training to the Nigerian armed forces; more than 20,000 personnel of the armed forces have now received training supported by the UK Government. We must continue to fight radical terrorism in all its guises. Today of all days, I do not need to remind right hon. and hon. Members of that or of the scale of the threat faced by so many people throughout the world. The Chibok girls are a stark and poignant reminder of the scale of the challenge that many countries face.
Many others are of course affected by the conflict in the north-east, Boko Haram and the other challenges there, but I am pleased that we are playing the role we are playing, even though I am not pleased that it has not been possible to make more progress. However, we will continue to focus our efforts in that area and to provide appropriate support that can make a difference in the medium and longer terms.
The humanitarian crisis is a significant one. About 5.1 million people face a severely difficult environment; they face food insecurity. If we take no action, we estimate that somewhere in the region of 90,000 children could die. That is a stark and worrying figure, and one with which the world and the global community must engage. Indeed, I am pleased to recognise that the global community did engage at the recent conference in Oslo and has committed a significant contribution to the amount of funding that is needed: more than $400 million has been committed. More is needed, and we expect more to be committed in due course, but the $1 billion target has none the less not yet been reached.
The Government of Nigeria, however, have made their own commitment to spend $1 billion in the north-east. We recognise that that is a welcome announcement and that it gives the Government of Nigeria an opportunity to present themselves as a true world leader in this space, and Nigeria as a country that is serious about humanitarian issues and about tackling the problems it finds within its own borders. We must encourage them to do so, so their announcement is welcome. We look forward to working with them to ensure that the money materialises and is spent in the right way, so as to have the maximum beneficial impact that it can. I expect we will see further announcements on this over the weeks and months to come.
I thank those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to meet me, whether one to one in recent weeks or at the drop-in session that I held with officials to brief interested Members of this House and the other place on the work of this Government, on the broader situation in north-east Nigeria and on the other famines throughout the globe, in particular in Africa, in what is set to be a very challenging year indeed.
The fifth question of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire was on strengthening joined-up working across UK Government Departments. In my eight or nine months at the Department for International Development, I have been pleasantly surprised by the extent to which that already takes place. I am keen to drive it further and I have regular discussions with my counterparts in the Department for International Trade and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and have had meetings with Ministers and officials at the Ministry of Defence, to discuss a broad range of issues across the portfolio that I oversee. That has included discussions about the situation in Nigeria. We need to continue to drive cross-Government collaboration, to break down silos and to make a reality of one HMG.
The truth is that, when people look at UK Government engagement, they do not see the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Department for International Development, the Ministry of Defence or whatever it might be; they see the UK Government, the role they play in the world and the contribution that they can make. Together we can make a greater contribution than in our individual departmental parts. I recognise that. It is a message that I reinforce continually to the teams for which I am responsible in DFID. It is an area in which we are making significant progress but, following this debate, I will take the opportunity to continue to push it, because it is one in which we can always do more. The more we can do, the greater the net achievement will be.
Many hon. Members have spoken about health and health systems. I particularly recognise the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on the importance of tackling malaria. I commend him for the work he does; he supports this area of debate and activity and the work of Government in this area in particular. He is aware of the Support to National Malaria Programme—SuNMaP—in which the UK Government are engaged in Nigeria. That £50 million contribution—the figures underline the importance of our work to tackle malaria on a global scale—aims to reduce the number of children who will die before their fifth birthday from 128 in every 1,000 to 80 in every 1,000 by 2022. Eighty is still far too high, but it underlines the significant threat that malaria in particular poses to so many of the world’s poorest children and to developing nations. It is a disease that we can beat and are committed to beating. I am pleased that this is an area in which, along with the UK’s part in the Global Fund, programmes such as SuNMaP are making such a significant contribution.
My hon. Friend also mentioned neglected tropical diseases—another very important point and one that is not lost on the Secretary of State, who is very keen to pursue further work in the area.
Our programme in Nigeria being our second largest bilateral programme in Africa, it is one in which I take a very keen interest as the responsible Minister. In recent weeks, I have had significant and in-depth discussions with our teams, including in Nigeria, going line by line and component by component through the programmes that DFID supports there and talking about our strategy for the future and where we need to go to have the maximum impact with the money that we spend.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow, in particular, talked about the need for a strategy—the need to see where we can make a long-term difference. I can assure her that that message is not lost on me as the responsible Minister or on our team in country, with whom I have been having those discussions. We expect to see changes as a result of those discussions, but it would perhaps be premature for me to pre-empt now what they might be. However, she is absolutely right to say that we need a ruthless focus on value for money, on where we can make a difference and on the impact that we can have. We need to ensure that we identify those programmes that are working and those that could work better, either change or close programmes and then reinvest to ensure that we get the maximum impact we can.
We need to recognise that there are big challenges in countries such as Nigeria. Corruption, which was mentioned by several hon. Members, is a key cause of poverty and a key factor that can hold back development. It is not like me to disagree with the former Prime Minister about much—actually, in effect, I do not disagree with him about this—but corruption cannot, in any context, be fantastic. To be fantastically corrupt is to be terribly so. That, of course, is what he really meant, and the attention that he drew to the issue was welcome. We have significant programmes, including Anti-corruption in Nigeria—ACORN—and PERL, the Partnership to Engage, Reform and Learn, both of which engage with government structures and civil society groups, through which we are working both to empower people to tackle corruption when they see it, and to ensure that institutions have the tools to address it.
Several references were made to particular individuals and individual cases. With hon. Members’ permission, I will not talk about those cases, because many are live, but they make clear the point that we need to pursue corruption wherever it might hide, from the lowest to the highest levels, without fear or favour. We must always be alert to the risk that anti-corruption work will be focused on the political enemies of the people who control the direction of that work, and we are. We should be proud of what we do in this area. The work that we do to tackle corruption is an absolutely necessary and vital prerequisite for securing the long-term sustainable growth that we all want to see delivered and we all recognise Nigeria has the potential to secure.
Nigeria is a relatively affluent country in its region. It is blessed—or perhaps cursed—with significant natural resources. It accounts for about a quarter of the population of sub-Saharan Africa. It presents one of the greatest opportunities for growth and one of the greatest dangers of instability on that continent. We are right to be engaged there, we are right to play a key role given our historical ties and the country’s importance for the future, but we are also right to scrutinise what we do and to hold to account those who are responsible for it.
I therefore welcome the Committee’s work and thank hon. Members for their contributions and questions. I hope that I have addressed most of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire raised, but I know that she will take me up on any that I omitted to comment on. I look forward to continuing our work and the positive and constructive dialogue that we have had today as we all strive to improve life and realise the opportunities that exist for the people of Nigeria. Nigeria is a friendly and important nation that I hope we will continue to trade with, and I am confident that its economy will become further entwined with that of the UK as both nations develop and march forward into the world in a way that will deliver benefits for both our peoples.
Pauline Latham
I thank the members of the Committee who contributed to this important debate and in particular our Chairman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who secured both of this afternoon’s debates. He is always a good speaker who covers many salient points, and his contribution in both debates, but this one in particular was well made.
The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) covered many personal parts of the visit we had to Nigeria, which was an important visit for the Committee. I and many people had not been there before, so it was certainly an eye-opener into a very large country with many, many associated problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) is always comprehensive. As the Minister said, he covered all aspects of malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Coming from his position as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, he ensures at every possible opportunity that no one forgets that those issues are incredibly important to the people of Africa.
I also thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) for his contribution—he is unfailing in turning up to all of these debates—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), who showed through his contribution that he had done much research into what we have been talking about and knew many of the issues surrounding the people in Nigeria.
I particularly thank the Minister, who covered pretty much everything asked of him. I am sure he will forensically look with his officials for anything he might have missed. I do not think he did, but he may have missed little bits and, if he did, I am sure he will come back to us. I thank him for his openness in allowing us to talk to him about any issue at any time and for always finding time for those of us who wish to get up to speed with what is happening in the Department. It has been a worthwhile debate, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Second Report of the International Development Committee, DFID’s programme in Nigeria, HC 110, and the Government response, HC 735.
House of Lords
London Attacks
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on behalf of the House in response to yesterday’s tragic events. People from all over the world visit our capital city and this iconic building, the centre of our democracy. As is already beginning to become clear, the horror of yesterday’s events will be felt not just in this country but across the globe. We know that victims included citizens from Romania and South Korea and children from France on a school trip.
What yesterday’s rapid and effective response has shown is that the Metropolitan Police, the fire service, the ambulance service and the staff of both Houses have been well prepared for such a terrible event.
Yesterday was a shocking day for everyone who works within the Palace of Westminster, but what has shone through is the support and care that Members and staff showed for each other. I would like to thank all noble Lords for their patience and co-operation as events unfolded. All of us join together to extend our heartfelt sympathy to those who have tragically lost their lives, those who have been injured, and to their families. The thoughts of the whole country will be with them.
I am sure that all noble Lords will also want to join me in expressing our admiration and gratitude to the police and the security staff who selflessly put our safety before their own each and every day, especially those injured during yesterday’s devastating events. It is a reminder to us all of the risks they take in order to protect us and members of the public. In particular, our thoughts are with the family and friends of PC Keith Palmer. We will never forget his bravery and sacrifice.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the Leader of the House’s comments. After the numerous meetings we had yesterday, I also thank her for the personal leadership that she has shown. I also thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for leading us in Prayers today. I think all of us feel the need to join in collective recognition of what London and our country have faced.
Last night as we returned home we were very grateful—not just because of the shocking and tragic events of the day but simply because we could return home and others would never do so. As the noble Baroness said, those injured and killed on Westminster Bridge were visitors and locals of our great global city. They were just going about their everyday business and enjoying their day. For many of the survivors, life will never be the same.
Each and every day, our police and security staff come to work not knowing what challenges and risks they may face. We all hope for the best—but their training, experience and commitment prepares them for the worst. They never know when they will be called upon to protect the public and those who work in the Palace of Westminster—and, indeed, protect the very home of our parliamentary democracy and all that it represents.
In doing so, police officer Keith Palmer lost his life. Every instinct he had was to protect others. There are no words that can do justice to the sense of loss felt by his family and friends, and by everybody across the Palace of Westminster—his parliamentary family.
In the Statement that follows we can perhaps look forwards to some of the wider issues, but now our thoughts are only for those affected in any way yesterday. It is hard to express the level of gratitude and appreciation due to all of those involved in the security and care operation. We pay tribute to the police, the medical and ambulance services, those staff at St Thomas’ who ran out to help those on Westminster Bridge, the fire and rescue service, our own Westminster security staff, and all staff and members of the public who sought to support those affected by these truly shocking events. In the worst of circumstances, they have given their best.
Lives have been lost and some lives will never be the same. Friends and families will share the pain and distress, as do we.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition. From these Benches, our thoughts and prayers are also with the families of those who lost their lives yesterday and our profound sympathies are with the innocent victims—members of the public who were on Westminster Bridge and also subject to this senseless attack.
I of course also pay tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life yesterday—an extremely brave man—and to all the police and security staff who do so much every day to protect all who come to Parliament to work or visit. I also pay tribute to all those from the emergency services who attended the scene yesterday and who worked with such bravery and professionalism. In particular, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester and others, I thank those who helped Members of your Lordships’ House who are disabled and who needed particular help in being taken to a place of safety. Finally, I thank the Dean of Westminster Abbey and his staff, who opened their doors as a place of sanctuary to MPs, Peers and staff.
This morning we stand together against those who want to diminish our democratic freedoms. We are an open, tolerant country and we will never let those who spread terror and fear win—and we will not let them divide us.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, has reminded us, many of us were taken to the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey or to Westminster Hall as events unfolded yesterday afternoon. The Dean of Westminster invited those in the Abbey to join him in a prayer for the deceased, the injured and their families. Such information as we had at that stage gave us little idea of the enormity of what had happened—of the horror and brutality of the attack—until we saw the reality later on television. We on these Benches join with everyone else in this House in expressing our deepest sympathy to the family of PC Keith Palmer, so tragically taken from us as he sought to deter the attacker.
We remember, too, the families and friends of the members of the public who were killed and all those who were injured, including the students from France whose visit to our city was so devastated by what happened. The fact that the incident did not develop into something very much worse owes much to the teams of security personnel and police officers who guard us every day. Like others, I pay tribute to their courage and dedication as we seek to follow their example of standing firm against attacks of this kind, from wherever they may come. I pay tribute, too, to others in the security services up and down the country who work so hard in the service of this country’s peace and security. For that, amid so much sadness, we must all be grateful.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I associate myself with the thanks and tributes paid today, and especially our prayers and thoughts for PC Keith Palmer and for his family. I also acknowledge the work of so many members of the public who pitched in and did what they needed to do when faced with things for which they had never been trained or prepared. Yesterday afternoon one of our own security staff at Lambeth Palace, a Muslim, arrived at the gate having been very narrowly missed by the vehicle and having spent time helping those who had been injured. It was typical of this community and this country that he refused to go home until the end of his shift and simply spent the time doing his job as he expected.
This was typical of so many in this city, including the emergency services who contained the incident within six minutes and the staff at this extraordinary place who give so much of themselves on both normal occasions and extraordinary occasions. Especially in our hearts today are those who wait at bedsides, who are suddenly caught up in things for which they could never have been prepared and which they never expected. Our prayers continue for them on this day. Much shock has been expressed, but we know from the reactions we saw yesterday that we have the strength to persevere through it. We will talk more generally about that later.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, perhaps I may add my condolences to those already expressed today to those affected by these tragic events. A book of condolence has been placed in the Royal Gallery and in Westminster Hall. The usual channels have agreed to take the Statement on yesterday’s events before Questions. Before that Statement I reassure the House that the House of Lords Commission, which I chair, and our Commons counterpart will be reviewing with the police and other stakeholders the arrangements in Parliament relating to yesterday’s incident to see whether there are any lessons for the future. Above all, I reiterate the thanks of this House to those who work to protect us, and the others who work in Parliament, for their brave actions yesterday to keep us safe.
London Attacks
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, yesterday an act of terrorism tried to silence our democracy. But today we meet as normal, as generations have done before us and as future generations will continue to do, to deliver a simple message: we are not afraid. Our resolve will never waiver in the face of terrorism and we meet here, in the oldest of all Parliaments, because we know that democracy and the values it entails will always prevail. Those values—free speech, liberty, human rights and the rule of law—are embodied here in this place but are shared by free people around the world.
A terrorist came to the place where people of all nationalities and cultures gather together to celebrate what it means to be free, and he took out his rage indiscriminately against innocent men, women and children. This was an attack on free people everywhere, and on behalf of the British people I would like to thank our friends and allies around the world who have made it clear that they stand with us at this time.
What happened on the streets of Westminster yesterday afternoon sickened us all. While there is an ongoing police investigation, the House will understand that there are limits to what I can say. But having been updated by police and security officials, let me set out what at this stage I can tell the House.
At approximately 2.40 pm yesterday, a single attacker drove his vehicle at speed into innocent pedestrians who were crossing Westminster Bridge, killing two people and injuring around 40 more. In addition to 12 Britons admitted to hospital, we know that the victims include three French children, two Romanians, four South Koreans, one German, one Pole, one Irish, one Chinese, one Italian, one American and two Greeks, and we are in close contact with the Governments of the countries of all those affected. The injured also included three police officers who were returning from an event to recognise their bravery. Two of those three remain in a serious condition.
The attacker then left the vehicle and approached a police officer at Carriage Gates, attacking that officer with a large knife before he was shot dead by an armed police officer. Tragically, as the House will know, 48 year-old PC Keith Palmer was killed. PC Palmer had devoted his life to the service of his country. He had been a member of the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command for 15 years, and a soldier in the Royal Artillery before that. He was a husband and a father, killed doing a job he loved. He was every inch a hero and his actions will never be forgotten. I know the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to his family, and to the families and friends of all those who have been killed or injured in yesterday’s awful attacks. I know also that the House will wish to thank all those who acted with such speed and professionalism yesterday to secure this place and ensure we are able to meet, as we are doing, today.
At 7.30 pm last night, I chaired a meeting of the Government’s emergency committee, COBRA, and will have further meetings and briefings with security officials later today. The threat level to the UK has been set at “severe”, meaning an attack is highly likely, for some time. This is the second-highest threat level. The highest level, “critical”, means there is specific intelligence that an attack is imminent. As there is no such intelligence, the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre has decided that the threat level will not change in light of yesterday’s attack.
The whole country will want to know who was responsible for this atrocity and the measures we are taking to strengthen our security, including here at Westminster. A full counterterrorism investigation is already under way. Hundreds of our police and security officers have been working through the night to establish everything possible about this attack, including its preparation, motivation and whether there were any associates involved in its planning. While there remain limits on what I can say at this stage, I can confirm that overnight the police searched six addresses and made eight arrests in Birmingham and London.
It is still believed that this attacker acted alone, and the police have no reason to believe there are imminent further attacks on the public. His identity is known to the police and MI5, and when operational considerations allow he will be publicly identified. What I can confirm is that the man was British-born and that some years ago he was once investigated in relation to concerns about violent extremism. He was a peripheral figure. The case is historic, and he was not part of the current intelligence picture. There was no prior intelligence of his intent or of the plot. Intensive investigations continue.
As acting Deputy Commissioner Rowley confirmed last night, our working assumption is that the attacker was inspired by Islamist ideology. We know the threat from Islamist terrorism is very real, but while the public should remain utterly vigilant, they should not, and will not, be cowed by this threat. As acting Deputy Commissioner Rowley has made clear, we are stepping up policing to protect communities across the country and to reassure the public. As a precautionary measure, this will mean increasing the number of patrols in cities across the country with more police and more armed police on the streets.
Since June 2013 our police, security and intelligence agencies have successfully disrupted 13 separate terrorist plots in Britain. Following the 2015 strategic defence and security review, we protected the police budgets for counterterrorism and committed to increase cross-government spending on counterterrorism by 30% in real terms over the course of this Parliament. Over the next five years, we will invest an extra £2.5 billion in building our global security and intelligence network, employing over 1,900 additional staff at MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and more than doubling our global network of counterterrorism experts working with priority countries across Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia.
In terms of security here in Westminster, we should be clear first of all that an attacker attempted to break into Parliament and was shot dead within 20 yards of the gates. If his intention was to gain access to this building, we should be clear that he did not succeed. The police heroically did their job. As is routine, the police, together with the House authorities, are reviewing the security of the parliamentary estate, co-ordinating with the Cabinet Office, which has responsibility for the security measures in place around the government secure zone. All of us in this House have a responsibility for the safety and security of our staff, and advice is available to Members who need it.
Yesterday we saw the worst of humanity, but we will remember the best. We will remember the extraordinary efforts to save the life of PC Keith Palmer, including those by my honourable friend the Member for Bournemouth East.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
And we will remember the exceptional bravery of our police, security and emergency services who once again ran towards the danger even as they encouraged others to move the other way. On behalf of the whole country, I want to pay tribute to them for the work they have been doing to reassure the public, treat the injured and bring security back to the streets of our capital city. That they have lost one of their own in yesterday’s attack only makes their calmness and professionalism all the more remarkable.
A lot has been said since terror struck London yesterday. Much more will be said in the coming days, but the greatest response lies not in the words of politicians but in the everyday actions of ordinary people, for beyond these walls today, in scenes repeated in towns and cities across the country, millions of people are going about their days and getting on with their lives. The streets are as busy as ever. The offices are full. The coffee shops and cafes are bustling. As I speak, millions will be boarding trains and aeroplanes to travel to London and see for themselves the greatest city on earth. It is in these actions, millions of acts of normality, that we find the best response to terrorism, a response that denies our enemies their victory, that refuses to let them win, that shows we will never give in, a response driven by that same spirit that drove a husband and father to put himself between us and our attacker, and to pay the ultimate price, a response that says to the men and women who propagate this hate and evil: you will not defeat us. Let this be the message from this House and this nation today: our values will prevail. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating today’s Statement. I understand that some of the words at the beginning of my previous comments were lost, so I will just repeat them. The noble Baroness and I had a number of meetings yesterday until quite late in the evening, and I add my personal thanks to her and pay tribute to the leadership she has shown.
The Prime Minister, in her words last night and as we have heard today, has I believe spoken for the nation. Yesterday showed us the best and the worst of society, the worst being those who seek to maim and murder. Yesterday’s atrocities can never be justified by any belief or cause. But we also saw the best, as the noble Baroness has said. We have paid tribute to Police Officer Keith Palmer, who was killed as he protected others. I hope we will be able to have a permanent memorial in the Palace of Westminster to him. Many others from inside this great building and across Westminster ran towards trouble to care for and give comfort to others. That is the London I know.
The full facts may not be clear for some time, but it is clear that this was a vile attack both on innocent individuals and on the institution and symbol of parliamentary democracy. As we receive more information, I have no doubt that security will be reviewed and assessed. That is right. Those who work here in the Palace of Westminster and in London and beyond, and those who seek to protect Parliament, public institutions and the public, should expect nothing less. We must do all we can to ensure the security and safety of our Members of Parliament and their staff. It is less than a year ago that I stood here after Jo Cox, our Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, was murdered as she worked for her constituents. In seeking to protect lives, we must also seek to protect our way of life, our values and our democracy. At this stage I ask only that the noble Baroness keeps Parliament informed and engaged in this process.
Yesterday’s attack, as truly shocking as it was, ultimately failed—but at a very high price. Our determination to continue our work and our way of life is not false heroism, but based on sound values and responsibility. It is only possible because of the courage, commitment and professionalism of those such as Police Officer Keith Palmer who stand day in, day out in front of danger and evil to protect us all.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement. The horrific events of yesterday were an attack not just on Parliament but on democracy. It was an attack on the values that are represented by this building and recognised across the world: freedom, openness, tolerance, human rights, mutual respect for our neighbours and the rule of law.
No doubt there will be lessons that we can learn from the events of yesterday, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the person who carried out this horrific attack was, as the noble Baroness said, prevented from entering the building and was stopped a matter of yards within its precincts. The security arrangements in place for such an attack swung into action, for which we thank our security staff and of course PC Keith Palmer in particular.
I hope that, as we move forward from yesterday’s events, we maintain the sense that Parliament is an open place which the public can visit to lobby parliamentarians and to see our democratic processes in action. But we must listen to the individual experiences of Members and staff to determine where improvements can be made.
I welcome the statement by the Lord Speaker that the House of Lords Commission will be considering these matters next week. No doubt individual Members will have views of their own. I, for example, would like us to look again at the long-standing proposals to pedestrianise some of the streets around this place. However, there are many other sensible suggestions that we need to look at tomorrow.
I have only one question for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House. We do not know at this stage the extent to which this particular incident was entirely home-grown, but we do know that terrorism is an international business. I hope she can give the House an assurance that as we move forward in the months and years ahead, the Government will do everything they can to ensure that our strong and growing security links with our closest neighbours across Europe are maintained and strengthened.
I hope that today, as we condemn this senseless violence, that condemnation will be expressed by both faith and secular communities across the country, for the greatest tribute we can give to those who have lost their lives is to come together as a country and uphold our way of life and democracy.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, it is not the usual custom for the Convener of the Cross Benches to respond to a Statement of this kind, but this is a very special occasion. I pay my own thanks to the Leader for repeating the Statement in the other place by the Prime Minister.
There are lessons to be learned from yesterday, and they certainly will be. One of the things that struck me as the evening wore on was the challenge faced by the security forces, police and staff—indeed, the doorkeepers in this Chamber—in moving so many people about without risk to themselves. It was an enormous undertaking. I do not have the exact figures but something like 800 people were in Westminster Hall, while it was said that 2,500 people were present in Westminster Abbey. You have to imagine the process of moving people from place to place. They included children who were kept in Westminster Hall, who kept themselves and many other people happy by singing songs, which was a remarkable achievement by their teachers. That is just one of the examples of the good-natured way in which people responded to the demands of the evening.
I pay my own tribute to the doorkeepers, because we depend upon them. It was stressed in a recent rehearsal for something similar to this incident that we would be subject to the direction of the doorkeepers and, with their usual tact and firmness, they made sure that we were in the right place at the right time and guided to the places where we ought to be taken.
As I said at the end of my short statement, there are things to be thankful for, and there are certainly things we can learn from. Thank goodness the incident was not worse than it was. Just imagine the real horror if the person had broken into the Chambers with his knife. It is for that, the fact that the incident was stopped so early, that we owe so much to PC Palmer and his colleagues.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I add a welcome from these Benches to the Statement by the Prime Minister, which, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, rightly set the tone and spoke for this country. I also convey to the House the messages of sympathy and support that I have received through the night from faith leaders around the world and across this country who want this House and Parliament, particularly its staff and those who have suffered, to know how much those people are in their hearts and minds.
With regard to values, I want to refer to something that seems to me to go deeper, to something that is at the foundation of our own understanding of what our society is about, and I want to do so in three simple, brief pictures. The first is of a vehicle being driven across Westminster Bridge by someone who had a perverted, nihilistic and despairing view of objectives, and of what society and indeed life are about, that could be fulfilled only by death and destruction. The second is of that same person a few minutes later, on a stretcher or on the ground being treated by the very people whom he had sought to kill. The third is of these two Houses, where profound, bitter, angry disagreement is dealt with not with violence, despair or cruelty but with discussion, reason and calmness.
Those three pictures point us to deep values within our society—deeper even than those that have rightly been mentioned in the Prime Minister’s Statement and other statements. You would expect to hear this from these Benches, but it is the sense that comes from a narrative that has been within our society for almost 2,000 years. It speaks at this time of year, as we look forward to Holy Week and Easter, of a God who stands with the suffering and brings justice, and whose resurrection has given to believer and unbeliever the sense that where we do what is right—where we behave properly, where that generosity and extraordinary sense of duty that leads people to treat a terrorist is shown, where the bravery of someone such as PC Keith Palmer is demonstrated—there is a victory for what is right and good over what is evil, despairing and bad. That was shown yesterday; that is shown not just in our expression of values but in our practices, which define those values; and that is the mood that we must show in future.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, the noble and learned Lord and the most reverend Primate for their comments. I also thank the noble Baroness and the Opposition Chief Whip for their help and support yesterday. It showed that we can all work as a team in times of great distress and difficulty.
I am sure that the noble Baroness’s suggestion of a permanent memorial to PC Palmer will be something that the Houses reflect on in due course as we come together to think about our reaction to these tragic events. I also confirm that we will of course keep Parliament updated of developments as and when we are able to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, rightly raised the experiences of Members of this House, the public and the other place yesterday. I reiterate the words of the Lord Speaker: we will be assessing with the police and other partners what happens and how we can improve things, but I echo all of our thanks to the police, the doorkeepers and all members of staff, who had as traumatic a day as we did yesterday but helped us throughout and put us first, as ever.
I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Newby, that we will continue to work closely with our international partners to combat terrorism. The warm and strong words we have already heard from our partners around the globe show the strength of the relationships we have and will continue to have.
Finally, I thank the most reverend Primate for his powerful words. There is nothing I can add to them, so I will leave the last word to him.
Education: Nursery and Early Years
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what estimate they have made of the level of annual funding required for nursery and early years provision, in order to ensure quality of service.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we will be investing an additional £1 billion per year in the free early years entitlement by 2019-20, including over £300 million per year to raise hourly average funding rates. Our record level of investment was based on our review of childcare costs, which was described by the National Audit Office as thorough and wide-ranging. More children than ever now benefit from high-quality early education: 93% of settings are now rated good or outstanding.
Lord Storey (LD)
I am very grateful for the Minister’s reply. He may know that UK and international research shows that high-quality early years education, led by a graduate teacher, is one of the most decisive interventions for tackling poor preschool attainment and has the biggest impact on children, particularly those from deprived communities. What are the Government doing to make this a reality?
Lord Nash
The noble Lord is extremely accurate in this, and I know he has great experience in this area from his career in the primary school sector. Of course the early years workforce is the sector’s greatest asset in ensuring that we continue to maintain such a high standard, with 93% of providers rated good or outstanding, in the future. The proportion of staff in group-based providers with a level 6 qualification, degree level or higher, is 10%; and 79% of staff in group-based providers and 69% of child minders have at least a level 3 qualification. Earlier this month we published the workforce strategy, which outlines a range of activities to help employers attract, retain and develop high-quality staff.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that, and I am pleased that he mentioned the development of staff in his reply. I wonder if he could be more precise. Surely he will agree with me that the quality of service in education of any kind depends on the quality of the staff. Can he say something further about the notion of the qualified status of nursery school teachers and what the Government are doing to develop it?
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
Will the resources that the Government make available cover the particular requirements and needs of those with special needs?
Lord Nash
Yes. Our recently published workforce strategy sets out how we will support staff to offer good-quality provision for children with SEND. We are funding a range of training and development opportunities in this regard, working with organisations that specialise in SEND. We have a new targeted £12.5 million disability access fund and a requirement for local authorities to set up a local inclusion fund to support providers for better outcomes for children with SEND.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to look at research into high-quality preschool experience combined with adult education for children who fail later in life? Will he look at the Midwinter experiment in Liverpool, which did so much many years ago to demonstrate that the most important investment is high-quality nursery education combined with help for parents who sometimes have difficulty themselves in helping their children unless there is high-quality adult education for them?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right in her remarks. We all appreciate that helping children at an early age, particularly those who have a difficult home life, is absolutely essential. The payback on that for both those children and our society is massive. I certainly would be delighted to look at the research to which she refers, and I would be happy to discuss it with her because I know that she has experience in relation to this.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the early years sector is very diverse in relation to types of governance. We have the state-funded sector, private settings, and not-for-profit and voluntary settings. Can the Minister ensure that the money to employ qualified early years teachers is easily available to all kinds of settings?
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend have confidence in the inspection arrangements that exist for these sectors of education and in the part that they can play in helping to raise standards?
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, leaving aside the tragic demise of the Sure Start local programmes, can the Minister comment on how we can implement better the report by Sense, the organisation for deafblind men, women and children, which was published last year, in terms of early years settings and the training not just of professional staff but of volunteers, which is absolutely crucial in ensuring that those with the severest disabilities have the best possible start in life?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, if the Government really are serious about social mobility, then children’s first four years is where they should be concentrating—and doing so relentlessly. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, early years teachers are crucial to the development and effectiveness of childcare. In the workforce strategy, launched earlier this month and to which the Minister referred earlier, the Early Years Minister, Caroline Dinenage, said that if we are to prepare “the best” for our children,
“in their earliest and most formative years, we must … value”,
and train adequate staff to ensure their development. That is fine—that is as it should be—but the Family and Childcare Trust recently reported that one in 10 nursery workers do not receive the national minimum wage. Will the Minister work with Ms Dinenage and other Ministers to ensure that all childcare workers are properly and fairly paid and that public, taxpayers’ money does not go to employers that are breaking the law?
Young Carers
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hussein-Ece
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in ensuring that children and young people who care for family members are identified and supported.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, we introduced changes to the Children and Families Act 2014 to ensure that local authorities identify needs and assess and support young carers. We have considered recently published research and are exploring policy avenues to help local authorities, schools and professionals to improve young carers’ identification and support. We will be setting out our vision and future plans in the cross-government carers strategy, led by the Department of Health, to be published later this year.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
I think the Minister for that response. Is he aware of any more accurate figures of the sheer numbers of children and young people who care for family members with disabilities and those with mental disabilities? Barnardo’s has estimated that it is somewhere in the region of 200,000, possibly more. Can he say whether, in the strategy that will be published, health professionals will be trained to identify children who are carers? Can he also say what is being done about 16 to 18 year-olds who are twice as likely as their peer group to not be in employment or education? What support will they get to reach their full potential?
Lord Nash
My Lords, we have supported various programmes in this regard, such as the Suffolk Family Carers programme, to raise awareness of young carers among teachers and other staff. We have focused on embedding a whole family approach to this issue and have trained school nurses to be champions for young carers. As I say, we will set out further proposals in the carers strategy. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness: although we collect some data centrally, we need to work harder to collect data and identify young carers wherever they are.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, I know the Minister will agree with me that there is deep concern when you meet young carers that some of them do not want the teachers to tell children’s services about them in case that leads to care proceedings. Will the Minister assure the House that in the new strategy everything will be done to tell and reassure young carers that the state services are there to support them, not to add to the burden that they carry?
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, would it not be a good idea for young carers to be given a statement setting out the support mechanisms that would be put in place to support them and their families?
Lord Nash
Again, I make the point that the first step is to identify them. The Children and Families Act now places an obligation on local authorities to assess their needs and support them, where they request it. However, we need to do more to identify them in the first place.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord’s department that some young carers do not identify themselves with the words “caring” or “carer” if they care for a disabled parent. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has confirmed this. They undertake this caring as a matter of course and have done so all their lives. They need to be identified but they may not know the word “carer”.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Dying Matters. Do the Government accept the figure that approximately 10% of schoolchildren are bereaved, a third of those of a parent or sibling, and that many of them have cared for that person during their final illness and, after death, often provide care and support for the other bereaved members of the family? Will the whole House join me in expressing the most sincere condolences to the two children who were bereaved because their mother was killed yesterday on Westminster Bridge?
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, do general practitioners as a matter of course annotate their records where there is a child carer looking after a patient?
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner recently reported that four out of five young carers were not receiving support from their local authority and that not enough local authorities take steps to identify children in their area who may be providing care. Too often, it seems that funding under the Care Act is used for assessment purposes rather than providing support and activities that would allow young carers to enjoy some aspects of the childhood that every child surely should have. Will the Minister say what steps the Government are taking to ensure that young carers receive appropriate assessment and support, no matter where they live, through inspection and other forms of monitoring?
Lord Nash
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We welcome the Children’s Commissioner’s report. We have just concluded our analysis of its findings and are considering what more we can do. We know that many local authorities are making great progress in their data analysis and capabilities but, as the noble Lord says, there is more for us to do. We are considering that in the light of the Children’s Commissioner’s report.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that psychiatric nurses treating patients are very careful? Often they have responsibility for doing what is best for the parent in a case of severe and distressing mental illness, but sometimes no one looks to the needs of the child, who may be in a home with a parent in an extremely distressing state. Surely there should be somebody there to protect the child from what can be a rather frightening and very paranoid parent.
Lord Nash
As I am sure the noble Baroness knows, we are working with the Department of Health to commission a major countrywide thematic review of children and adolescent mental health. We will bring forward a new Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health, and I shall certainly feed the noble Baroness’s comments into that thinking.
Premium Bonds
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their policy on encouraging further premium bond sales.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare an interest as a bond holder—one among 21 million.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, premium bonds are a popular savings product. They date back to 1956 and were introduced by Harold Macmillan, the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day. They provide a way for government to raise debt financing through the retail savings market. Depending on the Government’s financing requirement, NS&I promotes sales through its website, through direct correspondence with customers, through media coverage and through advertising.
Lord Lee of Trafford
My Lords, is it not time, after 60 years, to look again at the rules and aims of premiums bonds? Specifically, why cannot clubs, societies and charities own premium bonds? Could not those who win, say, £25 but do not wish to receive that prize have it designated and directed to a national charity by ticking a box? More radically, could we not think about reconstructing and converting premium bonds into something perhaps rather more popular, such as national care bonds? I think that would generate much greater public support, particularly if the unclaimed prizes were hypothecated to the care sector.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, that is for a debate, not a Question. I am not a fan of hypothecation. The Government raise premium bonds to fund government expenditure, as I have explained, and obviously there is nothing to stop anybody giving their tax-free winnings to charity as they see fit. We do not have any plans to introduce a direct transfer to charities, which would require stakeholder consultation and a systems change. The product is a good part of the portfolio of savings products that we have and, as I said, it is very popular.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, would not more people buy premium bonds if there were not such a miserably low rate of interest?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
We try to make sure that premium bonds are a reasonable deal in the market for savings. The noble Lord will probably know that we delayed reducing the rates on premium bonds until quite recently. They continue to be popular, and it makes sense to look at them in the round, aiming for a balance for savers and taxpayers, as well as stability in the sector, obviously, in which they have a role as part of NS&I’s work.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, will the Government consider giving pensioners who are eligible for the winter fuel payment the option of electing to receive premium bonds instead of a cash payment, thereby helping to meet the Government’s funding requirement and reducing the cash call on government?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That is another innovative idea for premium bonds. I will certainly think about it, but the basic point about premium bonds is that they have to be part of a portfolio of sensible savings, such as the investment bond that we are bringing in. That seems to me the right way to go. They are popular and successful, and they give people a bit of excitement, as well as easy access to saving, and there is a 100% Treasury guarantee.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, every statistician and financial adviser can establish that premium bonds are a pretty poor deal, and the Government are in the business of reducing the rate yet again, so the deal is not getting any better. What they are is a flutter but, as my horse will fall at the second fence in the Grand National in the fairly near future, I am not going to argue against gambling at this point.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I think we can agree on the excitement, but there is also a more serious point underlying this. When you are choosing how to save, you need to look at a number of options, which we have debated here in this House, including having a pension through the auto-enrolment system and taking advantage of other savings products such as ISAs and so on. I see premium bonds as a very important part of the savings market. And I am so glad that the noble Lord likes to have a flutter.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I exclude my noble friend Lord Lee from this but many people who purchase premium bonds also have an adverse amount of credit card debt or personal loans outstanding. They are attracted rather to the prize element of the premium bond. Would it be sensible to have on the website some advice to encourage people to think first about paying down their debts before they go for a low-interest savings product?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As I said, it is important that people have choice and look at a sensible way of saving. Having material on different websites is important but, in the round, we try to make sure that government advice gives people a sound sense of direction on savings, including what is good value for money. Again, I emphasise the point about pensions: investing in a pension is a very good form of saving.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, would my noble friend look at the rules, which, while respecting the importance of avoiding money laundering, make it extremely difficult for grandparents and others to gift premium bonds to young children? That would be a very useful way of encouraging saving.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to my noble friend. I will certainly look at the point without commitment.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Minister is old enough to qualify for the silly £10 a year Christmas bonus that most of the people in this Chamber will receive. Apparently it was introduced decades ago and if it had been updated with inflation it would now be worth £187 a year. Building on the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, why should that not be converted into savings rather than paid out, when many people do not know what it is about, why they are receiving it or what they do with it?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
The noble Lord highlights that there are many good pension benefits in this country. I take his point but this is a difficult area in which to make sudden changes.
East Africa: Famine
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assistance they are giving to those suffering from famine and acute food shortages in East Africa.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Disasters Emergency Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the scale of the humanitarian crises facing the world in 2017 is unprecedented. The UK is leading the way on the response, stepping up life-saving emergency assistance for those affected by food insecurity in east Africa, and calling on the international community to urgently step up its support before it is too late.
Baroness Hayman
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and for the work that his department is doing. The humanitarian crisis in east Africa is, as the Minister said, of horrifying proportions, with 16 million people on the brink of starvation and cholera a growing threat. But lives are being saved as we speak thanks to the work of British humanitarian agencies on the ground in east Africa, funded by the £30 million that has been raised already in the DEC appeal. Will the Minister join me in acknowledging the generosity of the British public, who always respond very generously to appeals like this? The theme of the DEC appeal is “Don’t delay, donate”. Does the Minister agree that that is a message not only for individuals—who might think about their winter fuel payment, in fact—but for Governments? Will Her Majesty’s Government agree to continue to urge other nations to replicate the generosity that the UK has shown and to keep the UK contribution under review?
Lord Bates
I am very happy to do that. I also pay tribute to the work of the Disasters Emergency Committee in this instance. The immediate response to the crisis and the generosity of the British people in raising £20 million, which was then aid matched by DfID, is typical of the character of the British people, to which the most reverend Primate referred earlier, and their humanitarian concern for their neighbours. That commitment is there and is being built upon by the £100 million that has been announced for South Sudan and Somalia. We are keeping those numbers constantly under review because the situation is at crisis point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Will my noble friend look closely at the work that Nestlé and other multinational companies have been doing in countries such as South Africa? Will he inform the House of what we believe to be the underlying causes of the famine and whether we can use technical assistance from companies in this country to improve irrigation in east Africa to enable it to secure its crops against future droughts and floods?
Lord Bates
Certainly, part of the cause is the drought that is affecting many countries because of the record level of the El Niño effect in the region. However, overwhelmingly this is a man-made crisis; this is because of conflict. If it was not for the conflict we would be able to reach people in the same way we are able to reach people in Ethiopia and Kenya. It is the fighting and insecurity in South Sudan, Yemen, north-east Nigeria and Somalia that are causing the difficulty, and people are dying as a result. The fighting has to stop.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, the Disasters Emergency Committee has done a fantastic job over recent years in focusing the attention of the British public on particular crises as they happen. However, one of the knock-on effects of that focus can be to reduce the donations going to other humanitarian problems, in some cases happening nearby. North-east Nigeria, mentioned by the Minister, may be a case in point. It is not covered by this appeal but the situation there is desperate at the moment. Can we be reassured that the Government will do what they can in the international arena to ensure that the global community, while perhaps focusing for the moment on east Africa, do not forget the other humanitarian problems close by, and ensure a balanced approach over time to make sure that even more lives are saved?
Lord Bates
I can give that assurance; the noble Lord is absolutely right. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, will recognise, there is great thought and soul searching about whether to launch a second appeal on the back of Yemen so soon—normally there is a one a year. This reflects the fact that the situation is extraordinary. Stephen O’Brien referred to the situation in 2017 as being the greatest humanitarian challenge that the United Nations has ever faced. These are huge issues when Syria is included, and our response has to be there. There also has to be a recognition of the wider response needed in Nigeria.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the UN estimates that £4.5 billion is needed to address urgent needs, but only 2% of that is in the pipeline. The noble Lord mentioned the need to mobilise the international community. He also responded to my noble friend a few weeks ago about taking up the idea of working within the European Union. Surely the time is now for the G7, the G20 and the World Bank to convene an urgent financial summit. Will the Minister commit the Government to making that call?
Lord Bates
I have taken my opportunity to do so. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, for his excellent suggestion. I attended the EU Foreign Affairs Council for Development last week and made exactly those points and the plea. The Secretary of State also wrote to High Representative Mogherini on the same issue. Later today, the Foreign Secretary will be chairing the Security Council on this issue at about 8 pm GMT. That will be an opportunity to reinforce the need for the international community to do more—and do it quickly.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I commend the Government on their high-profile response to the famine in east Africa, which has helped to galvanise not just public support but support among the international community. DfID’s hunger safety net programme in Kenya provides small, regular cash transfers through secure biometric systems and has been shown to be very effective in reducing extreme hunger. Notwithstanding attacks from the Daily Mail, are there plans to extend this proven programme to other countries in east Africa—and if not, why not?
Lord Bates
Certainly this is a tool that has been used to get relief to the people who need it most, but often there is a scarcity of food supplies. To come back to insecurity, when there are terrorist organisations, conflicts and civil wars, sometimes just handing out cash to individuals fuels the conflict because the money finds its way to the terrorist organisations. We need to be extremely careful in these areas that we provide relief to those who need it and not resources to those who are causing the conflict.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Orders laid before the House on 6 and 20 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Electricity Supplier Payments (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Prior of Brampton
That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 20 and 8 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Collection of Fines etc. (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Keen of Elie
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 6, 9 and 27 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 23 February be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 21 March.
Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Homelessness Reduction Bill
Thursday 23rd March 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 View all Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 27 January 2017 - (27 Jan 2017)
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Order laid before the House on 9 February be approved.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the order that we are looking at today forms part of the UK’s transposition of the markets in financial instruments directive II. The directive is accompanied by the markets in financial instruments regulation. I will, if I may, refer to these collectively as MiFID II.
Before I turn to the specific changes made by the order, let me start by explaining the important context in which the changes are made. MiFID II is a key part of our post-financial-crisis regulatory reform. Agreed by the EU in 2014, it will have a significant role in strengthening the regulation and transparency of our financial and commodity markets. This means keeping pace with market developments and strengthening the protections available for investors. MiFID II applies from 3 January 2018 and member states are under an obligation to transpose the directive into national law by July 2017. That brings us to why we are here today.
In the UK, we are transposing MiFID II through legislation and regulators’ rules. Last month, we concluded our consultation on the legislative changes needed to do that. This order therefore makes amendments to the regulated activities order, which sets the regulatory perimeter for financial services in the UK, to give effect to MiFID II.
The order makes three key changes. First, it brings the new activities and investments introduced by MiFID II within the regulatory perimeter. This includes, for example, structured deposits which are sold or advised to clients, emissions allowances and organised trading facilities. In accordance with the regulated activities order, this will mean that performing a specified activity in relation to a specified investment is a regulated activity for the purposes of the Financial Services and Markets Act.
Secondly, the order classifies binary options as a type of financial instrument. This means that the regulation of binary options will move from the Gambling Commission, where they are currently regulated as bets, to the Financial Conduct Authority. An example would be betting a sum of money against the FTSE 100 rising by 50 points. This is an important change that will ensure that consumers receive at least equivalent protections to those that exist with similar financial instruments.
Thirdly, the order updates definitions, references and makes a number of minor amendments to allow MiFID II to operate within our domestic legislative framework. I will be happy to answer any questions that your Lordships may have on the detail of the order as far as I am able. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for failing to contact her yesterday and give her some indication of one or two of the anxieties that I had about the order, but I am afraid that the disruption that affected the Palace also affected my liaison. Consequently, I was not able to warn her of what is to come. Nevertheless, I am sure she will be able to answer the points I make with great facility, as she usually does, or, if not, perhaps she will write to me in due course on the issues which are not covered.
Of course, we support MiFID II and bringing it into our national law. It entrenches consumer protection. If we learnt one thing from the financial crash of 2008, it was the need to guarantee consumer protection in the most adverse circumstances. MiFID is a European response to that worldwide crisis, which affected our colleagues in Europe as it did us here in Britain. I appreciate the fact that the Minister has brought the instrument forward.
The consultation for the Government’s transposition plans revealed that, along with this order, two further statutory instruments were required in order to deliver MiFID II: the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Markets in Financial Instruments) Regulations and the data reporting services regulations. When can this House expect to scrutinise and debate those instruments? They are a crucial part of the package. As the Minister will appreciate, they have at least an indirect impact on the workings of the instrument in front of us today—I am thinking particularly of the extended regulatory provisions and their subsequent impact on the FCA and PRA. Given this, perhaps it would have been more helpful to debate all three instruments in the round, but we are making progress on this one first.
The public consultation on transposing MiFID closed in June 2015, nearly two years ago. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, when moving this order in the other place, stated that,
“last month we concluded our consultation on the legislation needed”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 14/3/17; col. 1.]
What were those discussions, who were they with and why did they last so long? Where are the documents on those proceedings, which, as far as I know, are not available to your Lordships’ House?
We of course support the supervision of binary options being transferred from the Gambling Commission to the Financial Conduct Authority. We agree that they are financial instruments and as such the FCA is clearly better placed to regulate their use. When does the Minister expect the FCA to produce its guidance, particularly about how it intends to protect potentially vulnerable consumers? The Minister will clearly appreciate that consumers need full disclosure about the product they are purchasing and we need the greatest clarity. Related to this, the consultation document says:
“Ahead of the legislation coming into force, the Government will consider whether consequential amendments to the Gambling Act 2005 are necessary in order to support the transfer of the regulation of relevant binary options from the Gambling Commission”.
I was somewhat involved in the Gambling Act. The experience does not rate enormously highly on the list of my joys in speaking in this House and introducing legislation, so I am very glad to see that the Government are taking a very different view in this instance.
The consultation document goes on to say that further consideration will be given to the fee arrangements for firms that hold a Gambling Commission licence and to the implications of these legislative amendments for the relevant tax framework. Again, I do not expect an immediate, full answer today—perhaps I will get one—but I hope we will get an indication as to the progress that is to be made. Can the Minister say where the Government are on these issues, given that they are not included in the order? I am sure that firms will be grateful for clarification as to where they will stand when this legislation comes into force.
I feel particularly guilty about dropping my last question on the Minister at this point, but she has enormous support and great experience and she will handle it readily. I would have given her notice had I not been so disrupted by events yesterday. An issue was raised in the Explanatory Memorandum which accompanies this order. It says:
“The Treasury is working closely with representatives from local government and the FCA in order to mitigate the possible effect on local government’s participation in financial markets”.
Yet we have not been able to find anywhere in the impact assessment or the consultation document what the Government expect those effects to be. Is the Minister in a position to outline the key monetised and non-monetised issues involved in the transposition of MiFID II for local government in this country? What discussions have taken place between local government representatives and the Treasury?
My final point relates to costings. The estimated annual net cost to business has been calculated at £105.2 million, while the impact assessment states that the direct impact on business will be £148.5 million. Can the Minister clarify the disparity between these two figures?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for offering to accept a written response to some of his detailed points. We were all disrupted yesterday; it was an extraordinary day. My officials have had a great deal of difficulty advising me because nobody without a parliamentary pass is now allowed into the building. That makes it somewhat difficult for me to answer all his questions. I will do my best and will then follow up, copying the reply to anybody else who has an interest in the issues.
I very much agree with the noble Lord that these changes enhance consumer protection. We have to transpose vital parts of the post-financial crisis legislation into UK law and, indeed, until exit negotiations conclude we have an obligation to do so: we need to move ahead.
The noble Lord asked about the transposition of MiFID II in the round. As he said, in February we concluded our consultation on the legislation needed to transpose the instruments and there will be three statutory instruments. One is the order we are discussing today. As I explained, that applies from 3 January and we are under an obligation to transpose it into law by July, which I understand is very important in terms of people making preparations.
Of the other two statutory instruments, one transposes relevant requirements on the provision of data reporting services and the second transposes a wide range of other MiFID II requirements. For example, in accordance with MiFID II, it creates a position limits regime and imposes obligations on certain persons engaging in algorithmic trading. Regulators have also been consulting on the proposed rules to transpose MiFID II, one or two of which the noble Lord mentioned. I will obviously take away the point he made about consultation and debate on those issues.
I was glad to have the noble Lord’s support on the changes on options and I will look carefully at what he asked about the Gambling Act. However, there is a fair amount of agreement that it is right to bring that into the curtilage of the FCA. I am afraid that I do not have a reply on local government and I will ensure that I respond properly in my forthcoming letter.
It seems to be agreed that these are important reforms to ensure that our financial system is transparent and resilient. This is important to the City of London and other financial service operators right across the UK, which actually provide more employment outside London than in London. The changes form part of the wider regulatory reforms since the financial crisis to ensure the efficient functioning of our financial markets. I hope that we have learnt lessons from the past; this legislation puts those into practice by ensuring that our financial markets are effective and stable. There has been a fair degree of consultation. The noble Lord knows that I always value that, but I will ensure that his specific questions are answered and if necessary, we can have a further word about that.
Lord Davies of Oldham
Let me say how much I appreciate the Minister’s response. She will know that we are enthusiastic about the developments contained in the MiFID position. I was therefore not in any way being critical of the Government, merely seeking to elucidate things further. I am grateful for her response.
Crown Estate Transfer Scheme 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That the draft Scheme laid before the House on 1 March be approved.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, this instrument seeks to ensure that it is Scottish citizens who benefit from the revenues raised from the wholly-owned assets of the Crown Estate in Scotland. That was a specific recommendation made by the Smith commission agreement in its report on the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. We have worked closely with stakeholders to make sure that we are ready to implement it, and to transfer the management of the Scottish assets efficiently. The draft scheme has been agreed with the Scottish Government.
Allow me to clarify two important aspects of the provisions in this scheme: first, the nature of the change and, secondly, the important protections it incorporates. Under this draft scheme, all rights and liabilities connected to managing these Scottish assets will be transferred to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). Revenues will henceforth go to the Scottish Consolidated Fund and the commissioners currently managing these assets will have no further role in doing so. Assets will, however, continue to be managed on behalf of the Crown and maintained as an “estate in land”, which ensures that any sale receipts must be reinvested. This is in accordance with the Scotland Act 1998.
I should also be clear that the assets include both rural and urban holdings, and mineral and salmon fishing rights. This includes an area that incorporates around half of the coastal foreshore and almost all of the sea bed, covering all the Crown Estate’s activities up to the 200 nautical miles limit. Your Lordships will recall the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, during debate on the Scotland Bill to ensure devolution of aspects of the management of the Scottish assets to the island authorities. As my noble friend Lord Dunlop said at the time, we believe that the devolution of management responsibilities will be quicker, simpler and come with fewer practical difficulties if the UK Government devolve these responsibilities in a single transfer to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). This is what the transfer scheme delivers.
A consultation is now under way by the Scottish Government to consider the long-term management of the Scottish assets. The Government will make a Written Ministerial Statement to Parliament six months after the transfer of the assets. This Statement will outline the progress that the Scottish Government have made on the onward devolution of these assets.
I now turn to the second point, the important protections set out in this instrument. One of the key considerations is that this scheme ensures the continued safety of citizens across the UK by ensuring that the transfer is not detrimental to defence or national security. The Scottish assets are key to delivering strategic capabilities for the defence and security of the whole of the UK. It is prudent to ensure that there are powers which the Secretary of State for Defence can exercise where there is an overriding public interest to do so. These powers will enable the UK Government to protect all of their citizens both now and in the future. It also protects other UK-wide interests, such as maintaining a consistent approach to telecommunications throughout the UK and keeping pipeline rental increases at market value so as not to hold back our oil and gas industry.
Lastly, the draft scheme protects the rights of existing members of staff as they transfer to Crown Estate Scotland (Interim Management). Provisions are in place to cover dismissal, contract variation and pensions. They will ensure that the arrangements for transferred staff will be no less favourable than those that they currently enjoy.
We are now in a position to make this transfer of powers to Scotland smoothly on 1 April 2017. I beg to move.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her usual eloquence in explaining the transfer scheme. However, I ask her for help on a number of matters in relation to the scheme. I should say that I am not in any way wanting to object to the devolution contained in the Scotland Act 2016, of which this forms a part and which was the statutory embodiment of the Smith commission agreement of November 2014. I emphatically feel, however, that where these precious assets are concerned, we must be very careful to go no further than the Smith commission agreement, especially in relation to their status.
The framework document between the Treasury and the Crown Estate puts the status of these assets well. It is,
“a trust estate, independent of government and the Monarch”.
These assets are not therefore available for political uses. The first issue I will ask the Minister about is that of the onwards devolution which she spoke about a moment ago. Paragraph 33 of the Smith commission agreement saw this onward devolution going to named local authorities and to other authorities that ask. We debated this at length. As the Minister pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, made a ministerial undertaking in respect of the report six months after the transfer. In making the commitment, he also said that the UK Government would continue to press the Scottish Government on this issue. Can the Minister can update us on what progress has been made on that issue?
The Crown Estate is governed by the Crown Estate Act 1961, which sets out the duties and powers of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the general environment under which the assets are held. In her remarks, the Minister went some way towards this, but can she confirm that these provisions remain fully in force, now and in the future, over the Scottish assets that are transferring and the only real change is in the people and institutions who will be involved in the management of those assets?
The Treasury and the Crown Estate have a framework document, which I have already referred to. It is four pages of common sense in plain English. It contains two further important phrases:
“The Crown Estate ... is not an instrument of government policy”,
and, when referring to ministerial direction:
“A direction may be given only within The Crown Estate’s statutory duties”.
Can the Minister tell us whether a similar framework document is ready for 1 April in Scotland, given its importance in underlining the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners and providing clarity?
Lastly, I turn to the Scottish Government’s Crown Estate consultation document. The noble Baroness referred to the consultation, which started in January and finishes on 29 March. The document is 70 pages and contains, early on, a “Way forward” statement which says:
“The Scottish Ministers intend to introduce legislation which puts in place a new legislative framework for management of Crown Estate assets in Scotland”—
then, the part I emphasise—
“that ensures … alignment with Scottish policy objectives”.
Later on, it says:
“After the transfer, the Scottish Parliament will have the power to legislate on the new framework for managing Crown Estate assets in Scotland”.
Then there is the part that I would emphasise:
“This will include the ability to depart from the Crown Estate Act 1961”.
Could the Minister comment on those two assertions as well?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister indicated, I moved an amendment on Report, and possibly also in Committee, on the Scotland Bill, which the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has already referred to. The Minister has already answered one of the questions I was going to ask, which was whether it was still government policy to have a statement after six months. I am delighted to hear that it is, and we look forward to the statement.
The noble Earl has asked the second question, which is a request for a bit of colour and flavour to the commitment made by the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, when he was replying to the debate on my amendment and said that the Government would continue to press the Scottish Government to deliver what was promised to the island communities and other communities in the Smith agreement: some detail as to what the Government have been doing to “hold the feet of the Scottish Government to the fire” on this matter, which I think were the words used during the debate. This is a welcome first step in fulfilling the intention of the Smith commission and we hope that onward devolution will become a reality sooner rather than later.
Lord Adonis (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am sorry to add to the questions that have been posed to the Minister, but could she tell the House a bit more about the relationship between the income from the Crown Estate that is being devolved to Scotland and the sovereign grant? Under the Sovereign Grant Act, a substantial proportion of profits from the Crown Estate go to fund the monarchy, and that proportion is rising significantly with the arrangement that the Government have entered into for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace. The agreement in respect of the Crown Estate profits in England is for 25% to be used that way. Will a similar share of the profits from the Crown Estate in Scotland be allocated to the sovereign grant from the profits of the Scottish Crown Estate under this arrangement? If not, are the Scots making any contribution to the monarchy at all?
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, I have no wish to pile Pelion upon Ossa, because the Labour Opposition of course fully endorse this instrument. It would be surprising if we did not, as after all we were closely associated with the development of the Smith commission. We are very much in favour of devolution of income tax to Scotland and of course see the benefits to the Scots of them being able to obtain financial advantage form the Crown Estate in Scotland, so I am very much on the Minister’s side. She has been asked some interesting questions, which I am sure she will answer in a moment or two. I have only one, very general question, which was asked by a colleague in the other place, to which I think we have had no indication of an answer subsequently. On the question of resolving disputes between the UK and Scottish Governments, there has been a substantive change since the publication of the original draft seen by Parliament in October 2015.
Will the Minister say a little about the negotiations with Scottish Ministers, particularly as the process seemed to involve the resolving of disputes through determination by independent experts? We do not know who those experts might be, nor do we know how they will be chosen. That seems a very important point, to which the Minister should address herself in the context of this instrument.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am grateful to so many noble Lords for taking an interest in this important order. Again, I apologise for not being able to answer every question due to the difficulties that our officials have had getting into our House, which I fear may be a problem for a day or two.
I think there is general agreement on the usefulness and timeliness of this order, which follows on from the Smith report and many hours of constructive debate in this House. It was good to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, express his general satisfaction. I will agree to check on the latest position relating to the conversations that my noble friend Lord Dunlop has had with the Scottish Government, and write to noble Lords with an interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has asked me quite a detailed question about exactly how finances work. I would prefer to take advice and write to him with a proper answer on that.
Lord Adonis
The Minister says my question was detailed, but in fact is it not a quite fundamental one? One-quarter of the profits of the Crown Estate in England are going to fund the monarchy. Under this arrangement, are one-quarter of the profits of the Crown Estate in Scotland going to fund the monarchy or not? If not, is the inference to be drawn that it is only the English who will be funding the monarchy henceforth?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
In the absence of expert advice, I would rather write to the noble Lord and engage if the need arises.
Lord Adonis
I am very sorry to detain the House but, given how important a point of principle this is, if the House is not even aware of what the situation is, is it reasonable for us to agree to the order today with no knowledge at all of how the funding of the monarchy is going to continue henceforth?
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
If I may, I will answer the other questions that have been raised, and we will see if we can get an answer for the noble Lord.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, asked a number of questions following on from the debates in this House at an earlier stage. Devolution, as he knows and as I have said already, is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine. The Scottish Government are currently consulting on the long-term management arrangements.
On the question of whether Scottish Ministers will adopt the Treasury Crown Estate framework, particularly regarding the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners, Scottish Ministers will make their own arrangements for the oversight of Crown Estate Scotland interim management, consistent with the Scotland Act and the Smith commission agreement. The Crown Estate commissioners will not be involved in the management of Scottish assets once they are transferred. This will have no impact on the independence of the Crown Estate commissioners, who will continue to manage Crown Estate assets in the rest of the UK.
The Scotland Act 2016 will enable the Scottish Parliament to legislate for the management of Scottish assets. Section 1 of the Crown Estate Act will not apply since this makes provision for the giving of directions by UK government Ministers to the Crown Estate commissioners. Scottish Ministers are currently consulting on the long-term management arrangements, as I have already said. On the management of assets, the ownership will remain with the Crown.
To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, we will ensure fiscal neutrality by making a block grant adjustment, ensuring that the Scots do not profit from the transfer.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked me about the process for resolving disputes between the UK and Scottish Governments and how independent experts will be chosen. In the current draft of the scheme, we have ensured that dispute resolution processes will be carried out by an independent person. Where there is a dispute about market value, an appropriate independent person with specialist expertise will be appointed by agreement between the interested parties, or between Treasury and Scottish Government Ministers, as the case may be, and in the event that agreement cannot be reached, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors can be asked to nominate an appropriate person instead.
This is an important transfer of powers to the devolved Administrations. We want the administration to be seamless and to take effect, as I said, from 1 April.
The Earl of Kinnoull
I am not sure I have quite had an answer on the simple issue of whether the assets can now become political footballs: whether the Crown Estate Act absolutely applies, or whether the Scottish Government can depart from the Act or order the managers of the Crown Estate assets in Scotland to ensure alignment with Scottish policy objectives. Those are critical points—certainly for me.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Those points were considered. The order before us today reflects what was agreed during the passage of the Bill. We have consulted and come forward with these arrangements. I have reassured the House that the Scottish block grant will be adjusted to take them into account, so the Scottish Government will not be getting extra funding from the UK and Scottish taxpayers will continue to contribute to the sovereign grant. It is paid out of the Consolidated Fund, to which all taxpayers contribute and is calculated with reference to the Crown Estate revenue, but not paid directly out of it.
EU Membership: UK Science
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Earl of Selborne
That this House takes note of the report from the Science and Technology Committee A Time for Boldness: EU Membership and UK Science after the Referendum (1st Report, HL Paper 85).
The Earl of Selborne (Con)
The report A Time for Boldness, which is the subject of this debate, is a follow-up to the April report of the Science and Technology Committee on EU Membership and UK Science, which explored the principal links between EU membership and the effectiveness of United Kingdom science. I first thank our committee clerk Anna Murphy, our policy analyst Daniel Rathbone and our specialist adviser Professor Graeme Reid, who once more gave valuable help to the committee.
Our previous report noted that a large majority of the UK science community highly valued European Union membership, but with some important qualifications. They particularly valued the ease with which talented scientists could move between member states, thereby enhancing scientific collaboration, the advantages—in most cases but not all—of harmonised regulations and the ability to access substantial funding.
In the light of the referendum result, the core question we resolved to address in this follow-up report was what actions are needed to ensure that United Kingdom science continues to flourish as the United Kingdom negotiates its exit from the European Union and thereafter plays an ever stronger role in delivering international competitiveness for the United Kingdom, as well as further progress to enhancing our quality of life.
The Government have recognised the key role that science, technology and innovation must play. The White Paper on exiting the EU has a chapter entitled “Ensuring the UK remains the best place for science and innovation”. It highlights the funding commitments made in the Autumn Statement and the Green Paper published in January on a new industrial strategy which seeks to,
“put the UK and British companies at the forefront of innovation by developing the products and services that address the challenges of the future”.
The Green Paper stresses our dependence in future on becoming a more innovative economy and on the need to do more to commercialise our world-leading science to drive growth across the United Kingdom.
While our report predates both the White Paper on exiting the European Union and the Green Paper on a new industrial strategy, it can be seen as a contribution to addressing the agenda of these policy papers. Our report considers the following issues: the future funding of science and the need for scientists to continue to move between borders; the Government’s role in providing research infrastructure; and the potential opportunities offered by and after Brexit.
First, on funding issues from 2007 to 2013 the United Kingdom received €8.8 billion for research development and innovation from the European Union, while contributing about €5.4 billion to the European Union for research. So we were net beneficiaries in that respect. The Government gave welcome assurances that it would underwrite approved Horizon 2020 projects funding with new money, in addition to the science funding already committed for the period to 2021. Even more welcome in November, the Prime Minister announced a real-terms increase in government investment, with £2 billion a year by 2020 for research and development,
“to help put post-Brexit Britain at the cutting edge of science”,
and technology discovery. This money will be challenged through a national productivity investment fund and a new industrial strategy fund. This was an encouraging response to the implications of Brexit but the new money promised by the Government should not be seen as a replacement for European Union funding after the United Kingdom has left the EU. The EU funding should be replaced with new money.
There remain reports about discrimination against UK researchers post the Brexit vote in seeking EU funding and collaboration. Both the Minister, Jo Johnson, and the EU Commissioner have urged scientists to provide hard evidence. In paragraph 39 we suggest that for the sake of transparency, any evidence received of discrimination, together with an assessment on whether the concerns have been adequately addressed, should be published in “anonymised aggregate form”.
The White Paper states that researchers should continue to bid for competitive EU research funding such as Horizon 2020 while the UK remains a member of the EU, and that existing EU students and those starting courses in 2016-17 and 2017-18 will continue to be eligible for student loans and home fee status for the duration of their courses.
Once negotiations on the terms of our leaving the EU start, it will be highly desirable at an early stage to secure longer-term assurances both for European Union students in the United Kingdom and for British students in EU member states. In order better to refute any perception that we are less welcoming than before to students and researchers we recommend in the report that the Government should maintain the Chevening scholarships and create additional scholarships for the most talented career researchers at PhD and post-doctoral levels, expand the global challenges fund and the Newton fund and make additional resources available for international research collaboration.
In paragraph 69 we recommended that the Government initiate a search for “outstanding scientific leaders” from around the globe and attract them to the United Kingdom with compelling offers of research funding. It was therefore highly gratifying to hear in the Budget Statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that £100 million is to be used to attract best minds to the UK over the next four years to make us a world leader in science and engineering. I congratulate the Government on this welcome initiative.
I turn to the free movement of scientists. The committee’s report is one of many to draw attention to the idiocy of not treating student numbers separately for immigration purposes. Can the Minister say whether the Government will seek to reverse the amendment made in this House to the Higher Education and Research Bill last week, which would remove students from the immigration figures? The Government’s response to the committee says that the calculation of net migration statistics is in line with best practice around the world. I would refute that—it simply is not the case, as has so often been stated in this House.
The title of the report, A Time for Boldness, refers in particular to our recommendation in paragraph 76 that we identify opportunities for bold long-term moves to reinforce the UK’s global standing in science. This could include hosting, in partnership with Governments and funding bodies from other countries, one or more new international research facilities, subject of course to a rigorous review and appraisal of value for money. We already host six pan-European research infrastructures in the UK, about whose long-term future the Russell group expressed some concern in its evidence to us. We also host such major research stations as the European Space Agency and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, in his intervention today will speak on the need to ensure that the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts is retained in this country, although its data centre will be moved to Italy. I would very much support that.
The Committee recommended that the voice of the scientific community should be heard alongside the voice of business during the Brexit negotiations and in making future alliances. We need science at the centre of the negotiations. We urged the Government to assess in the short term the need for a chief scientific adviser in the Department for International Trade, bearing in mind the scale of scientific analysis that underpins the international trade regulations which will be required for trade negotiations. The Government’s response said that the Department for International Trade is considering the case for appointing a chief scientific adviser. Can the Minister tell the House of any progress in this respect?
Lastly, I turn to such opportunities as might be offered for science after Brexit, in spite of the very obvious challenges. The Science and Technology Committee is currently taking evidence on the Green Paper, Building our Industrial Strategy. As I said earlier, this Green Paper gives encouraging priority to investing in science, research and innovation and recognises that our future ability to attract inward investment will depend heavily on the quality of our science base. The Green Paper furthermore says that the United Kingdom is fortunate to be a nation of science and technical progress. I would put it more strongly: without excellence in science, research and innovation, our prospects would be dire. We need to invest wisely and more generously in our science base to match the funding of our competitors, build on excellence, reform our public procurement to support innovative businesses, and expand the scale and scope of the research and development tax credit to cover a wider span of business innovation. Could Brexit be the catalyst that leads to continuity of policies for science, technology and innovation for more than just a few years at a time? I beg to move.
Lord Winston (Lab)
I first thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his extraordinarily good chairmanship of the Select Committee; I remember very well from when I was a member of that Select Committee some time ago his wisdom in leading our inquiries and debates. In response to the excellent report that the Select Committee has produced, the Government state that,
“a global Britain must … be a country that looks to the future. That means being one of the best places in the world for science and innovation”.
It also goes on to assert:
“The Government made a series of announcements on EU research and innovation … to provide assurance and certainty to stakeholders”.
But the Government’s response to the recommendations to distinguish immigration statistics and student entries is, I am afraid, totally inadequate. Moreover, it gives no reassurance at all to the backbone of British science, the post-doctoral fellow—the first stage in a scientist’s career when he or she is working independently, supervising students, publishing key scientific advances and making innovations. Often these post-docs are underpaid and naturally insecure, because they are really only good for as long as their grant income lasts, and they have a constant problem with that. The added insecurity under which they are now placed is a very serious threat to them indeed. I repeat: they are undoubtedly the backbone of British science.
In a powerful speech yesterday, Alice Gast, president of one of the country’s leading scientific universities, Imperial College, pointed out the need for the Government to resolve the uncertainties that they have created and to demonstrate practically our continued welcome to this important science research force and not to use this research force as a tool for negotiation. I agree with that completely. She also pointed out in her speech the richness of the collaboration that universities in this country have with the EU—I can testify to that in my statement.
I understand some of the evidence that the Select Committee received, but not all of it. It suggests that there had not been a downturn yet in EU doctoral students and postgraduates applying to work in the UK, but I do not find this evidence convincing. In many respects it is far too flawed. It is, in any case, far too soon after the referendum to make a judgment on the longer-term prospects. From our practical experience in our labs—for example at Imperial College, in my research building, which houses up to, I suppose, 100 scientists—we are hearing of many students who are increasingly reluctant to come to Britain to train and work here because of this longer-term insecurity. As we have been saying to the Home Office for years—particularly as the Science and Technology Select Committee has been saying—we need to have much better records from the Home Office of those entering the UK for study, exactly what they are studying and how they are contributing to our universities. But, yet again, I am afraid that the Government’s response to what is a basic and important request has been totally inadequate.
I have worked in reproductive medicine; it may seem a trivial area, but it is not just about in vitro fertilisation and infertile couples, this research is important to human growth and development, the ageing process, regenerative medicine and stem cell biology, and genetic disease—there are some 6,500 gene defects that cause serious diseases, many of which are a result of thousands of different mutations. This research also involves cancer treatments, because how the early cell reacts, how you see apoptosis—cell death—and how you regulate cell growth is of vital importance in cancer research. Most importantly of course, reproductive medicine is important in public health, because of the epigenetic and environmental influences that affect all medicine. In my view—though as a reproductive biologist I would say this, wouldn’t I?—reproductive biology is the very foundation of biological science.
At the height of my laboratory’s international impact, we had scientists and doctors from France, Spain, Germany, Holland, Portugal, Belgium, Poland, Italy, Scandinavia and the Republic of Ireland, as well as from some eastern bloc countries. It is not an idle boast to say that we trained most of the Greek scientists here in Britain, at Hammersmith hospital at Imperial College. They are still in practice and their research is now starting to lead our research, as is happening generally across Europe.
Regrettably, the work that is going on in Belgium, and sometimes in France, has in my view a higher impact than the work we are doing in Britain. In a typical academic year, we might have once had some 15 global languages spoken in the laboratory, mostly European, of course, and usually 10 to 20 EU nationals working on research and clinical translation of research. Now things are beginning to look very different and the number of EU nationals in our laboratories has undoubtedly decreased. For example, we now need a new chair in reproductive medicine at Imperial College. We have been looking for a long time for this chair but we cannot find a single British candidate who is up to the standard that we need. The best chance we have of finding such a person is to look to Europe, but I do not think we will find a professor in Europe who will be prepared to come here, given the uncertainty I have mentioned. We cannot find sufficiently well-qualified candidates from Britain. The situation does not look at all hopeful. We need more people from the EU to apply. In excluding post-doctoral fellows who have received the best training and then refusing their access to continued research in the UK we are, I am afraid, further bruising UK science. They go elsewhere and become eventually not our collaborators but our competitors. We need to consider the effect that immigration policy is having, and will increasingly have, on British science.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, for his wise leadership of the committee, and I thank fellow committee members for their tolerance of my interventions. The advice we received and the support that we had from the team as well as the evidence that we received from the inquiry was all very helpful for the report. As the noble Earl pointed out, science and research are central to the economic future of this country. Its importance was recognised in the industrial strategy paper and I welcome the opportunity to debate it today.
As our chairman pointed out, a preceding report in April set out the challenges and some of the reasons why Brexit would be a problem for British science. The role of this report is to set out how we can address the challenge of Brexit and make it work for this country. The word “boldness” in the report’s title is an appropriate injunction. For that we have to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, for persuading us to adopt such stridency.
There is certainly complexity around this issue. There is Brexit, of course, but also the industrial strategy, as previously mentioned, and the Higher Education and Research Bill, to name but two elements of that. There are a lot of moving pieces. However, it is important not to let these moving pieces divert us from the scale of the task that we should undertake. The enormity of that is set out in the report. Therefore, I shall try to simplify my remarks around the themes of people, money and co-operation.
People are the cornerstone of science in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, set out very spiritedly, and the present situation is not good in that regard. The report is clear that,
“the Government should send repeated signals to the global science community that the UK remains”,
an exciting place for talented scientists. This patently has not been done as regards the response to immigration. People who are vital to our research and our scientific future are already making decisions. Some are leaving. Others are deciding not to come in the first place, and many more are mulling their options very seriously. I know scientists in this country who are confused, uncertain and hurt by the reaction they have confronted. Therefore the decision not to unilaterally offer the right to remain in this country to EU and EFTA scientists, and to include them in immigration figures, is idiotic, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, put it. It hangs over science a bit like a foul smell in a fume cupboard and has a bad influence on our way forward.
The report is right: we need to continue to pursue schemes that attract people to this country, such as the Chevening scholarships, the Erasmus scheme and others. Far more ambitiously, we need to step out with the front foot and search for some of the world’s leaders in science. But how can that happen when the overall message is, “You are foreigners; you are alien”? Does the Minister agree with the approach to attract world leaders in science? If he does, why are the Government not working harder to make the leading scientists who we already have in this country feel more welcome?
My next theme is money. The noble Earl set out the huge amount of money that is at stake. Underwriting the approved Horizon 2020 funding was a good, reasonable first step and the Government should be commended for that. However, time moves on and the next programme is already being considered. We need to understand where we are going on that. The report raises those concerns. In today’s Times Higher Education, a leading German academic pointed out that the current confusion makes it very difficult to understand whether the United Kingdom will be part of the EU’s multibillion research funding system. How do the Government view our position within the funding system as regards Horizon 2020 and the other schemes? If they are not planning to be part of that system, what is the plan? Will all the money from which we benefit be replaced from somewhere else in the United Kingdom?
The additional funding set out in the Autumn Statement was welcome. Can the Minister confirm that this is additional funding and not the first down payment to replace money that we are going to lose? If the Minister could confirm that, it would be helpful. I also note that the first tranche of the industrial strategy challenge fund money—£270 million—was allocated to three important technology areas. However, I wonder whether the cart has not been put before the horse a little in that the industrial strategy itself is still just in the form of a consultative Green Paper and something of a twinkle in the Minister’s and the Government’s eye, and yet money has already been pitched into it. I hope that the Minister will explain how, without an industrial strategy, they plan to focus the industrial strategy challenge fund.
The report is strong on the need for continued and enhanced co-operation. I am sure that no one in this House would disagree with that. However, we have a very good example of where existing co-operation is already being threatened, which sends out a bad message. I am sure that other noble Lords will have their own examples, but that message and the speed with which we are dealing with the Euratom issue throws the future of Culham into full and stark relief. In the context of seeking future co-operation, will the Minister explain how we are going to deal with the current co-operation issues vis-à-vis this very important institute? More importantly, would he tell the House what is the position of the scientists at Culham today? What is their future and how will it be mapped out as we go through the disengagement process?
The report rightly calls for boldness. Boldness requires bravery on the part of the Government in unilaterally assuring EU and EFTA scientists that they have a place here as long as they want to stay, in stating how the European funding of British science will be managed in future, and in admitting that we are sending out the wrong signals through our handling of the Euratom issue, and changing the way we deal with it. I ask the Minister to see the report as a call for action to achieve the best ends. At the risk of sounding like the title of a South American soap opera, I urge him to be bold and brave.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and his committee on an excellent and timely report. As the noble Earl hinted, I intend to speak about the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts—ECMWF—as an example of how co-operation with other European countries and hosting European science centres bring great benefit to the UK. I seek reassurance from the Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just done, that in spite of Brexit, we as a nation remain committed to hosting such institutions. The Minister of State for Science and Universities said in his evidence to the Select Committee:
“We are already host to a number of important research facilities and we are continuing to develop our networks … We continue to analyse all the opportunities to make more such commitments when they present good value for money”.
The ECMWF was established in 1975 in the UK after an international competition to host a new European institution. It is an intergovernmental institution independent of the European Union. Today it has 22 member states and 12 co-operating states from Europe. Its budget is around £85 million a year, half of which comes from member states and the other half from competitively won research and service contracts. It employs around 300 people located in Reading.
The role of the ECMWF is to advance the science of weather prediction and provide operational weather predictions, out to two weeks ahead, to the national meteorological services of its member states and other weather service providers. It was created to have facilities, such as a supercomputer, that one nation alone could not provide. The ECMWF quickly established itself as the world leader—a position it still holds today, recognised by all in the field. Its forecasting skill is the best in the world. It has become a magnet for atmospheric scientists worldwide to come to the UK to discuss and develop the science of weather, atmospheric pollution and climate projection. It works closely with the Met Office and the two together are seen internationally as a powerful scientific axis in the field of weather and climate. The ECMWF’s supercomputer is the largest in the world devoted to weather science and prediction.
The ECMWF’s accommodation at Shinfield Park in Reading was fully provided by the UK Government as part of the deal to locate it in the UK. But its success and growth mean that it has outgrown the site in Reading both in terms of office space and the computer centre. The governing body—the ECMWF Council—decided that the priority was to rehouse the data centre. As the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, has already said, on 1 March this year, the council made a provisional decision to relocate the data centre to Italy, with the final decision, after contract negotiations, coming in June.
The United Kingdom was not even second in the race to house the new data centre: Finland was the runner-up, with no third choice. Although the United Kingdom Government identified at least three possible sites in the UK for the data centre—near the University of Reading; at Harwell; and in Exeter near the Met Office—the financial input offered by the Government to provide the new facility was derisory and of a different order of magnitude from the Italian offer. I ask the Minister why the UK decided not to mount a competitive bid to house the one of the largest supercomputing facilities in the world for weather and climate. Why is something that was so attractive in 1975 no longer attractive in 2017?
Although it is clearly not ideal to have the computer in a different country from the scientists, it is workable from a purely technical point of view. So why is this a bad outcome for the UK? First, while we have housed the data centre, other countries have been investing in our infrastructure and engineering capacity; in other words, we get leverage. Secondly, this computing capacity enables us to be the hub of a global telecommunications network. Thirdly, it has given us technical know-how and experience in procurement, which has been valuable in the Met Office’s procurement of its new Cray supercomputer. Fourthly, it has been of benefit to the ECMWF to have the computer co-located with the scientists so that they can code in the most efficient way to get the most from the machine. But perhaps most worrying of all, in the longer run, the loss of the data centre from the UK may be a prelude to the loss of the ECMWF itself, if the UK is signalling, by its lack of willingness to invest, a lack of interest in the centre.
There could have been a good news story here for the UK. We could have demonstrated at the time of Brexit that the UK was still committed to collaboration with our European partners, whether in the EU or not. But by letting the ECMWF data centre go from the UK, the Government have given exactly the opposite message. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond by clarifying the Government’s position on the ECMWF and its data centre—either now or perhaps later in writing. I end by paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: to lose one centre may be regarded as misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness.
Viscount Ridley (Con)
My Lords, like others, I commend my noble friend—indeed, my noble kinsman—Lord Selborne for his very skilful chairing of this report. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I thank the other members of the committee for putting up with my strange interventions from time to time.
I will focus on regulation and its impact on innovation; in particular, the first item of the Government’s response to our December report. The Government say in that response that, thanks to UK influence,
“the EU has changed its approach to regulation”,
and that,
“Brussels is now more focused on reducing burdens for businesses”,
and,
“recognises the need for innovation-friendly regulation”.
I am sorry to say that I disagree with this and I see few signs of it. On glyphosate and neonicotinoids, on GM crops and GM insects, on data mining and digital technology, on snus and vaping, on great crested newts and long-eared bats, on stem cells and gene editing, on biomass burning and diesel—on many, many matters—I see Britain losing opportunities to bring in safer, cleaner and greener innovations because of our interpretation of rules promulgated in Brussels. As a result, we are not just unhelpful but counterproductive and are making things—environmental problems, health problems and economic competitiveness —worse. We are overzealous in applying the precautionary principle so as to effectively outlaw safer new innovations to the advantage of less safe existing technologies. We refuse to distinguish between hazard and risk, so that chemicals that are safer than coffee—even though they are never ingested, like coffee is—are banned. We are indecisive, slow, cumbersome and sometimes in hock to big companies and their desire to create barriers to entry.
I stress that I am not against regulation that makes the world safer, I am against regulation that makes the world more dangerous. My opposition is not ideological but pragmatic. I am calling for regulatory reform, not deregulation. For example, we are using more insecticides today in farming than we would have done if we had adopted genetically modified crops—that is undeniable given the evidence from the rest of the world about how BT crops have reduced the need for insecticides. Being in the EU, therefore, has been bad for bees and bad for birds.
The EU is about to make the same mistake, I fear, over the even safer and even more organic technology of gene editing. As Nature magazine put it in an editorial recently, the EU is,
“habitually paralysed whenever genetic modification is discussed. Two years ago the European Commission requested all member states to hold back on giving the all-clear on gene editing while it considered its options. Now its hand is being forced, ever so slowly, by the referral of the issue by France to the European Court of Justice … last October”.
A decision on that case is not expected before 2018, while America roars ahead with this technology. If this is innovation-friendly regulation, we can do better.
Then there is data analysis, where EU red tape is handing a competitive advantage to other continents. Lenard Koschwitz, director of European affairs with Allied for Startups, recently said that,
“post-Brexit Britain could draw data analytics start-ups. We currently see countries including China and Singapore doing away with barriers for text mining. Why not the UK also?”.
More generally, we should listen to the wise words of Sir John Bell, the Regius Professor of Medicine at Oxford University. Writing in the Financial Times last August, he said:
“Britain is more inclined towards a relatively liberal risk-based regulatory environment that allows fields to move quickly—to reflect on ethical issues but not to over-regulate. The EU, by contrast, has a record of deep regulatory conservatism, attempting to legislate and control many aspects of science that are not deemed here in the UK to present a significant danger”.
He concluded:
“A failure to implement sweeping changes to regulation and its institutions in the UK would be to miss an important opportunity. We need light touch regulation similar to Switzerland so that Britain can become a global leader in life sciences, data, genomics, regenerative medicine and other innovation-based fields”.
In the hearings for this report we heard similar responses in evidence. Dr Beth Thompson of the Wellcome Trust told us that,
“we are discussing where we might be able to tweak legislation or look for advantages for the UK”,
so,
“there is real potential that we can use the UK as almost a testbed to try new regulatory approaches and within a more robust framework be more experimental”.
Sir Michael Rawlins of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency said:
“We could be swifter than the EU. Right at the very end it is not the European Medicines Agency that gives marketing authorisation; it is the Commission en collège, and it takes 67 days on average. Someone I know very well in the pharmaceutical industry told me that each day of delay for a pharmaceutical marketing authorisation costs the company about $1 million. That is $67 million gone waiting for the Commission to decide to meet en collège”.
When we leave the EU we need an innovation principle, alongside a sensible version of the precautionary principle. It should state that all regulators must take into account whether the enforcement of a new rule would stifle innovation that could be beneficial. So in replying, I ask my noble friend to assure us that, in contrast to the message delivered by the response I quoted at the start of my remarks to our December report, he agrees this is a time for boldness, in regulatory reforms as well as in every other respect.
Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield (CB)
My Lords, I declare my membership of the Science and Technology Committee and add my tribute to the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I also declare my fellowship of the British Academy and my professorship of contemporary British history at Queen Mary, University of London.
When violence strikes, as it did yesterday, taking lives, injuring individuals and assaulting the central institution of our open society, it scarcely seems right, in the shadow of tragedy, to return to our disagreements over Brexit. Yet today we find ourselves on a significant patch of the post-referendum landscape, where I hope we can find more to fall in about than to fall out over. By this I mean the desirability—more than that, the powerful necessity—of our country remaining a world-class player in science, technology, the arts, humanities and social sciences; in short, the indispensability of continuing to think heavier than our weight in the world.
We may agree on this crucial shared purpose, but how best to sustain it—even to burnish it still further—in our new geopolitical circumstances, raises a host of questions, many of which are captured in the Select Committee report before us. Ours really is, as other members of the committee have said this afternoon, a time for boldness, not timidity, for building purposefully on past achievements and striving for an even greater national performance.
A powerful contributor to this cause will, I hope and think, be a knowledge of how we acquired our existing prowess—how it has been achieved over many decades. I am delighted to say that the British Academy, encouraged by your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, is working on precisely this, analysing the singular and, I have to admit, rather baffling mixed economy that supports the life of the mind in the United Kingdom. I look forward to the results of that study with keen anticipation. We each have a kind of idea of the key factors in our prowess, ranging from the admirable Haldane principle, which helps keep the state an indispensable sponsor but not an unwelcome, overdirecting intruder into the free play of independent inquiry, right through to the dual support system for our university research.
Critical, too, I am sure, to past and current success is the scope given in the UK universities to young researchers to question orthodoxies and to open up new lines of thought; in other words, to not defer to their seniors. Crucial to this is the free movement of talent, not least to and from the nations of the European Union. There can be no tariffs on the exchange of knowledge. Nor should there be post-Brexit any barriers to the free movement of scholars who carry these ideas. The most precious of all common markets has always been the common market of the mind.
In the unfolding cartography of Brexit, the avoidance of boundaries on the scientific, technological and scholarly fronts is therefore a first-order question. Both the Department for Exiting the European Union and the Department for International Trade will need bespoke chief scientists of polymathic gifts to patrol the new rimlands, providing early warning of both problems and possibilities ahead and helping to ensure that our requirements and existing prowess are safeguarded during the great repositioning to come. For the free trade of the mind, in both people and knowledge, is as critical to our fortunes as the free trade of goods and services. Our intellectual and economic well-being depend upon it. It is a question of both funding and spirit—of recognising the sense of urgency required—and it links the uncertainties of Brexit with the wider industrial strategy that Mrs May has striven to make such a shining badge of her premiership so far.
Of all the eight previous industrial strategies since the Second World War, science and technology has more prominence in this one—if last January’s Green Paper is a guide—than in any since the early 1960s, when Harold Wilson used the “white heat” of his wished-for technological revolution to illuminate his path to 10 Downing Street in the autumn of 1964 and his promulgation of Labour’s National Plan a year later. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Prior, for whom I have the greatest respect, could promise us a bespoke debate on this, the ninth industrial strategy of his and my lifetimes. I hope he will forgive me if I make plain to other noble Lords that he and I have been engaged in a rolling conversation about what the magic ingredients of the 2017 version might be that were lacking in the previous eight. He might like to give us a little hint of that when he winds up.
What I am sure of is that when economic historians in the 2050s look back on the anxious, neuralgic politico-economics of the early post-referendum period through which we are now living, they will notice just how much was riding on the UK’s science and technology—on Britain as a knowledge power. If we do not get this aspect of our national life right this time, those historians will not spare us, and nor will our people, whose current and future needs this Parliament exists to serve. We have here a consensus in the making. We should act on it—and seize the hour.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to take part in this important debate and particularly pleased to be a member of the Select Committee under the able chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. We are served by a strong team, and particularly by a specialist adviser whom we regard highly, who puts up with a great deal of trouble from some of us at times. He is truly an asset to us. I also draw attention to my relevant interests as outlined in the register, specifically that I am a chairman of the Royal Brompton & Harefield Trust and vice-chair of Council at King’s College London.
The committee’s report in April, ahead of the referendum, reflected the overwhelming balance of opinion we heard. The UK science community hugely valued the UK’s role and partnerships within the EU, was concerned about the loss of strategic influence—including positions of leadership in important areas of research—recognised the significant funding advantages enjoyed by the UK, the harmonised regulatory environment, access to research facilities, and the easy movement of talented individuals and teams.
It was right to return quickly post referendum to this subject—and no doubt we will do so again repeatedly. Indeed, I suspect that we would all argue that support for science—in its broadest definition—has become even more important since 23 June and will be vital to the success of a post-Brexit economy.
There are real concerns about future funding beyond the period of funding guaranteed by the Government. I do not doubt that government, particularly the Treasury and BEIS, understands the need to fund science and research, but the reality of the financial pressures piling up makes me extremely nervous. Scientists have heard the reassuring confirmations from the Government about funding in the near future, but collaborations take time to develop and, as we know, they can last for very many years. There is no certainty at the moment for that sort of period.
However, in my brief contribution I will focus on the area that most concerns me: attracting, growing, retaining, valuing talent—in other words, people. In the end, they are the most valuable resource. International funding follows brilliant people, and they in turn create strong teams and attract more funding and talent. It is a sort of circle of excellence.
Throughout our hearings for the April and December reports, we heard repeatedly from academia and from business—from start-ups to large companies—that attracting talented, highly skilled people was top of their collective agenda. I am aware of, and was pleased to read about in the industrial strategy Green Paper, the drive for technical education, whether through new post-16 qualifications or apprenticeships. This reskilling and upskilling of our population both at school and throughout life is essential to harness opportunities now and particularly in the future as it becomes, presumably, more difficult to attract workers from overseas and as jobs change fundamentally and require new skills. The report from the Digital Skills Select Committee, before the referendum, highlighted the priority that should be given to improving digital skills at all levels in our population and the need to enhance these skills throughout life, but digital is only a small part of the STEM story.
However, I am anxious that there is still a lack of proper “joined-upness” across government on all this. In particular, I am somewhat anxious about the involvement of the DfE in a coherent approach to STEM. One example is maths. Last year I chaired a commission looking at how to strengthen STEM teaching and outcomes for students in Haringey. Among a range of recommendations around attracting strong teachers, getting STEM into primary schools, creating new partnerships with the independent schools sector and greater specialisation post 16, we looked in particular at maths in schools. We were told very clearly by employers and economists—from Sir Roger Carr at BAE Systems through to very small local start-ups and local health employers—that they all were looking for a similar thing in young people. They were looking for strong basics, confidence and the ability to work in teams and to think and question—in other words, rounded, bright individuals—but they also all emphasised the importance of confidence around numbers, at whatever level these young people left formal education. That meant, they argued, that students should continue with maths for as long as possible to develop capability and confidence, whether or not it was to lead to a further qualification.
However, we found that there was a widespread under-the-radar approach, whereby only students with an A at GCSE were being allowed to take maths in sixth forms. This is obviously the negative effect of blunt accountability—I confess that I speak with history on accountability—where head teachers are anxious about their students not getting a high enough grade at A-level, affecting what is out there in the public realm, and so are not allowing them to take maths post 16, coupled with difficult finances in schools. The Institute of Physics, among others, said that it was aware of, and concerned about, this approach. It thought it was wrong and limited participants in higher-level STEM studies across the piece. Limiting students who take up maths to only those who get the top A-level grades goes against the stated government intention of increasing STEM skills at all levels. I hope very much that the maths review headed by Professor Sir Adrian Smith makes clear recommendations around this issue, and in particular I hope that the DfE recognises its responsibility to sort this out.
When our Select Committee heard from Sir Mark Walport this week about UKRI, we asked about the promotion of STEM in schools. His reply gave little comfort that his team had any links with the DfE. He said that it would produce a “narrative” about why STEM is important. That is not to criticise Sir Mark but, rather, to emphasise the need to understand the whole picture of education and training rather than segment it according to government department. But of course the attraction of highly skilled individuals to university, post-doc and beyond, and to industry is crucial. We know that the intertwining of universities and industry is fundamental to the UK’s future success and in particular to less favoured, non-golden-triangle regions and sub-regions of the UK. The industrial strategy Green Paper is pretty weak on the attraction and development of high-level skills and I hope that it will be strengthened post consultation.
We know that EU students make up about 5% of the UK university population, with non-EU international students making up about l4%, the figure being particularly high in the postgraduate sector, but in leading research universities the proportions are much higher. I know that at King’s College London, for example, across the student body over 14% are from the EU and a further 22% are from countries outside the EU. Among academics, 28% are from EU/EEA countries. I have been involved in interview processes already where candidates are hesitant about either staying here or, in particular, moving here from another EU country, and even people outside the EU are now affected by the general uncertainty.
At the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Foundation Trust, I have had a look at the relevant figures. The starkest figures are that 52% of nurses and 20% of doctors are EU nationals, and in cardiology the figure rises to over 26.5%. The reason that that matters is obvious: the Royal Brompton and Harefield trust, like other highly regarded specialist trusts, is important both to the delivery of healthcare and to the standing of the UK. It delivers top-end, innovative treatment, and it works with its academic partner, Imperial College, to push the boundaries in respiratory and cardiac medicine. That needs bright and highly capable people. The UK needs such places and such people as beacons post Brexit.
However, when I talk to colleagues at the hospitals and at King’s College, they report insecurity, nervousness and instability. That is hugely damaging for teams that rely on each other to deliver results in research and treatment. Such reactions are not surprising. To be blunt, at its best, they are getting mixed messages from government and throughout the media. The cacophony is confusing: positive one day and negative another, depending on the Minister, the department and the press reaction. They read distressing personal stories about long-standing residents of the UK being ejected, and they wonder what that means for them.
The Government say that it is important to attract the brightest and the best but then say that they collect statistics on students so that local authority services can be planned. That really does not wash. We already know that existing visa arrangements for non-EU students and highly skilled employees from non-EU countries are cumbersome and at best unfriendly. I have talked personally to many post-doctoral students moving away from the UK. In other words, as we heard very elegantly from my noble friend Lord Winston, we train them and then we lose them, and these are our new trading partners of the future. It is crazy.
It seems to me that the real problem is this: people are not run by algorithms—even scientists. They are not 100% rational. They have emotional reactions and are affected by stories and rumours and by someone saying something unpleasant on the train, in the supermarket or outside the school gate. They wonder whether their families will really be welcome here and whether they should take the risk of coming to the UK or of seeking their next post or promotion here. Should they limit the risk by seeking their next job in France or Germany instead of living with a level of insecurity? Crucially, they are asking whether the UK is the place they had understood it to be. There should be no more mixed messages and justifications, and no more concerns about Daily Mail reactions. This needs to be sorted out for our economic future but also for our collective values as a country. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, I am not a member of the Science and Technology Select Committee but I have read its report with great interest—it provides a forward-looking sequel to the earlier report of July 2016. I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and the committee on the production of an excellent report and I welcome its conclusions. I should perhaps declare my interests as an emeritus professor at the University of Liverpool and as chair of Moredun Research Institute in Edinburgh.
I want to make a few brief points, some of which have been alluded to already. The first is about the international nature of our science and technology, on which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, spoke passionately. That internationalism undoubtedly contributes to the quality of UK science. In my own field of veterinary science, in the latest global rankings of quality, the QS World University Rankings, of the top five veterinary schools in the world, three are in the UK—a fact of which I am very proud. In our veterinary schools in the UK, nearly a quarter of our academic staff are non-UK EU nationals and they make a vital contribution to our academic discourse in teaching, in clinical teaching and research, and in bench research. It is essential that we retain such people for the future.
Especially in the smaller disciplines, the critical mass which so often fertilises and nurtures new ideas and innovation can be achieved only by interinstitutional and international contact, collaboration and exchange. That is why continuing participation in EU framework programmes, the latest of which is Horizon 2020, is so important. Yes, the research funding is valuable and UK scientists have been incredibly successful in winning EU research grants, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, mentioned in his opening remarks—but it is the collaborations that are intrinsic to those EU research grants that are so important.
I will mention a particular EU networking programme that I do not think was referred to in the report: namely, the European Cooperation in Science and Technology—COST—programmes. I have been a participant in a number of these. Funds are awarded specifically to support networks of scientists, funding meetings and laboratory exchanges and so forth on defined topics. They do not fund actual research, so the value of the awards is relatively modest: between about €100,000 and €150,000. However, as a catalyst for multicentric research co-operation, they give a big bang for the buck. I hope that the Government can ensure in the forthcoming negotiations that the UK will continue to participate in the EU COST programmes. Will the Minister give the House that assurance? If we are not able so to do, I urge the Government to find the relatively modest budget from our future science budget to set up a UK-led equivalent scheme, which could be globally inclusive and would be real testament to the Government’s global aspirations in science and innovation.
The other aspect of EU funding that I want to mention—I declare an interest as a beneficiary historically—is that the framework programmes have often funded what one might call “applied research”, bridging the gap between more basic research for which we can seek research council funding and the downstream R&D which industry may fund. Many researchers, particularly in the biomedical and health fields, recognise the so-called “valley of death” in funding, which can result in promising areas of research never getting to commercial application. It is essential for our country’s economic success that we ensure in our future funding environment, with or without EU involvement, a steady continuum, progression and sequence of research support from basic science to ensure that ideas reach a finished outcome.
The last point I wish to make is on the report’s recommendation that the Government, working with the UK scientific community and international bodies, seek to establish one or more new international research facilities; on the scale of the Francis Crick Institute, for example. That is a long-term aspiration with which of course I completely concur. However, could I make a plea on behalf of the UK regions? Let us please look beyond the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London in which to site such initiatives. Of course, a clustering of scientific industrial and commercial activities is important for the success of such ventures, but there are good universities up north and burgeoning high-tech industries in other parts of the UK. Our goal should be to foster several golden triangles.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important debate for the future of UK natural and social science, technology, medicine and research in humanities—which I will loosely call “science” in my remarks. I declare my interests concerning scientific research in various organisations, including in Europe. I was an emeritus professor at UCL and I am a former director of the Met Office and chairman of a small environmental company.
Broadly, UK science has become more integrated with European science over the past 40 years. Indeed, the science programmes and associated technology programmes of many countries outside Europe have become more European, as the New York Times has sometimes commented, with most leading countries taking up European scientific and technical standards and regulations. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that improvements are needed. But surely, if you want to make improvements, you do not walk away, you walk in there and make the improvements—so I have a different attitude from his, which seems to me too pessimistic.
Many UN agencies are also influenced by the European lead, yet the UK is walking away from this global trend. Examples of this global scientific integration with Europe are the major facilities such as the CERN hadron collider and the ITER fusion, with strong US and Japanese involvement. Major international companies also have research establishments in Europe as well as in the UK.
This global Euro trend is reflected in our House of Lords Science and Technology Committee report, under the able chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. However, it is not reflected in the rather insular approach of the Government’s response. The European dimension has greatly helped the UK develop its science since it joined the EU. To start with there was reluctance among many UK scientists to apply for EU grants that had to involve many European countries—jokes were made about having always to have somebody from eastern Europe or Cyprus—but that idea has now gone. As European science funding increased, so too did the recognition that EU research projects were generally of the highest international standard and rigorously refereed; indeed, sometimes the refereeing of these EU projects has been higher than in the UK, as has been commented by our European colleagues. The UK recognised that the excellence of its research was intimately linked with UK researchers being involved in EU projects.
Our committee heard evidence that the EU dimension of UK research has also enabled humanities research to expand greatly and that, with Brexit, there will be probably much less funding for this area of research. That is despite the fact that creative and humanities research is now recognised as an essential part of the UK’s industrial strategy, which we welcome. The EU, however, will not be left behind because, as I saw in some emails this morning, it now has an expanded programme on the funding of creative research, with some interesting new openings. The quote that guides its programme on this creative research and economics is that of Steve Jobs of Apple.
The first point for a future strategy should be partnering in research excellence with EU programmes, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, commented. One way will be to provide funds to UK research groups, centres and networks to enable this to happen. Again, that is not referenced in the government response. The leaders of EC programmes are already putting out feelers to see if the UK will continue participation, as they do with other non-EU countries such as Israel, north Africa, Norway and Switzerland. These programmes are for all areas of technology and science.
An example of how collaboration might develop in future is the fact that, in my own area of fluid mechanics, the EPSRC has an excellent UK network which is now considering how it can organise in collaboration with the European-wide network of special interest groups, which UK scientists took a lead role in setting up in 1989 in the great Henri Poincaré lecture theatre in Paris. This will be important for keeping Europe and UK industry in the lead, for example with new aircraft design for the 2020s.
Our committee recognised that a central component of European research is the intergovernmental science, technology and regulatory agencies and laboratories, such as—as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs—the medium-range forecasting centre, the space centre, the drug regulation centre and others. Some of these were set up before the UK joined the EU and they have, in all cases, been very successful in their specific technical role. For example, the ECMWF forecasts are now generally superior to those of the USA. It always talks about tomorrow’s weather being defined in Europe as this, and defined in America as that—and we usually see what the result is.
We also have to stimulate Europe and UK business. For instance, Tim Peake’s involvement with the European science agency part-funded space station was hugely successful as a stimulus to UK science—as are the Christmas lectures at the Royal Institution and school events at the Science Museum.
The committee did not also point out that there is now a very close working relationship between the research and development commissions in the EC, which leads to the applications of much of the research of these intergovernmental agencies. The UK will not be involved in directing future EU research programmes—which, as I say, will be increasingly important for these intergovernmental agencies in which the UK is participating. We need to think about finding a diplomatic way to lead in this role in future.
There is considerable concern, therefore, about future UK involvement in these European agencies. Although it is likely that the UK will continue its membership, there is concern as to whether the research and computer centres will continue to be located in the UK. The recent decision about the European centre has already been mentioned. However, I emphasise that this kind of centre is an example of how science is applied. The centre is now working on energy and environmental applications of atmospheric and ocean science, showing the value to the UK and to the consulting company of which I am chair in Cambridge. We also work with the European centre and this leads to practical benefits.
Similarly, the UK Government should affirm their commitment to the recently established data and modelling centre at Harwell for the European Space Agency. Will the UK continue to support it? Now there is a possibility that these centres may leave the UK, it will be very important for the Government to affirm their continuation.
The report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee went further than just calling for the UK’s continued involvement in Europe, it called for the UK to consider setting up new major R&D institutes where opportunities might arise. These should be located where the UK already has strengths and be planned to contribute to the UK’s new industrial strategy. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, says, they should also be in locations where there are no such centres at the moment.
I suggest—the committee is considering this—we should establish a world centre for nuclear energy and nuclear waste. This would obviously be in Cumberland, an area that is not well supported in science. This is the kind of thing we need to have. That would certainly be bold.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a member of this House’s Select Committee on Science and Technology, chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I declare interests as a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and of the Royal Society. I am also professor of civil engineering at Cambridge University, where I lead a large research group, many of whom are non-UK EU nationals.
My principal point relates to the Select Committee report’s recommendations regarding people, the subject of chapter 3. One of those recommendations is:
“In the short term the Government should send repeated signals to the global science community that the UK remains a welcoming place for talented scientists”.
This recommendation could not be more important. The continued success of our science and technology research is absolutely vital for the economic growth of the country, and it is the people who are crucial. At present, UK research is world-leading, second only to the USA. It is worth noting that in 2015 half of the UK’s research output was a result of international collaborations. About a third included EU partners. Losing this ability to collaborate freely would be very damaging.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred to post-docs being the backbone of research teams. I fully agree. In my own Department of Engineering at Cambridge, we have over 300 post-doctoral researchers, most of them employed on research grants. This community of young dynamic scientists and engineers from all over the world is the engine room for the research that underpins the university’s world-leading reputation. One-third of these people are non-UK EU nationals. The picture is similar across the whole of Cambridge University and for other leading UK science and technology universities.
Perception is most important here. Since the referendum, young researchers around the world have the perception that they are no longer welcome in the UK. We have a huge cohort of young scientists and engineers currently in the UK contemplating their futures, who, to put it bluntly, are looking elsewhere, and the generation just behind them will not choose to come to the UK in the first place. This perception is also damaging for young UK academics contemplating their future. I am seeing this with my own eyes. Let me give an example. Only last week, a bright young British Cambridge scientist told me that, faced with a choice of applying for a position at Durham University or Trinity College Dublin, he was minded to go to Dublin. For him, the key questions were access to EU funding and freedom of movement of academics around Europe. Key non-UK EU nationals in my research group are already looking for positions outside the UK for the same reasons. The story is the same everywhere.
It is not only universities that are affected. According to the Royal Academy of Engineering, 25% of UK start-up technology companies were founded by non-UK EU nationals, and 45% of UK start-up employees are non-UK EU nationals. A clear message is urgently needed from the Government if these vital start-ups are to remain and thrive in the UK.
Many of these start-up employees are engineers. At the very time when our country faces an engineering skills crisis—with an estimated 186,000 new engineers and engineering technicians needed per year until 2024, according to recent figures by Engineering UK—we risk making recruitment and retention difficult. Engineering in the UK is highly dependent on non-UK nationals. We cannot afford to lose them or to deter new ones from coming.
Speedy removal of uncertainty is clearly of paramount importance. The Government should act now, without delay. There needs to be a reconfigured immigration system which promotes academic and researcher mobility, enabling UK universities to continue to attract and retain these talented individuals, both now and post Brexit. Such a system should be simple and not a deterrent. It should be designed to support the dynamic nature of research by facilitating mobility for academics and innovators of all nationalities.
I have concentrated on the crucial importance of people because without people there will be no research, and, of course, without funding there will be no people. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred to the announcement in the spring Budget that the Government will invest over £100 million over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK to help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in science and research. This is a welcome announcement.
The Select Committee report recommends that the science and research budget will need to be adjusted at an early opportunity to compensate fully for the reduction of funding from the EU. The Government must ensure that there is no decline in overall public funding for UK science and technology.
The proposed industrial strategy has already been referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy of Nympsfield, and others. The development of an industrial strategy during the UK’s departure from the EU is a major opportunity for the Government to strengthen their support for UK science and technology and to increase its role in the economy. The recent Green Paper on industrial strategy identifies 10 pillars, two of which are “Investing in science, research and innovation”, and “Developing skills”, both requiring the brightest minds and fully adequate public funding. As the committee report notes, the Government have the power to mitigate many effects of Brexit. They could use the industrial strategy not only to compensate for Brexit but to further increase the attractiveness of the UK as a place to pursue science and engineering careers.
In summary, the Government should take decisive steps to promote the UK both as a first-class location for research careers and an attractive partner for international collaboration. As soon as possible, the Government must provide certainty and stability for those researchers and innovators who are non-UK EU nationals. This is needed both for those currently working in the UK and for those contemplating a future here. This is indeed the time for boldness and I hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, the tone of our debates at Question Time this morning was more subdued than usual for obvious reasons, but in this debate we have rightly returned to a considerably more forthright tone. We have heard words such as “idiocy”, “derisory” and “carelessness”, so if I continue in that forthright tone, I hope the Minister will accept it in the spirit of returning to business as usual as soon as possible.
No scientist in her right mind would think of Brexit as being anything other than the worst challenge we could impose on UK science. Why would we want to lose access to major sources of funding, put at risk valuable international collaborations, deter top scientists from coming here and leave our biggest market for the outputs of science that make our lives better, healthier and longer? The committee’s report does its best to be optimistic, but it expresses very clearly the serious downsides of the choice this hard Brexit Government have made. As someone who is particularly concerned about the effect of Brexit on our life sciences, UK patients’ access to cutting-edge medicines and treatments, and the survival of our health and care services, I welcome the committee’s report, which highlights many of the concerns I have felt ever since 24 June last year, and it proposes some solutions to mitigate the worst of them.
One of the first effects I heard about, within a week of the referendum, concerned a research scientist I know who was in the early stages of a collaborative research funding application to the EU with scientists from elsewhere in Europe. He was asked to withdraw on the basis that his presence in the team would reduce the chances of the application being successful. So, while the committee states that there is a scarcity of hard evidence for this effect, it accepts that there is anecdotal evidence of discrimination in ways that may never be documented. I know that to be true.
A great many of our research projects are funded by the EU. The UK has benefited more than any other member country from EU money for science, partly because we are very good at spending it well, so the Government’s commitment to underwrite Horizon 2020 funding with new UK money is very welcome. However, what happens when Horizon 2020 comes to an end? It would be better if the Government tried to negotiate continued access for UK scientists to Horizon 2020, its successor and other EU funding, given that other countries outside the EU already have such access. The Prime Minister may not have the stomach to try to negotiate continued access to the single market, but surely our negotiators can have a try at this one, given its importance to our economy.
Harmonised regulations are particularly important to the development of medicines and medical technologies. While I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on the issue of GM crops, I find myself more in agreement with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, about regulation. Regulation is not necessarily a burden, and if it was faulty we could have tried to improve it from within rather than walk away. We have the freedom to sell and the confidence to buy when our regulations are identical to those of our major customers. It is therefore not surprising that most of the submissions to the committee called for UK regulations in the scientific domain to remain harmonised with the EU.
In the medical domain, UK scientists have played a major role in the European Medicines Agency, and we have here in London a great deal of the expertise in medicines licensing and regulation. Where will that expertise go after Brexit? Professor Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell pointed out that if we wish to trade with Europe, we are going to have to abide by the European regulatory system. But of course, that system will not remain static; it will change over the years, so I ask the Minister, how are we going to keep up? If the Government decide to set up our own system it will be very expensive, as pointed out by Mr James Lawford Davies, a solicitor and partner at Hempsons, in his submission to the committee. The UK would have to set up its own infrastructure and administration, with no additional benefit to us. It looks to me like a classic example of shooting yourself in the foot. The Government tell us that it will be all right but I am afraid that, based on their record to date, I doubt it.
Have the Government assessed the cost of setting up such a system, and if not, why not? The Government appear not to have heard of the phrase “plan B”. Will the increased trade we are supposed to be expecting post Brexit be in excess of the costs of this system? The committee recommends that such an assessment be made and published prior to the introduction of what my noble friend Lady Ludford calls, “The not so great cut-and-paste Bill”. Can the Minister assure us that that will happen so that we can assess the damage? Of course, the costs of an independent system are a fact, while the potential for increased global trade is speculation. No sensible business person exchanges facts for speculation, and neither do they take on unnecessary costs. That is why much of business is against Brexit, although as we know, big business is very flexible and resourceful and will survive.
UK science depends not just on international collaborations but on attracting top-flight scientists and student scientists to the UK. Here, the committee expresses serious concerns in its report about the Government’s approach to immigration. On the one hand, Jo Johnson MP stated:
“We remain fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU”,
while on the other hand, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, told the Conservative Party Conference that she would,
“look again at whether our immigration system provides the right incentives for businesses to invest in British workers”—
a not so veiled threat that is to be followed up by action. In two weeks’ time the immigration skills charge—a charge of £1,000 per year for workers brought in from abroad on a tier 2 visa—will be implemented. There are exemptions for PhD chemists, physicists, social scientists, research and development managers and so on, but there are no exemptions for health and care employers bringing in essential doctors and nurses to fill the gaps in our health service. When we discussed the regulations two days ago, I demanded an exemption for the NHS and social care, and I repeat that demand today. The tax will cost front-line services £7.2 million per year and add to the black hole in funding, at a time of severe Brexit challenge to the health workforce. It is a very short-sighted thing to do. The committee pointed out that the Government are also being “less than helpful” in refusing to exclude international students from their immigration targets, rightly described as “idiocy” by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. The financial viability of many of our universities depends on being able to attract international undergraduate and graduate students and staff, so no wonder they are concerned about the Government’s intransigent attitude.
There are other avoidable threats. When the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill went through the House, we passed an amendment to ensure that when the Government use their new powers in the Bill, they have to take account of the need to promote a thriving life sciences sector and access for UK patients to new medicines. Considering the challenges outlined by the committee in the report we are debating today, I am surprised that the Government overturned the amendment in another place. I hope that noble Lords will stand their ground on this when the Bill comes back to your Lordships’ House in a couple of weeks’ time.
I end by congratulating all members of the committee on their forensic examination of the threats of Brexit to British science, and I congratulate them on their valiant effort to be optimistic. I hope the Government will accept the committee’s helpful recommendations.
Lord Mendelsohn (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an investor in the UK science and research base. I congratulate the committee on an outstanding report. Its extraordinary strength is only complemented by its remarkably few pages. It is extremely well judged. It makes all the right points with tremendous force in a very brief summary. I have recommended it to far more people to add to their papers and to what they read from this House. It is one of the greatest summations of where we are at the moment and a very good road map of where we need to be. I thank all the members of the committee who helped to add some colour to the discussions that they clearly had and for giving us the benefit of the particular perspectives. I also thank those from outside the committee with a keen interest in this for adding their words to it.
It is an extremely important report because it not only deals with the perils we are facing in a future outside of Europe but provides a freedom to think again and to inject a new sense of ambition. It is certainly true that we are at a moment of reflection—a tipping point, if you like—on what we do with our science and research base. UK science is a global force. It plays a fundamental role in the success of our healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, technology and much else besides. We have won a prodigious number of Nobel prizes and our universities are well renowned. Our business and research institutions generate work of quality and influence far beyond competitors of similar populations and funding. We are a large economy, which can always support a strong base, but we have benefited hugely from our EU membership. It has given us a tremendous platform and we have excelled in it. Coming away from it will require an additional sense of purpose and an additional effort.
Of course opportunities will stem from leaving Europe, but there can be no doubt that the significant risks at this stage outweigh the potential benefits. We have to turn our mind to how we address those. As the committee’s report shows, we have received more in EU research, development and innovation funding than we have put in. The Government have rightly committed to underwriting the funds approved for Horizon 2020 projects that were applied for before the UK leaves the EU, but we need the Government to provide more certainty for the long term, including on future access to funds that would have been otherwise available through EU grants.
However, this is about more than just plugging a funding gap. There remains a corrosive level of uncertainty in other areas, not least the status of EU nationals working in our universities, research institutes and industry. The committee cites evidence of European scientists abandoning plans to come to the UK. The introduction to the debate from the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, was an incredibly impressive summation of the report. He has clearly done an outstanding job leading the committee. He referred to the problem of evidence and came out with a very well-judged and balanced sense of how we have to try to devise the right level of evidence. As I go round talking to people, I cannot believe that—since, on every single occasion, they cite particular cases and examples—we do not already have a significant base of evidence. Just recently a professor of medicine told me of his research team: all those who are EU nationals—almost 80% of them—have already made plans to leave. The only timetable difference is that they are waiting for the next school year for their children to move. As for businesses in particular centres, I heard of a chief technology officer who is now looking at moving back and delaying funding rounds. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made a very good point about technology companies and start-ups here that are moving to other areas—even our big technology companies. Other countries that have centres here use them as a base to recruit EU nationals to come and live in London to add to their base. The strong engineers—the ones who go off and create start-ups—are reporting the same problems.
This is extremely important. We do not just have a drop in university applications from the EU; we have huge uncertainties and perceptions that we need to deal with. It is crucial that we look to expand scholarships. It is a very important recommendation to look at how we have a recruitment fund. I consider that we may well end up having to spend quite some money on retention. The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made a very important point when he said that our British-born academics who would otherwise live here are being attracted to other places. My son has recently gained entry into an American university he applied for. It is reporting that applications from UK academics have tripled since the Brexit vote. That is in one institution. Retention will also become a significant problem and the quality of the research projects we have will continue to be an issue that we will have to place some focus on.
As for the notion of using students in the net migration numbers, I very strongly agree that it is entirely incorrect to say that this is best practice around the world—it is more best fiction. It has always struck me that we put them in the net migration figures and then we put their economic contribution in tourism. That is a huge duality I have never been able to figure out.
The crucial point at the moment is our level of ambition. With all our strengths and requirements, to stand still is not just to replace what we have done before and do as we have done before—to stand still takes a huge amount of effort. But I do not think that we need to do that. We have to forge a new future, understanding what our strengths have been and what they are. In many ways the plan has to be to double down on our support for science and research. I am particularly grateful to the committee for using the notion, “A time for boldness”—not really a word I expected to see in a House of Lords report, but it is entirely apt to use such a phrase. It sends an important message that we will have to change fundamentally our approach to our commitment to what we will do in support of our science and research base, using it as a key instrument of our future economic success.
It is also important that we understand the central need for us to expand international collaboration and co-operation. Part of that is the problem of risk. We are the beneficiary of 20 bilateral science and technology agreements between the EU and nations including Brazil, China, India, Japan and the United States. The EU has 850 joint research projects with 160 nations. These are important projects that we are keenly plugged into and agreements that we have benefited hugely from. To maintain that level of co-operation and connection we need to have a tremendous amount of force and resource associated with our effort. To get ahead will require even more.
It is important for us to understand that international co-operation is increasingly a prerequisite for world-class scientific research. More than half our research output is now internationally co-authored. Much of our international collaborations are with EU partners. I think that seven of the UK’s top 10 strongest collaborators are EU countries. It is also important to recognise that people’s perceptions of the nature of international collaboration have changed. In preparation for this debate I recently read a survey of students who were asked the question, “Which country is having the most significant scientific impact on the world?”. Number one was international collaboration. The future of outstanding science and research is about international collaboration. Our place is to ensure that we remain at the very heart of it. That is also important. I add my voice to the committee’s point on making sure that sufficient scientific expertise is drawn into the Government’s Brexit negotiations and appointing scientific advisers to key departments.
Connecting our research base to business and industry will also be key in the years ahead. Innovate UK and UKRI will play an increasingly important role related to these matters. It is also essential to ensure that that partnership with business and other areas accompanies our expansion of facilities.
I strongly endorse the committee’s recommendation that at least one major research facility be introduced in this country—to say “at least one” is a good indication of ambition. More would be better, but if we fail to introduce one, we will fail to do more than stand still. I have been to Harwell and seen this tremendous new instrument, the Diamond Light Source, adding to the central laser facility and the ISIS neutron and muon source synchrotron. These are not the only facilities of this nature: others are being built across the world, in other continents as well as in other parts of Europe. We have to do more to centre more on such facilities and to back them more strongly.
On the importance of ensuring that our research base is connected with business, we need to do more to ensure a good circularity in our scientific and research application. It is especially important as we witness business investment, including R&D, falling for the first time since 2008: a drop of 1.5% in 2016 compared with 2015 according to the OBR’s most recent report. The OBR forecasts a further fall in 2017, citing,
“heightened uncertainty following the EU referendum”.
We will not return to 2015 levels until the end of the decade. Depressed private sector spending on R&D was a crucial factor in the economic slowdown that preceded the financial crisis. This is a dangerous and worrying sign and one we really have to address.
It is important in promoting our scientific and research base that we give some attention to the other sources of funds that are required—to being able to encourage instruments such as the Rainbow Seed Fund. I must declare that I have invested in companies that it has put money into as an early stage venture capital instrument. That was established by the department—I cannot remember its acronym at the time it was established, but noble Lords know the department I mean—and by the research councils in co-operation. It is a very small fund. It is an outstanding group of individuals who have backed an outstanding series of companies across the UK research base. It is exactly the sort of instrument we should be backing. There are also people such as Neil Woodford and foundations such as the Wolfson Foundation and the Wellcome Trust. Such places are where we look for new capacity. We must find new ways to encourage more to act like them and more instruments. This is a crucial time for us to take this challenge very seriously.
It has been an honour for me to participate in this debate and to reflect upon the committee’s outstanding report. As we focus on what we can do to benefit the people of this country and the world by expanding science and research, the particular importance of being an outward-looking nation, able to address other countries and other peoples is crucial. After a day such as yesterday, we have to show not just how importantly we treat our role as hosts to those people who unfortunately had their lives transformed by those events, but how much we value our place in the world. Science and research is one of our great contributions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords to my noble friend Lord Selborne on this extremely good report. I hope that his committee can build on that report and that it will form a very big part of our industrial strategy.
I do not think there is any doubt that research is one of the jewels in the UK’s crown, but we should never take it for granted. The report is called A Time For Boldness and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, that while it may be an unusual title for something from the House of Lords, we do need boldness. I have heard, in talking to many other people about the industrial strategy, that the UK is incorrigibly incrementalist. When the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, asks, “Where is the magic?” or “Where has the magic not been?”, it is because we have been incorrigibly incrementalist. So it is a time for boldness. If Brexit does only one thing, if it acts as a catalyst for change and boldness, then it will have achieved considerably more than the eight industrial strategies that the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, referred to. We should take Brexit as a catalyst for change.
As noble Lords have mentioned, of course there are risks, but I say to noble Lords who are naturally enthusiasts and naturally positive people that, if they become too pessimistic about the future, they will help create this perception that post-docs and younger academics to whom they referred have—the feeling that somehow things are not good. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for whom I have huge respect, that although I cannot comment on the state of current reproductive medicine at Imperial, if he walks down the corridor he will see one of his colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, and what is being done on robotic surgery, for example. Imperial is at the absolute forefront of many technologies and the noble Lord, Lord Winston, should not forget that.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, referred to issues at Cambridge. Again, if we take an area such as artificial intelligence, Cambridge is clearly among the world leaders. Look at robotics and go down to Bristol and see what Bristol University is doing in robotics. We have some world-class technology still in the UK. If we want evidence of recent investments, we can look at the £60 million Novo Nordisk investment around diabetes at Oxford University, or the new investments that GSK and Apple are making in this country. Google has made huge investments, through DeepMind, in artificial intelligence in this country. So let us not be too depressed about the future when a lot of very good things are happening.
It is not unreasonable that we have focused today on what I will call the consequences of Brexit rather than looking slightly more fundamentally at the causes of Brexit. Actually, the causes of Brexit, together with the consequences of Brexit, are what we should be looking at, because, if we are honest, many of our difficulties predate Brexit. They predate even our accession to the European Union back in 1972. I think we set these out pretty clearly in the industrial strategy. We have gone through various stages of industrial strategy. We have gone through big government, nationalisation after the war and the sort of tri-partite power-sharing of the 1960s and 1970s, with the CBI, the TUC and the Government sitting around trying to sort things out. We then went to the privatisation and markets of the 1980s and then, more recently, with the coalition Government, we had more of a focus on sectors, but the one common constant throughout that time is that we have had low productivity in this country. Today, after all the iterations we have gone through, we are still 20% or maybe 30% behind the leading countries of Europe and the USA. The Green Paper is explicit about that, as indeed was Andy Haldane, the chief economist of the Bank of England, in his speech, if anyone saw it earlier this week. We have a productivity problem in this country.
It is not just a productivity problem. Since the 1980s—with the third Industrial Revolution, the information technology revolution and, as we move increasingly into what is called the fourth Industrial Revolution, with machine learning and artificial intelligence, as ever more cognitive skills get replaced by machines, rather than just manual skills—we have seen to some extent a hollowing-out of the labour market, as Andy Haldane put it, which is resulting in more inequality. In our country, we have not just societal inequality but geographic inequality. We have a hugely successful and productive area in London, particularly, and the south-east more generally, but that level of productivity is not shared in the rest of the country. That is why what we face today is a productivity question but also an inequality question. Those are the questions we really have to address and that is the context in which we should see the research and innovation strategy.
The emerging themes of the industrial strategy—some of the magic that I hope we will be able to identify—are, of course, around the vocational skills that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, mentioned earlier. It is clearly critical that we address that. Looking back, perhaps one of the great policy mistakes that successive Governments made was to encourage too many people to go to university at the expense of vocational training, apprenticeship training and the like. The work that David Sainsbury—the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—has done in that area is hugely important and I hope that it will be a critical part of our industrial strategy.
Then there is place: we have to address the fact that many parts of the UK have not done as well as they could. Look back at the history of towns such as Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Birmingham: if we can rebuild those civic institutions, there is a chance that we can rebuild those clusters of technology and manufacturing that we used to have.
I turn to research, which is the specific issue that we are debating. In terms of the message and narrative, the Government could not have been more explicit that science and innovation are critical to our future. As noble Lords know, that was set out in the White Paper published in February this year, from which I will read a short extract:
“The Government is committed to building on the UK’s world-leading science base—including more Nobel Laureates than any country outside the United States—and making the UK the go-to nation for scientists, innovators and investors in technology”.
I appreciate that fine words butter no parsnips but look at the actions we have taken: the Treasury has underwritten all successful bids for Horizon 2020 funding and we have provided further assurance by confirming that existing EU students and those starting courses in 2016-17 and 2017-18 will continue to be eligible for student loans and home fee status. We have also provided assurance about postgraduate support through research council studentships. These will remain open to EU students starting courses in 2017-18.
We have gone further to support a healthy science and technology ecosystem in this country than ever before. We are spending an extra £4.7 billion on research over the rest of this Parliament, with an extra £2 billion a year by 2020-21. That is the biggest increase in research spending since 1979, so we are putting our money where our mouth is. Our new industrial strategy challenge fund will direct some of that investment to scientific research and in particular to the development of a number of priority technologies, helping to address Britain’s historic weakness on commercialisation and turning our world-leading research into long-term success.
I tend to look to the USA—just look at the work that DARPA has done over the years. The federal funding of research in the US is far higher than it is in our country. That country, which purports to have small government, spends on a per capita basis significantly more on research than we do. Through institutions such as DARPA, the USA has managed to turn that into huge commercial success. Just look at the iPhone, which is probably the most obvious success: nearly all the technology in the iPhone, whether it is the chip, the global positioning, the LCD or whatever it happens to be, came out of federally funded research. That was of course taken up by great entrepreneurs, backed up by deep capital markets to turn it into a huge commercial success. That is something we need to do but in many of these areas, whether in robotics, AI, machine learning or whatever, we still have some fantastic technology in this country.
I turn to the issue that I think concerns noble Lords the most: attracting people. Can we attract the world’s best people into this country? I agree that if we cannot do that, then we have a serious problem. It has been said that perception is hugely important, but let me quote the Prime Minister:
“I want this United Kingdom to emerge from this period of change stronger, fairer, more united and more outward-looking than ever before. I want us to be a secure, prosperous, tolerant country—a magnet for international talent and a home to the pioneers and innovators who will shape the world ahead. I want us to be a truly Global Britain—the best friend and neighbour to our European partners, but a country that reaches beyond the borders of Europe too”.
David Davis also said that pulling out of the European Union does not,
“mean pulling up the drawbridge. That’s also not in our national interest. We will always welcome those with the skills, the drive and the expertise to make our nation better still. If we are to win in the global marketplace, we must win the global battle for talent. Britain has always been one of the most tolerant and welcoming places on the face of the earth. It must and it will remain so”.
We should not confuse our rightful desire to have control of our immigration policy with a policy that is anti people coming into this country. The two are not in conflict with each other. It is perfectly reasonable for any country to want to have some control over levels of immigration. That does not mean that we are in any way against immigration or, in particular, against encouraging people to come in with the skills and talents that we need to grow and maintain our research base.
I turn to what we are doing in that area. In terms of putting our money where our mouth is in that respect, we have announced a £250-million investment from the national productivity investment fund, which will include £90 million to fund 1,000 new PhD places. At least 85% of those will be in STEM disciplines and 40% will directly help to strengthen collaboration between business and academia through industrial partnerships. There will be a further £160 million to support new fellowships for early and mid-career researchers. We also announced over £100 million on global research talent over the next four years to attract the brightest minds to the UK and help maintain the UK’s position as a world leader in R&D. This includes £50 million which will be ring-fenced for fellowship programmes to attract global talent in areas that align with the industrial strategy. For example, that could be in life sciences or battery technology. Over £50 million of existing international funds will support fellowships that attract researchers to the UK from emerging research powerhouses such as India, China, Brazil and Mexico.
Not only do we have a compelling narrative in this Government about wanting to attract the best of the world to this country; I also believe that we are putting a lot more resource and funding into research in this country. Yet there is a perception out there that we are somehow not doing either of those things. To some extent, that perception is built up by people in this House who are incorrigibly pessimistic. We have some great technology and research in this country and we should start to talk it up.
Lord Winston
I was going to be very trivial by wondering whether the Minister might care to apply for the vacant post of the reproductive professor at Imperial.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I may have many talents but I think that is one post that I am not qualified to do.
I did not address the particular issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I would like to meet him on that issue to understand more about it before I reply to him.
The Earl of Selborne
My Lords, it remains for me to thank all participants for their positive approach to our report. I was particularly pleased to hear from the Front Benches that they rather liked our title, for which the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, should take a bow. He had an even more exuberant title for a later report, which I am afraid I vetoed—but he got away with this one.
If there is a takeaway message from this, I think we accept that my noble friend the Minister is absolutely right: there is a compelling narrative from government and more resources have indeed been made available. But it is not just in this House that perceptions are created and what we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Mair, and others who could be described as at the coalface is an accurate representation of perceptions which simply have to be changed. It is not just the Government who have a responsibility for doing this; I quite accept that academia will have to do its bit as well. We will all have to do our bit, including those of us like me who just sit on the sides and commentate or criticise.
This debate has given a lot of positive messages as to how the perceptions could change. We have unanimously recognised the internationalism of science and how critical international collaboration is. We need welcoming signals for both people and institutions. This has been a very helpful debate.
Brexit: Environment and Climate Change
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Teverson
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: environment and climate change (12th Report, HL Paper 109).
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, as Members depart or come in and Ministers shuffle their seats, I shall note that I am a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which has responsibility for the marine environment that might be covered to some degree in this debate.
It is important for us to remember that all the reports from the European Union Committee are looking at not just the challenges but the opportunities of Brexit, the pluses and the minuses, the good things that can happen and the things that we have to beware of and look out for. In this report, there is probably more that we have to look out for than benefits. Some of the benefits on the environmental side are probably better described in the fisheries report that the House has already debated and in the report on the common agricultural policy, for which my committee has finished taking evidence but which has yet to be published. Both those areas have important environmental aspects. There are a number of positives and opportunities in those areas, and in this report as well.
I will concentrate on some of the areas where we have to be careful. As recognised in the Conservative Party manifesto, looking 25 years or even further ahead, the environment is key in our quality of life as a country and as a continent. Opinion polls suggest that the environment is an area on which British citizens think that Europe has an important role. It did not figure greatly in the referendum campaign, but citizens have generally understood and believed that working together as nations is important in protecting and enhancing the environment for the future.
Those on the side of leaving the European Union were right that European legislation on the environment dwarfs UK legislation in all sorts of ways. The estimate is that something like 80% of all our environmental regulations emanate from Europe. We have a strong base of environmental legislation that springs from European regulations and directives and European Court of Justice decisions. That creates a great challenge. When we wrote to Defra about a number of issues, part of the evidence it gave was that something like 1,100 instruments have to be translated into United Kingdom law. Over the next two years, the Minister is going to be very busy in effecting that.
The committee welcomed unreservedly the Government’s objective of making sure that environmental standards do not go down in the process of Brexit, but there are huge challenges ahead in achieving that. Just think of the breadth of the area that we are talking about. It covers climate change, energy efficiency, standards for chemicals, biodiversity, migrating species, biosecurity, clean seas, the atmosphere, wastewater and the circular economy—the list goes on. I shall not go any further but that gives noble Lords an idea of the huge spectrum of issues that are vital to our future which we are talking about.
I shall highlight and headline some of the key issues. A number of them were not ones that I or the committee expected to be at the top of the list when we started this report. The first issue I shall go into, on which I could speak for many minutes but shall not, is the great repeal Bill. We welcome the Government’s undertaking that they will transfer the current legislation into UK domestic law. One of the questions is what it includes. Findings and case law from the European Court of Justice have been particularly important in environmental legislation. I will be interested to hear from the Minister whether that case law will also be incorporated into how UK courts look at European environmental legislation post Brexit.
There are 1,100 instruments that need to be translated. One of the areas that particularly concerned us is that the Secretary of State said that one-third of environmental legislation is going to be quite difficult to bring into UK law. I welcome her candid openness about this. We pursued that further and asked her and her officials what that one-third is. We had a very flaky reply, which suggested to us that not only is that roughly one-third going to be difficult but we do not yet know what it is going to be. As in other areas, there is concern about how much will be in primary legislation or in secondary legislation, but I will leave that debate for other reports.
One of the strongest points that was made to the committee was that the key issue is not regulations or laws but implementation and enforcement. We can have lots of laws and lots of good intentions, but we have to have adequate enforcement. One of the key areas of success in environmental legislation in protecting and improving our environment has been that we have strong enforcement mechanisms. I am sure other members of the committee will talk about this. The Commission as an overseer of implementation and the European Court of Justice as a strong enforcement mechanism behind that legislation have meant that not only have Governments of all stripes been careful to make sure that environmental legislation is implemented but so have citizens and other organisations. There have been a number of instances where the UK has not been that keen on implementing environmental laws—I think back couple of decades ago on wastewater and more recently on clean air—and the role of the ECJ and the Commission has been particularly important. I know from experience that the threat of infraction by the Commission is a strong motivator for senior officials of departments and Ministers and Secretaries of State to make sure that European environmental law is implemented, as it is not only a reputational issue for the nation but a financial one. Infraction means fines, which can be considerable, and departments do not wish to lose their budgets because they have not performed. It was the very strong opinion of our witnesses that enforcement in the UK as it is at the moment would not be sufficient. There is judicial review and other areas, but this is key and one that other members of the committee will wish to discuss.
The other area which I have not really thought about quite enough, which also applies to the agricultural reports that are due to come out, is that of certainty. One thing relevant to the environment and indeed to agriculture is the acronym MAFF. We always think of MAFF as being the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but in this instance I am talking about the multiannual financial framework from Europe, which lasts for seven years and gives a degree of financial certainty to programmes that cannot be changed year on year, or in domestic terms, Budget to Budget. It is also quite difficult to change legislation and update laws throughout Europe. That can be negative, but it does provide certainty and time horizons in which investment can take place. In the environmental area, that is important for flood defences, clean energy and all sorts of other areas where investment takes a long time. The challenge is going from a seven-year financial framework—legislatively perhaps sometimes even longer—to a framework where we have annual Budgets, and laws that can change maybe year to year but certainly Parliament to Parliament. So we have that greater uncertainty.
There is even more uncertainty in financial areas and investment when it comes to the role of the European Investment Bank. This might seem not that important for the environment, but the figures show that something like €37 billion has been invested since 2000 in the environmental sector, particularly in energy. That is a huge sum. Since we have been a member of the European Union, particularly through the wastewater directive, some €12 billion has been invested in the water industry in the UK by the EIB. Yet we were unable to pinpoint where this sort of core foundation investment was going to come from in the future. Outside the EU, we are still entitled to European Investment Bank expenditure or investment, but it will be on a much lower scale than we have at the moment. So there are challenges there.
I will very quickly go through the other key areas. The first is trade and industry. We had a number of witnesses who I suspect we expected to say, “Great, let’s be buccaneering: let’s go ahead and deregulate and be successful without European red tape”. I am being perfectly objective in saying that that was not the case at all. Concerns were expressed that we should be able to enter the single market easily and that therefore our product standards needed to be the same, in terms of energy efficiency and similar areas. There was particular concern around chemicals, where there has been huge investment by companies that have had products approved by European agencies. There was a great fear of having to go through another process if we have a bespoke UK system, which would not only be expensive but would not necessarily allow access through equivalence into European markets. On trade and industry, there was a concern that we should keep equivalence when it comes to standards.
I will leave the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, to talk about climate change. I conclude by saying there are two other elephants in the room, one of which is devolution. Like agriculture and fisheries, the environment is a devolved area of policy-making. How do we bring all of this legislation back into the UK and then distribute it among the nations and various parliamentary assemblies of the UK, while keeping some semblance of common ground within? That of course will also be the responsibility of Defra; given all the responsibilities that the noble Lord will have over the next two years, we are deeply concerned about Defra’s capacity and influence with the Brexit departments to make sure all this can be achieved. There is a huge and extremely challenging agenda here. It is regrettable in a way that we do not yet have Defra’s 25-year environmental plan, which we look forward to. We would also like to see this great repeal Bill and everything that needs to be done within that context. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when that will be produced.
The environment is one area where Brexit does not mean Brexit. We are inevitably tied to the European environment through our seas, our atmosphere, our migrating species and many other aspects. It is imperative that we continue to be strongly involved with our European neighbours. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he would pursue, for the benefit of all our peoples, that co-operation into the future. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and to thank him and his committee for producing this worthwhile report, Brexit: Environment and Climate Change. I follow his introduction by making three points. First, yes, there are challenges but I believe there are opportunities as well. The second is on the width and the span of issues that the committee looked at. In a way, we are missing the agricultural aspect. I know the committee is looking at that at the moment, which will perhaps slightly overlap with some of my comments—I apologise to members of the committee if I touch on things that they are dealing with currently. The third thing is the two reports we are awaiting, which the noble Lord just spoke about. To take that a bit further with the Minister, these two reports should be looked at together. It is not a question of, “This is the environment, that is climate change and that is farming and food production”. They are inextricably intertwined and should not be separated.
In following the previous debate, moved by my noble friend Lord Selborne—that committee’s report is headed A Time for Boldness, and the same is true of this report—we are reminded of how the issues of science and technology and those in this report are linked. Good things are happening and investment in the UK is still very high in both technology and science, as we heard earlier today. One extra thing that I would stress in terms of both reports is that often we are full of ideas but do not necessarily see them through to the conclusion of a product. As a country, we are very good at the first part, but not so good at the final product.
Over the years, science and technology have transformed the way land is farmed. One example is GPS. Another is the technology which enables farmers to apply the relevant amount of dressing in different areas of a single field so that unnecessary applications are not made, which avoids spoiling soil quality. It is a win-win situation for the farmers themselves, but more importantly for the environment, as fields are not overdressed, avoiding the run-off and pollution that can otherwise result.
Caring for the environment should be at the heart of any farming business, and here I remind the House of our family farming interests in Suffolk, where we grow cereals but are also committed to enhancing the natural environment. The report, in its summary, rightly acknowledges that those seeking to preserve and invest in improving the environment require long-term stability in policy, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred. The report states:
“EU environment and climate change laws do not stand alone”.
Their implementation, monitoring and enforcement by EU institutions, as has been mentioned already, have made a great impression so far. That is something we need to look at. The committee goes on to express concerns about what will happen post Brexit and questions the self-regulation that may be imposed by the Government, which it is a little concerned may not be adequate. Perhaps the Minister will come back to that later.
Later in the summary, the committee’s report states:
“The UK would need to comply with, or seek to adopt measures equivalent to, EU environmental standards in order to continue to trade freely with the EU”.
Chemicals regulations are highlighted, along with pesticides, greenhouse gases and many other aspects. I would have included GM and modern breeding techniques there as well.
Thirdly, the report reminds us that the environment is shared, referring to terrestrial, marine and atmospheric challenges. Finding a way forward will certainly require the UK’s devolved countries to come together in planning future policies. Nowhere will this be more challenging than within the common fishery policies, which we debated earlier this year. I would also throw into that how much the climate changes in our own nation in any case: there is a lot of rain on the west side of the country but we are very dry on the other side, in the east and south. So it is not just a pure question of the devolved countries themselves. At the end of the day, what matters for us as a country and for our environment is soil quality. That is the one item over which we have some form of control, and we need to give it greater thought. We cannot control the amount of water that falls, but looking after the soil is extremely important.
I turn now to some of the simple recommendations. Chapter 15 talks about shaping farm practices and the way the former CAP has included crop rotation and green payments. Paragraph 57 says that the Secretary of State, Andrea Leadsom, reflected to the Environmental Audit Committee that two-thirds of the existing legislation can be translated straight away, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, highlighted the other one-third that still has to be brought forward. Paragraph 64 says that each department has been challenged to review how the legislation in their policy areas will be affected by Brexit, to ensure that environmental protection is maintained. Chapter 7 is entitled “Influence”. Here I refer to formal influence and the way in which informally we can continue to influence what happens outside these shores, in the European Union and in a much broader way. Within that I would include many of the NGOs and those involved in wildlife trusts.
The report poses many questions. I would add my belief that we can all individually make a difference. We can waste less food and refrain from dropping litter both on land and in the sea; the pollution in our seas is just horrendous at the moment, and we must tackle the commercial dumping of waste in the countryside and in our cities. We can belong to wildlife groups, and many do. We can belong to areas where they help and support our rivers and engage in work in the countryside. All this brings benefits to us individually and generally to the environment. Ultimately, it is the farmer, the landowner, the tenant or the contractor who cares for 70% of our countryside. As former president of LEAF and now a patron, I can say that we see and practise good farm-management systems and better terms for wildlife, alongside quality crops and good food production. It is not perfect, but we should use best practice.
Farming is simply a business like any other. At the end of the day we need to ensure that farms make a profit. I do not think they should necessarily be supported in the way that they have been, but farms have to be profitable or in the long term they will simply go out of business. Areas of the UK where profit cannot be made—there I would look to quite a bit of our upland area or small farms, where that is not possible—the challenge following Brexit will be what will happen there. What the majority of farmers need, and I think this has been highlighted by the report, is some long-term commitment. Their investment is long term, and without it we cannot produce the food that we so need.
A balance has to be struck between food production, the environment and climate change. Others will talk about climate change. All I would say from our point of view is that the pattern of climate has changed. I will not go into great detail; others will. There is a lot that we as individuals, NGOs, farmers and people who purely love the countryside and go into it can do, but financial uncertainty blocks investment—although I have to point out that at the moment the bank loans that have been given to the farming community have some of the highest rates, so the banks believe that there is a long-term future there.
The report is a good one. I am sorry I was not able to be a member of the committee, having enjoyed being one formerly, but I congratulate it because it has been drawn in a fairly short time. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ contributions.
Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)
My Lords, I am speaking in what in the speakers list was my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s spot, and he is going to speak near the end of the debate. We have just been castigated by the Minister in the previous debate for being so gloomy, so I will try to make one or two non-gloomy remarks. This is the second important debate today on issues of science and technology as applied to the environment and climate change. I declare an interest as an emeritus professor of climate change at University College, a fellow of the Royal Society and chairman of a small company that works on the environment.
This debate is not only about science and technology but about legislation, regulation and finance. We face big issues in improving the environment and dealing with climate change. How will the UK continue to work and collaborate with other organisations across Europe as the UK leaves the EU? Some of the organisations currently present in Europe, and with very important roles, are intergovernmental—such as those for the regional seas, pollution and nuclear energy—while some are specifically European organisations, such as the European Environment Agency. An important point to understand is that, whether these organisations are intergovernmental or regional, many of them are involved in programmes with the European Commission. They use a lot of their research programmes to help provide guidance, decision-making and data. We are going to leave the EU, so what is going to happen to our cross-involvement in the UN, regional organisations and so on? The EU currently involves non-EC countries and areas such as Norway, Switzerland, Israel and north Africa, and they are very effective on some of these environmental programmes. It would be useful to hear from the Minister how he sees the strategy. There needs to be consultation with all sorts of organisations. The research and environmental organisations of Britain are deeply involved in all these environmental organisations, which are proving very effective.
The other important point is that we need to evaluate the benefits of the different levels of these organisations. Some of them are involved in UK Government standards, but we need to understand exactly how Brexit will affect that. One of the consequences is that the UK will no longer have to maintain environmental standards, even though we should recognise that they have steadily improved over the past 40 years—for example, cleaner beaches and higher air quality standards. I am afraid the standards provided by the UK Government may well come under some suspicion because there have been some dodgy practices with air quality in London in the last couple of years. It is very important that we have clear verification of what is being done when we start out on our own.
Having Europe-wide standards has been very important in enabling local authorities and the Government to keep saying, “This is the reference standard against which we are working”. How will this confidence be maintained in future? We should hear that from the Minister.
Another feature of the worrying future is the UK Government introducing standards and providing data which will be almost unchallenged. On what basis will those changes be made? Some standard analysis is necessary. We need to evaluate the economic, health and environmental factors in such studies.
The report reviews the EU climate change legislation and the EU Emissions Trading System, which currently guide UK investment in carbon and non-carbon energy systems. Even if the UK follows the EU and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change agreements on reducing carbon emissions, that does not tell us how the UK will develop its future policy. It may be working on existing policies, but many of the standards—those run by the UN and those run by the European Commission—will change.
The question is how the UK will find a partnership to work with European and other major emitting countries and their organisations. Although the Prime Minister assures us that the UK will be in Europe, this general assurance needs to be explained. Will the UK focus simply on the IPCC, or will it develop some ad hoc discussions in, for example, the G20, and therefore rely on UN agencies to provide the standards?
Importantly, we must also ensure that we have extremely high standards of multilateral climate change research programmes. The UK has substantial and well-respected climate change research laboratories and centres, such as the Hadley Centre, Scott Polar and other arctic institutions. What future arrangements are envisaged for how those UK research institutions will work towards these practical objectives with other countries? I assume that Her Majesty’s Government expect increasing involvement of the UK research institutions to guide them in their transition.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, just talked about standards in the countryside—for example, concerning rubbish—and how they are distributed. In Italy, there is widespread use of data on the state of the environment, and there is an excellent webpage called Q-cumber. There are a lot of innovative ways in which we can use IT, and we have a lot of interesting IT companies in Britain to help us monitor the environment much more closely, which will be an essential part of this new world in which the UK is out on its own.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Teverson for his expertise in chairing the committee as it took evidence and discussed the diverse issues raised. I also take this opportunity to thank the clerks for their unfailingly high standards.
I aim to restrict my remarks to the enforcement of environmental legislation, which will be crucial to the successful transfer of the EU approach to environmental protection back to one under the jurisdiction of the UK. The report notes the importance of EU membership to UK environmental protection, with no less than 80% of UK environmental legislation being shaped by the EU. The overwhelming majority of witnesses to the inquiry believed that the UK’s membership of the EU had improved the UK’s approach to environmental protection and ensured that the UK environment had been better protected.
During the referendum campaign, environmental issues did not feature large, but a national poll conducted by YouGov for Friends of the Earth found that support for the same or better environmental protection with high even among those who voted to leave the EU. The fact is that a majority of the British public remember and value the impact of our membership of the EU in cleaning up our beaches and our drinking water.
In its evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, National Parks England reported that most environmental professionals feel that EU legislation has proved to have more clout than UK laws. It stated:
“An important issue will be (if, as seems likely, the Habitats Directive no longer has to be applied) how the UK establishes equivalent fully independent administrative systems, to protect the most important wildlife sites. This seems likely to require some new legislative mechanisms if the current system for enforcing the Habitats Directive (ultimately, via the Commission and ECJ) becomes irrelevant”.
Although European law will be transposed to the UK, governance arrangements would not. We stand in danger of losing the stable policy environment that complex, well-enforced EU law has created—one that is resistant to change. The upshot of that has been higher investor confidence among businesses. This stability could be lost with the increased freedom of the UK to set its own laws.
The EU governance structure also allows the Government to be held accountable for their environmental actions—for example, through NGOs being able to challenge air quality policy in court. Professor Andrew Jordan told the committee that without the European Environment Agency, the European Commission and the European Court of Justice, there was a risk of legislation becoming “zombie legislation”—either no longer enforced or no longer updated to the latest scientific understanding.
The European Commission is a key player in the current enforcement of environmental legislation. Professor Lee said that, as things currently stand, we have,
“obligations to report on how we intend to comply, then to report on how we did comply, and to explain how we will come into compliance if we fail to do so. We report to a well-resourced, well-informed, named body—the Commission”.
The Wildlife Trusts noted that the Commission,
“provides a great deal of support on environmental legislation, including sharing information, monitoring progress, facilitating reporting on progress across Member States, providing guidance and interpretation of legislation”.
None of that currently exists in the UK, and how will we continue to provide that level of expertise to organisations and businesses?
Environmental NGOs have welcomed the role of the European Court of Justice and its right to bring infraction proceedings against member states of they failed to comply with their obligations under EU law. This is a powerful adjunct to the role of the Commission. It has the clout to levy meaningful fines, and its rulings are attended to carefully by member states.
This is the crux of the matter. The European Court of Justice has the resources and information at its fingertips to bring member states to book. Following Brexit, it would be for the domestic courts to enforce public authorities’ and Ministers’ compliance with environmental legislation, typically by means of judicial review. However, we heard evidence from Professor McCrory and Mr Andrews of ClientEarth that the cost of a judicial review could be prohibitive, as could its time-consuming nature. It was also pointed out that although the Commission can fine, the Supreme Court does not.
At the moment, the Government, spurred on by the Commission, drives a lot of thinking about how not to be infracted. Ms Mukherjee raised this fundamental question:
“If it is not the Government but a sector, or the Environment Agency in the any of the four UK Administrations that raises the question, would there be that impetus and that brainpower behind assuring an avoidance of infraction?”.
To conclude, the Committee found the Government’s confidence in its ability to hold themselves to account was at odds with the concern expressed by the large majority of witnesses. I therefore strongly endorse the words found in paragraph 84 of the report that,
“an effective and independent domestic enforcement mechanism will be necessary, in order to fill the vacuum left by the European Commission”.
I shall leave noble Lords with the words of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust:
“There is little use in having good legislation if there is limited means to enforce it”.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, I should first crave the House’s indulgence for my delayed arrival this afternoon, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for missing the first few minutes of his speech. As his excellent report makes clear, we learn a great deal about the earth’s climate and environment by monitoring it from space, and I should like to comment on the highly sophisticated pan-European Copernicus programme, in which this country has a big stake.
We have become aware in recent months of unsuspected extra downsides to Brexit—those stemming from the EU’s pervasive involvement in high-tech activities that can be handled only on an integrated European level. For instance, there has been a disconcerting realisation that our membership of Euratom would lapse after Brexit, necessitating the hassle of somehow ensuring continuity in its essential activities.
Many had thought that our involvement in space activities would be unperturbed, because the European Space Agency—ESA—is governed by a separate convention, and we will remain part of it. That is fortunately true of the scientific parts of ESA’s programme, but it is not true of other space activities. The EU and ESA have a joint European space strategy and the EU is the biggest financial contributor to ESA’s budget. In consequence, our participation in Galileo, the European counterpart of GPS, will need some renegotiation. However, what is relevant to today’s debate is that the same is true for the Copernicus programme—a very ambitious European suite of satellites, important for monitoring many aspects of the environment and climate. Copernicus promises to be the world’s pre-eminent earth observation system.
Outside the EU, the UK will have a weaker voice in Copernicus programmes, and in Galileo’s too. It is unlikely that significant infrastructure related to these programmes will be located in this country. The UK has so far invested around €860 million in the Copernicus programme—initially via ESA but latterly via our membership of the EU—through strong alliances with other EU member states, especially France and Germany. We have shared the costs of a system that would be unaffordable by any one country.
Copernicus has been enthusiastically utilised in the public and private sectors across the UK. Its use is growing rapidly, and it is highly diverse. For example, radar data from one of the Sentinel satellites are hugely important in cloudy countries such as the UK because it allows crop and habitat mapping and monitoring where optical data are often limited by clouds. The Copernicus programme is ambitious and wide-ranging. It provides data relevant to air-quality forecasting, flood warnings, early detection of drought and desertification, warnings of severe weather, oil-spill detection and drift, oil-slick predictions, seawater quality, crop analysis, forest monitoring, land-use change and so forth.
Scientists and engineers based at the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Oxfordshire have made major contributions to building and testing satellites for the Copernicus programme. The most recent was launched just this month. It will beam back images capable of tracking iceberg movements, illegal logging, and water pollution. The system is also designed to allow real-time monitoring of areas hit by natural disasters.
The current Copernicus programme provides data from four Sentinel satellites of three different types. The fleet will reach an operational state of eight satellites by 2020. Despite the UK’s involvement in building the hardware and its great interest in the programme, it is now unclear what access British teams will have to Copernicus’s observations if the UK loses its status as a full collaborator, which it now has through EU membership.
Before Brexit, UK industry was expected to win contracts for satellite manufacturers and providers of downstream services, valued at €350 million during the current programme and, we hope, adding up to €l billion for the period up to 2027. All such pan-European projects will be in jeopardy, especially if we are not in the single market. So an exit from the Copernicus programme without mitigating measures would be damaging to UK industry and environmental projects—both the satellite construction industry and business operating in downstream services. Our scientific and industrial capacity has grown as a result of these investments and contracts. If the private sector is to continue investing, it needs long-term guarantees of data availability. But, of course—and this is what is most relevant to today’s debate—it threatens the UK’s full participation in a world-leading programme of huge benefit to our environmental and climate policies.
The Copernicus data policy will be reviewed by 2020. Optimists would bank on the current free and open data policy continuing, thereby allowing continuing basic data access to most UK users, but this cannot be taken for granted. Constraints on the data portals and pipelines could render data and some instruments hard to access, or the relevant data may no longer be collected over the UK in the first place. We may, as it were, go to the back of the queue. Even if data access continues, the UK would have less influence over the future evolution of the programme, and lose the ability to tune the satellites or services to our needs. This would inhibit our efforts to manage environmental issues, as well as eroding the benefits from the investments we have already made.
As I have emphasised, UK scientists and politicians have played important parts in developing Copernicus. This is a world-leading project that has given Europe a strong voice in international fora that address how we manage our planet better. This lead will be even more crucial if the Trump Administration carry through their threatened cuts to parallel efforts in the United States. The UK cannot do projects on this scale alone. If we leave the EU, some alliance with our European partners that allows continuing full participation in Copernicus will be needed if we are to foster our own environmental interests, and if our voice is to be heard in global environmental and climatic policy. Therefore, it would be welcome if the Minister could give some assurance that these concerns will be prominent on the radar when negotiations begin.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, a number of questions have already been posed, and I pity the Minister for having to go through them in some detail. We heard earlier that we in this Chamber tend to be gloomy, and now we should be cheerful. I am neither; I am just puzzled—which is not a new experience.
From reading the report, which is a model of clarity, as are most of the Brexit reports that come from the various committees, it seems that, as we peel back the layers of the onion, we end up with more layers. I realise that that sounds paradoxical, but it seems to get more and more complex. The other night in the debate on Brexit and Gibraltar I tried to ask some questions about stress testing, to which I got no answer. So I shall try again, focusing very briefly on just one or two questions.
Is any stress testing going on in varying scenarios in relation to what happens when the legal and regulatory costs come away from the EU and have to be borne by the UK—for example, after the European Commission has lost its role and the European Court of Justice is out of the picture? Do we have to create other bodies? I ask the question because I do not know the answer—maybe everybody else does. Have these things been costed and, if so, what are the options for us likely to be?
If I were to press one point it would be derived from experience in my own diocese, which comprises the whole of West Yorkshire, a slice of South Yorkshire and a big chunk of North Yorkshire—particularly those upland areas and farming communities that were referred to earlier. Not only do they face challenges in relation to farming and the effective financing of that, but the problem of second homes, where local people can no longer afford to buy and the children of local people cannot afford to live in the same communities. Rural schools are being closed because the Government’s definition of what constitutes a small school is about three times the size of many of the schools in that part of my diocese. There are also areas within the diocese where broadband access is non-existent—so that is another challenge of top of those challenges.
When the common agricultural policy ceases to apply, what will be the impact on the land and on the countryside management that is so essential? You cannot just have farms closing down and abandoning territory. What happens to land management? Who will replace the subsidies that allow many of these farming communities to survive, if not thrive? There is an assumption among some farmers to whom I have spoken that the Government have promised to replace what is taken away. I am not sure that I have heard that—but maybe it is in addition to the £350 million that is going to go to the NHS. Is someone going to inform the farmers? As I also pointed out in the debate the other day, it seems that we get a lot of bland statements of optimism, and I keep asking myself in my puzzlement where all the realism is in this. It might be that the department is facing those questions, but it seems to me that those of us also involved in those communities need them to be addressed fairly soon.
We have heard that there needs to be policy stability, but I identified in the report a distinction that I thought was very helpful between technical and political questions. If some of the decision-making is being politically driven, what happens to the prioritising of the technical questions? This seems to add enormously to the complexity that we have already described. We have heard in a number of these debates that we need to be ambitious and to raise our ambition in the light of Brexit. This leads me to ask: will our ambition be diluted under the weight of the complexity that is being revealed as we go into the detail of these matters?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, and I thank him for leading Prayers today on such a poignant occasion; it was very appropriate indeed. I declare my interests as listed in the register: I give advice on the environment and work particularly closely with the water regulator of Scotland, the Water Industry Commission for Scotland, I am a member of the Rural Affairs Committee of the Church of England Synod, and I am honorary vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities. I particularly welcome the report before us today and warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—I consider him my noble friend; we had the honour to serve together in the European Parliament—and his committee on the report and on securing this debate today.
I will focus my remarks on the impact of a changing environment, extreme weather events and climate change, in particular on farming. I have been closely associated with farming, originally in the Vale of York and latterly in Thirsk and Malton. I grew up in Teesdale, where I think farm incomes are probably the lowest in the country—they are often quoted as that. I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Byford regarding hardship; I know that many farmers are turning to welfare groups on a scale that we have not seen for a number of years. We should set the debate in that context. I am mindful also that farming and fisheries are the two most dangerous industries, where people are working in significant peril.
Responsibility for damage to the environment, as my noble friend Lady Byford said, including run-off and even nitrates in the soil, is often pinned on farming practices whereas, in reality, farmers have a very positive role to play in shaping the environment and reducing the potential impact of climate change through adaptation and mitigation. Currently—we know that the moneys will be secure until 2019-20—farmers benefit through Countryside Stewardship and other schemes; they are reimbursed for the public good that they do, particularly through water management and flood alleviation schemes. It would be helpful to know from the Minister how this might continue in the future.
I will share with him and the House today one of the most imaginative schemes that I have heard about, which came from the Tenant Farmers Association, which argues for a flat rate of, say, £25,000 a year for all active farmers. I know that that would be significantly less than many of the larger farmers have earned, but it is significantly more than some of the graziers and smaller farmers in the uplands have received.
I also echo my noble friend Lady Byford on the very strong arguments in favour of having one 25-year plan, focusing on the mutual interests of farming and the environment. Famers produce food and we all need to eat. Farmers in the hills and uplands play a very special role in food production. Ideally, eating more home-produced food could be one of the benefits which flow from Brexit. It could benefit the environment, make the UK more self-sufficient in food and boost food security. The Vale of York is home to one of the largest livestock producers in the land. If the hills and uplands were taken out of production in North Yorkshire, Cumbria, Northumbria, the Welsh hills and the Scottish hills, it begs the question of what would replace that. So it would be appropriate for the Government to consider merging these two programmes going forward. What impacts on the environment also impacts on farming and agriculture. Running them in parallel rather than as one is, I believe, a missed opportunity.
We have to give farmers and landowners the chance to plan their business at least two or three years ahead. They need to plan what crops to grow and what animals to stock on the land. Currently, many EU directives and regulations are policed by the Commission—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, set out. This is a strand running throughout the report. Any breaches are resolved on referral to the European Court of Justice. That begs the question: if we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and from policing by the Commission, what body will police any infringements committed in this country, and what dispute resolution mechanism will there be in those circumstances?
I will share with the House an example of the success of European environmental policy: namely, acid rain, which respected no boundaries and blew over from parts of central and eastern Europe, and probably the Soviet Union at the time as well, and wafted over parts of Scandinavia and Australia, and came close to our shores as well. The way that all the European Union member states came together to defeat acid rain was a great success story. So European environmental policy, with Britain’s contribution, has revolutionised the UK. Far from being the dirty man of Europe, as we were in the 1980s, we have now come to a stage where we have some of the cleanest rivers and beaches. Great steps are being taken to improve air quality but more needs to be done on that and to ensure that our water and our environment remain as clean as they are at present.
I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister. As I have already mentioned, who will police the environmental acquis going forward? What will the dispute resolution system be if we remove ourselves from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice? The Minister will be aware that many of the current directives are undergoing revision, notably the mother directive—the water framework directive—the drinking water directive, the bathing water directive and the urban wastewater directive. These will all be concluded exactly at the time that we leave the EU in 2019. So the question to the Minister is: will we sign up to and abide by those directives, as revised, or will we simply transpose them? Obviously, we cannot do that through the great repeal Bill as they are not in place at this time.
I echo other noble Lords’ remarks about the role of the European Investment Bank. Water companies are less reliant on that at the moment because it is cheap to borrow money, but what will the capacity be for water companies or other firms involved in the environment to borrow or seek grants from the EIB post 2019? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds asked whether any economic or regulatory impact assessment had taken place. If no such economic impact assessment has taken place, it would be a matter of great regret as it would be the first time that such a major issue for the country had been addressed without the backdrop of an economic assessment to inform the House and others.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the department will have sufficient staff and resources to undertake all the work that we are asking it to do between now and 2019? I echo the importance of ongoing partnerships with others and to seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be scope for bodies such as the NFU to work with Copa Cogeca, and for water companies to work with the water regulatory association—WAREG—going forward.
We have had a wonderful opportunity to debate these issues today. I know that we will have other occasions to do so in the context of the great repeal Bill and the primary legislation that we anticipate with great interest.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, that was a very important and searching speech. I hope that the Minister and others will take it very seriously indeed. I am very glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the European Investment Bank, as did the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and what will replace it. I am also glad that she mentioned the European Court of Justice because I believe there has been tremendous rhetoric and prejudice about that court. However, it is not only in this sphere that its validity is becoming obvious. I serve on the Justice sub-committee. In the sphere of commercial and family law, given that there is so much trans-border activity, it is very worrying indeed to know what the final authority will be when we lose the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
I declare an interest as I am vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks and I have been for a number of years president of Friends of the Lake District, of which I am now patron.
This excellent report—for which the members, and indeed the clerk and staff, of the committee deserve real praise and thanks from us all—brings home very clearly that we are flat-earthing if we believe we can have a future on our own. We live in a totally interdependent world in so many ways, and that interdependence starts very immediately with our relationship with our European neighbours. This is becoming very obvious in the issues that are raised in the report, and in so many other issues. We need some convincing evidence from the Government about the real, practical arrangements that are going to be put in place which face up to that interdependence. We cannot avoid it. The demand is there. In the interests of our people, it is absolutely essential to know what the practical arrangements necessary in an interdependent situation will be.
This is true of so many aspects of food production, but it is also true of fisheries. It is terribly important to have conservation in fisheries. It is terribly important to have sanity between close and adjacent neighbours in Europe about how they raise those issues. This is very obvious in the context of climate change: how on earth are we going to deal with the consequences of climate change on our own? It is just madness. We have to work together with others. So what will be the practical arrangements for working with others? We have yet to see any evidence of practical arrangements being put in place. Of course, this is true on the environment as a whole.
Some environmentalists recently put it very well when they said that clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas are essential for humanity. I endorse that conclusion warmly. We certainly need clean drinking water. Here, again, the reality—as against prejudice and rhetoric—is that our drinking water left a great deal to be desired and our membership of Europe has done a great deal to improve it. Indeed, on swimming in the sea, our membership of the Community has enabled us to see much more clearly how far short we are of the standards that we should have around our coasts.
Whatever happens in all this—and I cannot stress too strongly the need for evidence of what is going to be put in place; how can we come to a conclusion until we see that?—we are going to need, for the future of our society, the continued revitalisation of our countryside. We have to recognise the importance for the future of our nation of the relationship between farming and the countryside. That is very obvious in the area in which I live, in the Lake District, where all the joys, scenically and the rest, of Cumbria are intimately connected—as are farming and the countryside. This produces the character that we all appreciate so much. It will be essential to have arrangements to support farming and farmers and, indeed, the wider rural communities of which they are a key part. There is a great deal of rural poverty in our country, which we are not beginning to face up to and deal with as we should.
All these things are going to be as pressing as ever. We keep telling the world how wonderful our countryside is. We all know how vital it is to our own values but how will we sustain that countryside without the arrangements that have been increasingly put in place within the European Economic Community? It is the evidence of what will really be there that is needed.
I conclude by applauding what the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. It is absolutely clear that our involvement with Europe and our dependency on that relationship with Europe are so great that it would be the height of irresponsibility if we did not stop using oversimplified, negative rhetoric. Instead, we must start to face up to the challenge of how we have continuing close co-operation with Europe, without which we cannot have a decent future.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of the committee and of this report, and I thank our clerks for their excellent hard work in producing it.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union sets out, very early on, the objectives for its environmental policy. The main bullet points are:
“—preserving, protecting and improving the quality of the environment,
—protecting human health,
—prudent and rational utilisation of natural resources,
—promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change”.
I am sure that we would all agree that those are excellent aspirations. So it is no surprise that a huge proportion of our environmental improvements, brought about by the legislation underpinning them, has emanated from the EU, which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to in his introduction—some 80% of legislation. That is not to say that, irrespective of the EU, we might not have done these things ourselves—who knows?
However, the fact is that, according to Defra, there are something like 1,100 core pieces of EU legislation relevant to Defra, to which the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, previously referred. These comprise regulations, directives and decisions, but also guidance and case law. Therefore not only are there a large number of measures but a diverse range, comprising the EU acquis in this area. While the great repeal Bill will convert EU law into domestic law, the complexity of this environmental legislation—the number of different instruments involved—will present considerable challenges. As one of our witnesses said:
“There is a question over whether it will be, literally, all EU law, Treaties, Regulations, Decisions and Directives, or whether it is just EU law that currently finds its home in the domestic system through secondary legislation. If we do not do all EU law, then there will be an enormous gap because we will miss everything that has not already been put into secondary legislation”.
A second issue to consider is the long-term stability of environmental policy and regulation. Environmental policy is a long game—there needs to be consistency and stability in policy and execution which, it has to be acknowledged, the EU has provided. Once the custody of our environment is entrusted to a single Government with a five-year time horizon, there is intrinsically rather less long-term certainty. So there are challenges relating to transposition of EU legislation in its broadest sense into UK law, and challenges to the stability of environmental policy and law.
However, my major point concerns what I call the “governance gap”, which, without using that term, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, have referred to briefly. Many witnesses expressed concern to us about the fact that, post Brexit, we will lose the oversight and enforcement potential of the EU Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union. Much maligned as they have been in UK public opinion, these bodies have provided an independent refereeing system to reassure us citizens that the environmental improvements proposed and agreed by EU member states are indeed being enacted. They have had the power to hold member state Governments to account and to fine them for infringements. The loss of that potent external governance role is a matter that we need to consider carefully going forward.
It has been suggested that the UK courts can adequately fulfil this role, typically by judicial review, but I understand that there are limitations to the potential of the application of judicial review, particularly related to its costs. There are also limits to the power of our UK courts. Notably, as one of the witnesses commented,
“The Commission can fine. The Supreme Court does not fine.”
Although this vulnerability—this governance gap—may extend to all EU laws and their transposition into UK law in lots of areas, the environment is particularly vulnerable because, as one of our witnesses, Professor Macrory, told us, there is,
“no clear economic owner to protect it”.
Ministers reassured us that they want to leave a better environment than they inherited, and that is an undoubtedly sincere and commendable aspiration, but of course the current Government may not be the Government in five, 10 or 15 years’ time. We need to ensure that there are systems and mechanisms in place so that, whatever the ephemeral policies of different Governments dictate, they will protect our environment for future generations.
What are the responses to these challenges—to the governance gap? It has been argued that the electorate can hold Governments to account, and indeed this gives me some personal confidence that our current standards will be maintained and improved. We have in the UK a very high level of awareness of the status of our environment. We have very influential NGOs and charities, such as the RSPB, the Wildlife Trust, the National Trust and so on. They are very active lobbyists and their role in the future will be hugely important. We also have within Parliament the Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Select Committee, which maintain scrutiny of the Government to hold them to account on environmental matters.
Notwithstanding that, given the governance gap that will follow Brexit, I suggest that there is a case for further strengthening the monitoring of the actions of future Governments in environmental matters, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, suggested. Perhaps this is an area where this House could play a valuable role, given the remarkable range of expertise that we have here. Ultimately, there will not be a need in the post-Brexit era for our EU Select Committee and its sub-committees, but maybe we should consider one or two new committees to deal with the regulatory deficits—the governance gap—that will arise post Brexit.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for this report, but I would add how disappointed I am at the timing of this debate. We had a debate in October on exactly this subject and not much has changed since then. I am sure that the assurances that the Minister gave at that time have been implemented within the department, but I suggest that what we needed before we had this debate was the Government’s 25-year plans. Those would have given us an idea and a focus for this debate, because there has not been much that is new over the last six months on which we can hang our hats. On those 25-year plans, I commend the speech of my noble friend Lady Byford. She is absolutely right that you cannot separate the environment and farming. Those two 25-year reports have to mesh into one report for the whole of our environment.
I agree with much of what the committee says. It will be difficult to transfer all the legislation from EU into UK law. It will be by no means impossible, although it may very well take longer than we thought. I agree with it on the enforcement of the environmental order that is mentioned in paragraph 85. It is right to suggest that there should be some sort of independent body as there is in Europe now; that would be very helpful. I agree that environmental pollution is no respecter of national boundaries, but that argues that we should be working at the world level and not an EU level—there is nothing to stop the pollution coming over the EU national boundary. We are members of certain world organisations and we have a very important role to play in the future of that. On air quality, we have been far too slow. It is a subject that I suggested the committee should write a report on some six years ago when I was a member. However, I was overruled, and we did another worthwhile report instead.
On the other hand, I cannot given unanimous backing to the report. We have been in the EU for so long that we think it is the holy grail of environmental legislation. When the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, introduced the debate, he said that there are difficulties and opportunities. However, the opportunities outlined in the report are as scarce as teeth on hens. It is a very negative report and, having read it, I came away very gloomy thinking that things are really bad.
I voted to remain in the EU, and one of the reasons for that was the environment. But then I asked myself how we managed when we were outside the EU, and started to look at what we have done. There is the Public Health Act 1845. That was to do with the environment and predates the formation of Germany and Italy as national states. We have been at this for a very long time, as the Acts of 1866, 1875 and 1936 show. In 1907, we set up the National Trust without the help of the EU. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, in her speech mentioned how important the habitats directive is. But in 1949, even before the European Coal and Steel Community, this House passed the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. In 2015, we created the world’s largest marine nature reserve in Pitcairn—without the help of the EU. Yes, we can do it by ourselves; we did do it by ourselves; and I have no doubt that life will be pretty good in the future.
Let me use a personal experience to make a point. In 1988-89, when I was Minister for the Environment, I was very involved with work on the ozone layer. It was British scientific advice from the Antarctic Survey that convinced Mrs Thatcher that something ought to be done for the ozone layer. She was very good with the environment because she acted on scientific advice. She said to Nicholas Ridley and me, “This is so important, we have to have a world conference”. So we organised a world conference in 1989, and we did that without the help of the EU, but the EU clung on to our coat-tails and came trundling along very rapidly behind. Just before we had the conference, the EU voted unanimously to phase out CFCs, not 100%, by 2000. We had a very successful London conference: 20 countries signed up to the Montreal Protocol and a further 14, including China, committed to sign up. What did the European Commission do? It decided to bring forward the date that we had just agreed, from 2000 to 1996. Mrs Thatcher gave exactly the right answer: it depends on innovation in science and the ability of industries to create the alternatives.
That proved one thing to me: it is terribly easy for countries in the EU to sign up to resolutions and directives when they have no industries that are going to be involved. As a developed, industrial country, we did have difficulties. It also proved to me that much of what the European legislation was about was emotion and capturing the public mood, rather than proper scientific innovation. That has not changed; it remains the situation. The impact on the environment and how we handle it is not down to some European regulation but to innovation, trade and planning rules. When we are outside the EU, we will be able to move much faster in those areas. I commend the previous debate today on science. We have to look forward and seize these opportunities, and Britain can be very good at that.
In 2000, the EU announced that its Lisbon strategy would make the EU the world’s most advanced knowledge-based economy by 2010. What a load of rubbish. It has totally failed to do that. It is a sadness that the EU, far from being the leader and the important world player it was 20 years ago—when 30% of the world’s economy was transacted in the EU; it is down to 15% now—has become a drag because it does not innovate and cannot respond quickly.
I could wax lyrical about that, but I shall move on quickly to two other matters. As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, the environment is international, national and local. I firmly believe that the environment is best protected at local level. If local people are involved in their environment, they will help look after it, especially farmers and people who live in the countryside. However, if you take away that responsibility for the environment and give it to a third party in a different country, the incentive to look after your home patch is diminished. We are lucky. We are an island nation and all our rivers are in our own country and we cannot blame pollution on anyone else. Unlike Holland, we cannot say that the pollution comes from Germany or, in the case of the Danube, that it comes from another country. We have responsibility for our own rivers, water catchment areas and water pollution, so let us do it ourselves.
I conclude with the issue of money. The environment comes down to money. The report refers to resources and how much we depend on Europe. Is that accurate? No. When we leave, the EU budget will be cut by 12%, so what will happen to some of this EU funding? The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, is right that no one country can fund a lot of this itself. When you take 12% out of the EU budget, many of its programmes will have to be massively cut and the incentive for it to work with Britain, with its financial strength, will be hugely increased. The EU will need our expertise in science and our funds in order to maintain its own programmes.
Who will win with Brexit? Both the EU and Britain will be losers to one extent, but it is far from all gloom for us.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for his excellent chairmanship of our committee. I am a member of the EU sub-committee whose report we are debating today. I pay tribute to our specialist adviser and our committee clerk. As my noble friend Lord Trees once commented, the committee clerk, in effect, writes a PhD thesis every week. She has an extraordinary facility.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has already hinted, I will say a few words about climate change and in doing so I declare an interest in that for eight years I was a member of the Climate Change Committee and chaired the Adaptation Sub-Committee. I stepped down from those roles at the end of January this year.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Climate Change Act 2008 which passed through this House with all-party support. It commits us as a nation to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions to at least 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. As noble Lords will know, the role of the Climate Change Committee is to advise the Government on the cost-effective path to 2050 through a series of five-yearly carbon budgets and to report to Parliament annually on the progress that the Government have made towards those budgets. The first five carbon budgets have been legislated for, taking us up to the early 2030s.
In its 2016 annual report, the Climate Change Committee stated that so far the Government are on track to meet their legally binding commitments. Emissions in 2015 were 38% below 1990 levels. This appears to be a good news story, and in some ways it is, but the good news has been achieved by a mixture of genuine progress through, for example, investment in offshore wind. The UK now has 40% of the world’s offshore wind capacity, making us the global leader. It is also partly through plucking the low-hanging fruit and in part as the result of the by-products of changes in the country that are not to do with climate change policy, such as the decrease in livestock farming and the offshoring of some heavy industries.
However, when we look to the future, the picture is not quite as rosy. In order to continue to meet the legislated carbon budgets into the 2020s and beyond, significant new policies will be required. According to the Climate Change Committee, by the mid-2020s, about half of the required emissions reductions do not yet have any policies in place to achieve them. Furthermore—this brings me to Brexit—many of the existing and future policies are dependent on European legislation. The Climate Change Committee estimates that more than half of the policy space through the 2020s is dependent on EU legislation. I shall outline some of the key areas: energy-efficient product standards for household appliances, buildings and so on; vehicle fuel efficiency standards; controls on waste and F-gases; policy on biofuels; investment in R&D to develop the technologies to transition us to a low-carbon economy; the EU Emissions Trading System, which allows us to meet some of our emissions reduction targets by buying allowances, and the EU electricity market, which enables us to purchase electricity at the best price on any particular day.
Brexit will pose substantial challenges for this country in meeting its legally binding climate targets through the 2020s and beyond. I hope that in his response, the Minister will give us some indication of how the Government intend to meet this challenge. One answer might be that the great repeal Bill will ensure that all the relevant EU legislation is translated into UK law, but as we have heard, the Secretary of State for Defra has indicated that around a third of the legislation which relates to the environment cannot be translated in a straightforward manner. We also heard evidence from an expert in environmental law, Professor Richard Macrory—about whom we have heard quite a bit in the debate and with whom I play tennis in Oxford; I declare another interest—who noted that the words “as far as practicable” have been used by the Secretary of State and could be an escape clause. I look forward to the Minister reassuring us on these points.
More generally, can the Minister tell us how far his department—along with others because climate change policy cuts across departments—has got in deciding how the Government will meet their legally binding targets post Brexit? Will we retain the same environmental standards for products? Will we remain in the EU ETS? Will we replace lost EU funding for R&D? Will we continue to retain strict controls on waste? One can imagine pressure from some industry players to lower standards, so it would be useful to hear that the Government are committed to adhering to their own climate targets and that they will be completely clear about standards so that there is a level playing field both within the UK and between the UK and the European Union.
I turn finally to the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action. We were the first country in the world to pass a law requiring us to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, we have been seen as a leader both in Europe and globally. A number of witnesses told us that our influencing role as a global leader could be weakened after Brexit because we will no longer be part of the EU negotiating bloc for international treaties. The Minister, Dr Jesse Norman, told us that he intended the UK to remain a global leader, but that it was premature to speculate how this might be achieved. I wonder whether it is still too premature or whether the Minister might tell us how government thinking has developed in the intervening months.
At the previous President of the United States said:
“We are the first generation to feel the effect of climate change and the last generation who can do something about it”.
We should be proud of the fact that the UK has been a leader in formulating policies to do something about it. Brexit will pose new challenges for us. I seek reassurance that the Government are ready and willing to meet these challenges.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who really made my role redundant as he has said everything I would wish to say. On Brexit, of which I am sure it is clear I am not a great fan, I think of the phrase, “How do you eat an elephant? One bit at a time”. This is obviously the environment and climate change bit. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Teverson and the committee on beginning its gargantuan task identifying and categorising the issues and actions needed even to begin to address extracting ourselves from the EU in this regard. I sometimes think that everyone who works on this, whether a remainer or leaver, must have at some point thought, “Wow, it would be much easier to stay”—at least, that is what I hope they think.
I hope and trust that much of what we are about to do will be to recreate what currently exists. My particular portfolio is energy and climate change. I will confine myself to those aspects of the report and perhaps look at some of the compensatory actions that we will need to take. The report rightly says that we have established in UK law our commitment to those measures contained within the Climate Change Act, including the carbon budgets and of course the well-respected Climate Change Committee—thank goodness. As I said, I thought the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, covered beautifully all the aspects of climate change policy that need to come into play. But while the Climate Change Act protects us to a degree it goes only so far.
The Government have stated on many occasions, in this House and in the other place, that they will uphold their agreements, standards, targets, commitments et cetera, but I confess that I lack confidence in the Government. When we are not held to those standards or targets, when we are no longer monitored by the EU institutions and fail standards enforced by the EU, I fear we will not meet our targets. I fear a decline and a rush to deregulation. I was a Minister in the coalition. I cannot forget those occasions when the Conservative part of the coalition went on and on about deregulation. It was almost a religion with them. Statements made on becoming a virtual tax haven and other comments in that direction do not encourage confidence in the maintenance of standards.
The emissions reduction plan was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. I ask the Minister: where is it? Is it ever disappearing into the future? Although I understand that the Government believe they can hold themselves to account, I do not share that optimism. Sadly, I prefer supranational oversight in this regard. We will need to set up new institutions to deal with compliance, infraction and additional enforcement. There will need to be biting sanctions on non-compliance. If we adopt EU regulations on energy efficiency into our own law, as I think we should, and if we keep up fuel standards for land vehicles and product standards for appliances, we will surely have to comply in order to trade. We need that alignment of standards. The report rightly says that the emissions trading scheme is not super-effective but it is very important. How and with whom will we trade emissions? What will happen about updates to EU regulations? They do not stand still, so even if we adopt them as they are, we will very quickly fall behind on, for example, the energy efficiency directive.
I do not want to just go through the report: it lays out well the areas and issues of importance. I trust that we will work towards reconstituting literally all of this. If this is the opportunity that we are encouraged and enjoined to support, then we have not only to reconstitute outside the EU what we subscribed to and benefited from in the EU but to go further. We need to change gear. There is no sense of urgency currently from the Government about meeting our targets or taking new actions and producing new policies to help us reach the level of emissions reductions that the Paris agreement committed us to. That was not an EU commitment but a world commitment. If the argument that there is a big, wonderful world out there with which to trade is to hold water, we need to capitalise on the economic opportunity that the clean economy offers us. We need to act faster and more urgently to make it clarion clear to the rest of the world that we are open for clean business and completely committed to decarbonisation.
Our future prosperity is going to depend on developing an economy that is innovative, entrepreneurial, internationally open and environmentally sustainable, and one where the benefits of growth are shared fairly across the country and with future generations. Our membership of the EU guaranteed our commitments to the climate change agenda and was a safeguard against this Government or any Government undermining our ability to deliver on our legally binding targets. Will the Minister say, outside the EU, what our guarantor of delivery will be?
We must improve the efficiency of resource use and decarbonise the economy. That will help create high skills and high value-added industries able to compete in the new global markets for low-carbon and resource-efficient products, technologies and services and create jobs throughout the country. It is really as plain as the nose on your face that with the Paris agreement and the sustainable development goals, low-carbon products and services are the future, and that future is worth trillions to this country.
I have to say that the industrial strategy offered by the Government was virtually mute on climate change. We need to establish a clear and consistent commitment to policies that create long-term demand for low-carbon transport and energy efficiency, thus giving investors the confidence they need. And boy, do they need confidence, because thus far this Government have done their best to undermine investor confidence by changing the goalposts. They have taken away from wind and solar subsidies that everyone would agree were necessary to remove in the long term but which, done at a stroke, undermined all business plans—let alone the removal of the £1 billion carbon capture and storage manifesto pledge.
The Government need to strengthen their support for clean innovation and encourage the creation of clean financial products to bring consumer capital into these clean industries. As I am at seven minutes, I will simply thank my noble friend Lord Teverson and the committee for the vital work that they have done. I reiterate, however, that although reconstituting must be mandatory, it is but the minimum needed to drive both our economy and a clean planet forward.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee for producing such a timely and authoritative report. It made the point clearly that the threads of EU environmental policy are woven through many aspects of the UK’s relationship with the EU. Not only did environmental policy play little part in the referendum campaign; I would hazard that no one made the environmental case for leaving the EU. However, I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, stressed that we must have the confidence to press ahead.
The report is not a very comfortable read. In every aspect of withdrawal from the EU that the committee considered, the challenges and pitfalls remain as daunting as initially feared. Since Britain was branded as the dirty man of Europe, participation in the EU has produced a comprehensive framework that Britain has embraced and improved upon to bring about favourable environmental impacts across our daily lives. Leaving the EU will affect nearly every aspect of the UK’s environmental policy. That interdependence was highlighted by my noble friend Lord Judd, who asked several questions about what practical arrangements will come forward.
What is clear is that two years to resolve these daunting challenges is not very long if we are to provide answers on future policy direction and resources. It is also clear that Defra has had nearly nine months since the referendum and has not really laid out its thinking and approach to the task—other than to promise the great repeal Bill and underline certain fundamental basics, such as that the UK’s climate goals have not changed. The Secretary of State has explained that her department has eight different work-streams in its EU exit programme and is carrying out detailed analysis, ranging from market access and labour to trade and agricultural land use policy. She has also promised two Green Papers, on the future of food and farming and on the environment.
Perhaps the Minister can move forward from this position tonight and clarify at the outset the progress of this mapping exercise, when it will be finalised and whether it will be published. Has Defra been given the resources to deliver this and follow it through, with all its legislative implications, given that its budget was slashed by 30% by the previous Chancellor and it has been tasked with finding further savings of 15% by 2020? Has the Minister made any further request to the Treasury, beyond the meagre recruitment of 30 new posts?
If I have any criticism of the report, it is that it has been light on two important points: agriculture and climate change. However, I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that agriculture will be the subject of a separate report, while the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, also referred to the interrelationship between farming and the environment. Paragraph 24 of the report mentions agriculture and fisheries in relation to the substantial environmental elements and significant cash-flow expenditure, signified in one bullet point in box 2 at paragraph 18. I draw attention to the significant role farming plays in managing the environment. After all, it has to look after its land resource for future generations. I declare my interest in a dairy enterprise in Cheshire which is in receipt of EU funds.
Agriculture is best placed to cherish the landscape and implement national priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, raised the importance of countryside stewardship in this regard. To do this, however, agriculture must be profitable. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has come forward with its industrial strategy, which was recently debated in your Lordships’ House. Yet in that strategy document, there is no mention of agriculture. Can the Minister underline tonight the Government’s commitment, beyond the statement that there is rural-proofing across all government departments?
I would also mention the importance of better regulation—not to be confused with deregulation—which will need to be constantly under consideration. My noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about all the organisations that need to co-ordinate and maintain standards through better regulation, while the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, also spoke strongly on regulation, especially in regard to energy considerations.
I mentioned that agriculture must be profitable, and I need not remind the Minister that much of agriculture would become uneconomic without subsidy. The Government have not yet come forward with proposals for funding agriculture post-exit, around 2019, a point underlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. This will be fundamental to food policy, the food chain and the food industry, which accounts for 6.8% of GVA and is the UK’s fourth-largest exporting sector. Funding and food prices are intrinsically linked. Volatility in finance and extreme weather patterns were the subject of an interesting Global Food Security report on the resilience of the global food system and environmental tipping points. I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, given his perspective as chair of the adaptation sub-committee of the Committee on Climate Change. At the heart of the EU’s environmental policy is the precautionary principle. When this is repatriated into UK law, the Government will face the challenge of whether it is to remain hazard-based or become risk-based. On this will depend the outcome of the great royal debate about whether the genetic modification of organisms will be permitted. This will have a significant impact on the environment regarding what sprays will be permitted and whether they can be incorporated into seed to save the environment altogether.
I underline the critical importance of climate change and its impact. Although it is mentioned in chapter 6 of the report, it is only really examined in paragraphs 134 and 135 with regard to the EU ETS. While the report is correct to underline that climate change is a global issue that transcends the EU and that the UK is a party to international agreements, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will appreciate that there are doubts about whether the UK is on track to meet the sixth carbon budget and the EU renewables energy directive, which requires the UK to reach an overall target that includes transport and heat as well as electricity. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, also spoke eloquently on the challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, will remember that it proved extremely difficult to get the Government to set a decarbonisation target for 2030.
The debate this afternoon has highlighted the many concerns raised in the report. The Minister will know that there is widespread concern about the process of consolidation into the great repeal Bill. The House of Commons Library has identified 922 agriculture, 1,122 fisheries and 527 environmental instruments, regulations and laws which will need to be consolidated. Two questions arise. First, how will the Government define what is practical and appropriate and will this test be applied separately to each regulation? Several speakers have drawn attention to this in the debate. Secondly, as Labour has continually emphasised, the great repeal Bill is not a substitute for proper accountability and scrutiny, so will the Government commit to provide draft versions of the Bill as negotiations progress, so that we can be assured that current levels of environmental protection are at least being maintained?
The determination to pin the Government down on this issue sadly arises because they have not always lived up to their rhetoric on environmental issues. Their mantra is that they will leave the environment in better shape than they found it, but on issues such as air quality, they have failed to act, despite two court judgments. As a result, people being forced to breathe dirty air has led to an estimated 40,000 early deaths. The UK is still expected to have illegally high nitrogen dioxide levels in many areas in 2020. The Government still have some convincing to do regarding their real commitment to environmental improvements. Leaving the EU could give Ministers leeway to set more lenient targets.
Our second area of concern is the weakening of enforcement mechanisms in UK law. Currently, as the report identifies, the EU Commission enforces the environmental legislation through its many functions, including by monitoring progress, providing guidance and interpreting legislation. A whole range of accountability mechanisms are potentially at risk as we leave the EU. Historically, both the Commission and the Court of Justice of the European Union have had a strong impact in ensuring the UK’s compliance with EU legislation that affects environmental protection. Earlier this week, the Environment Agency brought a successful prosecution through Aylesbury Crown Court against Thames Water, resulting in a record fine of £20 million for six pollution incidents. Can the Minister say whether this sets any precedents for dealing with more general environmental issues? More importantly, will the Government, who are sometimes at fault rather than a company, face a similar course of action if they fail to meet their responsibilities? Does the Minister accept that the Government will need additional enforcement mechanisms to fill the gap left by the Commission? Does he accept that a clear framework has to be set while negotiations are ongoing to ensure that the UK’s environmental standards are maintained?
The effectiveness of the EU regulatory regime is due in no small part to the deterrent effect of the power of the EU institutions to hold member states to account and to levy fines for non-compliance. In addition, every year, Defra faces challenges of disallowance and even infraction should it not implement the policies correctly. An effective and independent domestic mechanism will be necessary to ensure compliance by government, public authorities and farmers in undertaking their environmental obligations. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, underlined these concerns in her remarks, which were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Trees.
Our third concern is the future funding of environmental and climate change initiatives and institutions. Although the Government have committed to continuing research funding until 2020, this is a short-term commitment in research planning terms, and so far there has been less of a guarantee of continued funding beyond 2019 for other crucial projects. There is a real danger that bids for government funding post Brexit will be competing for a shrinking pot and that the environment will not be deemed to be a priority. There is a real concern that Defra will not have a seat at the top table when some of these difficult choices are being made. I hope the Minister can confirm that Defra will establish clear objectives for future environmental protection in the UK and will be determined and committed to delivering the level of resources necessary to deliver this. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, made a powerful speech on the Copernicus programme and the UK’s continuing participation in it.
Fourthly, the report identifies the complexities of managing future environmental planning in the context of the devolved Administrations within the UK. Currently, there are differences in environmental and climate change policies between them: for example the Administrations have either legislated their own climate change targets or created their own Act. This difference is likely to increase once we have officially left the EU, and the requirement to act in conformity with EU law is lifted. It is therefore vital that the devolved Administrations and the Government should achieve an appropriate level of policy co-ordination, while still allowing for some distinction to reflect local or regional circumstances. Can the Minister reassure us of the department’s intentions to meet with the devolved bodies frequently during the Brexit negotiations to ensure that the demands of each devolved Administration are properly reflected?
Finally—your Lordships will be glad I have said that word at this late time, and I am sorry I have taken so long—it is crucial that we have a coherent plan to combat climate change once we leave the EU. Up till now, the UK’s contribution to the global debate has predominantly been as an EU member, and historically the EU has provided leadership in shaping the mechanisms that it has introduced to meet collective targets. The report rightly recognised that we will lose our place in the EU negotiating team, and we run the risk of being sidelined unless we can ally with a new bloc.
Several questions arise as the UK will no longer be required to meet all the EU’s targets for renewable energy. Once outside the EU, the UK will not be compelled to report to it on its annual emissions or to submit plans to the EU for corrective action if the UK misses the 2020 targets for reducing emissions. The withdrawal process will need to establish the UK’s obligations under international law, separate from the EU. Can the Minister outline what the Government’s intentions are in this respect?
The election of President Trump has raised the stakes on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, has argued that the UK needs to find a way to play a continuing role of influence. While the US Administration have yet to provide clear policies on climate change, the President has threatened to remove the US from all international climate treaties. This puts a renewed onus on the UK to set out clear policies and be a leader in combating climate change. I would be most grateful if the Minister could outline how the Government intend to respond to this challenge.
This has been a very well-informed debate. It has highlighted the importance of certainty and consistency for institutions, businesses and investors. It is clear that there is a great deal of interest in the progress of discussions both inside and outside this House. Parliament will want to continue to play its part in shaping the outcome. I hope the Minister is able to confirm that all sides of the House will have a full and meaningful role as negotiations commence. I look forward to hearing how he thinks this will best be achieved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the sub-committee for holding this inquiry, and for the opportunity for this thought-provoking debate today. Although this has predominantly been an environment and climate change debate, I should declare my farming interests as set out in the register. There have been a number of questions that I would like to reflect upon and, given the hour, write a more detailed reply to. Any questions that I am not in a position to attend to, I shall of course respond to in writing to your Lordships.
The committee highlights the scale and complexity of repatriating environmental policy as we exit the EU. This is not something that the Government underestimate—and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, elaborated on the range of issues at large. As the committee’s report indicates, it is of vital importance that policy stability is provided as we leave the EU and that no legislative gaps or uncertainties are created. To provide this stability, as noble Lords know, the Government have set out our plans for a repeal Bill that will convert current EU law into domestic law. We will ensure that the environment is properly protected in law and that—I emphasise this—the whole body of existing EU environmental law continues to be given effect in the law of our country, either as it stands or in a manner that ensures that it works as a UK regime.
The department is continuing its work on the operability assessment of EU legislation following exit. This is a matter of process—and I understand the issue, which has arisen before, about one-third and two-thirds. I emphasise that this work is to ensure that the whole body of EU environmental law continues to be given effect in the law of the UK. As I say, it is about ensuring the manner in which it works as a UK regime.
This is also in conjunction with our manifesto pledge to leave the natural environment of this country in a better state than we found it. We want to design an effective approach to driving environmental improvement, tailored to the needs of our country. We will continue to explore the scope for new approaches to regulation which deliver better environmental outcomes, in the context of our commitment to developing a 25-year plan for the environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson—and perhaps the majority of your Lordships—found this more a challenge than an opportunity, but I do think that there are opportunities that we should grasp. We should be positive about our joint determination to improve the environment of this country. That is a great opportunity for us all to work on.
The committee considered the role played by EU institutions in ensuring effective enforcement of environmental protection and standards—I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said—but the UK has always had a strong legal framework for environmental protection which predates our membership of the EU and the oversight provided by its institutions. I was going to refer to the Clean Air Act 1956 as a first example, but my noble friend Lord Caithness took us as far back as the 19th century, when we gave a lead.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, in particular, that we were the first country in the world to introduce legally binding emission reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. Our commitment to the environment can be seen through our action in extending the blue belt: 23 new areas were designated as marine conservation zones only last year. The blue belt now covers more than 20% of English waters, and our record for waters around our overseas territories is also impressive.
In considering the future enforcement mechanism for environmental law, we should recognise the fundamental roles of Parliament, the UK courts and, indeed, the electorate. Parliament is the UK’s supreme law-making body. As we have seen, particularly in this Chamber, it holds Governments to account by questioning and challenging the laws they seek to make and amend. Parliament in turn is accountable to the electorate. Our system of judicial review and its body of public law enables any interested party to challenge the decisions and actions of the Government through the UK courts.
I very much regret the lack of confidence of the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, in what I believe are our exceptional UK institutions. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, referred to the Thames Water case and the fine of £20 million. I listened very carefully to the commentary of the Environment Agency spokesperson. It shows exactly that such environmental issues are taken with extreme seriousness and rigour in our domestic courts.
Countries that are not EU members are well capable of driving environmental improvements in their countries. Many countries around the world with strong environmental records would think it extraordinary if we were to say to them, “By the way, you need a supranational body and court to ensure that you behave yourself”. They would feel extremely insulted. I will give way, but time is short.
Baroness Featherstone
My view was that I prefer the supranational authority to our Government here; I was not referring to other countries. Sadly, my confidence is lacking in this Government.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I am sorry that the noble Baroness does not have confidence in our institutions, our Parliament and our courts, because that is in effect what she is saying. She is saying that other countries around the world are well able to look after their own environment. In fact, in many cases, as I have described, we are already leading and are recognised as a leader of the world.
The committee is also anxious—rightly—for the Government to make clear what a free trade agreement with the EU will entail, arguing that this will have implications for future environmental policy. We will negotiate for an ambitious free trade agreement that allows the freest possible trade in goods and services with the EU. Trade and environmental considerations are closely related.
We want to ensure economic growth. Development and environmental protection go hand in hand. More trade does not have to come at the expense of the environment, and a healthy environment is in everyone’s interests. We will explore all options in the design of future bilateral trade and investment agreements, including environmental provisions within them.
In respect of the committee’s specific recommendations to review and evaluate the common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy, I can assure your Lordships that we are assessing all the opportunities for agriculture and fisheries outside the EU. A number of noble Lords raised this, including my noble friend Lady Byford, who particularly raised the importance of a successful agricultural sector, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds. It is absolutely clear that a successful agricultural sector in this country is compatible and has traditionally, in so many parts of our country, been compatible with a good environment.
The noble Lord, Lord Judd, has always been not only an outstanding champion of Cumbria but also of the national parks, for which it is my great privilege to be responsible at the moment. Farming, landscape, environment, and the agricultural system of the Lake District are absolutely hand in hand and entwined. It has been created by generations of farmers, and it is that agricultural system that has enabled the very designation that we granted to that wonderful part of our countryside.
There is much on which the Government will be working. I would say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds that it is my privilege to sit on the ministerial taskforce on broadband and we are absolutely clear about the need for increasing the rate of superfast broadband in rural areas. We have deliberately trialled the free childcare of 30 hours in rural areas, specifically because we think it is important that everyone in this country has those advantages. We are absolutely clear that, as I say, a great and improved environment and a strong agricultural sector are compatible with each other.
The committee points out a shared interest in maintaining cross-border trade with the EU. The Government agree with that. It highlights the need to co-operate with the EU on environmental pollution—of course, due to its transboundary nature. It is our neighbour and our friend and we should do this.
The committee also expressed some concern that withdrawal from the EU may impact on achieving climate change targets. I can assure noble Lords that we will continue to work closely with EU member states and international partners to tackle environmental issues which demand multilateral co-ordinated action. We will continue to co-operate with the EU on those policy areas where it is important for us to do so, including those issues which have effects across borders.
In relation to achieving carbon targets, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, that the Government remain committed to tackling climate change and to low-carbon, secure and affordable energy and clean growth. While we cannot know at this stage what our precise future participation in EU climate measures may be post-exit, the EU will remain an important partner and we are considering how best to continue to work together.
The committee also urged the Government to engage fully in negotiating and influencing EU environmental proposals for the full term of its membership. It expressed concern about the UK’s influence post-exit at both EU and international level. It also stressed the importance of ensuring that the UK adheres to its international commitments. As long as we remain a member of the EU we will continue to play a full part in its activities and to represent the interests of the British people. My ministerial colleagues and officials continue to play an active role in the EU institutions.
I want to emphasise, particularly because it has been emphasised by three noble Lords—the noble Baroness, Lady Featherstone, the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton—that, after our exit, the UK will continue to honour its international commitments. We are party to multilateral environmental and climate change agreements and are bound by their obligations.
We are signatories, for instance, to: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris agreement, which set binding emissions targets; the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species; the Montreal protocol, with its ban on most ozone-depleting substances and requirements to reduce hydrofluorocarbons—I was particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Caithness for reminding your Lordships of the London conference, and the advances and all that followed on from that conference; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the Berne convention; the OSPAR Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic; and the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, with their restrictions on the movement of hazardous waste and commitments relating to chemicals.
More than just honouring our international commitments, the UK will remain an active country at a global level. The UK has always played a significant role at the international level, whether this be in combating acid rain, or the role that we played last year in extending the Montreal protocol. We have led Europe on issues of environmental protection, let us remember. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 provided protection in UK law for vulnerable species more than a decade before the EU introduced the habitats directive. The committee—I particularly draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, to this—acknowledged, I believe rightly, the UK’s position as a global leader on climate change. The UK’s acknowledged skills and expertise have been a major factor in developing our influence in international climate and environmental policies. These skills and expertise will stand us in good stead for continuing to influence environmental policies. We will not step back from the international leadership that we have given on climate change.
My noble friend Lord Deben, the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, are all Members of your Lordships’ House who have been keen leaders in ensuring that, through all our efforts, we are better with our mitigation and our adaptation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who has recently handed over to his very worthy successor, the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, the chair of the Adaptation Sub-Committee.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and we will continue to remain a very strong partner in that. We are now considering how best to take forward that continued engagement. The UK remains committed to international efforts to tackle climate change, and working with the EU will remain as important as ever. We will also continue to strengthen our relationship with other partner countries and work through multilateral groupings such as the G7, G20 and the Commonwealth.
The noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, referred to the Copernicus project; I think that this country has had a proud history of leading and supporting cutting-edge research, and the noble Lord knows more about that than almost anyone. As we exit the EU, Her Majesty’s Government welcome agreement to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science research and technology, so this is very much on the radar as we move into the negotiations.
A number of your Lordships, including the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about resources, particularly for my department. The committee identified the resource pressures associated with maintaining environmental legislation. The Government are absolutely aware of the implications of EU exit for, in particular, my own department’s work programmes. I can assure your Lordships that Defra’s work programmes and recruitment plans are kept continually under review to ensure that we are staffed to deal with the tasks at hand. We have set up an EU exit programme to help co-ordinate, plan and assist several key work streams and are identifying and filling vacancies on a rolling basis—it has been my privilege to work with many of the officials; their commitment has been 110%, they are working extremely hard and effectively, and I congratulate and thank them.
The committee also raised concerns about the potential risk of divergent approaches to environmental regulation across the United Kingdom. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and all your Lordships that it is absolutely clear that Defra must work closely with the devolved Administrations, as it is doing. We will work in partnership with the devolved Administrations as we form our negotiating strategy for exiting the EU. It will be important to ensure that no new barriers to living and doing business within our union are created. That means maintaining the necessary common standards and frameworks for our own domestic market, empowering the UK as an open, trading nation to strike the best trade deals around the world and protecting the common resources of our islands.
A number of questions were raised. Time is pressing but I wish to respond to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who mentioned the EIB. The Government are in the process of assessing the contribution that the EIB makes. However, we are clear that the future relations between the UK and the EIB will be a matter for the Article 50 negotiations. Again, this is very much on the radar. The actual form of a dispute resolution in future relationships with the EU will also be a matter for the negotiations as they proceed.
A number of other points were raised and I will need to reflect on a considerable number of them and get back to your Lordships. I look forward to the debate on agriculture when your Lordships’ committee brings that forward. However, we have made sure that the current levels of funding for farmers are assured until 2020. Existing environmental stewardship and countryside stewardship agreements are fully funded for their duration. Clearly, we will have a major task in bringing forward our proposals for ensuring that our farmers have a vibrant future in an enhanced environment.
I hope that this has not been an unnecessarily pessimistic debate and wish to emphasise some of the significant gains that this country has achieved in improving its environment. The water environment is in its healthiest state for 25 years, with otter, salmon, sea trout and other wildlife returned to many rivers for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. We have had successful reintroductions of species such as the large blue butterfly, the red kite and the short-haired bumble-bee. We have seen many declining species such as cirl bunting, stone curlew, chough and bittern start to recover, although clearly there is very much more to do. We have an opportunity to develop an environmental policy that is bespoke to our country. We must grasp that opportunity, whatever our opinion of what happened last June. We can unleash the full potential of this country and develop innovative and efficient policies that will enable us to continue working globally on environmental protection.
I again commend the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and his committee on producing this report. It will continue to be of great value as we proceed in securing our objective to enhance the natural environment of our country and leave it in a better state than the one in which we found it. Working together—I emphasise “together”—let us ensure that there is a better environment for all. We should address with clear purpose the adaptation and mitigation of climate change—causes on which we can all unite.
Baroness Sheehan
I wish to comment on the remarks about enforcement. This is a very important area. The Minister mentioned the Clean Air Act 1956. I remind the House that that was enacted on the back of the great smog—the catastrophic pollution event in London. Going back to the 19th century, in 1858, London had the great stink, when Parliament had to be evacuated as the sewage that had been dumped in the Thames stank so much. That event led to the London sewerage system being built. My point is that we must be mindful that we have to interfere in a timely manner and we cannot, judging by the events here, wait far too long before it is necessary to act.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I will be as brief as I can. I will not be long. The right reverend Prelate referred to this as an onion. The more the committee looked at this, the bigger and more complex the challenge was. I say to the Minister: the report is not meant to be pessimistic. It is supposed to help find a way through to the other side, and to show what a challenge that is. We are very concerned that the Government have the resources to do it. The Minister’s reassurances tell us that they do.
I thank the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, for adding an element of opposition to the debate. Yes, we are leaders and that is one of the things we say. As the Minister said, Britain has been a leader on climate change. In fact, our concern is that the rest of Europe might backslide without us being there, to our prejudice. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, for time-sharing with me in looking after the climate change side.
I will just say something about the institutional side. The point here is that Lords committees get evidence from as wide a range of people as possible, who are not nutters and do not have a single agenda. The biggest message that came through was about how the ECJ and the Commission do not have a role at the moment. We may not like that but that is the message that was given to the committee. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, however good the wish of the present Government—I believe completely in their environment side—that is not necessarily true of future Governments. It would be great if somehow we could solve this institutional thing with the present Government to make sure that future Governments also have to pursue that agenda properly.
I thank everybody for their contributions. I particularly thank Celia Stenderup-Petersen, our clerk; Jennifer Mills, our policy analyst; and David Baldock, our special adviser. We have had an hors d’oeuvre for the agricultural debate that we will have in due course. We look forward to that. Yes, agriculture is integrated but so are energy and transport in terms of the environment; I am sorry we could not do the whole thing.