House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government are carefully considering the potential impacts on cabotage as part of our preparations for negotiating our departure from the EU. The Department for Transport is engaging with industry on the matter. It is too soon to say what arrangements will be in place, but we are very conscious of the interest of the transport industry in future arrangements.
Stuart C. McDonald
The open skies agreement has provided great opportunities for EU-registered airlines, including UK companies such as easyJet that fly largely unrestricted between and within member states, as well as from the EU to the US, but Brexit could change all that. Can the Secretary of State reassure industry and passengers that the UK will remain part of open skies arrangements?
Chris Grayling
As I said a moment ago, we will reach that agreement in due course. It is our intention across the sectors, whether haulage or aviation, to secure the best possible agreement for the future that will benefit those from elsewhere in the European Union who seek to do business in the UK and those from the UK who seek to do business elsewhere in the European Union.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
How important is it to make arrangements for the worst-case scenario, just to show how serious our negotiating intent is?
Chris Grayling
My right hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that the Government of course take steps to prepare for all eventualities, but we enter the negotiations with good faith and the intention to secure a deal, because we believe very strongly that that is in everybody’s interests, both here in the United Kingdom and across the European Union.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the worst-case scenario is no arrangement at all, that airlines have to schedule 12 to 18 months in advance, and that he therefore has to resolve the issue within the next six months?
Chris Grayling
I never speculate on these things, but I have had detailed discussions with the aviation industry over the past few weeks. I am well aware of the challenges it faces with regard to its business models. Of course the Government listen very carefully to it about how best to approach that important sector in the context of the negotiations.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Like the aviation sector, the maritime industry relies heavily on the EU with regard to cabotage. The shipping sector warned that Brexit may well cost UK-flagged and owned shipping companies the right to trade in EU coastal waters, which would entail a heavy financial price. What assurances will the Secretary of State give today that he will maintain the same access, and what discussions has he had with the Scottish Government about the implications?
Chris Grayling
As I said a moment ago, the Government are focused on ensuring that we have the best possible arrangements across the transport sector. We have regular discussions with the Scottish Government on a wide variety of issues. What I will say—I think this is good news for all us—is that the UK flag is increasing in size again, which we all welcome.
Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister told the House yesterday that she will “deliver certainty” to UK businesses about their position post-Brexit, but without agreement on the principles behind cabotage, trucking companies are already warning that new customer checks will gridlock roads leading to the channel ports. UK-based airlines are already warning that they may need to relocate their bases across the channel if the UK falls out of the common aviation area. Just how and when are Ministers going to deliver the certainty that those companies need now, rather than a ministerial aspiration that everything is going to be all right on the night?
Chris Grayling
Of course, this is not simply about UK companies, because the vast majority of haulage-based cabotage that takes place in the United Kingdom is undertaken by international hauliers operating in the UK, so they themselves have a vested interested in ensuring that their politicians work with us to make sure that we have the best possible arrangements for the future. That is what we will do, and I am confident that other European Governments will want to do the same.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
As I am sure the hon. Lady is aware, Northern Powerhouse Rail will provide faster and more frequent rail services across the region. We have committed £60 million to developing the scheme and we are working closely with Transport for the North on potential route options and their costs and benefits. That analysis is due to arrive with us by the end of 2017.
Judith Cummins
I am sure the Minister will be aware that Bradford has launched the “Next Stop Bradford” campaign to secure a High Speed 3 station in our city centre. Will the Minister join me in supporting a Northern Powerhouse Rail station in Bradford city centre and thereby support the huge £1.3 billion boost to the northern powerhouse economy that the new station promises?
Paul Maynard
I am indeed aware of Bradford’s campaign. The leader of the council has already written to me, and I was grateful for that communication. It is important to stress that Northern Powerhouse Rail is about linking not just the major cities in the north but some of the smaller towns and cities where connectivity can be significantly improved.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the economic study on east-west trans-Pennine connectivity that was recently published on behalf of the Lancashire and Yorkshire local enterprise partnerships? The report finds that taking steps such as reopening the Skipton to Colne rail route would boost economic prosperity across the north, but that a failure to improve connectivity from east to west would
“critically restrict the growth potential of the Pennine Corridor economy—a key driver of the Northern Powerhouse”.
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is entirely correct to point to the importance of trans-Pennine links, be they road or rail. I am very familiar, as I am sure he is, with the Skipton to Colne campaign and the Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership. I wish it well, and I hope that it features strongly on all the local growth fund bids that come in to the Department.
Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)
Transport for the North has great potential to transform the northern economies, but what powers will it actually have? When will it become a statutory body, and will it have the same powers as Transport for London?
Paul Maynard
We continue to consider carefully what powers we want to give to Transport for the North. I very much hope that it will be placed on a statutory basis in the future, and we will make an announcement in due course. There is an awful lot we can do together with Transport for the North even now, on matters such as smart ticketing and infrastructure improvements. Transport for the North is a great success already, whatever its basis.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
There can be no doubt that the Government and Transport for the North have a plethora of plans, strategies and proposals. They are all wonderful, but what mechanisms are in place to ensure that all these plans are turned into some real action?
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is right to identify the immense creativity that exists in the north of England in terms of recommending potential new pieces of infrastructure, but it is vital to remember that there is only a finite amount of money at any one time. That is why in the Department, in the devolved Administrations and in Transport for the North, we have very complicated and, I think, sensible ways to judge the impact of any infrastructure and calculate the benefit-cost ratio.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Highways England acknowledged concerns about the safety performance of the Switch Island junction following the opening of the new Broom’s Cross Road and has since implemented interim measures to improve safety. Highways England has also identified options for a further safety improvement scheme and is discussing them with the hon. Gentleman’s local council. Those options include changes to lane markings and traffic signs and the introduction of gantries to make the road layout clearer.
Bill Esterson
I had two letters from the Minister of State last week, one describing work on the M25 and the other about Switch Island, which he describes. We all know that the Government have a Surrey-first approach to spending money, but my constituents want to know about Switch Island. It has a very serious safety problem. There are accidents nearly every week, and there was one just two days ago. Will he change the priority of this scheme? I was told it would happen next year, but it needs to happen much sooner than that. Safety must come first.
Andrew Jones
I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would be delighted to hear about our range of plans right across the country. The funding for the Switch Island project has been identified, and the various options are being worked through. Highways England has to work out what is feasible, plan the design side of it and implement the plan. The implementation is planned for the early part of 2018, but of course the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about road safety are part of the consideration.
Mr Speaker
No, no. The junction would have to be the biggest in human history if it were to stretch from Sefton in the north-west of England to Stroud in Gloucestershire, and it does not. We will accommodate the hon. Gentleman at a later stage, but for now he can resume his seat. We are grateful to the fella.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
The Department continues to work with the industry to explore what further improvements can be made to simplify fares. The action plan we announced in December will drive improvement for passengers, including removing jargon, improving ticket vending machines and trialling approaches to simplifying the fares structure.
Iain Stewart
Many of my constituents travel frequently by train, but not every day and not always at peak hours, so the traditional season ticket is not appropriate for them. What new ticket products is the Minister encouraging train operating companies to introduce to meet and encourage such demand?
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is quite right to raise the issue of part-time season tickets. This is a matter of personal importance to me, and I encourage all train operating companies to consider whether the range of products they have on offer actually meets their customers’ needs. With regard to his own route to Milton Keynes, I am sure he will be pleased to know that the next West Midlands franchise will require that a part-time flexible season ticket be offered by the winning bidder, and I look forward to seeing what those bids contain.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Will the Government also simplify the process of compensation for customers when a train is cancelled? The school run train in the Rhondda is often cancelled, as for that matter are First Great Western trains from London to Cardiff. There is no automatic compensation on either of those lines, which other providers give. Why can we not have automatic compensation when a train is cancelled?
Paul Maynard
There is a very lengthy answer, but I am sure you would not indulge me if I gave it, Mr Speaker. I say briefly to the hon. Gentleman that we need to ensure that whenever a passenger makes a claim for compensation, they can demonstrate they were on the train in question. Automatic compensation can be achieved if they have either a season ticket or an advance purchase ticket. I would also observe that compensation arrangements on the Wales and Borders franchise are a matter for the Welsh Assembly.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
One aspect of the ticketing system is that a lot of the money paid in compensation by Network Rail to the rail companies does not reach the passengers, which is quite scandalous. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that that money in fact ends up in passengers’ bank accounts?
Paul Maynard
We had a very fruitful discussion of schedule 8 payments in the Transport Committee last week, when I explained at some length why the two are not directly comparable. My hon. Friend will have heard what the chief executive of the Office of Rail and Road had to say about trying to make schedule 8 payments more transparent and more closely related to what the passengers themselves have experienced. I look forward to hearing the Select Committee’s recommendations in due course.
Michelle Thomson (Edinburgh West) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government set noise night flight restrictions only at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. We believe that noise is usually best managed locally, so we do not monitor the number of night flights outside those three airports. At Scottish airports, the powers to set night flight restrictions and other noise controls are of course devolved, and therefore lie with Scottish Ministers.
Michelle Thomson
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I acknowledge that the night flight proposals extend only to the three London airports, but given the anticipated growth in night flights generally, does that not seem rather short-sighted? We want such growth in airports because of the gross value added that that brings, but we have to recognise the rights of constituents everywhere, including those in Scotland.
Chris Grayling
This is clearly a live issue for people living around airports. The airspace modernisation programme will provide additional tools to improve things. I assume the hon. Lady is not asking me to take back powers from the Scottish Government to regulate night flights at Scotland’s airports; were she doing so, she would have to talk to her colleagues in Edinburgh.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
What plans do the Government have for nationalising regional airports?
Chris Grayling
We have no plans to nationalise regional airports. In some cases, local authorities—or, indeed, local authorities in partnership with the private sector—control regional airports, and that is a matter for those local authorities and the current and past owners of those airports. We have no plans to nationalise airports.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is important to ensure that international flights to regional airports are facilitated, but does the Minister acknowledge that it is equally important not to cause unbearable disruption to neighbourhoods? Does he believe that such a balance is being achieved under the current monitoring process?
Chris Grayling
The big difference that will come from the airspace modernisation programme is that by moving from systems that are 50 years out of date to ones that use the most modern technology, it will be possible to manage approaches to and departure paths from airports much more exactly, to provide more variation for local communities and to deliver a much smarter way of managing our aviation as a whole. That is why we are consulting on what will be a big change for this country.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Department for Communities and Local Government has responsibility for off-street parking. I have had discussions with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), and we have further meetings planned. Officials from my Department also have regular contact with their DCLG and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency counterparts to discuss issues relating to parking.
Nick Smith
Motorists must be able to challenge unfair parking fines. When my constituents were punished by Excel Parking’s poor signage in Ebbw Vale town centre, many were forced to come to me to have any hope of a refund. Have the Government assessed how effective the appeals service POPLA—Parking on Private Land Appeals—has been in protecting motorists? Does the service live up to its name?
Andrew Jones
That is actually a DCLG matter. We are discussing the independent appeals process, and the DVLA’s role in that in supplying driver information, but also up for consideration is the vigour with which the codes of practice of the two accredited trade associations are enforced. While we recognise that there are many good parking companies, there are some whose standards of customer service do not meet expectations. We had a very good debate on this in Westminster Hall last week, and I look forward to standing up for consumers to make sure they get a better deal.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The British Parking Association represents many of the operators of private car parks, and the Minister has just referred to its code of practice for the industry. What discussions has he had with the association about improving the performance of parking operators?
Andrew Jones
I have met the British Parking Association and will be having further meetings. This is all about making sure that its independent appeals process and codes of practice work on behalf of consumers. That is our objective and that is what we will be taking forward in discussions with the DCLG.
Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)
A constituent of mine, Lisa Smith, was given a ticket for parking on the line. Another constituent of mine, Catherine Cheeseman, saw a £60 fine very quickly escalate to a £180 fine, with threats of court action, and a disabled constituent of mine whose blue badge was out of date by a week was given a fine. When are the Government going to bring forward legislation to deal with rogue private parking companies and those who rip off British motorists?
Andrew Jones
That was a point the hon. Gentleman made in the debate we had last week. I cannot tell him when the DCLG will be responding to the consultation that it has been running, but I can tell him that my Department will be working with the DVLA and the DCLG to do all we can to ensure that the consumer gets a better deal by tackling some of the bigger rogue parking companies.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Last week in Westminster Hall the Minister told me that the provision of DVLA data to private car parking companies is not subsidised, yet a House of Commons Library report and a 2015 report by the Select Committee on Transport stated that it charges £2.50 for each inquiry. It costs the DVLA £2.84 to process each request. The difference in the cost of the service last year was a shortfall of around £700,000. Will the Minister publish current figures on the cost of DVLA data to back up his claim, or is the taxpayer indeed funding the disgraceful practices of private companies such as Smart Parking in many constituencies, including my own?
Andrew Jones
The charge is £2.50 for the data. It is basically set on a cost-recovery basis. It is not possible to predict entirely accurately how many claims there will be during the financial year; some years there could be a small deficit, some years a small surplus. As I undertook to do in the debate last week, I will put all the data in a letter in the House of Commons Library.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
We have heard about the Westminster Hall debate last week and we have heard complaints from Members across the country about the practices of cowboy parking operators. Extraordinarily, in that debate the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) revealed hitherto undiscovered socialist tendencies by demanding that the Government act and introduce regulation. These cowboy operators need DVLA data to fleece their victims. How many operators have been struck off for poor practice? After years of dithering on this, when are the Government going to step in to protect innocent motorists?
Andrew Jones
There were a few points there. I shall relay to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) his socialist tendencies, which will be a surprise to him. The answer on suspensions is 18, and I cannot answer for the DCLG on when it will respond to the consultation.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
Network Rail is responsible for delivering a safe, reliable and efficient railway, and is regulated by the Office of Rail and Road. Over the longer term the company has reduced the cost of the railway significantly, and asset reliability has improved. The trend in spending on maintenance at present is broadly stable, but it is vital that the company continues to drive efficiency to ensure a good service to passengers while reducing the burden on passengers and taxpayers.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Minister for his answer, but the overhead line equipment on the east coast main line route is in urgent need of renewal, having been installed in the 1970s and ’80s. We already know that there is six-times higher spend in the south than in the north on rail and transport infrastructure, but we also seem to have an east-west divide in rail: the east coast route has received £3 billion less than that of the west. Will the Government bring forward their funding to upgrade the east coast main line infrastructure, since the passenger performance measure is now at 25.1% because of overhead line failure? In layman’s terms, my constituents’ journeys are being delayed and seriously diverted.
Paul Maynard
I predicted that the hon. Lady would raise the issue of overhead line equipment. I have already met the route managing director Rob McIntosh to discuss that specific issue. He said to me that he is looking carefully at how to best improve reliability of the overhead lines, particularly during periods of high winds and heavy storms, which often cause a problem. They are looking at sites with significant gradient and reviewing vegetation management near overhead lines, track geometry and the reliability of system tension during periods of high winds.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Despite all the investment in maintenance, passengers in south-east London who use Southeastern services desperately need investment in rolling stock to deal with the serious overcrowding on the line. Will the Minister tell the House whether he is looking favourably on the revised bid that Southeastern has put forward?
Paul Maynard
I am sure the hon. Gentleman has already noticed our consultation on the future of the Southeastern franchise, which was released last week and clearly puts capacity front and centre. He is right to point out that we received a proposal from Southeastern, as a result of a personal request from me to the parent company for it to come up with better ideas. We have had it for a week now, and are looking carefully to make sure that it at all makes sense and adds up. I hope that those carriages will be hitting the network as soon as possible.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is entirely right to point out that we expect both those train operating companies to work more closely together, because they have a similar parent company and the rolling stock that they need. I expect a solution to this problem. We have had a proposal, and I want to see it introduced as soon as possible.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As we move towards the post-Brexit world, and as the Scottish Parliament is supposedly going to get new powers, will this Government do something that is already in their gift—devolve the power in Network Rail to Scotland, so that the Scottish Government can fully take control of investment and maintenance delivery and programming in Scotland?
Paul Maynard
I am always happy to answer this question each month in Transport questions. We looked at that issue carefully in the Smith commission; there was no consensus, and we are not taking the proposal forward.
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Government are not setting national targets and are not considering reinstating them. We do not believe that targets will provide further persuasion on the importance of road safety; it is already at the heart of departmental thinking.
Kate Hollern
Is the Minister aware that between September 2015 and September 2016 there was a 2% increase in deaths on roads, and a 6% increase in casualties? The rate of casualties in my constituency of Blackburn is 49% higher than the national average and, shockingly, child casualties are 102% higher than the national average rate. Between 2010 and 2015, the number of dedicated road traffic police officers in England and Wales, outside the Met, has fallen by over a quarter from 5,338 to 3,901. Does the Minister see a direct link between reduced capacity to enforce road laws and the annual increases in road deaths and serious casualties?
Andrew Jones
I have obviously considered this matter. I look at road safety data on a quarterly basis and an annual basis. On enforcement, how the police use their resource is a matter for individual police authorities and police and crime commissioners, but as Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made clear, there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels. The key is the output achieved, rather than simply measuring how many. It is important to point out that in 2015 we had the second lowest road safety data for those killed or seriously injured in British road history. That is positive and we are working to make our roads even safer.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Andrew Jones
Most certainly. I am acutely aware of the impact of cycling infrastructure on road safety. It is clearly part of our consideration. We hoped to launch our cycling and walking investment strategy last week, but for very obvious reasons there was a change to the timetable of Government announcements.
John Pugh (Southport) (LD)
Following on from that question, what plans does the Minister have to address the issue of cyclists ignoring not only traffic lights but pedestrian crossings? This has now become a major problem in central London.
Andrew Jones
That comes down to activity undertaken to enforce the rules and to educating cyclists about the importance of following road safety directions. I am aware of cyclists who go through red lights. It is unsafe. It is part of our THINK! education campaign to help cyclists to know what is good behaviour on our roads.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Two people died in November on the A52 in Bramcote, a suburban part of my constituency. There was another accident just a few weeks ago. In both of those cases, and after many complaints from residents for many years, there is clearly a real problem with people racing at very high speeds. Would the Minister be so good as to meet my constituent Tony Smith, who organised a petition, presented in this place only last month, of 1,600 people calling on Highways England to introduce speed regulation measures? We would be very grateful for that meeting in order to advance the campaign.
Andrew Jones
I meet local road safety campaigners on a regular basis, in particular families who have lost loved ones in incidents on our roads. They are difficult meetings, but I would of course be very happy to meet my right hon. Friend and her constituent.
Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)
National road safety targets were introduced by the Thatcher Government in 1980 at a time when deaths and serious injuries on our roads were at horrendous levels. The numbers fell consistently until 2011, when the coalition Government abolished targets almost at the same time as they abolished the grant for speed cameras. Surprisingly, the numbers have started to increase. I accept that we are nowhere near the levels of 1980, but if it is your loved one or your child, that is matterless. The last time the Minister was asked about this he said that he was open to any useful ideas on how to turn the trend, so is it not time to accept that road safety targets decrease the numbers of deaths and injuries on our roads? They worked, and at the moment nothing the Government seem to be doing is reversing that trend.
Andrew Jones
I simply do not accept that policymaking is as simple as setting targets. If we look at all the action the Government are undertaking—the changes to the statutory option on drink driving, drug driving legislation, the THINK! campaign, the increase in penalties in relation to mobile phone use and so on—we see that our efforts to take road safety further are significant. If policymaking was as simple as setting targets, Gordon Brown would have left us a very well-run Government and nobody pretends he did that.
Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Noise is measured around Heathrow airport by a set of fixed and mobile monitors. To ensure effective monitoring, the Government have instructed the Civil Aviation Authority to validate the data from the monitors, and reports based on that information are published annually.
Dr Mathias
Planes are currently flying at too low an altitude, which is causing excessive noise pollution over homes and schools in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss how the new noise commission will be able to prevent medically unsafe noise levels from aircraft flying over residential areas?
Chris Grayling
I am well aware of the concerns of my hon. Friend’s constituents and others, particularly about aircraft such as the A380 as it comes in on the flightpath into Heathrow airport. Obviously we need to get this right, and I hope that the airspace modernisation programme will help in that regard. We are pressing ahead with the establishment of an independent commission on civil aviation noise, and consulting on the powers that it should have. My hon. Friend has had a number of sensible thoughts about how we might address the problem, and I should be happy to meet her to discuss it.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thousands of my constituents will live under an extremely loud noise environment if and when runway 3 goes ahead, but they do not at present, and I welcome the formation of the new community campaign group Brentford and Hounslow Stop Heathrow Expansion. Will the Government insist that if runway 3 goes ahead, Heathrow must match Gatwick’s offer to pay all council tax payers within the 57 dBA contour £1,000 per annum in compensation?
Chris Grayling
I do not think that it is a question of comparison between airports. What we have at Heathrow is a world-beating package of compensation for those affected, combined with a rapid change in aircraft technology which means that the new generation of aircraft coming on stream are much quieter than any we have seen before. Alongside that are our plans for the modernisation of airspace. We also need to ensure that the angles of approach to Heathrow are the best possible, in order to minimise the impact on local residents. I believe that, overall, we are taking the right approach to what I know is a difficult issue for the hon. Lady’s constituents and others. We have tried to get the balance right.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways of reducing congestion and noise pollution around Heathrow would be better use of regional airports, and does he agree that a reduction in air passenger duty for regional airports would be a good incentive?
Chris Grayling
I am a strong supporter of our regional airports. There are some great success stories, including what I suspect is my hon. Friend’s pet regional local airport, Birmingham: it has been enormously successful in recent years. However, I fear that my hon. Friend will have to make representations about air passenger duty to the Chancellor during Treasury questions.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State explain why the consultation on the draft national policy statement promoted improved certainty of respite from aircraft noise from an expanded Heathrow, but failed to mention that that respite would be reduced from eight hours a day to just six, or even four?
Chris Grayling
We have tried to set out the impact of the change in broad terms. It is certainly the case that in comparison with Gatwick and its fully mixed-mode operation, Heathrow, across three runways, is able to offer respite in a way that was not assumed by the Airports Commission in its consideration of both proposals. The impact on neighbouring communities is one factor among many that the commission considered, as did the Government.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
No assessment has been made of the merits of establishing a road collision investigation unit, as there are well-established collision investigation units in the police service, and effective ways of reporting conclusions and outcomes. The Department does, however, directly fund a programme of detailed investigation under the road accident in-depth study, in conjunction with police forces, coroners and several hospitals.
Mr Sheerman
The Minister knows of the interest that I take in this matter, as chair of the Parliamentary Advisory Council on Transport Safety and the international council for road safety research. There is no doubt that we need an investigation unit to deal with sea, air and rail transport. All the transport safety interests across the board are in favour of the establishment of such a unit. We do not think that it would be costly, and it would be effective. Will the Minister think again?
Andrew Jones
I am aware of the hon. Gentleman’s long-established campaigning interest in road safety, and I would just refer back to the earlier answer: we have well-established collision investigation units within the police service, so I see no point in duplication.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Collisions have a range of causes, but one of them is undoubtedly the poor condition of our local roads. The Minister will be aware of the ALARM—annual local authority road maintenance—survey published this week showing that one in six local roads will not be fit for purpose in five years’ time, and that the number of potholes filled per authority fell by 19% last year. I anticipate that he will tell me how just much money is being poured into those potholes, but does he accept that short-term fixes are no substitute for proper resurfacing, which for most roads currently happens just once every 55 years?
Andrew Jones
The condition of the local roads is the responsibility of the local highways authorities, and we are very keen to support them in their work. I fully recognise that there is a backlog and have seen various projections of how much that might cost to fill, which is why we have allocated a record amount of money to support local highways authorities. The sum stands at over £6 billion during this Parliament, including £250 million specifically to help fix potholes.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The Government have an ambitious strategy for tackling congestion right across the country. In Oxfordshire this includes investing £35 million for public transport improvements on the A40 and a £9.5 million budget for Didcot station car park expansion, as well as investing some £19.4 million in the next financial year to reduce congestion at key locations across the county.
Robert Courts
Congestion on the A40 between Witney and Oxford causes daily misery for commuters and restricts the economic growth of this vital dynamic area. It is essential that a complete solution to this problem is found. The £35 million for the public transport solution is welcome, but what steps will the Government take to provide funding for a complete solution to the congestion on that busy road?
Andrew Jones
As ever, my hon. Friend speaks up vigorously on behalf of his constituency. We recognise the importance of that local road to the economic growth of the area, which is why we are supporting the A40 science transit scheme, with £35 million of local growth funding for enhancements to the A40 corridor. I encourage local partners to continue to work together to explore further options to address the issues along that stretch of road. I would of course be happy to discuss any of the options with my hon. Friend.
Mr Speaker
I am afraid Newcastle and Islwyn are too far away. Those Members will have to try to come in on another question; the M40 is not that big.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
The Government are investing in major signalling renewals on the north Wales line to improve reliability and, after years of waiting, in the Halton curve. This will improve rail connectivity between north Wales, west Cheshire and the Liverpool city region, including Liverpool John Lennon airport. Our recently announced national productivity investment fund will also support local authority investment on the A483 corridor between Chester and Wrexham.
Mr Hanson
I am grateful for that answer, and the Minister knows that I support all of those initiatives, but will he consider the letter sent to him by Conservative and Labour Members of Parliament on behalf of the Mersey Dee Alliance and Cheshire East council asking him to look at the developments of High Speed 2 and the hub at Crewe? Building on that progress will help connectivity on behalf of all of us in the region.
Chris Grayling
I know all about the letter, and indeed had a meeting to discuss the issue yesterday. I am seized of the necessity to make sure that north Wales does not miss out in the investment that we are putting into our rail network. We will bring forward our thoughts in due course, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is very much top of mind in the Department.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Mid Wales has difficulty with transport links to both north and south Wales, and indeed to England—although I can assure everyone that it is worth the difficulty of the journey in getting to mid Wales. What more can my right hon. Friend do to ensure that road links to mid Wales are improved?
Chris Grayling
We will do our bit on the English side of the border—we are spending more money than ever on the road network in England—but I fear that it is to Cardiff that my hon. Friend will have to look for the improvements that will provide that final link into his constituency. His is, of course, a beautiful part of the country, and all of us would want to be able to visit it.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Secretary of State rightly mentioned the Halton curve, for which I have campaigned for many years. It opens up all sorts of possibilities, not least in respect of our connectivity with north Wales. Will he look at the importance of reopening Ditton station in Halton and, when the new city region mayor is elected, talk to them about how that can be brought about much more quickly?
Chris Grayling
I had a meeting yesterday with the man who I hope will be the next city region mayor, the Conservative candidate Tony Caldeira, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he has ambitious plans to improve the transport infrastructure in and around the Merseyside region.
Edward Argar (Charnwood) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
On 1 March this year, the Department announced the three companies that are shortlisted to bid for the next east midlands franchise. A public consultation will be held in due course, followed by the publication of the invitation to tender and the stakeholder briefing document.
Edward Argar
I welcome that answer. In the context of my hon. Friend’s work on the franchise, can he reassure me and my constituents that when the new franchise is awarded we will see new, modern rolling stock capable of operating on diesel and electric lines on that route, as well as later services and Sunday services operating on the popular local Ivanhoe line?
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend is quite right to campaign on behalf of the Ivanhoe line and of his constituents. I hope that all Members of Parliament across the east midlands will contribute to the consultation and make it clear what they want to see in the new franchise. We look forward to reading their responses to the consultation.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
May I press the Minister again on that point? When the franchise is let, the HSTs are going to be phased out, having reached the end of their very long lives, and will need to be replaced. Will they be replaced with hybrid trains that will not have to be changed again when the midland main line is eventually electrified?
Paul Maynard
The hon. Gentleman will have to forgive me for making a somewhat elliptical response. We are continuing to look at the options for rolling stock on that route, working closely with the current franchisee and other bidders for the franchise. We hope to make an announcement in due course.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
As my hon. Friend has just heard, the train timetable options for the new east midlands franchise are still under development. Once it is complete and we have reviewed the responses to the public consultation, we will have a much better idea of what we want the bidders to deliver against. This will clearly include significant improvements, where possible to services to and from Kettering.
Mr Hollobone
This relates to the junction between the suburban service out of St Pancras to Corby and the midland main line service from St Pancras to Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield. The connectivity from Kettering northward was halved by the last Labour Government to one train per hour. Will the Minister make it one of his top priorities to reinstate the half-hourly service northward?
Paul Maynard
My hon. Friend and I have already discussed at some length the opportunities to improve services from Kettering, and everyone in the House knows what a doughty campaigner he is for his constituency. I am sure that I will be reminded time and again of these issues. A sixth path is being created on the route, and I look forward to seeing how the consultation recommends that it be best deployed. I am sure that Kettering will feature heavily in those submissions.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
The independent transport user watchdog, Transport Focus, produces an annual bus passenger satisfaction survey, and the autumn 2016 report was published last week. Overall bus passenger survey results scored 87%, up from 86% in the previous year.
Liz McInnes
I thank the Minister for that answer, but the Manchester Evening News recently ran its own survey of Greater Manchester residents, and in response to being asked which part of the transport network people most wanted to see improved, more than one in five identified poor bus services. Their complaints covered a whole range of issues including pricing, difficulty in making long journeys, the lack of night buses and general unreliability. What reassurance can the Minister give to Greater Manchester bus users that their complaints are being heard?
Andrew Jones
I would draw their attention to the Government’s commitment to financing the bus service operators grant during the course of this Parliament, and to the Bus Services Bill, which received its Third Reading on Monday.
Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
Neither I nor the Minister responsible for this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has had any contact with the Scottish Government so far about the devolution of ship-to-ship transfers. However, the Minister of State wrote to Scottish Ministers earlier this month, acknowledging that the permitting arrangements for granting oil transfer licences for ship-to-ship transfers needed improvement. Our intention is to review the process around the application and assessment of licences in consultation with the devolved Administrations later this year.
Steven Paterson
I thank the Minister for that positive response. SNP colleagues, the Scottish Government and local communities are unconvinced by the safety of ship-to-ship oil transfers, particularly in the Cromarty firth, which is a European special protection area for bottlenose dolphins. I am pleased that the Minister is prepared to take up the case with Scottish Ministers, and I wonder whether he would consider devolving powers, which I think is appropriate, so that such decisions could be taken in Scotland.
Paul Maynard
We will certainly be consulting, as I just said. I understand that the original application from the Cromarty Firth port authority was not suitable and that it is looking to make a further application. If one is submitted, there will be a full consultation exercise, and the Scottish Government will be formally consulted.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
Litter collection is an important part of Highways England’s duties. The Department recently asked Highways England to identify the worst spots on the network, and they were targeted for cleaning in early March. Highways England is responsible for cleaning litter only on motorways and the strategic road network—about 2.5% of the total road network—but it removes 200,000 sacks of litter from the roadside every year.
Helen Whately
Over 2,000 people responded to my recent rural residents survey in Faversham and Mid Kent, and one of the most common concerns was litter, especially on the A2 and the M2. What steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that Highways England fulfils its statutory duty to keep Kent’s roads clean?
Andrew Jones
This issue is raised constantly by Ministers with Highways England. It has a duty to adhere to the code of practice on litter and refuse, which is part of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and we monitor that very carefully. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that 200 bags of litter were collected in March at the Marling Cross lorry park on the A2.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
I meet my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of Exiting the European Union on a regular basis to discuss the UK’s exit. Ministers and officials in both Departments are working closely together to analyse the impact on the aviation industry after we leave the EU. We are carefully considering the implications for the UK’s future participation in the EASA, the Single European Sky initiative and the European common aviation area.
Margaret Ferrier
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. The Prime Minister flippantly said that we will be leaving EU institutions, but not Europe, as if that was a good thing. EASA plays a crucial role in excluding from European airspace any aircraft or company that has poor safety records, safeguarding the security and wellbeing of people right across the continent. Now that the negotiations are under way, the Government have a duty to tell passengers in the aviation sector whether the UK will be a participant, or are they happy to compromise our economy and passenger wellbeing to achieve their Little Britain hard Brexit?
Mr Speaker
I must say to the hon. Lady, in the friendliest possible spirit, that there is no danger of her suffering ill health as a result of excessive hurry.
Chris Grayling
That may be, Mr Speaker, but the hon. Lady does speak an awful lot of nonsense. We are not pursuing a Little Britain strategy; we are looking to build our role in the world, and aviation will be an important part of that, which is why we are seeking to expand Heathrow airport—subject to the consultation happening at the moment. We will of course bring forward our proposals in due course to this House and to this country. Many of these international bodies go far beyond the European Union, and we will carry on playing a role in many international bodies that go far beyond the European Union.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
Last year I set out a bold vision for a railway that puts passengers at the heart of everything it does. We have already heard today about our plans to deliver more capacity for commuters on Southeastern trains. Longer trains on the Southeastern network are a priority for this Government and an absolute priority for the new franchise. On Monday, I announced news for commuters on the south-western routes, with the new franchise announcement. With the experience of MTR, which delivers 99.9% reliability on the Hong Kong metro, the new franchisee will oversee a £1.2 billion investment, delivering more trains, faster journeys and more space. That will bring about a transformation for those passengers, which we are also looking to do for passengers around Manchester, Liverpool and Cardiff in addition to those around London.
Helen Whately
The recently published “Kent Corridors to M25 Route Strategy” identifies Brenley Corner in my constituency as a congestion and accident hotspot. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department is considering significant investment in that junction?
Chris Grayling
We are in the process of digesting the route strategies provided by Highways England. The strategies set a blueprint for the projects we will need to deliver in the future to ease those points of congestion. I cannot at this early stage give a Government commitment to individual projects, but we are looking carefully at that study and others. We are seized of the need to make sure that we address such problems.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Three years ago the Law Commission recommended wholesale reform of taxi and private hire services, but the Government have not responded. Uber proliferates, but it pays no VAT and the country loses a fortune in avoided corporation tax. The former London Mayor was sat on when he tried to bring Uber to heel, despite the denials of his Bullingdon club friends. A No. 10 adviser, lo and behold, now runs Uber. Is it not time that we saw some urgent action from the Secretary of State on the taxi and private hire industry and, while he is at it, on the way in which his party runs its chumocracy?
Chris Grayling
Given the current state of the Labour party, I am not sure I would go down that road if I were the hon. Gentleman. We are currently looking at what is the best approach to the future regulation and structure of our taxi and private hire services. I see it as a particular priority to ensure public safety. We and local authorities are doing that work, and we want to deliver the right framework for it. Our job is to ensure that we have the right choice for consumers and the right options in our marketplace, but we also want to protect those parts of our industry, such as London black cabs, that are a national institution and that none of us would wish to see disappear. This is about a measured approach. Of course, some of the most evocative issues lie in the hands of the London Mayor and not of this Government.
Andy McDonald
The Uber scandal is not the only issue of concern right at the heart of this Tory Government, given their perpetual revolving-door employment strategy. While we await a formal response on how a senior Department for Transport civil servant awarded a rail franchise while part-owning the consultancy advising the successful bidder, yesterday it was announced that HS2 had dropped the £170 million engineering contract with CH2M. The chief executive officer of HS2, now a full-time appointment, came from CH2M and, more than that, HS2’s former chief of staff worked on the engineering company’s bid for the project. Now the director general of HS2 has resigned this very morning. I do not agree with the TaxPayers Alliance when it says that it does not pass “the smell test,” because in fact it stinks to high heaven. Will the Secretary of State order an immediate independent inquiry into these goings on? His silence on the issue speaks volumes.
Chris Grayling
Let us be clear about this. First, on the appointment to the chief executive role of HS2, I want the best person for that job, and we will always seek to recruit the best person for that job. I will also ensure that if there are any questions about the recruitment process, they are addressed and investigated carefully by the civil service to reassure me that we can make an appointment without any concern. That we did, and I have absolute confidence in both that recruitment process and in that new chief executive. Yesterday’s announcement that CH2M HILL has decided to withdraw from the contract after an issue—not a massive one—emerged in the contracting process is the right one. I am grateful to the company for doing that, as it is the right thing to do. I want to make sure that Government contracting processes recruit the right expertise, corporate or individual, but are also robust in making sure that, if things are not done right, it is addressed. That is what has happened.
Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)
Chris Grayling
I know about my hon. Friend’s interest in that potential scheme. Sir John is an important adviser to the Government in a number of different roles, and I respect and value his expertise. There is a substantial amount of private finance out there looking for projects to develop, and we always welcome serious proposals to improve our infrastructure with the support of private finance.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
I have told the board of Transport for the North that I am happy that that should happen, and it will happen very shortly.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Paul Maynard)
My hon. Friend rightly identifies that we need to improve the service on the Great Western main line, particularly to Cardiff, Swansea and beyond. We are looking at all the options for how we can deliver passenger benefits. A re-franchising process will commence shortly and I look forward to hearing all the ideas that hon. Members on both sides of the House have.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
Chris Grayling
I am well aware of this issue, and of course this is a consultation on a draft national policy statement. The ultimate decisions about that plant will be a matter for both its owners and Heathrow airport, and both will have to be satisfied that they are putting appropriate arrangements in place in order for things to go ahead. I take the right hon. Lady’s comments today as a representation to that consultation.
Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
Paul Maynard
I can only vouch for the anticipation in the Maynard household about this coming Sunday, but I am also glad to hear that Ilkeston is looking forward to utilising its new train services. I am heartened by the number of Members on both sides of the House who have approached me regarding potential new stations on their local rail network. This is a very welcome change from the era when the network was contracting, with people now seeing rail stations as opportunities for growth, both economically and in terms of population. I really welcome that progress.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
As my right hon. Friend is not here, I am very happy to put dates in his diary for him, and I am sure that such a meeting will be achievable.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State may well be trapped in the congestion around Newark on the A1 on his way back home to Lincolnshire. As you will have seen, Mr Speaker, according to the Office for National Statistics my constituents are the happiest of any in the country, but they are kept awake at night by the spate of terrible accidents on the A1 between Grantham and Retford. In the Minister of State’s absence, will the Secretary of State commission a full review of safety along the A1, particularly at Newark and through this dangerous stretch between Grantham and Retford?
Mr Speaker
I can tell the House that the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) wrote to me to explain that he would be absent today, and I detected in his letter a very considerable sense of regret that he would be outside this country rather than in this Chamber. Personally, I have found it difficult, but we have done our best to manage without him today, and we look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s return at a subsequent session.
Andrew Jones
My right hon. Friend is actually in China, rather than delayed around Newark. I am happy to look into the issues raised by my hon. Friend.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Anyone who has ever driven between the great cities of Sheffield and Manchester will have undoubtedly been caught in congestion in the Longdendale area of my constituency. The first public inquiry into a solution took place in 1967, and in the seven years I have been the MP for the area I have raised the matter repeatedly, so I am pleased that the consultation on a bypass route is now open as part of the trans-Pennine upgrade programme. Will the Minister join my constituents in getting involved and getting the route sorted?
Andrew Jones
I have met the hon. Gentleman and been to see the particular problems in his area, and I agree that they are acute. I urge everybody to participate in the consultation. Let us try to get the problem finally solved.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
With billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at stake, after last night’s announcement on HS2, confidence in the transparency and decision-making processes in HS2 Ltd and CH2M have been called seriously into question. First, will the Secretary of State tell us whether CH2M jumped, or was it pushed? For a company to give up a £170 million contract is enormous news. Secondly, will he give the House an undertaking that no further contracts will be issued to other bidders—such as Bechtel or Mace—further down the line before there has been a full inquiry into the decision-making processes in HS2 Ltd and CH2M?
Chris Grayling
I do not normally like to differ with my right hon. Friend, but I am very clear on this: CH2M has done the right thing in taking a step back, having identified a problem that would have called into question whether it could and should operate the contract. It was not some massive misdemeanour, but an error in process that has caused CH2M to take a step back. It is now for the board of HS2 Ltd and its independent directors to make sure that they do the right thing in taking the contract forward. From the country’s point of view, it is important that we get on with the job. We will have all the necessary governance in place as we go through the process of replacing CH2M, but we do need to get on with the job.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
My constituents have endured all the disruption and chaos while the Thameslink work is going on at London Bridge, and they did so in the expectation that they were going to get an improved service. They are now incandescent with rage, because the new franchise proposes cutting services to Charing Cross and Victoria and reducing off-peak services. This is unacceptable. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the matter?
Chris Grayling
The whole point is that it is a consultation. We have not taken any decisions, and we do not even have an intent. It is about asking people, “There are ways of running this railway that could potentially make it more reliable. What do you think?” If the answer is, “We don’t want you to do that,” we will listen. My focus for the hon. Gentleman’s local passengers and for those local railways is to deliver more capacity, the best possible reliability and, in particular, longer trains. All those things are firmly on our agenda.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
The CH2M issue is a bigger problem for my constituents. It is welcome that instead of the proposed viaducts in my area there is now going to be a tunnel, but other changes and mitigation are still required. My constituents want to know whether the CH2M issue delays any potential changes or decisions that will affect their lives.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
On Saturday, I am going to speak at the Newcastle Cycling Campaign annual general meeting. What can I tell the people there about what the Government are doing to bring the benefits of cycling to everyone, when studies show that the average cyclist is male, white, middle class, under-40 and in Lycra?
Andrew Jones
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that cycling needs to broaden its range. Part of the plan we will announce shortly will be to help local authorities to set up their own local cycling and walking investment plans, which will include broadening the range of potential cyclists.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
Last Friday, the A34 between Stafford and Stoke was at gridlock for several hours because of the closure of the M6, disrupting not only my constituents’ journeys but the entire north-south commerce. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, when HS2 comes through Staffordshire and cuts across all the main arterial routes, we do not have repeats of this kind of congestion?
Andrew Jones
The planning for the construction phase of HS2 is obviously a critical part of delivering this project. As a part of that, there is local engagement between HS2, Highways England and the local highways authorities. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the potential risk, but all the conversations and the collaborations are taking place to make sure that that does not happen.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Last November, the rail Minister sat in a meeting with 15 colleagues, including three Cabinet Ministers, and promised additional carriages for the Southeastern network. This cannot be kicked into the long grass or delayed until the new franchise. It needs to happen now. When, and how many?
Paul Maynard
This is not being delayed until the new franchise. It will happen very soon. As I explained in my answer to an earlier question, we have received a proposal for new carriages from Southeastern. We have only had it a week and we are looking at it now. We want things to happen as soon as possible.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The long-promised extension of the Metropolitan line from Croxley Green is running into financial difficulties. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the project, and what discussions have taken place with the Mayor of London and Transport for London?
Chris Grayling
The basis of this project was that Hertfordshire County Council and the Department for Transport provided money to TfL for the extension work. The agreement was that TfL would meet any costs above the agreed price, and would retain any funds below the agreed price. That agreement was reached a couple of years ago. Quite a chunk of money has already been spent, including on the acquisition of a train. It is for the Mayor to complete this project, and I have asked him for his plans to do so.
Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)
Is the Secretary of State aware that he cannot easily brush off what has happened with that fiasco at HS2 and the resignation? Will he take into account the fact that now is the time—very opportune—to get rid of that stupid idea of having two HS2 lines running through the county of Derbyshire? The one called the Newton spur will lose us 1,000 jobs in the area and knock down 32 houses. It is called the “dawdle through Derbyshire”. Get rid of it.
Andrew Jones
I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s questions, but this is not a dawdle through Derbyshire. What we are looking at here is a consultation on how we get the routes through South Yorkshire. It is fair to say that there is no consensus on this matter, and I have met him and colleagues from South Yorkshire. We will be responding to that consultation later this year. The point is how we maximise the opportunities for South Yorkshire and the east midlands from HS2. These opportunities will be significant. He should get behind the project and work with us to mitigate the impact, but recognise also the positive economic impact that HS2 will have on our country.
Mr Speaker
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, but we are running late. I want to hear two more questions.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Well, the people of Broxtowe are looking forward to HS2 coming to Toton Sidings, where we will have the east midlands hub, which will bring considerable benefit. May I thank the Minister for his visit to Trowell, for his interest and for the conversations with the Secretary of State, because in Trowell there is opposition, not necessarily to the route—although there is some concern—but to a 60 foot viaduct that will deliver HS2? Will the Minister be so good as to confirm that he will do everything that he can to ensure that all options are considered to deliver HS2 through the east midlands and through the village of Trowell?
Andrew Jones
I much enjoyed my visit to Toton and Trowell to see the economic impact that HS2 will have there, to talk to businesses and to look at the implications for local communities. I will of course be very happy to take every action we can to ensure that this works for everybody, including the mitigation that my right hon. Friend suggests. We want to minimise the impact and maximise the benefits from this exciting project.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Back in a 2015 debate, the Under-Secretary said that he recognised that the 40-year rolling stock was coming to the end of its life and that he was looking towards having a new fleet. This was in relation to our Tyne and Wear metro. As we are now two years on, can he say when he is going to invest in our metro?
Paul Maynard
We are in discussion with Nexus at the moment on how we go about this. I have met representatives from the company and we are hoping to make it happen very soon.
Petition
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed by 306 parishioners of St John Southworth, Nelson, Brierfield and Fence, which was shared with me by Rev. Brian Murphy.
The petition states:
The petition of parishioners of the Parish of Saint John Southworth, Nelson, Brierfield and Fence, Lancashire,
Declares that the petitioners believe that attacks on Christians in 20% of the world's countries since 2014 is concerning and that more should to be done to combat religious persecution.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to prevent and raise awareness of attacks on Christians, worldwide.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002032]
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
On 8 September 2016, I announced to the House the launch of a new initiative, the Speaker’s Democracy Award. The intention of the award is to allow this House to recognise and celebrate individuals who have championed democracy, or brought about social change in an emerging democracy.
A number of excellent nominations were received from hon. and right hon. Members and, following a meeting of the judging committee, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that Marvi Memon MP is the winner in this, the inaugural year of the award.
Ms Memon is a Pakistani politician who is the current chairperson of the Government of Pakistan’s Benazir Income Support Programme—the BISP—and an elected Member of the National Assembly of Pakistan. Ms Memon has fronted a substantial and impressive programme of empowerment through her BISP work by giving over 5.3 million of the poorest women a modest stipend for essentials such as food, clothing, healthcare and education. This has done a great deal in terms of combating poverty and child malnutrition in rural areas. Moreover, the programme also facilitates the participation of women in Pakistani electoral politics by encouraging them to obtain identity cards which allow them to vote.
I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in warmly congratulating Ms Memon. I am hoping to be able to welcome her to this House to collect the award at a future date.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh), and to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for agreeing to serve on the judging panel. I am similarly grateful to the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who nominated Ms Memon, as well as to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who initially suggested to me the idea for this award.
Business of the House
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
The business for the first week back after the Easter recess will be as follows:
Monday 17 April—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 18 April—Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
Wednesday 19 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Technical and Further Education Bill, followed by motions relating to the Higher Education (Higher Amount) (England) Regulations 2016 and the Higher Education (Basic Amount) (England) Regulations 2016, followed by a motion on section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, followed by a motion relating to the Social Security (Personal Independence Payment) Regulations 2017.
Thursday 20 April—Statement on the publication of the 12th report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on lessons learned from the EU referendum, followed by a statement on the publication of the 12th report of the Justice Committee on prison reform, governor empowerment and prison performance, followed by a debate on a motion relating to state pensions payable to recipients outside of the UK, followed by a general debate on research and development on tackling infectious diseases. The subjects for those debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 21 April—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 24 April will include:
Monday 24 April—Consideration in Committee of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day 1).
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 20 and 24 April will be as follows:
Thursday 20 April—Debate on the third report of the Transport Committee, Volkswagen emissions scandal and vehicle type approval, followed by a debate on the European arrest warrant.
Monday 24 April—Debate on an e-petition relating to GCSE English literature exams.
Valerie Vaz
May I add my congratulations to the inaugural winner of your prize, Mr Speaker, which is very welcome? We have given refuge to Malala Yousafzai, who has also made an amazing contribution. We support everything that women in Pakistan do to promote democracy.
May I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business? I am sure that he is also getting concerned that our Gracious Sovereign might not be aware of the date on which she is due to give her speech. Is he checking whether she is actually free on the various dates being suggested for the Queen’s Speech? Obviously I want to ask about the date of Prorogation as well. If the Leader could indicate when in May we are likely to rise, that would be helpful.
Eight right hon and hon. Members shared a birthday on 26 March—it was a significant day—including the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the youngest Member, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black). We wish them a belated happy birthday. But PC Keith Palmer, who often stood around here and was a Charlton Athletic supporter, Aysha Frade, Kurt Cochran and Leslie Rhodes will not be able to celebrate their birthdays again. Mr Speaker, I thank your chaplain, Rev. Rose Hudson-Wilkin, and Canon Pat Browne, the Roman Catholic priest for the House of Commons, for the services they held in the chapel of St Mary Undercroft last Thursday. They have always supported us when we need them.
It is a convention that when a statutory instrument is prayed against, the Government provide time for a debate, so I want to raise the Opposition’s concerns that no time was provided to debate the regulations relating to personal independence payments and to tuition fees. Will the Leader of the House confirm that in future the convention will be honoured so that the Opposition will not have to use Standing Order No. 24 to get an emergency debate? That is extremely important because there will be a plethora of statutory instruments as we leave the EU and we do not want to return to powers being exercised by an absolute monarch when Parliament is sovereign and a democratic institution.
Not all of last Wednesday’s business was carried over, so will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on exiting the European Union and global trade? The House would like to know what the Department for International Trade has been doing during the past nine months. The Prime Minister said yesterday that everyone has been busy, but as yet the Secretary of State has not come to the House to tell us what global trade deals are in the offing.
Yesterday was a significant day in our island’s story, and we in Her Majesty’s Opposition want a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU, the exact same benefits as we currently have as members of the single market and the customs union, and the fair management of migration in the interests of the economy and communities. We want to defend rights and protections, and prevent a race to the bottom. We want to protect national security and our capacity to tackle cross-border crime and terrorism, and to ensure that any negotiation delivers for all regions and nations of the UK. That is a position of certainty, not the fall-back position of
“no deal…is better than a bad deal”,
which should not enter the Government’s vocabulary.
Is the Leader of the House aware that the CBI says that businesses would experience serious disruption if no new trading relationship is agreed and they are forced to trade with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules? No deal should not be an option. Manufacturers in the west midlands have asked, “Do I need to change my supply chain? Will I have to enforce new rules?” Those are just two of their questions, so may we have a statement on how the Government will answer such questions from business?
Could we have a debate on the National Audit Office’s report “Capability in the civil service”, which was published on 24 March? It says that the Government face ever-increasing challenges in providing public services. Continuing budgetary restraints are putting pressure on Departments, which are making important reforms with fewer staff and smaller budgets. There is a skills gap that cannot be filled by the private sector. The report says that one in four senior posts are unfilled. What will the Government do to address that skills shortage as we leave the EU?
When will NHS staff receive a pay increase of more than 1%, given that half the Cabinet have said that £350 million a week is now available for the NHS? Will the Leader of the House also set out how the Prime Minister will report back to the UK on the negotiations? Our children and grandchildren, 75% of whom voted to remain, feel hurt and betrayed, because they know that the EU is about equality, peace, security, collaboration, quality of life, the air we breathe, tourism, consumer rights and human rights. We must not betray them.
And so to R and R—rock and roll, and the recent death of the creator of that genre, Chuck Berry. It is as though he wrote some of his songs just for the Government. We have “Maybellene, why can’t you be true?” and “Reelin’ and Rockin’”—the Government have made some U-turns on national insurance contributions, and there has been disquiet about school funding and special deals with Tory councils—and there is one for you, Mr Speaker: “Johnny B. Goode”.
I want to thank all our civil servants for the work that they have done while we have been part of the EU. I thank all the ambassadors and Ministers for Europe, including the Leader of the House. As he was such an outstanding Minister for Europe, I hope that the goodwill will come back when we finish our negotiations.
I also want to say goodbye and thank you to David Beamish, the Clerk of the Parliaments, who, sadly, is retiring after 42 years. He is a great public servant who has done a fantastic job, and he worked closely with our own Clerk. I also thank Russell Tatam, an unsung back-room hero who has worked for both Labour and Conservative Opposition Whips. He has kept us all going. We wish him well in his new post at the Department of Health, and we hope that he can sort that out, too. Finally, may I once again thank everyone for everything that they have done in the last week, and wish everyone connected with the House a very happy and peaceful Easter?
Mr Lidington
First, I join the hon. Lady in expressing thanks to your chaplain, Mr Speaker, and to the Roman Catholic chaplain for the work that they have done in the past week, which I am sure they will continue to do. I also join her in paying tribute to David Beamish, who has served the House of Lords, and Parliament as a whole, with great distinction throughout his career. I would add to that the name of Glenn McKee, one of our own Clerks, who is retiring after more than 30 years of service to this House. We put on record our thanks and appreciation to him for that record of service.
The date of the Queen’s Speech will be announced as soon as possible. As the hon. Lady knows, the exact date of Prorogation will depend, as it does every year and under every Government, on the progress of business.
I turn to some of the other issues that the hon. Lady raised. The Government have delivered on the convention, and slots have been provided for debates on the prayers against the statutory instruments concerning tuition fees and the personal independence payment. The Opposition will get their opportunity to debate those after the recess. The Government will act, as all Governments do, on the basis of what Parliament decides.
The hon. Lady made a broader point about secondary legislation in the context of forthcoming European legislation. I am sure that questions will be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union later today, and there will be ample opportunity to debate the matter during proceedings on the repeal Bill in the next Session, but it is a fact that Ministers may exercise delegated legislative powers through secondary legislation only if those powers have been expressly conferred on them by an Act of Parliament. Authority for the use of delegated legislation will have to be approved, after a full parliamentary process in both Houses, before such legislation reaches the statute book.
The hon. Lady asked about international trade. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade has hardly been invisible. He is doing the job that the Prime Minister appointed him to do, which is to maximise the opportunities for jobs and investment in the United Kingdom by drumming up support for trade and investment all around the world. He has been in the Chamber regularly, in the slots allotted to the Department for International Trade, to answer questions from Members on both sides of the House. I would add that the hon. Lady’s description of what she wanted out of the EU negotiations sounded very much like a paraphrase of the Prime Minister’s letter to President Tusk yesterday, which I welcome. If there is an outbreak of common sense and the Opposition take a more consensual approach by supporting the Prime Minister as a response to her call for national unity at this time, I would very much welcome that.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister could possibly have been clearer—either in her letter, or during the nearly three hours that she spent making her statement and answering questions at the Dispatch Box yesterday—that her objective is a comprehensive deal with our friends and allies in the European Union that makes possible a deep and special partnership between ourselves and the 27 countries of the EU after we have left, because it will remain an essential national interest of the United Kingdom that there is stability and prosperity right across Europe. While we will implement the decision that the British people took in the referendum last year, it is right that we should strive for a new form of co-operative agreement with countries that will continue to be our friends, allies and partners on so many different areas of policy.
The hon. Lady asked about the national health service and the capacity of staff to deal with what will be demanding reforms—I think that the chief executive has said that—but I would point her to the track record of NHS managers and clinicians in delivering effective reforms. One of the things I find so striking about the national health service is that there can be a severe disparity of performance between different trusts or hospitals in various parts of the country. One of the objectives that NHS England wants to secure is to make certain that best practice—the successes of the most innovative parts of the NHS—can be disseminated and put in place more widely.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
May we have a debate on protecting and valuing the Church of England estate? We learned this week that the Church of England’s consistory court and the chancellor of the diocese of Peterborough have given the green light to ripping out the interior of the grade I listed, 13th-century St Botolph’s church in Longthorpe, Peterborough. That will include replacing the altar with a self-standing altar and the pulpit with a modern lectern, and ripping out all the pews. Is it any wonder that the Church of England is losing the support of its parishioners when it so grievously fails to protect its own architectural heritage?
Mr Lidington
I clearly do not know any details of the parish church to which my hon. Friend refers. There is sometimes a difficult balance to be struck between what a congregation wants to meet the needs of worship and the historic fabric of a church. I would hope that such matters are always approached with proper sensitivity and high regard for our architectural and design heritage, and that the views of the local community, and particularly of the church congregation, are fully taken into account.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I join in the thanks and tributes to the chaplains of the House for their exemplary work last week. I congratulate Marvi Memon on winning your inaugural award, Mr Speaker—thank you for such a fantastic idea. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for after the recess.
It has certainly been another one of those weeks, hasn’t it? What an historic week. This is therefore not the time for meaningless or provocative soundbites, but later we will continue with this pace when we see the White Paper on this shabby repeal Bill, as this Parliament attempts to repatriate almost 20,000 pieces of European legislation in what will be the greatest transfer of powers from Brussels to this Government. For a Parliament that has so jealously guarded its sovereignty throughout the centuries, how cavalier the Government have been about leaving the European Union. Parliament will need to have a look at this. These powers are not so much Henry VIII; it is more like a bespoke new Tessy the first.
One thing that we need to hear from the Leader of the House is a commitment that the shabby repeal Bill will not be subject to the English votes for English laws procedure. I say to him: just do not seek a certification. It is far too complicated and cross-jurisdictional for that, so will he rule it out today? This morning, without any fanfare or flourish, we got the Leader of the House’s review into the operation of EVEL. The dramatic conclusion he comes to is that it is working perfectly. In fact, it is an absolute and total embarrassment to this House. The bells go off, we suspend our business, we go into Committee, we come out of Committee, and not a word is said. It is not so much the court of Henry VIII; it is the court of Byzantium when we are dealing with issues such as this.
Lastly, we still have not had any sort of statement or response from the Government on the historic vote that was held in the Scottish Parliament on Tuesday. That seems to be consistent with the way this Government treat Scotland. We know that there is no such thing as a common UK approach to leaving the European Union, and this Government could not have gone further out their way to antagonise Scotland over their plans to leave the European Union. Today, when we look at the great repeal Bill and think of Henry VIII, on the Scottish National party Benches we will be thinking of Robert the Bruce.
Mr Lidington
For a moment at the start of that question I thought the hon. Gentleman was going to become part of the new consensus that the Prime Minister is seeking to build. I hold out some modicum of hope for him, but I have to confess, after the rest of the tirade, not all that much.
I seriously encourage the hon. Gentleman and members of his party to read the White Paper before they make a judgment on it. When they have seen it, they will see that the case for certain powers as regards delegated legislation is made in detail. The argument is set out very clearly, as is the Government’s position that it will be necessary for the exercise of any such specific delegated legislative powers to be subject to conditions and restraints to ensure that they cannot be abused and are used only for the purpose for which they are created. I am sure that other Scottish National party Members will want to put questions to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union this afternoon, but the Government will be proposing a number of very important safeguards on the exercise of those powers.
On the hon. Gentleman’s question about the application of the English votes procedures to the repeal Bill, I have to repeat what I have said to him in previous exchanges. As we both know, the English votes procedures can be exercised only in a case where an issue to be determined is both devolved to the Scottish Parliament and, in relation to legislation before this House, applies to England only or to England and Wales only. The chances of that happening in the repeal Bill are very slim indeed, given that it addresses the application of the European treaties to this country and, as international agreements, they are reserved matters under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998. I cannot at this stage rule out some hypothetical piece of future secondary legislation, but it is not right to exaggerate fears of something that is very unlikely to come about.
The hon. Gentleman then asked me about the First Minister’s call for another referendum—[Hon. Members: “The Scottish Parliament’s.”]—and the vote by the SNP and the Greens in the Scottish Parliament for a second referendum. The Prime Minister was very clear yesterday that we are embarking on a major change of policy in response to what the people of the United Kingdom as a whole have decided, and that now is not the time for a further referendum on a matter that all sides agreed would be settled in the 2014 referendum. I simply remind the hon. Gentleman of what the First Minister of Scotland said when launching her party’s manifesto for the Scottish elections in April last year:
“Setting the date for a referendum before a majority of the Scottish people have been persuaded that independence—and therefore another referendum—is the best future for our country is the wrong way round…If we don’t succeed, we will have no right to propose another referendum.”
I support what the First Minister of Scotland said on that occasion.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. On my reckoning, a further 44 right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. As per usual I am keen to accommodate all would-be contributors, but I remind the House that there is a very important statement to follow that is likely to be well-subscribed, and thereafter two important debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. There is, therefore, a premium on time and brevity.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I have been contacted by a growing number of residents who are concerned about the influx of Travellers and the number of illegal encampments in my constituency. There have been major reports of intimidation and threatening behaviour. I am well aware that there are problems in other parts of the country, but it is disappointing that local authorities and the police lack either capacity or willingness to use their powers to deal with them. Some of the problems relate to antisocial behaviour and a disregard for the local community. Will the Government make time for a debate on the obligations of local authorities and police, and on how the current law can be strengthened for the good of our communities?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to press this issue with Ministers at Communities and Local Government questions on 24 April. My view is clear: the powers she describes exist for a reason and I would hope that both local authorities and police forces use them.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for advertising the forthcoming Backbench Business. I also thank him and his staff for arranging to move back by two hours the debates scheduled for Westminster Hall on 18 April and 2 May to allow Members travelling from their constituencies to get here in time for them. One additional piece of news is that we have determined that on Tuesday 25 April at 9.30 am there will be a 90-minute debate in Westminster Hall on post office closures, and on Tuesday 2 May at 11.30 am there will be a debate on voter ID and electoral fraud, also in Westminster Hall.
I am going to get my begging bowl out, Mr Speaker, not on behalf of my constituents—I know Government Members always accuse Members from the north-east of England of having a begging bowl—but on behalf of Back-Bench Members. In the week after the recess, on 20 April, we will have our 27th allotted day—actually, our 27th and one quarter allotted day—of Backbench Business, which is all that is allowed in this parliamentary Session. With my begging bowl out on behalf of Back-Bench Members, I ask the Leader of the House to please send any spare time our way. We already have a waiting list of debates.
I would just like to make a point of clarification. On Tuesday, during the Backbench Business debate on Yemen, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), on a point of order, asked whether it would be possible to use up the full allocation of time—up to 30 minutes before the House was due to rise. Madam Deputy Speaker responded by saying:
“The House decided on the timetable.”
That was true, but she then went on to say:
“The Backbench Business Committee gave 90 minutes for this debate, and I am powerless to change that.”—[Official Report, 28 March 2017; Vol. 624, c. 206-7.]
Mr Speaker, the Backbench Business Committee asked for a minimum of 90 minutes of protected time for the debate, but the Order Paper allowed a maximum of 90 minutes. The Backbench Business Committee determines the subject matter of debates. The allocation of time, and the way in which the Order Paper reflects that allocation, is not within its remit.
Mr Lidington
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his words of thanks. I will always do my best to accommodate what he and his Committee want, but, as I am sure he will appreciate, spare hours in the parliamentary timetable are a rare commodity.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
In March 2014, the only son of Joanne and Robert Wark, my 19-year-old constituent Callum Wark, was killed by an HGV driver who was three times over the legal drink-drive limit. On 29 October 2014, I held an Adjournment debate in the Chamber in which I asked the then Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), to conduct a sentencing review so that those who caused death by drink-driving would face a manslaughter charge rather than the current charge, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. Callum’s killer was sentenced to just seven years, and will serve only three and half before returning to his home country of Bulgaria, where he will be free to drive unrestricted once again. May we have a statement from a Justice Minister, updating the House on the progress of the review?
Mr Lidington
Let me first express my heartfelt sympathy to Callum’s family. Three years on, they will still be grieving and feeling acute and inconsolable loss.
The Ministry of Justice consultation to which my hon. Friend has referred ran until February this year, and received more than 9,000 responses. The Government are considering those responses, and Ministers will publish a written response in due course.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on the conduct of Virgin Care in our national health service? It has emerged that Virgin Care is suing the NHS after a contract to provide children’s care in Surrey was given to a non-profit provider, and apparently it is seeking a massive payout from the taxpayer. Does the Leader of the House agree that that is appalling behaviour, and will he ask the Health Secretary to make a statement?
Mr Lidington
If a case is the subject of legal action, neither I nor any other Minister can comment on the specifics, but if the hon. Lady will give me the details of this case, I will ask the Secretary of State or one of his team to write to her.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
Yesterday, which was a busy day, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced a consultation on the future of Channel 4. Please may we have a debate on its future direction, and does the Leader of the House agree that given the success of the BBC’s relocation to Salford, Channel 4 should perhaps consider coming to Yorkshire?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport is seeking the broadest possible range of views and evidence to inform the Government’s assessment of the location of Channel 4. I am sure that my hon. Friend will continue to be a formidable and persuasive advocate for Yorkshire.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
When can we discuss early-day motion 1131?
[That this House is appalled at the runaway multi-billion pound waste of nuclear costs for a power source that promised to deliver electricity that would be too cheap to meter; notes that Hinkley Point’s estimated cost of £6 billion in 2008 leapt to £24 billion and is now estimated to soar to £37 billion, while the cost of nuclear decommissioning, estimated at £55 billion in 2005, is now set at £117 billion and rising; and condemns this and previous Governments’ gullible infatuation with the myth of cheap nuclear power that has created a massive burden of debt for the nation that will impoverish public spending for decades.]
When can we discuss the staggering cost of decommissioning nuclear sites—£117 billion—and the leap in the price of Hinkley Point from £6 billion to £37 billion? Why were successive Governments infatuated by the myth of a cheap source of nuclear power which promised to deliver electricity that was too cheap to meter, given that what has been delivered is a £170 billion bill for taxpayers that will impoverish Governments and restrict their spending for decades?
Mr Lidington
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy responded to an urgent question about nuclear decommissioning on Monday, but I advise the hon. Gentleman to seek an opportunity to initiate one of the longer Westminster Hall debates.
The Government’s view is that nuclear energy should be part of a broad mix of energy sources to ensure that we have a secure energy supply and can rely increasingly on sources that do not add to the problem of climate change.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, which is illegally proposing to close its accident and emergency ward in the autumn, thus endangering up to 40 children a week? Does the Leader of the House agree that such moves should be subject to consultation with the public, local authorities and local Members of Parliament? There has been no such consultation, yet the proposal is going ahead.
Mr Lidington
I am concerned to hear about that, and I will draw it to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health. A significant change in the configuration of NHS services in any area ought to be the subject of public consultation. There is, of course a power for the relevant committee of the local authority to ask the Secretary of State to call in such decisions and review them. I encourage my hon. Friend to pursue the issue with Health Ministers, but, as I have said, I will draw his comments to the Secretary of State’s attention.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the state of local roads? In Nottinghamshire, which includes my constituency of Gedling, there is a £319 million backlog in respect of Nottinghamshire County Council being able to deal with those roads. My constituents and the people of Nottinghamshire are fed up with driving along roads that are crumbling and full of potholes, and it is about time the Government sorted it out.
Mr Lidington
It was precisely to address infrastructure problems that the Chancellor of the Exchequer found £23 billion of additional spending in the autumn statement. As the Transport Secretary said during Question Time earlier today, the Government have allocated very significant sums of money to support local highways authorities to deal with potholes and other local road repairs. But the reality, which any responsible Government must accept, is that resources are finite and the country and the Government have to live within their means. We still have a significant deficit in our public finances, and the responsible approach is to live within our means.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House grant an urgent debate on conflicts of interest? During that debate we could probably look, for example, at the relationship between CH2M, a High Speed 2 contractor, and HS2, currently in the constituency of the Leader of the House, your constituency, Mr Speaker, and my constituency, because that relationship cannot be a good one as CH2M must be facing some financial difficulties having given up a £170 million contract. We could also consider whether HS2 can explain what it is going to do with Bechtel and Mace, the other bidders—whether the contract will be started from scratch, or we are going to have to take its word that there was no conflict of interest if one of them is appointed. We could also clarify the roles of individuals such as Chris Reynolds and the raft of CH2M secondees working in HS2, and also—[Interruption.] Perhaps we could also look at the role of the chairman of the National Infrastructure Commission. [Interruption.] The NIC has to provide impartial expert advice to the Government and operate independently—
Mr Speaker
Order. That is enough; I have been more than fair to the right hon. Lady. I know that she is seeking a debate, but a number of Members are already muttering that the debate has now happened. I am sure she will get the debate, but we do have to make progress; I hope she will forgive me.
Mr Lidington
I did catch some of the Transport Secretary’s response to my right hon. Friend a little earlier today. There are strict rules around any kind of public sector procurement and we expect all proper procedures to be followed, including the rules to provide safeguards against conflicts of interest.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Having received a response from the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), regarding over 40 of my constituents who allege they have been mis-sold solar panels by a Government-approved green deal provider, I am not entirely confident that his Department appreciates the magnitude of the problem and just how many people across Britain are suffering financial hardship because of this botched Government energy efficiency scheme. May we please have a debate in Government time to discuss this urgent, important and potentially far-reaching issue?
Mr Lidington
I have not seen the letter from the Minister to which the. Lady refers. If she feels there has been maladministration by a Government Department, there may be a case for reference to the parliamentary ombudsman to investigate that. That is one option she might want to explore.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House schedule his own statement on your excellent award, Mr Speaker? That would give him the opportunity to announce the critical role of the Department for International Development in the Benazir Bhutto scheme, and explain to the House that this scheme uses the latest biometric technology to deliver money electronically to the world’s poorest women, thereby absolutely transforming their status by providing them with a bank account.
Mr Lidington
Without tempting your wrath by giving a statement, Mr Speaker, I am very happy to applaud the Speaker’s Democracy Award, and the nomination that was successful today. I also pay tribute to the role of the Department for International Development in this. As my right hon. Friend rightly says, the use of digital technology can provide power, freedom and opportunity to women, in particular, in some developing countries who would otherwise have to live in fear and never have any control over their own lives.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
The funding crisis in the NHS has reached new heights today, with reports of a hospital trust asking full-time nurses to register and set up as sole traders so that it can avoid paying employers’ national insurance contributions. Will the Leader of the House ask the Health Secretary to investigate this matter urgently and assure us that this outrageous practice is unacceptable and has to stop?
Mr Lidington
Given this particular case, I think that the hon. Gentleman should write directly to Health Ministers. Alternatively, if he would like to come by my office with the details, I would be happy to forward his concerns to the Secretary of State.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Domestic dog attacks on sheep, especially now, in the lambing season, are a real concern not only for the businesses of our farmers across the country but for dog owners, who are often unaware of the consequences of such attacks for them and their pets. May we have a debate on what more the Government could do to improve awareness of the actions that farmers and the authorities can take when dogs attack sheep, and on what more could be done to prevent such attacks in the first place?
Mr Lidington
The Government certainly understand the huge loss that farmers face as a result of dog attacks on livestock. It is the duty of all dog owners to ensure that their animals are kept under proper control when on farmland. Government officials recently met police forces and farming representatives to discuss the situation and, as a consequence, five police forces are now going to pilot the more systematic collection of incidents and good response practices.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate on the 6,000 constituents of Norwich South who have been sanctioned by the Department for Work and Pensions since 2010? In particular, I should like to raise the issue of one 45-year-old terminal cancer patient who failed his work capability assessment. He was stripped of his employment and support allowance, denied jobseeker’s allowance and is now living off his dying father, in food poverty. May we have a debate on this as a matter of urgency?
Mr Lidington
The sanctions, in their current form, have been used ever since jobseeker’s allowance started in 1996, so the sanctions regime existed throughout the 13 years of the Labour Government, and the vast majority of people comply. If there are particular cases where things have gone wrong or where bad judgments have been made by officials, I would encourage the hon. Gentleman to take them up directly with the Ministers concerned. However, a sanctions system is a logical element in an effective and fair system of benefits.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Residents and retailers in Barton-upon-Humber in my constituency are angry about the possible development of a new Lidl supermarket on the edge of the town. The Government’s efforts to revitalise and support our high streets are often undermined by the decisions of local authority planning departments. May we have a debate on the impact on the high street of planning?
Mr Lidington
I should probably direct my hon. Friend towards Westminster Hall opportunities for such a constituency case. It is right that these decisions are taken at local level and that we do not try to second-guess every supermarket location from Whitehall, but I am sure that he will be a formidable advocate for his own communities in trying to ensure that the planners reach a decision that takes account of local opinion.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
On “The Andrew Marr Show” last weekend, the Home Secretary said that
“we need to make sure that our intelligence services have the ability to get into situations like encrypted WhatsApp”.
This was a clear departure from stated Government policy. Lord Howe said last October:
“The assertion that the Government are opposed to encryption or would legislate to undermine it is fanciful.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 2404.]
May we have a debate in Government time on whether the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is still relevant and whether it is still GCHQ’s guidance to industry to encrypt communications? Will the Leader of the House also enlighten us as to what the “necessary hashtags” are?
Mr Lidington
The Government want people to be able to communicate with each other securely. There is a real threat to cyber-security, and cybercrime has a massive cost on society, so we support encryption. However, we need a balance to ensure that encryption does not provide a safe space for terrorists, paedophiles or organised criminals. Therefore, we want to require companies to have the ability to decrypt those messages when they have been served with a properly authorised warrant. The hon. Lady will know that end-to-end encryption is a particular issue, which is why the Home Secretary is meeting representatives from the digital industry and internet providers today to discuss the issues further.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
My constituent, prison officer Nick Medlin, died in the early hours of Christmas morning after a vicious attack, and PC Keith Palmer lost his life while doing his job here in Parliament last week. The trial of the man charged with the manslaughter of Nick Medlin starts on 26 June. May we have a debate on introducing a specific offence to deal with those who attack the people who protect us?
Mr Lidington
While I express my utter condolences to the family of the prison officer who lost his life on the Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment on a matter that is to be the subject of a criminal trial. The courts already have powers to impose an additional sentence on grounds of aggravation if an attack has been upon a police officer.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do not know why the Leader of the House is being so coy about the date of the Queen’s Speech; it is on 17 May, and we all know that because it is on the Government’s all-party Whip and has been for the past four weeks.
IPSA seems absolutely determined to publish information regarding MPs that will reveal their home addresses. That is entirely inappropriate, and I hope that the Government will stand ready to legislate if necessary.
Mr Lidington
Both the hon. Gentleman and I have raised this matter directly with IPSA and, earlier this week, IPSA gave some assurances that the matter was under active review. I would certainly hope that action is taken at the IPSA board to ensure that any material that might identify a Member and put them at risk of possible attack is not published in future.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
May we have an urgent debate on NHS workforce planning? Among the reasons given to me by my local NHS trust for difficulties in filling key posts are the impact of IR35 and the sharp decline in applications from European Union citizens.
Mr Lidington
There will obviously be opportunities, although not in the next two weeks, to put questions to Health Ministers, but I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to know that we have record numbers of nurses and GPs in training. The Government have significantly expanded the training provision.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
May I take this opportunity to place on the record my congratulations to Marvi Memon on winning the inaugural Speaker’s Democracy Award? That speaks to the importance of highlighting women’s contribution to politics, which should be the focus of people’s attention, not what we wear or how we appear.
Has the Leader of the House ever had the opportunity to listen to a recording of a personal independence payment appeal? An increasing number of constituents who visit me are upset and distressed by the process. Given that the majority of claimants are successful on appeal, the system is clearly failing them. May we have an urgent debate on how the system is failing and on how we can turn it into one that treats people with the dignity and respect that they deserve?
Mr Lidington
I simply disagree with the hon. Lady that the PIP system is failing. In fact, more than a quarter of those who receive PIPs get the highest level of support, compared with just 15% of working-age claimants under disability living allowance. If we look at figures for people with mental health conditions, we see that significantly more people are getting help through PIPs than secured help at a high level under disability living allowance, so the record is that PIPs are providing greater help to those in the greatest need.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
May we have a debate, or at least will my right hon. Friend raise the matter urgently with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, on the developing situation with Falkland Islands Holdings Ltd? The alternative investment market-listed company holds the majority of land, transport and retail on the Falkland Islands and is facing a hostile takeover by a politically motivated Argentine billionaire, a matter on which the Prime Minister or the Chancellor would have to step in under the takeover code to protect the interests of the Falkland Islands people.
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend raised that matter earlier in the week, and the question is the subject of a full review by the Falklands Islands Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is giving support to the Falkland Islands Administration in that task.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
On Monday students from Grange Technology College in my constituency visited me here in Parliament. During their visit I was asked about the more than £900,000 due to be cut from the school’s budget by 2019. Research suggests that that equates to £612 per pupil, or the salaries of 24 teachers. That is at a school working hard to come out of special measures. Is the Leader of the House willing to allocate time to debate the severe funding cuts faced by our schools?
Mr Lidington
The hon. Lady refers to the new funding formula, which is the subject of a consultation. The Secretary of State for Education will set out her proposals in due course. It is hard to defend the current system, under which comparable schools with comparable catchment areas but in different parts of the country can receive startlingly different sums of money per pupil simply because of their geography.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. It has become alarmingly common for business questions to take more than an hour. I have to have regard to the next statement and to the two debates, so I appeal for short questions and short answers in the faint hope that we might be able to move on to the next business shortly after midday.
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
May we have a debate on diversity in the arts? On Monday night I was pleased to attend the Muslim News awards for excellence 2017, where my constituent Shahida Ahmed from Nelson was awarded the Alhambra Muslim News award for excellence in the arts, presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Mr Lidington
I congratulate my hon. Friend’s constituent on that achievement, and I give him the news that Arts Council England is making a priority of diversity in the arts. That has included half a million pounds for organisations such as Eclipse Theatre, which is delivering a programme supporting ethnic minority artists in northern England.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Further to the earlier question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), the Automobile Association says that our roads now resemble “Swiss cheese.” I understand that the number of potholes filled by councils in England fell by 19% last year, so when will the Government properly deal with that issue? May we have a debate, please?
Mr Lidington
The latest official assessment of road conditions in England, published in March 2017, shows that local classified roads are improving, with fewer local roads needing to be considered for maintenance. The Government have provided councils in England outside London with more than £6 billion up to 2020-21 to improve the condition of local roads, but resources are finite. Clearly priorities have to be set at local level, just as at national level.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The much-loved Harrow arts centre is once again threatened with closure. The centre has adult education and cultural activities for the whole community. Cultura London has raised £3.1 million towards funding the centre, but Harrow Council is now thinking of closing it. May we have a debate in Government time on the future of community and cultural centres across the UK?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend may have an opportunity to raise this either in Westminster Hall or in Department for Communities and Local Government questions on 24 April, but I hope that when Harrow Council takes its decisions it will take account of the strong representations from him and his constituents.
Alex Salmond (Gordon) (SNP)
The Leader of the House is known as a great big planner, so how much time is he planning to have on these 19,000 statutory instruments, pieces of legislation and other instruments on the great repeal Bill and its attendant legislation in this place over the next two years, so that Parliament can fulfil its job of parliamentary scrutiny? How much time is he planning?
Mr Lidington
We will have to wait for the Bill to be published and the statutory instruments to be brought forward. Of course, a statutory instrument can be dealt with only by whatever procedure this House and the other place have approved in the parent Act of Parliament, but I can say to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House that the 19,000 figure he has just given is very far-fetched. In my view, the number concerned is going to be nothing like that.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for making a written statement today on the technical review of the English votes for English laws Standing Orders and responding in particular to the Procedure Committee report. Does he agree that the 12 pages may be summarised simply by saying that there will be no changes at the moment but the provisions will be kept under review?
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Will the Leader of the House make time available for a series of debates, which I think it would be appropriate for the Cabinet Office to respond to, so that it can update us on the progress on the £350 million a week for the NHS, the reduction in immigration and the cut in VAT on fuel? It would also be able to update us on the increased costs associated with setting up parallel organisations to the European Court of Justice, Euratom and REACH.
Mr Lidington
The Cabinet Office is very active in seeking to ensure that the pledges given in the manifesto on which this Government were elected are delivered, whether through legislation or through other means. The points to which the right hon. Gentleman referred have not been part of the Government’s manifesto.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
May we have an urgent debate to clarify the Prime Minister’s negotiating stance with the EU? If we extrapolate her wish list from both her statement in the House yesterday and her letter to President Tusk, the only conclusion we could come to is either being a member of the European Union or a member of the single market.
Mr Lidington
What the Prime Minister said yesterday was absolutely consistent with what she said both in her Lancaster House speech and in the subsequent White Paper. We are at the start of a complex and challenging period of negotiation. As she said yesterday, there will need to be the political will and give and take on both sides, but we are looking forward to that task and we are entering into it in a constructive spirit.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Will the Leader of the House ensure that a statement is made explaining to young people why his Government believe it is more important to reduce inward migration than to protect the freedoms that I have enjoyed so that my children can enjoy them, too?
Mr Lidington
We want to implement the decision that the people of the United Kingdom took in the referendum on membership of the European Union. That will clearly involve a change from the existing arrangements on free movement, which are provided under European law. The exact nature of movement rights and opportunities are things that Home Office Ministers, in particular, will be reflecting on, but they are also going to be part of a conversation between ourselves and other European Governments.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Options are clearly narrowing in Northern Ireland, so what time is the Leader of the House setting aside to prepare to do business on the Floor of this House on Northern Ireland after 18 April?
Mr Lidington
As the hon. Gentleman knows, it is the Government’s wish that devolved government in Northern Ireland can be resumed at the earliest possible opportunity; we have no wish to see a resumption of direct rule. Obviously, I have been talking to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regularly in recent weeks. As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the Government make plans for many different contingencies.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Commercial burglaries and serious knife crime remain persistent problems in parts of Walworth, Bermondsey and Rotherhithe in my constituency. When will the Government provide time to debate the worrying findings of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary report, which show that police forces throughout the country do not have the resources to investigate all crimes and that the Met in London has 700 fewer detectives than needed?
Mr Lidington
I point the hon. Gentleman to the success of the police both in and outside London in reducing crime, despite their having to make some difficult choices about budgetary management. The police have done that by reorganising their operations and priorities to ensure that cutting crime successfully comes first, and by implementing and spreading best practice.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The issue is barely mentioned in the Leader of the House’s EVEL technical review, so will he finally admit that, contrary to what his predecessor told us, it is simply not possible for Scottish MPs to debate or vote on Barnett consequentials through the estimates process?
Mr Lidington
A Procedure Committee report on the estimates procedure is due later this year; I will want to consider that, and the Government will of course reply to it in detail in due course. The basic problem is that it is in the nature of devolution that a budgetary decision taken here that has Barnett consequentials for Scotland does not ring-fence that Scottish funding for the same subject on which it might be spent here. It is up to the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament how that money is spent. There is not a direct read-across.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Every day, I hear another story of a person who has discovered that they have been duped into buying a leasehold property. Lenders are now refusing to grant mortgages on these homes, threatening the very integrity of the housing market. The Prime Minister said on 1 March that there was no reason for these properties to be sold on a leasehold basis. When will the Government find time to introduce legislation to put those words into action?
Mr Lidington
My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is taking this matter very seriously. I shall draw the hon. Gentleman’s concern to his attention, but I assure him that my hon. Friend is on top of the issue.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will be aware that paragraph 25 of the European Parliament’s draft motion on Brexit makes it clear that passporting for financial services will not be countenanced. Financial services are of key importance to Edinburgh and to many of my constituents who work in the sector. May we have a debate in Government time to hear how the UK Government intend to support our financial services organisations, which are facing serious disruptions?
Mr Lidington
I refer the hon. Lady to the Prime Minister’s letter yesterday, which made explicit mention of our objective of securing trade access for our financial services and, of course, reciprocal rights for financial services firms based in other European Union countries. The hon. Lady temps me to speculate about a forthcoming negotiation; as she knows, that is not something I am prepared to do.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Small businesses in my constituency gained little confidence from the Prime Minister’s statement yesterday. We were promised debates in Government time on important issues affected by our leaving the EU, including workers’ rights and environmental protections, and on the effect on small businesses, yet they have not happened. Will the Leader of the House publish a schedule of debates in Government time on these important issues?
Mr Lidington
I can promise the hon. Lady that there will be numerous opportunities, particularly in the forthcoming parliamentary Session, to debate every aspect of our departure from the European Union.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
If the cross-party talks in Northern Ireland are to inform the legislation that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland introduces in late April, will the Leader of the House assure us that business constraints in this House will not be used as an excuse for saying that that legislation and those talks should not address serious issues such as how the First and Deputy First Ministers are jointly elected and the petitions of concern?
Mr Lidington
As the hon. Gentleman knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his statement earlier this week that he might need to bring forward legislation, not least to address the possibility of there not being funding for essential public services in Northern Ireland. It would be wrong for me to speculate about the exact nature of legislation that might conceivably be brought forward. We still hope that that proves not to be necessary, and the Secretary of State continues to work tirelessly with the political parties to try to secure the restoration of devolved government.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
Fly-tipping is a blight on the lives of residents across my constituency, particularly those living in Plumstead. May we have a debate on what more the Government can do, particularly with regard to the powers available to local authorities, to tackle this problem?
Mr Lidington
There will be an opportunity to put questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on Thursday 20 April. There are quite significant powers available to local authorities. Local authorities sometimes also work with police forces, because organised crime is quite often involved in large-scale fly-tipping. I am sure that there is good practice that can be shared around the country, but I will flag up the hon. Gentleman’s concern with the relevant Minister.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Two years ago, a 33-year-old constituent, Caroline, was given just two months to live because of an untreatable brain tumour. Her continuing quality of life is attributed by many of those treating her to a reluctant decision to take a daily dose of cannabis oil. May we have a debate in this Chamber about whether it really can be right for those such as Caroline to be criminalised, hindering her treatment and discouraging others from making the same decision?
Mr Lidington
I express sympathy and support to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and her family. It is possible for a medicine that has been developed on the basis of cannabinoids to be properly licensed and to go through the necessary safety procedures that we have for any medicine in the United Kingdom before it is made available through the national health service or generally. I would be very reluctant to dispense with a system that has been put in place to ensure patient safety. Prosecuting authorities have powers of discretion, and, given the circumstances that the hon. Gentleman has described, I very much hope that everybody will look at the case with nothing but compassion.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Leader of the House will no doubt be aware of the case of Mustafa Bashir who was spared jail despite repeatedly beating his wife, forcing her to take tablets and to drink bleach, telling her to kill herself and hitting her over the head with a cricket bat, saying:
“If I hit you with this bat with my full power then you would be dead.”
I fully support the independence of the judiciary, but may we have a debate on sentencing guidelines for domestic violence perpetrators?
Mr Lidington
This Government have introduced legislation to strengthen the penalties for domestic violence. It is something in which the Prime Minister, both as Home Secretary and now, takes a very close interest and to which she gives a high priority. Sentencing guidelines, as the hon. Gentleman knows, are published by the independent Sentencing Council, and individual decisions are taken by judges. In England and Wales, a consultation has started today on a new sentencing guideline to apply to all cases of domestic abuse. I hope that the authorities in Scotland might consider following suit.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Following the Prime Minister’s article 50 letter yesterday, senior figures in Brussels have complained that she has issued a blatant threat and is treating security as a bargaining chip. May we have a debate in Government time about the art of negotiation so that the Government might learn that bullying and threats are not an effective way to get a good deal from our allies?
Mr Lidington
I am really sorry that the hon. and learned Lady—particularly with her legal expertise—is giving credence to such nonsense. The facts are that our participation in European arrangements on the sharing of information between police forces and judicial systems rests on instruments based in the treaties and grounded in European law. Under article 50, on the day that we depart the EU, the treaties, and therefore all instruments flowing from the treaties, cease to apply to the United Kingdom. That is why we say that we are ambitious for an agreement—a new, deep and special partnership with our EU neighbours—that encompasses security co-operation as well as trade. I wish that she would support that.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
Last week, RBS announced a plan to close its busy Newton Mearns branch. East Renfrewshire was already the area worst affected by bank closures before this news. May we have an urgent debate on RBS’s surprising assertion that branches remain a core part of its offering to customers when that is patently not the case?
Mr Lidington
It is obviously a commercial decision for RBS but, as with any bank, I would hope that it would stick to the code to which all banks say they adhere, whereby it would continue to ensure that the last branch of a retail bank in any particular community is not closed, except in the most extreme circumstances.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
May we have a statement from the Leader of the House explaining why the Government think it is fair to take half the surpluses on a year-on-year basis from the mineworkers’ pension fund?
Mr Lidington
I will ask the relevant Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
May we have a debate in Government time and a statement on the abuse of job trials by unscrupulous employers? One instance was brought to my attention by a constituent who worked for a week without pay for Juice Garden, which has now been dropped by the Department for Work and Pensions which acknowledged the abuse of contract by that company. Does the Leader of the House share my concern that these companies are making use of free labour above and beyond what is reasonable for a job trial?
Mr Lidington
All workers should be treated properly and certainly in accordance with employment law. We expect responsible employers to treat people who are on a work trial or work experience with decency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is much concern about the delays for licence renewal and applications among the sporting and shooting organisations, and individual firearm certificate holders. One way of addressing that issue would be the extension of a firearm certificate to a 10 or 20-year period, thereby reducing administrative resources and costs. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement from the relevant Minister on how to deliver a 10 or 20-year firearm certificate?
Mr Lidington
I will ask the Minister to write to the hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he understands that a balance has to be struck between the problem he described and the need to ensure that we know where potentially lethal weapons are and that they are in the right hands.
Legislating for UK Withdrawal from the EU
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about today’s publication of a White Paper on the great repeal Bill.
Yesterday, we took the historic step of notifying the European Council of the Government’s decision to invoke article 50; the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. That notification marks the beginning of our two-year negotiation period with the EU, and it reflects the result of last year’s instruction from the people of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is our fierce determination to get the right deal for every single person. Now is the time to come together to ensure that the UK as a whole is prepared for the challenges and opportunities presented by our exit from the EU.
We have been clear that we want a smooth and orderly exit, and the great repeal Bill is integral to that approach. It will provide clarity and certainty for businesses, workers and consumers across the United Kingdom on the day we leave the EU. It will mean that as we exit the EU and seek a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union, we will be doing so from a position where we have the same standards and rules. But it will also ensure that we deliver on our promise to end the supremacy of European Union law in the UK as we exit. Our laws will then be made in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and interpreted by judges not in Luxembourg, but across the United Kingdom. Some have been concerned that Parliament will not play enough of a role in shaping the future of the country once we have left the European Union. Today’s White Paper shows just how wrong that is. This publication makes it clear that there will be a series of Bills to debate and vote on, both before and after we leave, as well as many statutory instruments to consider.
Let me turn to the content of the White Paper. The paper we have published today sets out the three principal elements of the great repeal Bill. First, we will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and return power to the United Kingdom. Secondly, the Bill will convert EU law into United Kingdom law, allowing businesses to continue operating knowing that the rules have not changed overnight, and providing fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change. Thirdly, the Bill will create the necessary powers to correct the laws that do not operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the European Union. I will address each of these elements in turn before coming to the important issue of the interaction of the Bill with the devolution settlements.
Let me begin with the European Communities Act 1972. Repealing the ECA on the day we leave the EU enables the return to this Parliament of the sovereignty we ceded in 1972 and ends the supremacy of EU law in this country. It is entirely necessary in order to deliver on the result of the referendum. But repealing the ECA alone is not enough. A simple repeal of the ECA would leave holes in our statute book. The EU regulations that apply directly in the UK would no longer have any effect, and many of the domestic regulations we have made to implement our EU obligations would fall away. Therefore, to provide the maximum possible legal certainty, the great repeal Bill will convert EU law into domestic law on the day we leave the European Union. This means, for example, that the workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights that are enjoyed under EU law in the UK will continue to be available in UK law after we have left the European Union. Once EU law has been converted into domestic law, Parliament will be able to pass legislation to amend, repeal or improve any piece of European Union law it chooses—as will the devolved legislatures, where they have power to do so.
However, further steps will be needed to provide a smooth and orderly exit. This is because a large number of laws—both existing domestic laws and those we convert into UK law—will not work properly if we leave the EU without taking further action. Some laws, for example, grant functions to an EU institution with which the UK will no longer have a relationship. To overcome this, the great repeal Bill will provide a power to correct the statute book, where necessary, to resolve the problems which will occur as a consequence of leaving the European Union. This will be done using secondary legislation, the flexibility of which will make sure we have put in place the necessary corrections before the day we leave the European Union. I can confirm that this power will be time-limited, and Parliament will need to be satisfied that the procedures in the Bill for making and approving the secondary legislation are appropriate.
Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and correcting the statute book in time. As the Lords Constitution Committee recently put it:
“The challenge that Parliament will face is in balancing the need for speed, and thus for Governmental discretion, with the need for proper parliamentary control of the content of the UK’s statute book.”
Parliament of course can, and does, regularly debate and vote on secondary legislation; we are not considering some form of governmental Executive orders, but using a legislative process of long standing. I hope that today’s White Paper and this statement can be the start of a discussion between Parliament and Government about how best to achieve this balance. Similar corrections will be needed to the statute books of the three devolved Administrations, and so we propose that the Bill will also give Ministers in the devolved Administrations a power to amend devolved legislation to correct their law in line with the way that UK ministers will be able to correct UK law.
Let me turn to the European Court of Justice and its case law. I can confirm that the great repeal Bill will provide no future role for the European Court in the interpretation of our laws, and the Bill will not oblige our courts to consider cases decided by the European Court of Justice after we have left. However, for as long as EU-derived law remains on the UK statute book, it is essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. The Government believe that this is best achieved by providing for continuity in how that law is interpreted before and after exit day. To maximise certainty, therefore, the Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU law that has been converted into UK law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the European Court of Justice’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the European Union. Any other starting point would be to change the law and create unnecessary uncertainty.
This approach maximises legal certainty at the point of departure, but our intention is not to fossilise the past decisions of the European Court of Justice. As such, we propose that the Bill will provide that European Court case law be given the same status in our courts as decisions of our own Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not frequently depart from its own decisions, but it does so from time to time. We would expect the Supreme Court to take a similar, sparing approach to departing from European Court of Justice case law, but we believe it is right that it should have the power to do so. Of course Parliament will be free to change the law, and therefore overturn case law, where it decides it is right to do so.
Today’s White Paper also sets out the great repeal Bill’s approach to the charter of fundamental rights. Let me explain our approach. The charter of fundamental rights applies to member states only when they act within the scope of European Union law. That means that its relevance is removed by our withdrawal from the European Union. The Government have been clear that in leaving the EU, the UK’s leading role in protecting and advancing human rights will not change. The fact that the charter will fall away will not mean that the protection of rights in the UK will suffer as a result. The charter of fundamental rights was not designed to create new rights, but rather to catalogue rights already recognised as general principles in EU law. That was recognised by the Labour Government who brought it in, with a protocol attached to it, in 2007. Where cases have been decided by reference to those rights, that case law will continue to be used to interpret the underlying rights that will be preserved.
I would now like to turn to devolution. The United Kingdom’s domestic constitutional arrangements have evolved since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973. The current devolution settlements were agreed after the UK joined and reflect that context. In areas where the devolved Administrations and legislatures have competence, such as agriculture, the environment and some areas of transport, that competence is exercised within the constraints set by European Union law. The existence of common EU frameworks had the effect of providing a common UK framework in many areas, safeguarding the functioning of the UK internal market.
As powers return from the EU, we have an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on those issues, ensuring that power sits closer to the people of the United Kingdom than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of that process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration. However, we must also ensure that, as we leave the EU, no new barriers to living and doing business within our own Union are created. In some areas, that will require common UK frameworks. Decisions will be required about where a common framework is needed and, if it is, how it might be established. The devolved Administrations also acknowledge the importance of common UK frameworks. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an approach that works for the whole of the United Kingdom and reflects the needs and individual circumstances of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me conclude by stressing the importance of the great repeal Bill. It will help to ensure certainty and stability across the board. It is vital to ensuring a smooth and orderly exit; it will stand us in good stead for the negotiations over our future relationship with the EU; and it will deliver greater control over our laws to this Parliament and, wherever appropriate, the devolved Administrations. Those steps are crucial to implementing the result of the referendum in the national interest. I hope that all sides will recognise that and work with us to achieve those aims. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of his statement and the White Paper.
Nobody underestimates the task of converting EU law into domestic law. The question is: how is it done and what is to be done? On the question of how, the White Paper gives sweeping powers to the Executive. They are sweeping because it proposes a power to use delegated legislation to “correct”, and thus change, primary legislation and devolved legislation, and because of the sheer scale of the exercise.
In those circumstances, one might expect some pretty rigorous safeguards for the use of those sweeping powers, but there are none to be found in the White Paper. On the contrary, paragraph 3.20 states:
“Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance that will have to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and the speed of this process.”
The White Paper goes on to say:
“The Government proposes using existing types of statutory instrument procedure.”
There are no enhanced safeguards for that sweeping use of powers.
In those circumstances, we have to go back to first principles. There should be no change to rights and protections without primary legislation—that is a starting and basic principle—and the same goes for policy. I add this: when we see the Bill, it must give no power to change rights, obligations and protections by delegated legislation. Will the Secretary of State provide assurances on those basic principles and look again at safeguards for the proposed delegated legislation procedures?
Again, there have to be clear principles for converting EU law into domestic law. All rights and protections derived from EU law must be converted into domestic law, with no limitations, no qualifications and no sunset clauses. This morning we need an assurance from the Secretary of State that he will face down those on his own side who will not be able to resist the temptation to water down those rights and protections before they are even put into the Bill. I remind him that the International Development Secretary said during the referendum campaign that we should
“halve the burdens of the EU social and employment legislation”.
The International Trade Secretary has said:
“we must begin by deregulating the labour market.”
We need an assurance that those temptations will be faced down before the Bill is put before the House.
I turn to the charter of fundamental rights which, it is proposed, will be left out altogether. The charter codifies in modern form all EU rights. It is not directly enforceable —it is a codification—but it is none the less influential, and it is wrong simply to leave it out. I note what is said at paragraph 1.12 of the White Paper, but I seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that all relevant rights—I accept that some are not relevant, such as the right to vote in the European Parliament—and all substantial rights in the charter will be converted into domestic law through the Bill.
Finally, on devolved bodies, Brexit should not be an excuse to hoard powers in Whitehall. There has to be a heavy presumption that devolved matters will remain devolved as powers and responsibilities transfer from the EU to the UK, so I ask the Secretary of State to give us an assurance about that.
Mr Davis
At the end of my statement, I said that I hoped the House would come together in making this task happen. I reiterate that point to the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), my opposite number. He says that no change should be made to rights through delegated legislation, but I would have thought that that almost goes without saying. [Hon. Members: “Then say it!”] While I say that it almost goes without saying, I actually said that in my statement, if hon. Members read it.
Let me reiterate that the use of delegated legislation will be for technical changes—the sort of alteration whereby, for example, a reference to a regulatory body in the European Union clearly has to be replaced with a reference to a body in the UK. Frankly, I think that that is as plain as a pikestaff. The hon. and learned Gentleman changed his wording slightly by talking about “all relevant rights”, and he is quite right to do so, because things such as the right to stand as an MEP, the right to elect an MEP and, indeed, the right to make a direct application to the European Court will go automatically. He is a reasonable man, so I take it that he accepts that.
On charter rights, let me remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of what happened with the Lisbon treaty in 2007. The Labour Government of the day negotiated that treaty and a protocol to it, about which the Prime Minister of the day said:
“It is absolutely clear that we have an opt-out from both the charter and judicial and home affairs.”—[Official Report, 25 June 2007; Vol. 462, c. 37.]
Actually, Mr Tony Blair was wrong to say that; he had misunderstood the Labour Government’s own protocol, which guaranteed that no new rights arose as a result of the charter of fundamental rights. That was reiterated later by the then Government in court and by their then Europe Minister, who said:
“The Protocol confirms that since the Charter creates no rights, or circumstances in which those rights can be relied on before the courts, it does not change the status quo.”
The 2007 White Paper said the same thing, and only last year—I think in December—the Joint Committee on Human Rights reiterated that understanding.
We looked at that matter very carefully because, as the hon. and learned Gentleman might appreciate, it is an area that I take very seriously indeed. Aside from the undertakings that he has asked for, I make this offer to him: if, in the next two years, we find something that we have missed, we will put it right. On that basis, I do not think that we have an argument. I do not think that that will happen either, because a clause-by-clause search through the whole charter did not throw up any significant issues, other than things such as the MEP matter.
On the treatment of the devolved Administrations, the first thing to say is that no powers currently exercised by them will be taken away. We have said that time and again. We also expect that there will be a significant increase in the powers exercised by the devolved Administrations. However, I say this to the hon. and learned Gentleman: we have to maintain the United Kingdom internal market, too. That market is four times as important to Scottish businesses, for example, as the European market, and it is incredibly important to Northern Irish and Welsh businesses as well. The Administrations understand that. We will be holding discussions with them at length—we have already started those discussions—about how we execute this. I will be happy to talk to the hon. and learned Gentleman about the matter as well, if that would be useful to him. I reiterate that this is a difficult task, but it is by no means beyond the ability of the House to achieve this properly, respecting our democracy and delivering for the British people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gently remind hon. Members who arrived after the statement started that they certainly should not expect to be called. Although I am very keen to accommodate the extensive interest in this statement, there are two well-subscribed debates under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee to follow, to which I need to have regard, so we need short questions and short answers.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the clarity and thoughtful analysis that lie behind the White Paper. With the great repeal Bill, we will be returning sovereignty to this House so that decisions about our lawmaking are taken in this House by the representatives of the British people, in line with their wishes at general elections. That it is not—I advise the Opposition to bear this in mind—the situation at present. So often, as we find in the European Scrutiny Committee, such decisions are taken behind closed doors.
Mr Davis
I thank my hon. Friend for those comments and for his work in this area over the years. Some of the ideas in this policy area have come from his past writings, so he is right. I make the point that although people complain about secondary legislation, nearly 8,000 statutory instruments were used to implement European law under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, so that attack is a little hypocritical. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and commend him for his work in the past.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
Scottish National party Members think that the triggering of article 50 made yesterday a sad day for everybody in Europe, including everyone in these islands. The EU has for years brought us peace, stability, security and prosperity. We are turning the clock back 40 years, and I am glad that the Minister reminded his own Front Benchers that devolution exists now in a way that it did not 40 years ago.
It has been suggested that the Government are looking at using Henry VIII clauses to take this through—so much for parliamentary sovereignty. Scotland’s aspiration to have a voice also seems to have been given the Henry VIII treatment; a rough wooing is clearly taking place. Will the Secretary of State tell us when legislative consent motions will be required, where responsibility
“will flow from Brussels to Edinburgh, hardly touching the sides…on the way”,
and who he means by the “democratically-elected representatives” mentioned in paragraph 4.2 of the White Paper? It strikes me that the Government have pushed the big red button marked “Brexit” with their fingers crossed and very little idea of what comes next.
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman loves his Henry VIII clauses—he thinks the public at large will believe this is some Executive fiat dating from the middle ages—but we are of course talking about a procedure that has been used throughout the past century and over which this House has complete control. That is the first point.
The second point is that I have been in Joint Ministerial Committee meetings with the hon. Gentleman’s colleague from the Scottish Government and representatives of the other devolved Administrations during the past six months or more. I have raised these issues there, as well as bilaterally, and I have said that we will have serious discussions about them. My preference is for more devolution, rather than less—that is my simple viewpoint—but the restraint on that is when there is a direct effect on the interests of the whole United Kingdom. Those interests include: the United Kingdom market, because it would be very bad for Scottish farmers and producers if the United Kingdom market became separated from them; issues of national security, which we need to deal with; issues of international negotiation; and observing international obligations, such as under environmental law. There are therefore plenty of areas in which it is clear that we need a UK-wide framework. That is the sort of criterion we will apply, and we will discuss it with the devolved Administrations at every stage.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
This measure should be called the continuity Bill, and it should be very reassuring for all remain voters because it is the means by which we will keep the rights and laws from Europe that they most like. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any MP who wants to keep EU employment rights, for example, must vote for the Bill?
Mr Davis
I must tell my right hon. Friend that I lay some claim to the ideas behind the Bill, but not to its name. He is right that it is, to a very large extent, a continuity Bill, and it is the way in which we will protect a whole series of rights, including employment rights and environmental rights. He is also quite right that those who want to preserve those rights should vote, without any thought, for this Bill.
Mr Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD)
I commend the Secretary of State for ignoring some of the more over-excitable demands from parts of the Brexit press and some of his Back Benchers, and for confirming, as he has done today, that he will incorporate into British law some of the jewels in the crown of the EU—the habitats directive, the working time directive and the green renewable energy directive—that we can all agree on. He will know, however, that there will be a fork in the road: the Government will either have to keep those provisions in domestic legislation, in which case Conservative Members will reasonably say, “What on earth was the point of leaving the EU in the first place?”; or he will remove those provisions, in which case the EU will need exacting safeguards to ensure that we do not undercut EU standards.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that it is impossible to do what the Prime Minister said yesterday about participating fully in crime-fighting and anti-terrorism EU measures without access to the Schengen information system and other databases—I remember from my time in government that such databases are devastating crime-fighting tools—and without abiding by EU data protection directives overseen by the European Court of Justice?
Mr Davis
After a commendation like the one with which the right hon. Gentleman started, I think my career is over.
The right hon. Gentleman is half right and half wrong. What the Prime Minister was referring to yesterday was, of course, the importance of either maintaining something very similar to, or putting in place a replacement for, the justice and home affairs strand of the European treaties. He is right in one respect: if we are to exchange data with not just the EU but other countries, such as the United States, we will undoubtedly need data protection, such as data laws and privacy protection, that meets their standards. The Bill will ensure that we get to that point on the day we leave the European Union and can therefore continue to exchange data. There is no doubt that there will be continuing discussions thereafter about how we maintain all our standards at the same level. However, that will be with not just the European Union, but all our allies, whether America, Canada, the “Five Eyes” —everybody.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the directives to which the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) referred are already in British law? We are talking here about what the Foreign Affairs Committee counted as the 6,987 regulations that must be applied in British law through the Bill. Will we have an opportunity to examine a number of the directives—the insolvency II directive, for example, which imposes significantly more costs on the equity release industry in the United Kingdom than a British law would—within the time limits that he will ask the House to apply to this legislation?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend’s general point about the directives is right, and his specific point is right, in the sense that the whole point of the process is to bring such matters back to the United Kingdom. We will not by any means change everything—indeed, we will not want to change everything; we might want, as our own national decision, to maintain some parallel standards—but those matters will be brought back to this House of Commons, and we will make the decision on what is best for this country.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Government’s aim that EU law, with all its rights and protections, will remain in place is a pragmatic approach; we need to find a way of making that happen. However, the Secretary of State will be aware of concern that others might try to use the process to get rid of EU laws they have never liked, or use these powers to make changes beyond the minimum necessary. Will he therefore commit to consulting closely with the Exiting the European Union Committee on the scope of the Bill, and does he intend to publish a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny?
Mr Davis
I happily undertake to consult the Select Committee on this very important issue. I have already told the right hon. Gentleman privately—I will now say it publicly—that we will not publish draft legislation. However, now that the White Paper has been published, we will undertake a great deal of consultation, including with his Select Committee.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
May I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and assure him that I always listen very carefully to what he says? I heard him explain on the radio this morning that what I thought was an absolute guarantee—that the deal would, in his words, deliver the “exact same benefits” on trade and customs—is now apparently an aim, but I am sure he will be true to that aim. This is really a great transfer Bill, so will the Secretary of State give an unequivocal undertaking that workers’ rights, environmental protections and consumer protections will in no way be changed as a result of the Bill—or, indeed, of anything else?
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
May I commend the Secretary of State for his statement and the White Paper. This is the right approach to providing certainty once we leave the EU. In relation to the devolved Administrations and the greater powers thereto, will he engage intensively with the devolved Administrations during the two-year period that now lies ahead about where powers should lie—whether in London, or Belfast, Cardiff or Edinburgh?
Mr Davis
The straight answer is yes. One of the reasons the White Paper has been published a little later than I would have preferred is of course that we do not have a Northern Ireland Executive at this stage. I waited for the three weeks in the hope that we would have one, but at this point we cannot wait any longer. We will continue to consult the devolved Administrations. In the run-up to the election in Northern Ireland, I invited the out-going Ministers to make sure we had such a mechanism. I will ensure that we have another mechanism for Northern Ireland. I am not yet quite sure what it will be—I would be happy to hear the right hon. Gentleman’s ideas—but I am sure we will have another mechanism, whether or not through the Executive, so that we can also consult with Northern Ireland.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
May I thank my right hon. Friend for making it clear that two years from today our sovereign Parliament will indeed have the power to amend, repeal or improve all this ghastly EU legislation?
Dame Rosie Winterton (Doncaster Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says that he wants the maximum scrutiny of legislation over the next few years, but given the sheer volume of particularly delegated legislation that he has outlined, does he think it is really feasible to reduce the number of MPs by 50?
Mr Davis
That question is stratospherically above my pay grade, but let me pick up the underpinning point about the volume of legislation. We are bringing a large amount of the legislation straight into UK law without change. The reason for change and the use of statutory instruments is, as I said to the Labour spokesman earlier, that there will be technical amendments and issues that will come up. Separate to that there will be primary legislation—on immigration, customs and a variety of other areas. That is different, but the technical legislation will aim to make things practical, not to maintain great changes in policy, and this House should be well able to do that.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Leave campaigners will vote for the Bill as it is part of the process of withdrawal, but remain campaigners admire EU law and want its provisions to continue, so can the Secretary of State think of any good reason why the great repeal Bill should not be passed unanimously?
Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State needs to make it clear now that all those regulations and protocols relating to justice, home affairs, protection, security and terrorism will stay part of our laws with the co-operation requirements that we have upon us, because in their article 50 letter yesterday, shamefully, the Government suggested circumstances where we may consider withdrawing or weakening our co-operation. Does he not realise that that sort of squalid negotiation tactic will result in a less good deal rather than a better one?
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman should know better. The Leader of the House, who was previously a Europe Minister, was here and he made it clear, in terms, that the Prime Minister was talking about the fact that existing treaty arrangements, which will end when we leave the European Union, will fall by the wayside, so we will have to find an alternative—not our internal legal rights and privileges, but the treaty arrangements. That is the important thing.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I very much welcome the pragmatic approach that the Secretary of State has adopted in this document, and particularly his emphasis on legal certainty and continuity, which we all know is vital for continued business confidence and is something the Select Committee on Justice report emphasised. Does he agree that it will be important to maintain the mechanism for ensuring continuing regulatory equivalents, not only in data protection but in important areas such as the financial and other service sectors? How might that be taken forward?
Mr Davis
I am going to seek your protection, Mr Speaker. That is two people who have finished my career today—I am being called “pragmatic” as well. The simple truth is that when we come to do the trade and other deals, there will be relationships between us, as there are with other countries, to ensure that we maintain common standards—the point the ex-leader of the Liberal party, the ex-Deputy Prime Minister, made about data protection and so on. There will be things that we will negotiate, but my hon. Friend would be surprised if I talked those negotiations out in this place at this time.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I do worry, because the Secretary of State says in his White Paper:
“Existing parliamentary procedures allow for Parliament to scrutinise as many or as few statutory instruments as it sees fit.”
That is simply untrue. In 2014-15, nine negative statutory instruments were prayed against by the Leader of the Opposition; only one was allowed a debate, and that was not on the Floor of the House, so it could not be on a fatal motion. In 2015-16, 19 were prayed against by the Opposition and only five were allowed debates, again only in Committee. Not a single one was allowed a vote in the House. This is not bringing back control to this House, and we will be worried unless the Government change the process.
Mr Davis
We of course start by obeying the conventions that apply to the House, and I am afraid that we do have an SI procedure, which is both affirmative and negative, which has effects and influence. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come and talk to us about how he thinks we can improve that, I will be happy to see him.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
That UK judges will be less creative is an open question. The notion of incorporating EU regulation, and indeed case law, gives me the collywobbles, but I assure my right hon. Friend of my support in the Division Lobby because he has bigger fish to fry.
Mr Davis
As the White Paper says, we made a very explicit decision that we would aim to make this a Supreme Court-level precedent—to reduce the number of courts that can deal with this to just the Supreme Court itself. The Supreme Court is fairly careful about changing its own precedent; indeed, it does so relatively rarely. We expect that to continue to be the case, but anything it does this House can change.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)
Plaid Cymru is demanding a continuity Bill in the National Assembly for Wales to enshrine appropriate European law in Welsh law. Will the Secretary of State confirm today that Westminster will not block or undermine our Parliament’s full right to legislate for Wales? My message to the British Government today from the people of Wales is this: hands off our Parliament.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key point about the great repeal Bill is that the legal precedence of laws imposed on this country by the EU will end?
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
With reference to the criminal justice measures of which we are already a part and the Prime Minister’s article 50 letter yesterday, will the Secretary of State set out for the House how the safety and protection of the public would be enhanced by us reducing our co-operation on crime and terrorism?
Mr Davis
As the Prime Minister made plain yesterday, she wants to see a comprehensive agreement. People have interpreted that as comprehensive trade agreement, but it does not just mean that; it means a comprehensive agreement across all the issues where we have a relationship with the European Union.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Many users of e-cigarettes voted leave in the referendum in the mistaken belief that doing so would prevent the EU tobacco products directive from being applied here. Taking that regulation as an example, what opportunity will this House have to change provisions of EU law that do not operate appropriately?
Mr Davis
That is the point of bringing them back to the House for it to be able to deal with them. It will be right across the board. We are talking about 40 years of law, and it will take time to correct those that we do not agree with—of course, much of it we do agree with. That will take time, but the House will have its opportunity.
Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)
Paragraph 4.4 of the White Paper speaks of working closely with devolved Administrations for
“an approach that works for the whole and each part of the UK.”
I cannot help but feel that it is déjà vu all over again; so far, this Government have done nothing to demonstrate their intention to work with the devolved Administrations. If the Government continue their unsustainable approach of ignoring the will of the Scottish Parliament in relation to Brexit, and indeed on any other issue, why should the devolved Administrations trust the UK Government on anything?
Mr Davis
Sometimes the Scottish National party seems to have one element in its ideology and one element only, and it is entitled “grievance”, and the maximisation of grievances. In the past six months, I have attended six meetings with the representatives of devolved Administrations. In a number of the policy areas that we have discussed and that made it into the previous White Paper—employment rights, environmental rights and a whole series of other areas like those—and on the agreement that we need to maintain the maximum possible access to trade for all parts of the kingdom, we have been in the same place. We have, of course, not been in the same place on every single element of policy. We said at the beginning that the DAs would not be given a veto, but would be very heavily consulted and involved in discussions, and that is precisely what we have done. The fact that the Scottish National party wants to claim that it is not happy about that is a matter for it, not for me or the facts.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
Those who wish to remain in the EU bang on about EU rules and regulations. Surely the whole point of leaving the EU is that we in this place can live under our own rules and regulations, which are suitable for us and not necessarily for 28 countries, as things currently stand.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Notwithstanding the inevitable protest from the Secretary of State that he is always appearing before this House, the hallmark of his Government so far on this issue has been to avoid scrutiny and evade accountability. We now learn today that the great repeal Bill is actually going to be 1,000 statutory instruments, many of them not scrutinised properly in this place. How on earth can that be commensurate with taking back control and increasing the sovereignty of this Parliament?
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman continues with his habit of reading half of what we say and ignoring the other half when it suits him. One of the things I have said from the beginning of this process is that we will bring into British law all European law, including case law, except where there are significant—[Interruption.] This is what the Bill will do. It will of course require statutory instruments to modify technical aspects—[Interruption.] Well, up to 1,000, but we are talking about 40 years of law. I would be very interested to hear what he proposes we do about a law that refers to a European regulatory authority. Would he leave it that way, or maybe have a major debate on the matter? That does not strike me as very sensible. Material policy changes will be carried through in primary legislation and there will be a number of such Bills in the coming Parliament.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
I commend the Secretary of State for his approach to this complex matter, but any discussion of English devolution is absent from the White Paper. To what extent does he envisage an opening up of opportunities for further legal powers to be devolved to the English regions and how might that work?
Mr Davis
It is not in the White Paper, but my hon. Friend will know that the Chancellor announced further devolution of powers to London, for example. I have been talking to a great extent with the Mayor of London about issues for London on this matter. It is not in the White Paper, but part of the Government’s overall strategy is to bring government as close as possible to the people.
Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Despite Government protestations to the contrary, leaving the EU does not automatically and necessarily mean leaving the single market. Equally, leaving the treaty of the European Union does not automatically and necessarily mean leaving the European Economic Area agreement. Will the right hon. Gentleman’s so-called repeal Bill repeal the European Economic Area Act 1993 and will every Member of this House get a specific vote on that specific issue?
Mr Davis
Rarely have I heard a question based on so many false premises. The truth is that leaving the European Union does involve leaving the single market, because the single market requires the four freedoms. Whatever one thinks about the vote last year, it was clearly not a vote in favour of allowing the control of migration, the control of laws and the operation of the European Court of Justice to stay in Europe.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his mature and considered approach to the devolved nations. May I press him on the principle that if, when powers come back from the EU, they do not affect the UK internal market, which is so important to my constituency and our Welsh nation, they will they be given to the devolved nations as soon as possible?
Mr Davis
As I said, I am not going to demur from the principles I already outlined. My hon. Friend is right. The UK single market is several times bigger for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland than the EU single market. The only difference in the case of Northern Ireland is that there is £1 billion a week of trade between it and Ireland. We will see a significant increase in the amount of powers given to the devolved institutions, but we will have to protect matters such as the single market in the UK, security, environmental agreements and so on.
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
The Government have already signalled their intention to withdraw from the common fisheries policy. However, paragraphs 4.2 and 4.4 of the White Paper seem to suggest not just that EU powers on fisheries will revert to the UK Government rather than the devolved institutions, but that the Government
“intends to replicate the current frameworks provided by EU rules through UK legislation.”
Are the Government seriously suggesting that we will have business as usual for the fishing industry under a CFP framework after Brexit? If not, will the right hon. Gentleman enlighten us on the Government’s plans?
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to ending the role of the European Court of Justice in our domestic courts. Does he agree that this is the only option if we are to truly restore control over our laws to the British people, and reverse an ever-intrusive influence by the ECJ on social and economic policy areas and its operation as a federal court—things that were never envisaged at its conception in 1957?
Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not mention the customs union in her statement and nor is it referred to in her letter to President Tusk. Paragraph 1.22 says that
“we will introduce a customs bill to establish a framework to implement a UK customs regime.”
Will the Secretary of State confirm that he intends to take us out of the customs union?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I know we can rely on my right hon. Friend to be an extremely robust negotiator, but just for the sake of absolute clarity on the role of the European Court of Justice, can he confirm that it will have absolutely no authority in the UK and that he will not in any circumstances water down that commitment during the negotiations?
Mr Davis
I was just going to say yes, but I will make very plain what we are saying: the European Court of Justice will have no reach into the UK. It is of course the case that when one sells a product in another country, one meets the rules of that country. If one does that in the United States, one meets the rules that reach up to the Supreme Court. The same will happen in Europe, but the ECJ will not reach here.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Yesterday, Mr Speaker, you invited me to behave as if I was in a court of law. May I extend your entirely appropriate invitation to the Secretary of State and suggest that he pretends he is in a court of law and answers the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins)? Will the Bill require legislative consent motions, yes or no?
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I welcome the Bill and the certainty it provides for business as we undergo this process. Will the Secretary of State confirm that certainty for business will be at the forefront and a priority for him throughout?
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The public are extremely worried about these Henry VIII clauses. In chapter 3 of the Secretary of State’s White Paper, he says that one area where he wants to use secondary legislation is on the change from EU institutions. There are 40 of these EU institutions, ranging over areas from medicines to aviation safety. If we lose, he will have a choice. He can either set up a new one, or abandon the regulation altogether. Does he really think it is appropriate to do that through statutory instruments?
Mr Davis
The 40 are not in the UK; they are across the Union. It may be appropriate and it may not. It depends. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady stops heckling I will answer. If, for example, it is a question of adding to another regulatory body already in existence, a statutory instrument might well be appropriate. In other cases where a regulatory body is created, it might be appropriate to have rather heavier level of parliamentary debate and insight.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Procedure Committee is conducting an inquiry into how we get the great repeal Bill into law. Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has not been able to appear before the Committee. May I urge him to agree a date when we can help to facilitate the great repeal Bill process?
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
In the statement, the Secretary of State said that the Bill will convert EU law into UK law wherever practical and appropriate, allowing businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed. However, companies such as Nissan and Hitachi in the north-east need to continue to expand if there is to be future prosperity in the region. What will he do to ensure that opportunities to grow exist and that workers’ rights are protected, too?
Mr Davis
The hon. Lady will have noted that Nissan made an investment decision quite recently that was favourable to the north-east. The issue is a little wider than the White Paper. We said—indeed, the Prime Minister said in the article 50 letter yesterday—that it was important to establish transitional arrangements, or an “implementation phase”, and this relates exactly to that: the need to give a degree of certainty.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I am lucky to have part of the Peak District national park in my constituency. With that in mind, does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill is an important vehicle for helping to ensure the maintenance of environmental protections and the opportunity to enhance them, and that anyone who supports those aims should welcome it?
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
References to disabled people or disability have been scant, if at all apparent, in all the Government’s White Papers. Have the UK Government given any consideration at all to the impact on disabled people, who are among the most vulnerable, and will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be no erosion of their rights in the future?
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have known the Secretary of State for a long time, and he will expect a rough, tough road ahead, because people like me fight for the retention of every right that our citizens of Europe have in this country. Is he aware that if he panders too much to the secret—or not so secret—agenda of the barmy army Eurosceptics who are prominent behind him, he will not receive the level of co-operation that he would otherwise receive when he talks about pragmatism?
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman has indeed known me for a long time. On another occasion, I will tell Members how he got me into deep trouble in the House.
If the hon. Gentleman listened to my statement, he ought to realise that this is, to a large extent, about preserving rights that people have become used to, and expect to continue to have. I do not know who he was referring to with his rather strange allusions to armies of one sort of another, but he can be sure that the first thing that will cross my mind when I am dealing with this is my conscience.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Does the Secretary of State intend the great repeal Bill to devolve some matters that are currently reserved and reserve some matters that are currently devolved, or will he be presenting a new Scotland Bill, and if so, when?
Mr Davis
I have made two points about that, which I will reiterate to the hon. Lady. First, no decisions that are currently exercised by devolved Administrations will be taken away from them. Secondly, there will be an increase in the number of powers exercised by those Administrations.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Government seem to overlook the fact that we cannot simply incorporate in UK law matters that are based on a reciprocal arrangement with our European partners. How long does the Secretary of State think it will take, for example, to renegotiate all the trading arrangements that we have with them?
Mr Davis
The White Paper does not relate to that, but the hon. Lady is right in saying that we have to negotiate reciprocal arrangements, and that is what we will do. That is why we have proposed a comprehensive negotiation and a comprehensive free trade arrangement. We believe that that is eminently achievable, because we already have common standards, which the Bill will maintain, and there are already outstanding levels of trade between us—£290 billion of trade from the European Union to us, which its members will want to preserve every bit as much as we do.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As we say in Glasgow, “Where’s your parliamentary sovereignty now?” This great power grab is taking power from Brussels bureaucrats and handing it to Whitehall mandarins. Given that statutory instruments are not currently subject to legislative consent from the devolved Assemblies, can the Secretary of State assure us that no statutory instruments will be used to legislate on devolved matters?
Mr Davis
That returns us to the issue raised by the spokesman for the hon. Gentleman’s party, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins). We shall be talking to the devolved Administrations about the extent to which this will have an impact, and ensuring that there are increases—not decreases—in the powers available to them.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State consistently ignores my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who made a perfectly legitimate point about the European Economic Area Act 1993 and article 127 of the European Economic Area agreement, which states that the UK Government must give 12 months’ notice to remove itself from the EEA. How will that be dealt with in the great repeal Bill—or has the Secretary of State simply forgotten about it?
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
The great “download and save until delete” Bill will actually lead to a carnival of reaction, when, alongside the so-called bonfire of red tape, we will see Ministers competing in a demolition derby to reduce various rights and environmental protections. It is also a charter for dilution before devolution. Does the Secretary of State recognise that for some of us to trust Tory Ministers with the “holding and moulding” powers that he wants to give them would be like asking Attila the Hun to mind our horse?
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Paragraph 3.20 of the White Paper refers to the need to trade off scrutiny for speed, whereas paragraph 3.13 states that the Government do not want to their ability to adapt EU law to be unduly constrained. Are the Executive creating a democratic deficit by using secondary legislation? How can they justify that?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I understand from what the Secretary of State has just said that the European economic area will not feature in the Bill. Can he confirm that there will be a separate vote in Parliament on the EEA?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
How can trade and security co-operation be maximised if UK courts are interpreting parallel legal provisions in a completely different way from the European Court of Justice? Surely UK courts will have to continue to consider ECJ case law as it develops after Brexit, and not just as it exists at the point of Brexit, as the Secretary of State sought to suggest in his statement.
Mr Davis
No, not at all. The whole point of this is to bring those laws back within the control of Parliament and our own courts, and our courts will continue to interpret them as they see fit. They may continue to obey precedent, or they may decide to change it. That will be a matter for them, and, ditto, it will be a matter for the House of Commons to decide whether it wants to change such matters as well. Let me add, as an aside, that the Supreme Court often looks at what is done by other courts around the world—not just the European Court of Justice but, for instance, the American courts—in order to make its decisions.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
There was no mention of Gibraltar in the Prime Minister’s letter yesterday, and I am pleased to see that it does at least get a mention in today’s publication. Given that the overwhelming majority of Gibraltarians voted to remain in the EU, can the Secretary of State explain how the Bill will give certainty to businesses in Gibraltar?
Mr Davis
As the hon. Lady will have seen, there is an entire section on overseas territories and the like. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has been engaging in continuous discussion with Gibraltar about these matters, and we will seek to defend its interests as best we can.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State be clearer, please? How many EU laws will become UK laws? I think he has denied that it could be up to 1,000, so what is his best estimate?
Backbench Business
Animal Welfare
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House notes that current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are among the lowest in Europe; believes that while the Government's plans for a new licensing regime for dogs in England is welcome the Government should consider a ban on the third party sale of dogs; and calls on the Government to increase the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years, as recommended in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s Third Report, Animal welfare in England: domestic pets, HC 117.
It is a great pleasure to introduce the debate. The report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, published in November last year, was the result of a long inquiry into aspects of animal welfare involving domestic pets such as dogs and cats, as well as horses. We took evidence from animal welfare charities, local government, the National Police Chiefs Council, industry representatives, veterinarians, academics and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to name but a few. We visited Battersea Dogs & Cats Home to learn about its work and also visited a commercial breeder and an animal rescue centre in Wales.
The Committee was unanimous on animal cruelty sentences: the current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are far too low. The maximum sentence for animal cruelty is six months in prison and an unlimited fine.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend take some evidence from me on that?
Sir Desmond Swayne
I agree with my hon. Friend on that and on his excellent motion, but part of the problem is persuading courts even to impose those minimum sentences that are far too low.
Neil Parish
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention, and he is absolutely right. I just feel that if we have a stronger sentence and there is more flexibility in the courts, the magistrate will be able to impose that sentence for the very worst of cases. My right hon. Friend is right, but sometimes the current sentence of six months is just not long enough.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He mentioned the Committee being unanimous. Will he also acknowledge that many constituents across the UK have emailed their MPs and asked them to come here today because they agree with the Committee?
Neil Parish
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point: I believe that there is huge public support for stronger sentencing, and I hope that the Government are listening. Given the number of people in our prisons, I accept that we do not want huge sentences for every crime, but those who beat dogs, cats and other animals to death and plead guilty get an automatic 30% reduction in their sentence; they get four months. I do not believe any of us think that that is long enough.
Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I wholeheartedly support him, while of course declaring my interest of having a dog as part of my family. Our sanctions against people who commit these horrendous crimes compare poorly globally; will he comment on that?
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Our sentences are lower than those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, too, so there is far stiffer sentencing even in our own countries of the United Kingdom. We should also consider the message that it sends if the sentence for beating to death a sentient being that relies entirely on human care is less than that for, perhaps, stealing a computer; it really is not on. I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister is listening carefully; I know he is very keen on animal welfare. It is probably not always his remit to increase sentencing, but we must get this message out, loud and clear.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
To reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, 1.2 million people have contacted the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals about animal cruelty. Importantly, the legislation is extremely weak and I support him in what he is trying to achieve.
Neil Parish
I thank the hon. Gentleman and agree entirely. Many aspects of animal cruelty are reported, but others are not. Having stronger sentencing would be a deterrent; we want to prevent the cruelty from happening in the first place. Having a sentence of at least five years would send the right message. Then it would be up to the courts to decide what sentence they dish out in the end.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. Does he agree that it is much more important to prevent cruelty in the first place, and therefore changing the legislation on air guns is vital? Cats and dogs are often the targets for people using those weapons. Legislation has been changed by the devolved Administrations for their countries, and it is about time that it was changed in England, too.
Neil Parish
The hon. Lady raises a good point. The use of air guns against cats and dogs can have terrible consequences. Lead pellets often cause a lot of injury and subsequent pain.
To make a broader point, we need to do much more in schools and the education system to make sure people know how to look after an animal. Most people do know how to look after animals. Unfortunately, animal cruelty is going on in some families, and perhaps the children do not know of anything else but what is happening at home. We must try to tackle that.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I declare my interest as someone who not only cares about the welfare of animals, but has prosecuted cases in the courts under animal cruelty legislation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the matter goes a little further than simply sentencing, however? A number of Members have referred to deterrents. Although the offences of those who have been convicted are recorded on the police national computer, that is not very accessible, and a national register, which is easier to consult, would go quite some way towards ensuring that people who have mistreated animals on one occasion and been convicted cannot then do so again.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend makes a good point: a national register would be good. I would like to see this go further, too. In the United States, a lot of work is done on linking animal cruelty to human cruelty within the home, and I think the two need to be linked much more. It often does not take long to go from treating an animal cruelly—especially beating an animal to death—to starting to beat people up; we have to wake up to that.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I applaud my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He touches on a pertinent point: there are stark statistics proving that people who abuse animals often go on to abuse humans—and indeed it can happen at the same time, of course. A register would therefore be very beneficial in helping tackle what is a much bigger social problem.
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for that intervention; she is an excellent Select Committee member. She makes the point about getting that link; when finding cruelty to animals we should make much more of a link to investigating what is happening in the home, to see whether there is much more going on than just the cruelty to the animal. We must open our eyes to what is happening. Most people look after animals very well, but of course those who do not can be incredibly cruel, and we need to tackle that.
I was surprised and disappointed that the Government rejected the recommendation for a higher maximum sentence of five years, and I again ask the Minister to go back to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to see whether we can get it increased, because six months is too low.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has also had a conversation with the Government Whips, because on 24 February we considered the Second Reading of my Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill, which would have increased the sentencing period to five years, but unfortunately it was objected to by the Government Whips. I hope he is putting pressure on them as well.
Neil Parish
I certainly talk to Whips, but whether they listen is another matter, of course—although I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) listens to every word I say. The hon. Lady makes a serious point, however; it is not good to talk out such Bills, as there is a legitimate reason for increasing the sentence. If we took a straw poll of all MPs, irrespective of their party, I am sure the vast majority would agree that the sentencing is too low at present; we have to find a method of increasing that. I accept that the Government wanted to come back with some other ideas, and I would be very happy to listen to them, but the sentencing period must be much more than the current six months.
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that we also need to make sure that children understand in school about the impacts of and problems with treating animals badly?
Neil Parish
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is absolutely right to consider what our schools can do to teach young people not to treat animals cruelly.
I have been told that I have only 15 minutes and that I ought to get on with my speech, so I shall try to make a little progress. DEFRA has said that average sentences for animal cruelty are relatively stable, but I fear that that is a cop-out. Judges should have the flexibility to give higher sentences for the worst examples of animal cruelty, both as a well-deserved punishment and as a deterrent to other potential animal abusers.
Anyone who can seriously injure a sentient being such as a dog or a cat can do the same to a human. There is a growing body of evidence suggesting a link between the abuse of animals and violence against people. In the USA, the FBI has begun tracking incidents of animal abuse as part of its national incident-based reporting system, which collects data on crime. As part of our report on animal welfare, the EFRA Committee has recommended that a new abuse register should be established for those convicted of animal abuse offences, that those convicted of cruelty should never be allowed to keep animals again, and that the police should have access to those files in light of the link between animal and human abuse.
In addition to discussing sentencing for cruelty, the Committee went on to consider third-party sales of puppies. I believe that a ban on third-party sales will improve the condition of dogs sold in the UK. Unscrupulous dealers currently go to some lengths to pose as responsible breeders in order to sell animals to unsuspecting buyers. Buyers must see the puppy with its mother. Many dealers set up a false home, as a reassurance to potential buyers, which is then vacated so that they cannot be traced. The sad reality is that anyone who is selling a puppy indirectly, through a licensed pet shop, has no regard for the welfare of their puppies. A responsible breeder would never sell through a pet shop licence holder, because it has a negative impact on the welfare of puppies.
By allowing third-party sales, the Government are contradicting their own advice. They advise buyers to ensure that they see the puppy with its mother, yet buying from a third-party seller does not allow this. By banning third-party sales, the public would have to buy directly from breeders. This would allow buyers to assess the premises for themselves, which would drive up animal welfare standards. The Committee visited a puppy farm in Wales, and the conditions there were not good, to say the least. If buyers had to go there to get their puppies, I feel sure that something would be done about that. Also, the people producing those puppies were getting about £200 each for them, whereas the dealers in Birmingham were selling them for £700 to £800, and sometimes as much as £1,000. There is a real problem there, and I am extremely disappointed that the Government have rejected our recommendation for a ban on third-party sales. Since the EFRA Committee published its report, many more animal organisations have come out in favour of a ban on such sales. Pup Aid has always been a vocal supporter of a ban, and the RSPCA has recently changed its mind on the issue.
In February, the Government announced tougher new breeding licensing rules. These include making it completely illegal to sell puppies younger than eight weeks old, and requiring anyone breeding and selling three or more litters of puppies a year to apply for a formal licence. That is a good start, but it does not go far enough. In addition to increasing maximum sentences and banning third-party sales, the Government should consider a reduction in the threshold for licensing a breeder from three litters a year to two litters a year, and the introduction of a new national inspectorate to assist local authorities and give the new regulations a powerful enforcer. It is too easy for unscrupulous dealers to fall outside the regulatory regime. As I have stated, a new abuse register should also be established for those convicted of animal abuse offences. I also believe that the Government should look not only at dog breeders but at cat breeders, who are not currently licensed at all. Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and our pets deserve nothing less than the very highest animal welfare standards. I look forward to hearing the strong representations of my colleagues throughout the debate, especially those who have intervened on me.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I should like to inform Members that if they speak for no more than eight minutes, everyone will get in. That would allow everyone to speak for eight minutes in the next debate as well. So if we could all stick to an informal limit of eight minutes, that would be fantastic.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to contribute to the debate and I hope to be able to abide by your eight-minute rule, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who chairs our Select Committee with distinction. Obviously his time spent in the European Parliament was not a wasted apprenticeship; he demonstrates his skills every time we meet.
The motion raises three issues: penalties for animal welfare offences; a ban on third-party sales; and the Committee’s report on the underlying question of prosecutions. I wish to register my appreciation for the briefings I have received in preparation for the debate from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, the RSPCA, Cats Protection, the Dogs Trust, Blue Cross, the Kennel Club and, of course, the House of Commons Library.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the better licensing of breeders would promote a more responsible buying culture and help to prevent the cruel practice of puppy farming?
Jim Fitzpatrick
My hon. Friend’s good point reinforces the contribution from the Chair of the Select Committee. I shall say more about licensing in a moment, but it is certainly a key element of the Committee’s report to which we hope the Government will respond positively.
I am always heartened that constituents contact me about a whole range of animal welfare issues because that shows that, while they articulate many concerns, animal welfare matters to them a great deal. Hon. and right hon. Members will receive emails and the occasional letter about the same animal-related issues as I do, including bees, badgers, domestic pets, circus animals, wild animals and dog fighting. It is good to see how much people care, but it is obviously disappointing, and indeed distressing, that these activities and abuses continue.
Along with others, I have backed the campaign instigated by Battersea Dogs & Cats Home that calls for tougher punishments for people who abuse and neglect animals. I was pleased to attend the launch of the campaign here in Westminster, and along with others I pledged my support for increasing sentences for animal abusers. It is unacceptable that people can abuse and neglect animals yet get away with such a small penalty. Battersea’s research shows that England and Wales has the lowest sentences for cruelty across 100 countries and states worldwide. Six months in prison is neither a punishment nor a deterrent when it comes to some of the most serious offences.
Further background information for the debate comes from the EFRA Committee’s third report of this Session. Animal welfare is mentioned in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton—I nearly called him my hon. Friend, but we do this so often that it is almost passé. The report makes a number of recommendations, including on a timetable for the 10-yearly review of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. I am sure that the Minister will respond to that point in due course. It also recommends a ban on third-party puppy sales and that local government should be responsible for enforcing the 2006 Act.
The report goes on to discuss the role of the RSPCA, which has historically undertaken the overwhelming majority of animal welfare investigations and prosecutions. The Select Committee recommended:
“the RSPCA should continue its important work investigating animal welfare cases…It should, however, withdraw from acting as a prosecutor of first resort where there are statutory bodies with a duty to carry out this role.”
A number of us said at the time that it was not for the Select Committee to require the RSPCA to withdraw in that way, because it will always have the right to raise private prosecutions in the courts, in the same way as any other citizen does. The real question was about the word “duty” in relation to other bodies, and the report considered which statutory bodies should be responsible in such circumstances.
The vast majority of our Committee’s work is done by consensus, as is the case for most Select Committees. This was one of the few issues that split the Committee. I voted against the majority view, not as a matter of principle but on the practicalities. In my view, and with no disrespect to those who voted for this recommendation, the expectation that the Crown Prosecution Service or local authorities will step in as prosecutors is pure fantasy. However, after rethinking the matter and considering what happens in Scotland—the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Dr Monaghan), who represents the Scottish National party on the Committee, made a number of important points in this regard—I have been persuaded of one thing. If society is serious about animal welfare, it should accept its responsibilities. It is unfair that the RSPCA has to do society’s work, and it is carrying out that duty because the CPS and local authorities are not. We should send a message that society should prosecute through the CPS and the police—we should not have to rely on the RSPCA—but that is not going to happen any time soon. Regardless of what the Committee says, the RSPCA will have to continue its work, because that is the only option—no one else is going to do it.
Jim Fitzpatrick
I am happy to give way to my other hon. Friend from the Select Committee.
Chris Davies
I thank my hon. Friend from across the divide for giving way. When the Committee took evidence, we found out that the system works particularly well in Scotland. It is not often that I praise how the Scottish National party runs Scottish affairs, but that system works well. Why cannot we do things as well on this side of the border?
Jim Fitzpatrick
With my classic cockney accent, I hope that I will be forgiven if I do not join the hon. Gentleman in praising the Scottish National party. I think the policy predates the SNP taking over the Scottish Government, but it has continued since. Indeed, the Procurator Fiscal Service carries out that policy, and the CPS should do so here, but my point is that the CPS is not doing it, is not going to do it, and does not have the resources to do it. If it were not for the RSPCA, the work would not get done, so I support its ability to continue. Until such time as the Government give the CPS and local authorities the wherewithal to do the job, it will not get done unless the RSPCA does it.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing the debate. I want to give a bad example from my constituency, which has quite a few animal welfare issues. In this instance, a young fox had a habit of going to a large supermarket every night to hunt for food. A gang of boys got hold of the fox by the tail and hurled it round and round, smashing its head against a wall several times, and then stamped on its head. The punishment for that—well, it was hardly a punishment at all. It is absolutely necessary to increase the penalties for people who inflict that kind of cruelty on animals.
Jim Fitzpatrick
My right hon. Friend makes the point emphatically that the penalty does not fit the crime. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned, such penalties need urgent review.
I apologise that I will go over my eight minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, but hopefully by only one and a half minutes. Given that the RSPCA cruelty helpline receives 1 million calls, 15% of which are investigated, there is too much work to expect the prosecutorial authorities to accept responsibility.
The issue of third-party sales split not only the Committee, but the animal welfare organisations. Dogs Trust and Blue Cross were against a ban, preferring a stronger enforced licensing regime, but the Kennel Club supported it. There is no disagreement about the objective, only about the tools that should be used to better protect animals and purchasers. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and the shadow Minister about that difference of opinion on the proposed ban, and about how the Government expect to make progress on dealing with concerns about this important issue.
The Minister knows that he is held in high regard by members of the EFRA Committee and by animal welfare organisations. Even though animal welfare is not his primary responsibility, he answers to the Commons on that topic. There is no disagreement about wanting better animal welfare; the key challenge is how to deliver it. I am confident that the Minister and his colleagues, encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) on the Opposition Front Bench, will continue to be as effective as possible in this matter. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to say my few words.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
What a relief it is that we are discussing something other than our leaving the European Union. I am absolutely sick to death of hearing about it—and we have another two years to go.
The standard by which I judge civilisation is how we treat animals and animal welfare more generally. I have been involved in animal welfare matters ever since I entered the House, so I have heard many of the arguments before. Indeed, when David Mellor was a Member of this place, I recall serving on the Standing Committee that considered a Bill to amend the Protection of Animals Act 1911.
Looking back at the different things that we have done—I managed to get two pieces of legislation on to the statute book—by and large this country has a good record on animal welfare. However, the incident that the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) shared with the House was absolutely awful—no words can describe how horrible it was. I think we are going to have a debate in which we all agree; I doubt whether anyone will stand up and say, “Let’s be cruel to animals.”
I gently say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who opened the debate, that I have seen many reports produced by this place—some gather dust; some are acted on; and some are completely ignored. Parliaments change and new Members enter, so it can be as if we are raising these issues for the first time, but one or two things have changed. My hon. Friend is entirely right that we need tougher sentences, but can our prisons take the people? Do we need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) mentioned earlier, more publicity when people are sentenced? I absolutely agree that we need tougher sentences.
There is politics in everything, and there is certainly politics in the animal world. I have received all sorts of emails asking me to mention an organisation or to praise this person or that person, and I am not sure that we are all singing the same song, so I am going to praise just two ladies. The first is Lorraine Platt, who runs an animal welfare organisation that I support and has done a fantastic job as far as I am concerned. The second is the Countess of Stockton, who is a trustee of the RSPCA. I will leave it to other Members to decide which organisation they want to praise.
The main thing that has changed is online sales, which are a new challenge and a big issue. As we have heard, it is wrong for someone to buy a puppy without seeing where it comes from and how it is being looked after. Anne Widdecombe bought a black labrador for my youngest child, and I am delighted to say that it had been owned by the grandson of Rab Butler, so it certainly had a good pedigree and gave us 14 years of joy. It is important that people know where a puppy comes from. As we all know, while small things will look cute and cuddly, there is an awful lot of responsibility in looking after a pet when they grow up.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
According to my information, about one third of people do not see the mother when picking up a puppy.
Sir David Amess
My hon. Friend is right. The situation is lamentable, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton that I am unsure how we put that right. We just have to keep on and on with the same message.
As part of Project Capone, Hindesight has been monitoring the sales of animals on sites such as Gumtree. Its findings demonstrate the clear need for legislation to address the problem. Despite the figures I am about to quote, I stress that Gumtree should be lauded for doing more than any other site to monitor online sales and comply with Pet Advertising Advisory Group minimum standards. Gumtree UK adverts were monitored over a 12-month period ending in February this year, and 400,000 adverts related to the sale of animals were tracked, 58% of which related to dogs. Estimates suggest that as many as 88% of puppies born in Great Britain are bred by unlicensed breeders, which is totally unacceptable. The EFRA report, which I have of course read, states at paragraph 95 that Gumtree listings for pets for sale has decreased from 50,000 to 15,000, which should be welcomed.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that—my goodness—I have seen all sorts of people as Ministers. Some do the job brilliantly, but with some we need a little bit of convincing about their dedication to animal welfare. I am convinced that this particular Minister is absolutely genuine on this issue and that he will react positively to the report.
We need websites to commit to following at least the minimum PAAG standards, and it is important that all adverts display the age of the animal advertised. Although the vast majority of the public state that they would not buy a puppy from a commercially driven breeder, my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is absolutely right about the small number who see a puppy with its mother.
I welcome DEFRA’s announcement that it will be a legal requirement for sellers to display their licence number on all adverts, but there are also problems with ensuring that licences are properly granted and that local authorities have adequate resources to assess applicants for a licence. Local authorities are currently in charge of licensing, but it is extremely difficult for them to tackle illegal trading on such a scale because they lack the resources to monitor the enormous volume of online sales. Indeed, local authorities are unable to monitor the trade offline, or to provide qualified individuals to assess welfare needs.
Along with a stricter licensing regime, we need professionals who are able adequately to determine whether a licence should be granted. Unfortunately, local authority officials who inspect places where animals are sold are not necessarily trained specifically in detecting animal welfare issues. Another important point is that individuals who buy such animals are not aware that the seller should be licensed.
The message from this House should be that transparency and public education are incredibly important. Sometime in July we are holding a responsible pet ownership competition on the green at the other end of the building, and I hope that all hon. Members who are interested will join us in celebrating responsible pet ownership.
Income from online sales is rarely declared, so I remind the Minister that a lot of money is being lost in income tax, which should be of significant concern to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Apparently the single most expensive dog advertised—just last month by a London-based seller—was a French bulldog for £30,000, which is big money.
Research from Blue Cross shows that even when inspections are carried out, the quality of investigations varies massively from local authority to local authority. Standardised inspection criteria should help to ensure that basic animal welfare is met across the country.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and his hard-working Committee on producing the report. I hope that it will not gather dust, but that it will be acted on.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and all the EFRA Committee on securing this debate and on their excellent report. I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to speak about increasing sentences for animal cruelty because, as I have already mentioned, my private Member’s Bill specifically addressed that issue. I was disappointed not to have a debate on Second Reading on 24 February and that the Conservative Whips objected to the Bill in the dying seconds. I will now make the speech that I would have made on Second Reading.
We in this place owe a change in the law to those that cannot speak, that cannot defend themselves and that suffer abuse, violence and cruelty by the hands that are meant to feed them, care for them, protect them and love them. I introduced my Bill on behalf of Baby the bulldog and Scamp the dog.
Baby the bulldog was held aloft by Andrew Frankish at the top of a flight of wooden stairs before he repeatedly threw her down them as he laughed. Baby’s neck was stamped on. She was thrown to the floor with force, over and over. Her small chest was jumped on with the full body weight of one of the Frankish brothers. The younger man said, “See if we can make it scream any more. We should throw it down the stairs by its ears,” before he picked her up against the wall, head-butted her twice and then threw her down the stairs again.
Baby was tortured and beaten by those who were supposed to care for her. The whole horrible ordeal seemed to be for the brothers’ entertainment—for fun—as they filmed themselves laughing on a mobile phone. Baby should not have had to suffer such horrific abuse, but she did and was put down shortly afterwards.
When the evidence was found, by chance, two years later on a mobile phone card dropped on a supermarket floor, we might have expected Baby finally to have justice. Thanks to the hard work of the police, the RSPCA and all those who gave evidence, the brothers were convicted of causing unnecessary suffering to her under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, but she was let down once again by the law. The two brothers received a suspended sentence, six months’ tagged curfew and £300 in costs. No one can feel that the justice system did its job that day.
On researching how the two brothers could have received such an impossibly lenient sentence for a vicious and premeditated assault, I was astonished to find that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six months’ custody. Incredibly, the maximum sentence has not changed since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was essentially introduced to make it an offence to overload or override animals pulling loads on the street or in pits. The law is lagging a century behind.
Under the last Labour Government, the issue was meant to be addressed by the 2006 Act, which made provision to increase sentencing to imprisonment of up to 51 weeks but, incredibly, the provision was never enacted, so people can inflict any degree of cruelty on animals and still receive a maximum of only six months’ imprisonment. The public rightly find that hard to understand or accept as appropriate.
After the incident of the Frankish brothers came to my attention, I decided to try to amend the law to ensure that sentences fit the crime in such cases and was pleased to present my Animal Cruelty (Sentencing) Bill. But during the progress of that Bill, there was another horrific incident in my constituency that has made the case for a change in the law even more pressing. A small dog named Scamp was found buried alive in woods near Redcar on 19 October, with a nail hammered into its head.
On 22 February, 59-year-old Michael Heathcock and 60-year-old Richard Finch, both from Redcar, pleaded guilty to offences under the 2006 Act, but they were sentenced to just four months. They will probably serve just eight weeks in prison, which is not enough time for reflection, punishment or rehabilitation.
The people of my constituency have been horrified by those cases, and it is important that I pay tribute to their response. After hearing of the Frankish brothers incident and that of Scamp, they held vigils for the animals, with hundreds of people coming to lay flowers and light candles. They sent their message loudly and defiantly. There are also plans to build a dog park to the animals’ memory.
The perpetrators do not represent our community. People in Redcar are decent and kind. I know many passionate animal lovers, and I meet wonderful dog owners as I walk my dog on the beach or in the Eston hills. But my constituents are angry. They feel that the criminal justice system is letting them down, which is why I am speaking here today.
On researching my Bill, I was shocked by the number of horrific cases I came across. I read of a dismembered cat left on a war memorial, of 20 ducks strangled with cable around their necks, of boiling liquid poured on a puppy and of a mutilated Shetland pony. Surrey police recently instituted Operation Takahe to try to find the person believed to be behind the theft and mutilation of more than 200 cats. The list of horrific attacks goes on and on.
The RSPCA receives and investigates thousands of complaints about cruelty to animals each year. It received 143,000 complaints in 2015, and 1,781 people were successfully prosecuted, yet only one in 10 convictions presently results in a prison sentence. We do not treat such crimes with the weight they warrant. I urge those who think that the crime of abusing defenceless animals is worth less serious attention than the abuse of people to look at the evidence, predominantly from the United States, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned earlier. The evidence reveals a startling propensity for offenders charged with crimes against animals to commit other violent offences against human victims. It finds that pet abuse is concurrent in 88% of families under supervision for the physical abuse of their children.
In the UK, a new academic study—the first of its kind in Europe—by researchers at Teesside University has also identified a link between animal abuse and domestic violence. The study of young people in eastern Europe found that violence breeds violence. Adolescent males who have experienced domestic violence either show displaced aggression against animals or progress to committing violence against family members. Because abusers target the powerless and lack the ability to feel empathy with their victims, crimes against animals, spouses, children and the elderly often go hand in hand. Children who abuse animals may be repeating a lesson learned at home. Like their parents, they are reacting to anger or frustration with violence. Their violence is directed at the only individual more vulnerable than they are: an animal.
The findings point towards a worrying cycle of abuse in society if violence is not addressed or properly challenged, and increased sentencing is just one tool we need to break that cycle.
We would be forgiven for thinking that, as a nation of animal lovers, we should expect to be leading the way on these issues, but I am afraid to say that we are in fact lagging behind many other countries. The Northern Ireland Assembly recently increased the maximum penalty from two years to five years, and it should also be noted that Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where more serious animal welfare offences can be tried in a Crown court. The Scottish Government recently committed to reviewing penalties under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. If we look around the world, we see that the maximum penalty for animal cruelty in Australia is five years, and in Germany it is three years. A maximum of six months here in England and Wales, decided by a magistrates court rather than a Crown court, seems derisory.
Such woefully inadequate sentences must be addressed if the punishments are to fit the cruelty inflicted on animals. My Bill sought to increase the custodial sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years, and if we are to continue declaring ourselves a nation of animal lovers, it is about time we showed it by sending out the message that we take animal cruelty seriously.
I wish to thank the RSPCA, Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and the League Against Cruel Sports for their support for Bill. I also wish to thank my community in Redcar and Teesside, who have shown their compassion and their love for animals in the way they have responded to these terrible acts and in their support for my efforts to change the law. I also pay tribute to the EFRA Committee for its work on this and on today’s debate.
Finally, I want to say a word about Baby the bulldog and the dog named Scamp, because it is in their name that I seek to change the law. We will probably never know the full cruelty and torture these silent and defenceless animals endured. We can only begin to imagine the pain they experienced and the fear they felt. We cannot undo the suffering done to them, but we can show one another that this kind of cruelty has no place in our communities and that such depraved behaviour will face the punishment that it deserves. I welcome today’s debate and urge the Government to put right the injustice by changing the law on animal cruelty sentencing.
Mrs Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I wish to thank the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and the EFRA Committee for putting animal welfare on the agenda in Parliament today. I have found it distressing to listen to the brutal examples of animal cruelty we have heard about, particularly those detailed in the speech by the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley). I emphasise that animal welfare and action to prevent animal cruelty is a very high priority for many of my constituents, who contact me regularly about this. I warmly and strongly support the campaign for stiffer maximum sentences for those who abuse animals, act with unnecessary cruelty or otherwise fail to comply with our animal welfare rules in this country.
In the few minutes I hope to detain the House, I wish to focus on the welfare of farm animals, because I feel strongly that all of us who take animal welfare matters seriously should focus on the billions of animals used in agriculture across the world. If we want to ensure that, as a civilised society, we maintain high standards of animal welfare, it is vital that we extend this to farm animals. I thank Peter Stevenson of Compassion in World Farming for providing me with some help in preparing for this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said that he was sick of talking about Brexit, but Brexit does have relevance today, because about 80% of our animal welfare rules are currently part of EU law. Leaving the EU will give us back control over many policy decisions on animal welfare and farming. As I said when I had the opportunity to raise this matter during Prime Minister’s questions, we should use Brexit to reaffirm our support for the highest standards of animal welfare. We should also use it as an opportunity to see how we can strengthen protection for animals.
Food and farming is one of the most important parts of our economy, supporting many thousands of jobs. I welcome the fact that last October the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said that high standards of animal welfare should be one of the unique selling points of UK-produced food in the post-Brexit era. If that is to be a reality in post-Brexit farming, we need to ensure that animal welfare is at the heart of our new system of farm payment support. It is crucial that we maintain that financial support for agriculture if we are to ensure that food produced in accordance with high welfare standards is not priced out of the market by cheaper, less compassionate, alternatives. In future trade talks, we should be prepared to ask those countries that wish to sell into our market to commit to acceptable standards of animal welfare, as was emphasised in the Conservative manifesto. It is my understanding that World Trade Organisation case law does allow us to do that, so long as we apply the same rules across different countries.
The compassionate treatment of animals should be at the heart of the UK’s post-Brexit brand for food and farming. We should recognise the efforts made by UK farmers already, as the majority take animal welfare very seriously. Our new system of farm support should reward farmers who adopt higher welfare standards, for example, through compliance with recognised schemes such as those run by RSPCA Assured or the Pasture-Fed Livestock Association. We need to provide incentives to move away from industrial livestock production towards free-range systems.
In particular, we should aim for an end to the zero grazing of dairy cows. Industrial systems that keep cattle indoors all year round are not capable of delivering high animal welfare standards, no matter how well-managed. I welcome the acknowledgement the Minister gave in responding to my Westminster Hall debate on this issue, when he said that
“any farmer who has turned cattle out to grass in April and watched their reaction knows that cattle prefer grazing, all other things being equal.”—[Official Report, 24 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 95WH.]
As part of our efforts to end the practice of zero grazing, I hope that the Government will consider measures to enable consumers to make informed choices on the milk they buy. At present, most milk, other than organic milk, is pooled together, making it impossible to distinguish intensively produced from pasture-based milk. We need to consider separation, to enable farmers using good practices and pasture-based grazing to advertise this fact to consumers in the way free-range egg producers have for many years.
Rebecca Pow
Recently, I raised with the Minister the idea of having a “Buy British Food” button when people buy food on the internet, and I hope to talk to him shortly. How about having some sort of guidance or button about standards and animal care, too?
Mrs Villiers
Both are good ideas, and I hope the Minister will respond to them when he sums up.
A further very important reason why we should discourage intensive farming methods is antimicrobial resistance, a matter the Select Committee has examined carefully. Industrial-style farming can lead to the overuse of antibiotics to fend off diseases and infection caused by keeping animals in unnatural and crowded conditions that compromise their health and their immune responses. Antimicrobials are often given to whole herds or flocks of intensively farmed animals via feed and water. Unless we draw a halt to the trend that antibiotics are gradually becoming less and less able to protect us, we could face the risk of a return to the situation of previous centuries where such matters as childbirth, non-serious injuries and routine operations frequently gave rise to a risk of death. This is a very serious risk faced by our society, and many will no doubt have listened to the harrowing Radio 4 drama, “Resistance”, which was based on one of the worst-case scenarios feared by scientists. So it is necessary to find ways to reduce overall antibiotic use in farming, and our goal should be higher-welfare farming where animals are kept healthy through good husbandry practices rather than routine antibiotic use.
As we scrutinise the great repeal Bill and associated legislation, we will need to ensure that the enforcement powers currently vested in EU bodies are transferred to domestic alternatives. Here I wish to echo a point made by a number of hon. Members: enforcement is crucial. There is no point in having rules on our statute book that are not properly enforced. This has been a long-standing concern in relation to EU rules; I recall working with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton when we were both in the European Parliament to try to improve enforcement. This debate is a good opportunity to emphasise that the proper enforcement of rules on animal welfare and preventing animal cruelty is vital for our constituents, who care so much about this matter. Analysis by the Food Standards Agency indicates that between July 2014 and June 2016 there were more than 4,000 serious breaches of animal welfare legislation relating to slaughter and transport to slaughter. We need to do better.
In conclusion, I urge the Minister to consider an end to the export of live animals for slaughter overseas. I believe that this trade would have been banned years ago if the decision had rested with Westminster rather than Brussels. The referendum vote means that very soon this House will have control over this decision once again, and I hope the Government will press ahead with a ban to end this cruel trade.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for his extensive speech, as well as the Backbench Business Committee and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for their work in bringing this debate to the House.
I feel extremely strongly about animal welfare—I have had rescue dogs in my family since childhood—and it has overwhelming support from the public throughout the UK, as well as from MPs; one has only to go to the Westminster dog of the year awards to see just how important animal welfare, particularly for puppies and dogs, is to MPs. I was pleased to come fourth last year with my dog, Rossi, who is a rescue dog. We hope to top that this year and move up the leadership board.
Dr Cameron
Thank you.
I thank the organisations that got in touch with me regarding this debate, including the League Against Cruel Sports, the Kennel Club, the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Marc the Vet, Pup Aid and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home. That is just a few of the organisations that work in this field. In my speech, I wish to touch briefly on several issues, including third-party puppy sales and animal cruelty sentencing.
For the public, the most visible way of selling dogs is when puppies are sold in pet shops, which is a real issue. The sale of dogs in pet shops gives the impression that they are commodities and does not afford them their status as man’s best friend. It does not send the clear message to the public that we should send, which is that a dog is for life. Pet-shop puppies are often removed from their mothers too early: they are separated after just a few weeks, despite the regulations. Many may have been reared in puppy farms, which notable reports have exposed as having unacceptable animal welfare conditions. Puppy farms do not foster good care, socialisation or attachment with mothers, and those issues contribute to poor temperament in dogs and an increased likelihood of illness and disease. That is not good for puppies, and it is certainly not good for the public.
The high street is not the place to buy a puppy. The sale of puppies on the high street fosters puppy farming and puppy trafficking. It also leads to impulse purchases by people whose household may not be best suited to the dog, nor the dog best suited to the household. That is a poor start for all involved. Polling indicates that 90% of the public do not wish to buy a puppy that has been reared on a puppy farm, but people often do so unknowingly when they buy on the high street or from third-party breeders.
Numerous recent reports on puppy farming indicate an overwhelming lack of care and concern for basic animal welfare. Mothers are used excessively as breeding machines for profit and then discarded, or even killed, when they are no longer of any use. They are kept for their whole lives in cramped, unhygienic and often horrendous conditions. That simply is not acceptable to the UK public.
A puppy’s journey should be tracked from birth, through a system of registration and microchipping. Disreputable breeders ignore the guidelines, but often go unpunished, which only reinforces their behaviour. Guidelines indicate that dogs should breed no more than six times in their lifetime, and the Kennel Club’s recommendation is no more than four times. The Kennel Club reports that one in five pups bought in a pet shop needs veterinary care or dies before they are five months old. That is simply not acceptable for the welfare of the puppies involved or the right of the public to buy puppies who have been looked after properly and appropriately.
Will the Minister consider the need for a public awareness campaign, co-ordinated with the devolved Governments throughout the United Kingdom? Such a campaign could outline how to recognise best practice in dog breeding and provide the public with guidelines on how and where to buy puppies reputably. We are looking for Government leadership on this issue. As other Members have said, currently a third of people do not see the mother when they buy a puppy.
We must tackle the sale and trafficking of illegally imported puppies. Key agencies will require regular shared intelligence from across the EU and beyond, along with a published strategy that is monitored, enforced and reviewed. Visual checks should be routine for dogs entering the UK. Such checks are necessary on grounds not only of welfare but of public health. What procedures will be put in place for collaboration after Brexit? How will we make sure that systems are strengthened to ensure animal welfare?
We have heard some disturbing accounts of animal cruelty and the far too lenient sentences imposed. Such sentences are not a deterrent because the industry is lucrative, which is why people engage in it. Those involved have no regard for animal welfare. Research indicates, and I know from my work in psychology, that there is a link between cruelty to animals, and psychopathy and cruelty to humans, including children. That must be taken seriously, not only with regard to animal welfare standards, but because of the impact on other victims of cruelty. The individuals involved practise cruelty to animals and then transfer it to humans. The Government must act and sentences must be increased, because they are currently not a deterrent. It is a lucrative industry and fines are simply not enough. Small fines are not much punishment for people who are making large sums of money.
The Government must act on third-party sales to improve animal welfare for puppies, and they must act on sentencing and ensure that there are deterrents for those involved in animal cruelty. I have had numerous emails and letters from constituents who feel we just are not doing enough and that the problem has to be tackled, so I urge the Minister to look into it. I also urge him to consider awareness campaigns. It is extremely important that the public make good, informed decisions when they buy puppies, so that they can enjoy the puppy and the puppy can enjoy a good life.
Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)
I, too, thank the various members of the public and numerous organisations that provided evidence to the Select Committee with such conviction and passion. Animal welfare is an emotive issue, but Committee members were extremely grateful for the help we got in reaching our conclusions.
I shall touch briefly on three areas of interest. First, our inquiry revealed that this was about a lot more than just puppy farming. On canine welfare, we learned a lot about the dangers of a wider form of neglect when, in some cases, people are simply unable to look after animals to the standard we expect. To be blunt about it, there is cruelty by kindness. We learned an important lesson about how education is almost as vital as prosecution.
We were also concerned about issues such as breeding disorders, and how it seems to be acceptable, in certain areas of canine ownership, almost to deliberately breed abnormalities into canines. That is an act of considerable cruelty that does not seem to be taken care of by the law. The responsibility must lie with breed societies and show organisers. If nothing else, I hope this debate sends them a small warning that, as society moves on, we will probably close in on the deliberate breeding of dogs to have bizarre physical deficiencies purely for reasons of fashion.
Our conclusion was that we should be more proactive and less reactive on some of the issues. In other words, prosecution is not always the answer and, increasingly, education probably is. If we get that right, the pressure on the puppy-farming network to deliver will be reduced.
Secondly, on puppy farms and the related market, opinions were probably as divided as any and emotions ran as high as any. With a lot of welfare legislation, I am suspicious that a total ban—a populist and eye-catching expression that we occasionally use in Parliament—is not always the answer to a welfare problem. Nevertheless, I confess to changing my mind on this issue as a result of the visits we made, the vets we spoke to, the expertise to which we were exposed, and the visits to pet shops and other establishments. All that led us to the conclusion that however hard people tried, the basic minimum standards that we all expect could never really be met.
The Committee was also not persuaded by the claim that public demand must be met, and that the only way of meeting it is through this mass production route. We were convinced by the fact that ethical, effective and commercial alternatives do exist. Indeed, in my own part of west Wales, there is an ethical puppy farm, which has large numbers of breeding bitches and which sells large numbers of puppies to the public, but it does so in a way that enables the buyer to meet the mother and the father, have a cup of coffee and do all the those things that we would like to encourage, and yet it is perfectly capable of running a commercially successful enterprise in the process.
The Committee also learned that demand is not a dirty word. As colleagues know, I am interested in working dogs, and gun dogs in particular. I want to bring on a new gun dog as we speak, but I expect to have to pay money for it and to travel to find exactly the animal that I am looking for, and that is absolutely how it should be. I should not be able to buy one by going online, popping down to the pet shop, or going to some dealer whom I have never met before. I need to research the purchase and understand everything that there is about veterinary records, breeding and the like in order to do so. I do not see why that practice should be restricted only to working dogs. If we get that bit right, there are only moral, welfare, and economic and commercial upsides.
My third point relates to prosecutions, which was raised by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick). Despite what the press may have said, prosecutions featured fairly low in the Committee’s conclusions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, there has been a little bit of misrepresentation in the media. The Committee never did, nor could it, recommend that the RSPCA be stripped of its prosecuting powers, because it does not have any such powers over and above those that we all have as private citizens in the UK—not in Scotland—which is the right to take out a private prosecution. The conclusion that we reached was based on the very compelling evidence that was offered by the SSPCA. It was just a more nuanced approach that avoids the accusations of a conflict of interest. We were also not persuaded by the argument that, in the absence of the RSPCA, no one would do this work. I have with me a schedule of animal welfare prosecutions, more than half of which have been carried out by local authorities and the police.
Oliver Colvile
Does my hon. Friend also recognise that it is very important that there is as much publicity as possible about how people misuse animals? It might be helpful if “The Archers”, of which I am a very strong advocate, were to run a storyline about animals that are being badly treated and badly harmed.
Simon Hart
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I need to listen to “The Archers” a bit more often. From what I gather, the programme is covering quite a lot of contemporary issues at the moment, but he makes a good point.
In conclusion, let me bring to the attention of the House the letter written by the Attorney General’s Office in the name of the Solicitor General to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) who raised the question about whether the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuses to proceed with prosecutions on the basis of resource. The answer stated:
“Resources are never the only bar to prosecution because as you know, the Code of Crown Prosecutors sets out the two stages of the Full Code Test”.
In answer to the question, “Does the Crown Prosecution Service ever refuse to proceed on the basis of a lack of expert knowledge in the subject area in question?” the Solicitor General said:
“No, but a distinction should be drawn between expert knowledge provided by expert witnesses and specialist legal knowledge.”
Jim Fitzpatrick
I made reference to the wording of a recommendation, which I have reflected on significantly. It says that the RSPCA
“should, however, withdraw from acting”.
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I agree that the CPS should be acting, but does he really think that the CPS will do it if the RSPCA takes a step back?
Simon Hart
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The Wooler report, which has been much talked about and which has helped us to reach our conclusions, raises exactly the point that he makes. There is a transitional period, but it is fair to say that concerns have been expressed—not by people such as me who might be accused of having a partisan view, but by more arm’s-length organisations—about potential conflicts of interest between organisations such as investigators, prosecutors, campaigners and fundraisers. The Royal Commission inquiry in 1983 recommended that the CPS was created so that the police would not be accused of that kind of conflict. My view was that if it was good enough for the police to have an arm’s-length prosecuting process, it is probably good enough for the country’s second biggest prosecutor to be subject to the same criteria.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I see you hastening me to a conclusion. Thank you.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I begin by expressing my thanks to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for initiating this debate? I was keen to speak because, probably like everyone else in this Chamber, I believe that the welfare of animals is extremely important. Certainly, my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran have been writing to me in large numbers asking me to voice their support for stronger sentences for animal cruelty. This debate has a particular focus on puppy farming and that is something of deep concern to all of us. Although puppy farming has been banned since the 1970s, there are still those who overproduce puppies. We must all be vigilant and consider the ethical sourcing of pets.
We really should pay attention to banning the third-party sale of dogs right across the UK. Dogs should be available only from licensed, regulated breeders or approved rehoming organisations, and that should apply right across the UK. Anyone breeding two litters or more a year should be licensed as a breeder, and that is two litters fewer than under Scots law at the moment.
Animal welfare is, of course, devolved to the Scottish Parliament, but I have called for sentences to be stronger both inside this place and outside it. Wilful cruelty to animals is simply unacceptable in a civilised society. Indeed, the Scottish Government will continue to legislate to improve animal welfare. A consultation on offences and penalties under the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 will be held before too much longer. Despite the fact that there are different laws in England, Scotland and Wales, there are areas on which there is a huge amount of common ground.
The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is unique among animal welfare charities in the UK, because it is a reporting agency to the Crown Office, which means that its investigators are authorised to enforce the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006. Last year, the SSPCA helpline received 241,403 calls and its inspectors and animal rescue officers attended a record 80,944 incidents.
The Scottish Government do not publish the number of people convicted of animal cruelty, but a Freedom of Information request from February 2016 shows that in 2013-14, 284 charges were brought by the Procurator Fiscal, and that in 2014-15 the figure was 184.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Like her, I, too, have an extremely large mailbag, with letters from constituents who are very concerned about this issue. We have heard an awful lot today about puppy farming, but not much about organised dog fighting. Does she share my concern that there are organised dog-fighting gangs in operation throughout the United Kingdom and does she agree that penalties and sanctions against these people should be much stronger and much harsher than they currently are?
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. In fact, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on that very issue. Like general animal welfare issues, it is a subject on which all people in all parties can unite. This is a despicable act, an horrific example of cruelty, that is conducted purely for the purposes of making money.
We all know that the popularity of programmes such as “Animal SOS”, “The Dog Rescuers”, “Pet Rescue” and “Animal 999” has raised public awareness of the animal cruelty and neglect taking place in our communities, but we must continue to be mindful of the crime of animal cruelty. It is a serious crime in our own neighbourhoods. Governments must lead by example, and I am proud that the Scottish Government have confirmed a host of new measures to improve and protect animal welfare. I am talking about tough new regulations on the use of electronic training collars; the prohibition of electric pulse, sonic and spray collars unless used under the guidance of a vet or another trained professional; a ban on wild animals in travelling circuses; and tough action on dog fighting and on irresponsible dog ownership.
When we see neglect, we must continue to ensure that the laws protect animals from such treatment, and that these laws are always fit for purpose. Sadly, there are too many cases, as reported by the SSPCA, of people who simply do not know how to look after an animal properly. It seems that quite a significant number of well-intentioned people welcome pets into their homes, but are simply unequal to the task of giving them the care that they need. That tells us that a job of public education and information needs to be undertaken so that potential pet owners are well acquainted with the full responsibility that having a pet places on their shoulders.
Where we find wilful cruelty—unfortunately, we find it too often—we must take it extremely seriously. As we have heard today, there is a connection between the wilful mistreatment of animals, and violence and mistreatment of fellow citizens. That, as well as protecting animals, should give us pause for thought. I am ashamed to say that the SSPCA has reported cases of “unimaginable cruelty”, and I honestly do not believe that a life ban on owning a pet is sufficient censure for such behaviour towards a helpless animal. There is plenty of evidence that such cruelty is a precursor to, and has a clear link with, violence against other people.
Fines or community service orders do not offer much of a punishment or deterrence against such behaviour. Cases such as deliberately starving an animal to death, knowingly locking an animal in the boot of a car in soaring temperatures in the full knowledge and understanding that it will not survive such treatment, and other horrible examples that we have heard today must surely be eligible for a custodial sentence. However, we must all be vigilant when it comes to preventing cruelty to animals. We are the eyes and ears of the agencies who seek to prevent cruelty to animals and challenge it where it takes place. We all have a responsibility to report cruelty or neglect wherever we find it. The courts across the United Kingdom must send out a clear signal that wilful cruelty to animals will not be tolerated and will be taken extremely seriously.
Before I end, there is something that is of concern to us all: the need to be mindful of animal welfare standards in farming post-Brexit. Brexit poses a challenge to animal welfare because EU law is at the heart of animal welfare legislation, which protects animal health, consumers and, of course, the environment. The EU sets down minimum standards. National Governments may adopt more stringent rules, but the UK Government have been resistant to gold-plating EU regulations in the past over fears that this would weaken UK competitiveness. As well as answering all the points that have been raised, I would like the Minister to reassure the House that there will be no diminution in our animal welfare standards as we seek to work towards unilateral treaties outside Europe.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
May I join my fellow colleagues on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and other hon. Members here in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing this debate forward? It is always a pleasure to serve under his chairmanship on the Select Committee.
I will try to touch on a few points that have not been made in the Committee’s excellent report, but I must start by joining everybody else in talking about third-party sales and puppy breeding. I will be truthful: I went into the start of the Select Committee inquiry thinking that it was a bad idea to ban third-party sales. However, my opinion changed after looking at, listening to and reading the evidence, and seeing things with my own eyes while visiting a puppy farm in west Wales. There must have been 60 to 80 dogs when we looked around that puppy farm. They were all in tiny enclosures with 3 feet high walls, so they could not see out or see their neighbours. They could not be dogs. It was quite distressing because, although I could not look back and say that they were skinny, maltreated or in danger of needing relief and veterinary care, they just could not be dogs. Having had dogs all my life, I found that very disturbing and that visit made me change my mind.
Something that has sadly not been touched on today is the fact that there are many responsible dog breeders. We went to look for a dog only last year. I wanted a labrador and my wife wanted a whippet and, as is typical in our family—I have a wife and two young daughters—we ended up with a whippet, and a female whippet at that. We went to look at the bitch and the puppy down in the Vale of Glamorgan, where we had the choice of the litter. My children had to be there with us, and it was clear to me that we were being interviewed and interrogated by the dog breeder. If she had not thought us suitable, we would not have been going back a month or so later to pick up our puppy. That is what we should be aiming for. So far, we have all said what is wrong. We have all said that the law is wrong, but what we need is education and like-minded people to do the job of breeding dogs.
Something else that was clear when the Committee took evidence—I was quite surprised about this—was that even with the puppy farming here that we do not like, the country does not breed enough puppies to sustain demand. Hence, we have to bring in dogs from Ireland or mainland Europe. The situation really needs to be tackled. We need to look at how we can supply the demand in this country without these unfortunate practices. It is clear that many puppies coming here from abroad, wherever that may be, sadly leave their mother and do not even live to get to mainland Britain. That is a tragedy.
Dr Cameron
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that part of the issue with demand is about changing public attitudes? Cats and dogs homes are full of puppies that have been discarded. They might not be pedigrees, but they make extremely good pets and should be offered the opportunity of a good home.
Chris Davies
I could not agree more. Because of that, I was surprised that organisations such as the RSPCA, the People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home were not keen on banning third-party sales. I am glad that they have now changed their minds. People now have a great choice in going to catteries and dog kennels to get an animal.
The British Veterinary Association has not been mentioned today, but it has come out with an excellent paper and it gave excellent information to the inquiry. It is a highly respected organisation, which says that
“irresponsible dog breeding and the practice of puppy farming must be tackled as quickly as possible.”
All of us, including the Minister, agree with this excellent organisation. We must listen to such organisations, which have so much to offer and carry out a lot of the work on our behalf.
The BVA also came out with an interesting point about having a framework of animal welfare because we do not seem to have one. We have heard the “B” word all week with Brexit, but the “D” word is devolution. More and more powers are going to various parts of the country, but these various forms of devolution—Parliaments and organisations—are coming up with their own laws, making life difficult for veterinary surgeons, RSPCA officers and so on. For example, electrical pulse collars are now banned in Wales, but they can be used in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There are parts of my constituency with fields and commons where those collars would be illegal on one side and not on the other. Dog licences are required in Northern Ireland, but nowhere else on mainland Britain. There is separate legislation on control of horses in England and Wales, but none in Northern Ireland and Scotland. It really is getting terribly complicated for anybody who wants to comply with and enforce the law, so we need to think about a framework at some point.
I have owned horses all my life. Clearly, as the evidence shows and as we all agree, equine identification and traceability must be made simpler. There are over 60 passport-issuing organisations out there; the report recommends one single organisation. The national equine database closed in 2012, making this impossible to enforce. I ask the Minister where we are with this, because equines are vitally important, whether for leisure, work, or purely pleasure. They are great animals to have—I strongly recommend them—and we should certainly have the right system in place for them.
In closing, I am afraid that I must touch on the RSPCA. The report contains a very worthwhile set of points that should be looked at very seriously. Fund-raising, campaigning, investigation and prosecution do not fit together. As I said earlier, our friends from Scotland lead by example. The Attorney General has clearly said that there is capacity within his Department for us to look at this, and I strongly urge all Ministers that we should do so.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on setting the scene so well and his hard work as Chair of the EFRA Committee. We all deeply appreciate not only his efforts, but the knowledge of the subject matter that he regularly brings to this Chamber whenever we debate farming issues. We all look forward to his contributions, whether on milking or, as in this case, on dogs and animal welfare.
I have received a substantial number of emails about puppy farms, and it is incumbent on me to put forward a plea on behalf of many of my constituents. We are often referred to as a nation of animal lovers. I believe that we are, by and large, but when we see examples of animal cruelty by individuals, whatever the reasons for that might be, we realise that there are some nasty and evil people out there.
I should declare an interest. My wife is an active volunteer with Assisi, which is an animal charity that looks after cats and dogs. When I married her, I realised that I was marrying all the cats as well, so I became a cat lover, which I never was before.
The recently published plans to improve the licensing of animal breeding establishments are most welcome, but it is disheartening that it appears that, despite the calls from the EFRA Committee and numerous leading charities, a ban on third-party puppy sales is not being implemented. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to our concerns—he knows that I hold him in high esteem, as we all do in this Chamber. It is clear that while licensing and microchipping are necessary and good, that in itself will not address the problem of the puppy trade. In the words of my constituents,
“it will not stop the cruel puppy trade.”
There is something despicable and wrong about a puppy farmer continually and regularly breeding from a dog for the purpose of selling their pups, to the detriment of the dog’s health.
I have had dogs about me for all my life, whether Pomeranians, when I was very young, or Jack Russells in later years. They say, “You don’t own a Jack Russell terrier, the Jack Russell owns you.” I am not sure how true that it is, but I know that the ones I had owned me. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) referred to working dogs, of which I have a number—springer spaniels and cocker spaniels. Whenever we sold dogs when the mother had pups, we always made sure that the person who got that dog was suitable—the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) referred to that. It was nothing to do with money; it was do with finding good homes. We wanted a good home for the dog, and we want legislation to ensure that that happens.
As other Members have said, it is thought that if the middlemen are eliminated, the dog-loving public will instead need to source their puppies from legitimate breeders or rescue centres, which will lead to a massive improvement in welfare standards for dogs. However, I must lay down a marker to the Minister in relation to labradors and alsatians—dogs that are prone to dysplasia. We need to do something about the fact that dogs and pups are often sold without the veterinary approval to say that they are free from potential physical disablement. I join with others who have called on the Government to put in place a ban on the sale of puppies without their mothers being present.
I again refer the Minister to legislation from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire talked about the differences across all the regions of the United Kingdom. I think that we in Northern Ireland, if I may say so—we have to blow our own trumpet sometimes—have particularly good legislation. What discussions has the Minister had with representatives in Northern Ireland?
Animal cruelty sentences here are designed in such a way that if the defendant pleads guilty, their sentence is reduced, meaning that no matter how despicable the act of cruelty was, the sentence will be four months. That situation needs to change drastically. After having had a similar sentencing scheme in Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Assembly took steps to alter it, voting to change the law as part of the new justice Act. The amendment means that the maximum sentence handed down in the Crown court for animal cruelty crimes increases from two years to five years. That is justice that fits the crime, and that is how the legislation should be across the whole United Kingdom.
There have been some instances of dog fighting in my constituency. Nothing grieves me as much as to say that, because it a despicable act. We have a very active police force in Northern Ireland, with a specific wildlife officer set with the task of dealing with this. I happen to know the police officer responsible, because I have known her father for a long time. The police in Northern Ireland have been very active in trying to catch these people. Someone found guilty of causing unnecessary suffering to animals, or causing and attending an animal fight, will face up to 12 months’ imprisonment instead of six months, and the maximum fine for a conviction will rise from £5,000 to £20,000. That is the sort of legislative change and action that we need.
New powers are to be handed to Northern Ireland’s Director of Public Prosecutions to enable the appeal of animal cruelty sentences on the grounds of undue leniency. In the past, I have referred cases to the DPP for review, after which a stronger sentence has been handed down, as it should have been. That has happened not though my actions alone but those of many others. That, at the very least, must be replicated on the UK mainland. I sincerely urge the Minister to make contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly so that he can learn from the legislation and strategy that we have in place now. What discussions has he had with the Republic of Ireland, where the same legislation is not necessarily in place? What are we doing about the movement of puppies and puppy farms across the border and directly to the mainland?
The current system on the mainland does not even come close to ensuring that people understand the abhorrence of animal cruelty. A tough sentence must be available for offenders who persist in showing horrific cruelty to animals. I call on Minister—I know that he will respond positively—to take the time to ensure that steps are taken urgently to deal with the current failures on sentencing and puppy farming.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
I very much commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) not only for securing the debate, but for chairing the EFRA Committee, and producing this report about animal welfare and how we should take better care of animals. I congratulate the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) on telling in no uncertain terms her heart-wrenching stories about how some people end up abusing animals. I come back to the point that I made in an intervention: it is important that we better educate children so that they understand the value and importance of looking after animals.
I will not pretend for one moment that I have ever lived in a family with lots of dogs and cats, and things like that—[Interruption.] I can tell the stories about hedgehogs in a moment. However, the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) made about animals on farms is incredibly important.
It is important that we consider how to safeguard the animals of people with dementia. I am doing a lot of work with Professor Ian Sherriff of Plymouth University, who runs a dementia taskforce in the Yealm valley in Devon. The work is difficult. It found some people looking after a couple with dementia, but their animals were not being fed properly and there were problems to do with the drinking of water. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and the Minister might want to look at that—indeed, the EFRA Committee may wish to carry out an inquiry into this important issue.
I make no apologies for saying that the Government need to look at the whole issue of protected species and to be much more flexible. I have spent a lot of time in this place talking about our wonderful friends the hedgehogs, the number of which has declined by 30% over the past 10 to 15 years. I launched an online petition that ended up with 50,000 signatures, while another 12,000 people signed paper petitions. I will present those petitions with colleagues who participated alongside me, and we will try to make sure that the issue is addressed.
Flexibility is important, because there are some places where not only hedgehogs but seagulls—the other big issue that I have been taking up—are in decline. We need more flexibility. Hedgehogs are in decline partially because of the decking of properties and the taking away of the wildlife and grassland that they go into. Occasionally the problem arises because people put down poisonous slug pellets; the hedgehogs eat slugs that have been contaminated and then end up dying. The Government need to look at that. They also need to look closely at the traps that are being introduced against stoats and so on. I have written about that to DEFRA—not to my hon. Friend the Minister, but to his colleague—and would be helpful if we could have a proper debate about it.
Seagulls represent a big difficulty in constituencies such as mine. We need not to cull them, but to find a way to control them better. That might involve putting in dummy eggs or injecting the eggs, especially at this time of year.
We also need to ensure that we pay attention to our ecology by looking after bees. A number of people have been critical of my interest in this issue, but if there is a decline in this country’s animal species, we will be ruining our ecology and what happens elsewhere. We need to take that very seriously. I receive more letters on issues to do with hedgehogs, seagulls and so on than on anything else in relation to my work in this place. The British public are very keen on the issue. They want us to protect animals in the same way as they quite rightly want social justice for people.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I, too, commend the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which I am proud to be a member, for securing the debate. The report is another example of the very good work that the Committee is doing. I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I gather that you are something of a Dr Dolittle, with a number of pets under your wing.
We truly are a nation of dog lovers and animal lovers. I was brought up on a farm with dogs, and a dog was my best friend. As a moody teenager, I turned to the dog more than anyone else to pour my heart out to. I, too, take part in the wonderful Westminster dog of the year competition. I actually borrow a dog from the Dogs Trust, just to highlight all the good work it does in promoting dog ownership.
Rebecca Pow
It is not cheating; I try to do a useful education job. We have talked so much about education—[Interruption.] There is a lot of mithering going on behind me, but it is not cheating; it is all about education and getting the right messages to people about animal ownership.
I will touch on a couple of the report’s themes, namely sentencing and licensing, which have been addressed by many other colleagues. Puppy farming is a massive business in the UK. It is worth an estimated £300 million, so it is not small. To put it simply, demand outstrips supply, as we have heard, which leaves space for unscrupulous breeders to come in and operate. The report aims to address that.
Members on both sides of the House agree that the UK has very high animal welfare standards. We pride ourselves on that, which is why it is strange and puzzling that our sentences for offenders are so low. The maximum sentence, as we have heard, is six months’ imprisonment and an unlimited fine. To put that in context, Northern Ireland, Latvia and Montenegro have maximum prison sentences of five years, which makes me think that we need to look at the issue.
We have the lowest sentences for animal abuse crimes in the developed world. As has been said—I am sure that the Minister knows this, but I want to highlight it again—there is a very strong link between animal cruelty and domestic violence. One study found that in 88% of homes where child abuse had been discovered, there had also been incidents of animal abuse. Another study found that up to 83% of women who enter domestic violence shelters report that their abusers have also been abusing the family pet. That very worrying and strong link shows why we should take the issue so seriously.
People can get five years for fly-tipping—that is a serious offence, so we should not backtrack on such sentences—but if someone burns their pet or carries out gross abuse such as that described by Opposition Members, they might get only six months. That is absolutely unbelievable. Clearly we do not want to overload our prisons, but we need to have another look at the issue and not be coy about very serious cases.
An example that recently arose in my constituency involved not a dog or a cat, but a dairy farm. The dairy farmer is in the top group for animal welfare standards among dairy farmers, but unbeknown to him, a lad he had taken on as an apprentice—this was secretly filmed by Animal Equality—was going in and kicking the nursing cows in the face, kicking the calves, pressing them up against metal gates, and slamming the gates on them and abusing them verbally. It was absolutely horrific. The dairy farmer had no idea that that was happening until he was shown the video, which hon. Members can see online. The lad’s sentence is being considered at the moment, but it will probably not fit the crime.
I will quickly touch on internet sales, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) spoke eloquently. Many illegal puppy sales take place on the internet, and I am pleased that the Government are looking at the matter. I welcome the fact that breeders now require a numbered licence to sell puppies online. Many people want the Government to introduce a centralised register, as has been touched on. My daughter is always sending me pictures of cutesy little puppies in handbags or in chocolate boxes that she has seen online. She says, “Mummy, why don’t we get one of these?” but I know for a fact that lots of those puppies have been illegally bred and imported, and they have probably been subject to some of the horrible things that we heard about in detail from my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies).
Oliver Colvile
We will, I hope, have a nice long, hot summer. Does my hon. Friend agree that we will face the problem of people leaving their dogs in cars without taking steps to protect them, such as opening windows or leaving water in the car?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. Many colleagues will often see dogs locked in homes for hours on end when we are out canvassing. Many of those dogs now suffer psychological problems, and I gather that vets are giving some of them Valium to calm them down. There are loads of welfare issues that we have to deal with.
The Committee’s report called for the breeders of puppies to be required to apply for a formal licence if they breed three litters a year—that is definitely a step in the right direction. There are calls for the number to be reduced to two litters, to take account of any accidental litters, which often occur. And please do not forget cats—as a lover of Mr Tips and Raffa, my family’s two cats at home, I know that we must not forget cats. I applaud our Committee’s recommendation that the breeders of cats who have two litters or more a year should also be licensed and subject to the relevant welfare conditions.
Education has been mentioned, and I wonder whether there is any way we can give our local authorities—they are often the ones who have to police these things, and they are often under pressure—a bit more education in this area. I am not necessarily saying that we should throw money at them, but education and additional support might help councils to clamp down on offenders.
I am coming to the end of my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I want to make a final point about our animal welfare standards in general as we exit the EU. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) touched on this. If the UK is to set itself up as an animal welfare exemplar for domestic pets and livestock—I believe that the Minister has that very much in mind—it is crucial that our regulatory framework is fit for purpose, and that framework should cover the use of antibiotics, which has been referred to, as well as how animals are kept and managed. That is essential if we are to build a British brand on this platform. We know what countries in the EU do, but we also need to know exactly what our global partners do, because we have to trade with them on equal welfare terms. I urge the Minister to consider that; it is something that the all-party group on animal welfare, which I chair, could have a look at.
I applaud the Select Committee report. There is still much to do on welfare, but we have taken many steps in the right direction and I know that the Minister is listening. The overall aim of all the work that is being done is to give our pets the happy, healthy and lovely life that they all deserve.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
I want to make a brief contribution to the debate on the need to increase courts’ flexibility to sentence offenders for up to five years. As it stands, the maximum sentence is six months, and that has been the case since 1911. All Members have experienced considerable pressure from constituents about the issue. Constituents have contacted me to say that they simply cannot believe that the law has stayed in place for so long without being changed.
When we look at the cases that we deal with in our constituencies, as well as the cases reported in the newspapers, we can clearly see that courts need the flexibility to deal with those offenders much more severely than they can at present. Making this change would not compel the courts to sentence somebody for five years—it would not compel them to do anything—but, as the Minister knows, it would send a message to the courts that they have that power and they can use it if necessary.
I support the Committee’s recommendation, and I add the voices of my constituents in Gedling, and of many others from across the country, to those who ask the Government to review the matter as quickly as possible and change the maximum sentence from six months to five years. I hope that the Minister will take that on board and make the change as soon as possible.
Dr Paul Monaghan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (SNP)
The inquiry we are debating was conducted by a Sub-Committee of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and I was very pleased to participate as a member of it. We ordered our detailed report to be published on 2 November 2016, following scrutiny of 256 items of published evidence, seven evidence-gathering sessions and three site visits. I am very grateful to a number of organisations, including Pup Aid and the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for the briefings they have provided for today’s debate.
I should say at the outset that the inquiry caused me, and I believe other members of the Committee, significant distress from listening to accounts of serious animal cruelty and, indeed, viewing at first hand animals in recovery shelters and those held in horrific conditions in puppy farms. The treatment and the plight of many of the animals we saw is simply unacceptable. As other hon. Members have done, I want to focus on two aspects of the inquiry: first, the recommendation that an immediate ban be placed on the third-party sale of dogs; and secondly, the recommendation that the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences in England be increased to five years in prison.
This inquiry learned that dogs are bred, sold and traded every single day. While the scale of the market for puppies in England is largely unknown, estimates suggest that somewhere between 700,000 and 1.9 million dogs are traded each year, with a street value of somewhere between £100 million and £300 million per annum. The public purchase puppies from a variety of sources, including unlicensed breeders and back-street traders, commercial licensed breeders and pet shops, illegal importers, Kennel Club registered breeders and excellent rescue organisations. Unlicensed breeders, commercial licensed breeders and illegal importers are the sources that caused us concern. We identified a significant variation in the quality of puppies, their viability and the welfare problems experienced by dogs from these sources.
The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999 set out the licensing regime under which local authorities license dog breeding establishments in England. The legislation states that anyone carrying on the business of breeding and selling puppies must have a licence irrespective of the number of litters. However, owing to a lack of clarity, many local authorities in England have interpreted the legislation to mean that a licence is required only for those breeding five or more litters during a 12-month period. As a consequence, a large number of breeders are considered to fall outside the current licensing regime, which means there is no record of the dogs being born and no enforcement of welfare standards.
DEFRA’s recent consultation on its review of animal licensing establishments noted that there was confusion about the threshold and about how it should be used in practice. DEFRA has proposed clarifying the threshold at which a breeding establishment requires to be licensed, suggesting that in the future the requirement for a licence would be applied to
“(a) anyone in the business of breeding and selling dogs; or (b) anyone producing three or more litters from their dogs in a 12-month period.”
Witnesses told us that they want a lower threshold. In fact, experts in animal welfare argued that anyone breeding two or more litters per year should be required to register as a breeder. The view is that while one litter might be unintended, anyone producing more than one litter a year is clearly running a business breeding dogs for sale, and I agree with that opinion. Witnesses also told us that those falling below this threshold should be registered with their local authority. For example, the National Companion Animal Focus Group told us that a registration scheme would
“ensure licensing authorities are aware of breeding dogs in their area, and can monitor when they fall into the definitions of commercial breeding”.
I also agree with that opinion. It is vital to bring transparency to ensuring that appropriate welfare standards are in place. For that reason, the Committee recommended that anyone breeding two litters or more per year should be licensed as a breeder, and that those falling below the threshold of a licensed breeder should be registered with their local authority.
Turning to commercial breeders, current requirements dictate that anyone who carries on a business of breeding dogs for sale must hold a licence from their local authority and meet certain conditions, such as providing suitable accommodation, food, water and bedding. Dog breeders are supposed to keep records to show compliance with those requirements. Puppies bred at licensed commercial breeding establishments are required to be sold at those premises or at a licensed pet shop. This is where the problems arise. Undoubtedly there are very good commercial breeders, but in evidence we encountered far too many examples of those requirements being ignored, with puppies being bred in substandard conditions on an industrial scale. Some of those establishments house as many as 200 breeding bitches. The cruelty and lack of care and attention was self-evident. In evidence, the Minister acknowledged that enforcement of the licensing regime was a “mixed picture”, with local authorities placing different levels of emphasis on it. That is an understatement.
We call for improvements in two areas in particular: the current legislation and licensing conditions, and the enforcement of the licensing regime. The current enforcement of the licensing regime is simply unsatisfactory. While some local authorities have developed expertise in animal welfare, the overwhelming majority of English local authorities lack any suitably qualified inspectors. We believe that a national inspectorate, which local authorities could call upon, would enable expertise to develop, bring consistency to the licensing process and support local authorities in enforcing the licensing regime, undertaking inspections and dealing with complaints.
In respect of illegal importers, we found that puppies are being imported for commercial purposes under the non-commercial trade rules that were set up to allow the free movement of people’s pets through the pet travel scheme. Witnesses told us that loopholes originating in the UK mean that the pet travel scheme is abused by unscrupulous dealers and traders. Puppies are being moved as pets and then traded commercially at the final destination. Between the introduction of PETS in 2011 and 2015, there was an 850% increase in the number of dogs entering the UK from Lithuania alone. From Hungary the increase was 761% and from Romania it was 2,055%. As hon. Members have noted, puppies imported in that way are routinely bred in horrific conditions, are taken from their mother when too young and endure long journeys of over 1,000 miles. The welfare of those animals is severely compromised and many do not survive the journey.
During our inquiry, witnesses identified three areas of concern: the age at which puppies were allowed into the UK; a lack of enforcement checks by Border Force; and poor intelligence sharing between UK enforcement agencies. When buying a puppy, members of the public want to buy a happy, healthy animal from a reputable source; however, disreputable dealers are selling animals for huge profits without regard for their health and wellbeing, and leaving families with congenitally unviable, sick animals.
Witnesses told us that the Pet Animals Act 1951 was “thoroughly outdated” and that there is lack of clarity about what is and is not licensable activity. They had differing opinions on how to deal with current problems around the sale of animals. Some called for increased regulation, while others called for a ban on third party sales. On that point the RSPCA bizarrely changed its position several times within the period of the inquiry. The charities Dogs Trust and Blue Cross lobbied Ministers directly in ways that appeared to promote their narrow business interests rather than animal welfare, and disappointingly have chosen not to answer my subsequent correspondence seeking clarity on their position.
On this issue there is no excuse or room for implausible arguments. The Committee’s recommendation to ban third-party sales is essential if unlicensed breeding, commercial breeding and illegal importation are to be brought to an abrupt end. Removing the opportunity to sell abused animals would address the issue. The advice to the public is simple: never buy a puppy that is not with its mother. Those ignoring that advice are supporting horrific puppy farming and regimes of cruelty that are of epic proportions.
I am coming on to my conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker. Turning to sentencing policy, the sub-committee found that England and Wales has the lowest maximum custodial sentences for animal cruelty in Europe. Scotland currently has a maximum sentence double that of England and Wales, and Northern Ireland is to be applauded for recently increasing its maximum limit to five years. Our witnesses expressed grave concern that sentencing powers under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 are too low, neither recognising the seriousness of the offence nor acting as a significant deterrent.
The Association of Lawyers for Animal Welfare noted that sentencing powers in England under the Animal Welfare Act are some of the weakest within the international community. The RSPCA noted increasing inconsistency in sentences available in differing animal legislation in England. For example, the Law Commission recently recommended the imprisonment for up to two years for cruelty to wildlife. Under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, a person can be sentenced to three years if their dog injures a guide dog, but for only six months if they beat their dog to death with a baseball bat in front of their children in their living room. If the same individual then dumped the corpse illegally, they could be sentenced to five years for fly tipping. If they stole the baseball bat, they could receive a sentence of seven years for shoplifting. This is ridiculous and unacceptable.
DEFRA responded to the inquiry report on 27 January 2017. The response began:
“We have the best animal welfare in the world and we are a nation of animal lovers.”
I say to the Minister that in fact England has some of the poorest animal welfare in the world. I have seen it. If he really wants to show respect to animal lovers in England, of whom there are very many, he must implement the Select Committee’s recommendations.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. I ask those on the Front Bench to try to stick to nine minutes, otherwise Members in the second debate will not be able to speak.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing this debate to the Chamber, and for his continued chairmanship of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We have had excellent contributions from both sides of the House, including many from members of the Select Committee.
I would like to speak broadly in favour of the Committee’s recommendations. It is an excellent and thorough report, and I recommend that everyone read it. Having seen the RSPCA’s response to the report, I concur with its assessment of the recommendations and urge the Government to pay heed to them.
It has been said that Britain has the best animal welfare in the world. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 was a landmark piece of legislation and we in the Labour party are very proud of it. Acting upon the report’s recommendations would cement our position as world leader and ensure that our high standard of animal welfare is maintained. I would like to touch on two main points from the report, areas that have been admirably covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).
First, I agree with the Committee and the RSPCA that the Government should ban the third-party sale of dogs. Dogs should be available only from licensed, regulated breeders or approved re-homing organisations. The Pet Animals Act 1951 requires third-party sellers of dogs to hold a pet shop licence. However, this licensing is not protecting the welfare of all dogs or the interests of consumers, so the current situation is no longer fit for purpose. Licensing must be considered appropriate for third-party sales only if it meets the welfare needs of puppies. It serves no purpose if it does not mitigate risks or prevent harm. The only solution to protect the welfare of puppies is to ban third-party sales entirely.
International studies have found that puppies obtained from pet shops are more likely to be aggressive towards people, fearful, prone to separation anxiety, and infected with parasites and pathogens to a significant level. Behavioural problems are the most common cause of euthanasia in dogs under two years old, with the most common cause of fear and aggression being a lack of socialisation during the critical period up to 16 weeks old. Responsible breeders, by definition, will not sell puppies through third parties.
The third-party licensed pet shop market depends on and sustains low welfare breeding. As long as there is a market for cheap, intensively bred puppies, welfare problems will persist because the incentives for non-compliance far exceed the potential penalties.
We heard about online sales from the hon. Members for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow). Demand has also been mentioned, and we need to look at that as well. Availability may artificially inflate demand, so reducing the supply of cheap, poorly bred puppies from dealers will promote a more responsible buying culture. A ban is vital to protect the welfare of puppies, and to serve as an essential first step in the improvement of standards in high-risk breeding establishments.
When we bought our family dog, a lovely chocolate labrador called Max, we knew how to find him—we knew who to buy from: we knew where to find a responsible breeder—but not everyone knows how to do that. We need to protect consumers from irresponsible breeders, and help them to make responsible purchases. We must ensure that animal welfare comes before profit. The Government must place a statutory duty on local authorities to enforce the Animal Welfare Act so that it has proper teeth, and then give local authorities adequate resources with which to enforce the regulations made under the Act.
The Committee recommended an increase in the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) has done a huge amount of work on that with Battersea Dogs & Cats Home; I am grateful for her contribution today, and I am proud to support her campaign. Labour’s Animal Welfare Act created and amended a number of offences—for instance, causing deliberate harm or any unnecessary suffering to an animal, and wilful neglect. Such offences carry a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or an unlimited fine: the penalty was raised in 2015 from a maximum fine of £20,000. The Act also includes a provision to increase sentences to 51 weeks under the “custody plus” system, consisting of a combination of community service and imprisonment. Current sentencing guidance issued by the independent Sentencing Council states that the starting point for attempting to kill, torture or cause prolonged neglect to an animal and the permitting of fighting is an 18-week custodial sentence, with a range of between 12 and 26 weeks in custody.
Unfortunately, the Government have yet to make any significant changes to ensure that the punishment for animal cruelty reflects the gravity of the crime. They should consider increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers, and providing for the most serious cases of abuse to be heard in the Crown court. Groups such as the League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA, and Battersea Dogs & Cats Home have expressed concern about the sentences for animal cruelty, which do not always appear to match the abuse suffered by the animals, especially in the case of extreme cruelty such as dog fighting. Sentences—which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)— must reflect the seriousness of such crimes.
The Labour manifesto of 2015 committed us to improving protection for cats and dogs. We support the call by the League Against Cruel Sports for the implementation of its dog fighting action plan, which would include the holding by statutory agencies of a national register of individuals banned from keeping dogs. The RSPCA has run campaigns calling on the Government to undertake a review of sentencing for animal cruelty under the Animal Welfare Act, and to amend it to allow tougher sentencing for offences such as animal fighting. Of the 752 people who were found guilty of causing, permitting or failing to prevent unnecessary suffering to animals in 2014, only 76 received a sentence involving immediate custody, and only about half that number received custodial sentences of more than three months.
Finally, I have a couple of Brexit-related questions for the Minister. First, will he commit himself to maintaining all existing animal welfare legislation post-Brexit? Secondly—this was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers)—does he agree that any trade deals struck post-Brexit must respect the high animal welfare standards of the UK, and must not undermine the ability of British farmers to compete at home?
I look forward to the Minister’s response, and hope that he will take on board the many excellent recommendations in the Committee’s report.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this debate on a matter that affects so many of us, and thank him for his Select Committee reports into animal welfare in England that we are debating today.
Last month my Department published proposals to overhaul the laws on a number of animal-related licensing schemes, such as the regulations on pet vending, animal boarding, riding schools and dog breeding. The main aim of our proposed changes is to improve animal welfare and to make the licensing schemes easier to enforce.
I want to begin by talking about the issue of dog breeding, which a number of Members have raised. As my hon. Friend will recall from the time when I was on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I have long argued that we should reduce the threshold before which people have to be licensed by the local authority to breed dogs. I have argued that for some six months, and it is a pleasure to remain in a position in DEFRA for long enough to actually see through something I have argued for for so long. Included, therefore, in our proposals is that anyone breeding and selling more than two litters in a 12-month period will need to be licensed by their local authority. This will have the effect of increasing substantially the number of dog breeders needing to be licensed by about 5,000 per year.
We have also, crucially, proposed that statutory conditions will be applied to all licensed establishments. In relation to dog breeding, that will mean that basic standards taken from the model licence conditions and guidance for dog breeding establishments 2014, published by the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, will be applied directly to all licensed breeders.
We had in our consultation initially proposed that there could be an exemption from requiring a licence for breeders who signed up to United Kingdom Accreditation Service-accredited schemes. The Committee and others expressed concerns about going that far, so we listened and have modified that proposal to enable local authorities to recognise risk and to recognise people who sign up to accreditation schemes without removing entirely the need for a licence.
On the question of a ban on selling dogs by third parties, which a number of hon. Members have raised, I understand the desire to try and help potential buyers realise that puppies should be seen with their mothers before they are purchased. Indeed, DEFRA makes such a recommendation. However, I think the specific proposal for an outright ban on all third-party sales is more problematic.
First, we have to consider who would enforce it and how they would do so. Local authorities have to balance their local priorities, and trying to establish whether a particular online advertiser of puppies is located in their area would require the commitment of considerable resources. As I have said, we have already increased the burden on local authorities by taking the number of people required to be licensed from 600 to some 5,000. The demand for dogs is also such that in our view there is a significant risk that an outright ban on third-party sales would simply drive the market underground.
We have therefore decided to address the problem in a different way, through a tougher approach to licensing provisions and to enforcement of the provisions in the Pet Animals Act 1951. First, we are placing beyond any doubt that online commercial sellers need to have a licence. It is not a pet shop licence; it is now a licence for animal sellers, and we will make that absolutely clear in revisions to the licensing conditions. Secondly, as with dog breeders, we propose that statutory conditions should be applied to all licensed pet sellers, whether online or a shop. These will again be based on the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health model conditions for pet vending licensing of 2013. Thirdly, we have also made it clear that, as a condition of having such a licence, if breeders advertise online they will in future need to state their licence number. That will be particularly important in helping with enforcement. I believe that these steps to strengthen the licensing regime currently set out under the 1951 Act go a long way towards addressing the concerns raised.
A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), raised the issue of puppies being brought through ports. I know there are concerns about the import of puppies for sale, and this is an area where we take action. It is a condition of approval that the transport company checks 100% of all those pets declared to them for compliance with the current EU pet travel scheme. Stringent penalties are in place for those who breach the law by smuggling pet animals or using false documentation.
The Animal and Plant Health Agency has been conducting random audit checks on pet animals arriving in Great Britain. Since December 2015, the agency has been working with Kent County Council, Dover police and the Dogs Trust to identify underage dogs, and in that time, 489 puppies have been seized and placed in quarantine kennels. The majority of them were judged to be younger than the age given on their passports. We have taken action, through our chief veterinary officer, to escalate our concerns to the authorities in the relevant countries from which the dogs came. We take this issue very seriously.
I shall turn now to the crucial part of the debate: the issue of maximum penalties for animal welfare offences. The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) gave the House some touching examples of cases that she had seen in her constituency. I know that she and my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) have both recently introduced private Members’ Bills to address this question, and the hon. Lady expressed her frustration at the Whips having objected to her Bill. I can tell her that she joins a large and illustrious club of hon. Members who have faced such a fate—myself included, some years ago—so she should not take it personally.
This is fundamentally a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but my Department obviously works closely with the Ministry. At present, the maximum penalty for such offences is six months’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The unlimited fine was raised from £20,000 only in 2015. In addition, offenders can be disqualified not only from owning an animal but from having influence over the way in which an animal is kept, for as long as the court sees fit. This is an important point because it covers not only owning an animal but issues such as arranging transport.
My noble Friend Lord Gardiner is in regular contact with the Ministry of Justice to discuss the question of maximum sentences. Current sentencing practice for such offences does not suggest that the courts are finding their sentencing powers inadequate. That is to say that changing the maximum sentence would not make a difference if the courts consider a lower sentence appropriate. However, the Sentencing Council has recently reviewed the magistrates court sentencing guidelines, including those relating to animal cruelty. The revised guidance, which is published on the Sentencing Council’s website and which will be effective from May, will allow magistrates more flexibility when imposing penalties towards the upper end of the scale. In addition, I will ensure that hon. Members’ representations for a change in the legislation to allow for higher maximum penalties are relayed to colleagues in Government.
I want to turn now to some of the other points that have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton raised the question of an animal abuse register. I know that the police are considering how they can improve access to the register that they already have. The police national computer provides a searchable single source of locally held police operational information, and there is existing functionality for a police officer to apply a person marker, which can also deal with this issue. My hon. Friend also raised the question of enforcement. We are in discussions with the National Companion Animal Focus Group to try to develop standards of competency and to raise all local authorities to the level of the best.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) raised the issue of the Pet Advertising Advisory Group. I would like to pay tribute to the six website groups—Gumtree, Pets4Homes, ePupz, Preloved, Viva Street and the Hut Group—that have signed up to this. In many cases, those organisations automatically email guidance on keeping pets to people who make a particular search. Organisations including Gumtree immediately take down adverts posted by people who are making repeat sales and high volume sales. It is through working with such organisations that I believe we can make good progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) raised the issue of farm animal welfare, which I know we have covered before. As I have explained, we have a manifesto commitment to reflect farm animal welfare in our future farm policy. My hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) talked about education. We are, through our consultation, planning to introduce a requirement for pet sellers to give guidance to people on certain pets, particularly exotic pets. Guidance relating to pet animals also exists in the current school curriculum.
Neil Parish
In chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I am fortunate to have great members who are supportive and good at attending, and five of them really contributed to today’s debate. I thank everybody on both sides of the House for their contributions. We have been a united force in wanting stiffer sentencing, and many have called for a ban on third-party puppy sales. We also want to ensure that we stop the importation of puppies through our ports, so that illegal puppies are not brought into this country. I thank the Minister for his support, but I want more from the Government on stronger sentencing. We want action. I also thank the shadow Minister for her support. We have had a really good debate, and I thank all Members for supporting the report. We need action now. The Animal Welfare Act 2006 is 10 years old and needs a lot of tightening up. We are a nation that loves animals, but unfortunately there are people out there who do not, and they must be dealt with strongly. All Members across the House have made that point clear this afternoon.
Finally, I thank the Kennel Club, the BVA, the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare, the RSPCA, the SSPCA, Battersea Dogs & Cats Home, Dogs Trust and the staff of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for helping to put the report together and for giving evidence. Following our report, I look forward to the Government taking even greater action than they already have.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that current penalties for animal welfare offences in England are among the lowest in Europe; believes that while the Government’s plans for a new licensing regime for dogs in England is welcome the Government should consider a ban on the third party sale of dogs; and calls on the Government to increase the maximum penalty for animal welfare offences to five years, as recommended in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee’s Third Report, Animal welfare in England: domestic pets, HC 117.
Easter Adjournment
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
I speak today as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, and on that note, I thank my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who so eloquently filled this spot on my behalf on a couple of occasions.
We have heard time and time again that we must spend within our means and that cutting public expenditure is necessary to bring down the deficit. I am not just the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee; I am also the Member of Parliament for Gateshead, and I am afraid to say that Gateshead has not been doing well out of the Government’s programme of public expenditure cuts. We are told that slashing public services and increasing the complexity of our social security system are necessary to pave the way for countrywide prosperity in years to come, but I want to offer some home truths and facts and figures from my constituency.
My local authority, Gateshead, will have a £92 million funding gap by 2021. Real and damaging further cuts will have to be made, and I have no doubt that my already suffering constituents will face more misery. Our unemployment rate is twice that of the national average, the average weekly pay for a constituent is £20 less than the regional average in the north-east and £70 less than the UK average, and 26.8% of our children are living in poverty. That is just the tip of the iceberg in Gateshead. Significant numbers of my constituents are underemployed in part-time work, on zero-hours contracts, or juggling multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet. Many families in my constituency live in poverty, but many are living just above the bread line and also struggling. They are not “just about managing”; many of my constituents are really struggling. I appreciate that I have so far painted a bleak picture of my constituency, but it would be greatly remiss of me not to do so, because I am constantly aware from my casework workload that that is a fact of life for so many people.
There are, of course, some wonderful organisations and people, and a wide array of different cultures, in Gateshead. Just last week, on our annual single day of unbroken sunshine, I had the pleasure of walking from the heart of Gateshead—I live in the neighbourhood of Bensham—down towards the Gateshead quays. I walked through the Sage Gateshead music centre and on to the quayside by the Baltic centre for contemporary art. I could have been forgiven for thinking that I was in a tourist trap in any number of destinations across the world.
Gateshead is a great place to live and work. For those with a well-paid job, the quality of life can be very good. We are close to the countryside and to the coast, and we have the nightlife in the Newcastle-Gateshead conurbation. It could be argued that, for those in work, we probably have some of the best quality of life anywhere in the country.
Gateshead remains a hive of multiculturalism, too. Only three weeks ago the orthodox Haredi Jewish community where I live celebrated Purim, which is an event in itself. The youngsters from the community really go to town, as it were, and are encouraged to do so. It is a fantastic event, and I live in the heart of that community. Purim is an event enjoyed not only by those who participate but by those in the community who appreciate the benefits of that diversity.
Earlier this month, along with students from the National Citizen Service, I pressed the button to tilt the Gateshead millennium bridge to celebrate the fantastic opportunities that the NCS offers to young people in Gateshead and across the north-east.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Is that the bridge that goes from Gateshead to Newcastle? It is the Gateshead millennium bridge, is that right?
Ian Mearns
It is indeed, and I will come on to that in a moment.
The NCS in my constituency is already oversubscribed for the summer placements on this year’s programme, and the young people who have been involved are a credit to my constituency.
The Gateshead millennium bridge is a magnificent feat of engineering, and it truly is an iconic landmark. On the Newcastle side of the bridge is a glass structure upon which the words “Gateshead millennium bridge” are emblazoned. On the Newcastle side of the river is a little piece of Gateshead in a foreign land that will be for ever Gateshead. A bridge that has, by its very nature, managed to secure a foothold for Gateshead on the Newcastle side of the river is an impressive achievement. Some Members will appreciate the importance of that to those of us from the Gateshead side.
I also continue to chair the governing body of one of my local primary schools, Kelvin Grove. The school, in the heart of Bensham, Gateshead, was rated good by Ofsted only a couple of months ago. Gateshead has an array of cultures within its population, and a significant proportion of students have English as a second language. At the last count, a total of 27 different languages were spoken by pupils at that school, and I am sure Members will agree that, although the mix of languages poses difficulties and complexities for the learning environment, there is no doubt that such diversity also has a significant positive effect on the education of all our young people in that neighbourhood. It is a great place to live in many respects.
There are further funding cuts to education, persistent problems in the NHS across the country, which we heard about over the winter, and the localisation of business rates. That localisation will have a negative impact on regions such as the north-east of England, where the 12 local authorities will lose some £300 million whereas Westminster, if we believe the figures published last year, will on its own gain more than £400 million, so we can see how it will have a different impact in different parts of the country. With all that happening, my constituents have little hope of benefiting from some of the measures of prosperity that we are told other parts of the country are currently enjoying or will enjoy. The Prime Minister pledges to have a country that “works for everyone” but, sadly, our definition of “everyone” varies somewhat, because the impacts of what is going on are very different in different places.
I have highlighted and will continue to highlight some of these injustices in this House and to anyone else who can understand what I am saying, but now I wish to take the opportunity to highlight some of the great things happening in Gateshead, despite some elements of Government policy that are having a detrimental impact on us. With colleagues from the Select Committee on Education, I had the pleasure of visiting Gateshead College in my constituency a couple of weeks ago. Despite significant cuts to funding for further education, Judith Doyle, the principal, and her team have ensured that Gateshead College remains one of the best further education colleges in the country, and only last year it was rated as “outstanding” by Ofsted. It is imperative in communities like Gateshead that we have institutions that have the ability to train our future workforce, in an environment that gives our young people the best opportunity to succeed going forward into their working life. Gateshead College, with its rich and diverse offer, is a fine example of this, and I am proud to have it in my constituency and to represent it.
Turning back to local government for a moment, significant cuts to the revenue support grant have forced local authorities to come up with ever more creative ways to plug the holes in their budgets and help grow the local economy. I was delighted to see the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—visit Gateshead earlier this month to open the new £18 million Gateshead district energy centre, which uses cutting-edge technology to recycle heat from the energy generation cycle, using it to heat homes and businesses and water throughout the centre of Gateshead. It is hoped that the scheme will provide local homes and businesses with affordable energy, as well as making Gateshead an attractive place for new businesses to invest, taking advantage of the lower energy costs. I hope that all hon. Members will join me in congratulating Gateshead Council on taking the bold step to self-fund the entire project, for the benefit of local residents, businesses and employers.
In Gateshead, my constituents are very fortunate, as we have a fantastic hospital trust, operating out of the Queen Elizabeth hospital, which provides excellent service and care for all of its patients. I wish to place on record my thanks to not only the staff at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, but all staff in the NHS across Gateshead and the north-east for their unreserved commitment and dedication to ensuring that every person of every background is afforded the care that they very much deserve. Colleagues will be aware that I, too, have had to use the services of the NHS in my constituency, and on a personal note I would like to place on the record my thanks to my GP, Dr Ruth Bonnington, and my physiotherapist, Shane Ryan, for greatly accelerating my recovery from the slipped disc I suffered some weeks ago. Without their care and attention, I would not be here to make this contribution today.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the outstanding work that the voluntary sector does on a daily basis to help my constituents who often have nowhere else to turn. Whether it be in dealing with benefit sanctions, homelessness or illness, organisations such as the Gateshead citizens advice bureau, Barnardo’s, the Trussell Trust, the Gateshead food bank, and many more organisations and individuals across Gateshead, put their lives on hold to ensure that those most vulnerable in our communities receive the help and support they most desperately need. They are the real unsung heroes in our communities, and I would like to thank them for everything they do.
The north-east has a proud track record of donating to charity, despite the relatively low incomes people live on there. Our record on donating to things such as red nose day or Children in Need shows that we often exceed the national body’s expectations. Despite low incomes and indeed poverty, we have very successful food bank collections. The points are often overflowing with food, which has often been donated by families who are struggling themselves. Sadly, despite the generosity of my constituents and others across the north-east, organisations providing often vital support to those most in need continue to find themselves short of resources. So as much as my constituents already give, I ask them from the Floor of the House of Commons to carry on and give more—it is needed.
As I open the debate, I look forward to the speeches of hon. Members from both sides of the House. Before I finish, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, the staff of the House and all hon. Members a very happy Easter?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Thank you. As in the previous debate, if Members stay within an eight-minute limit, everyone will be able to get in and there will be plenty of time for wind-ups. That is not an imposed limit, just guidance for Members.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), who is your successor as Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to passing through his constituency, over the Gateshead Millennium bridge, on my way to see Newcastle when they return to the premier league next season, as no doubt they will. A little while ago, I got myself into trouble by being pleased that I would not have to make that journey again.
Bob Blackman
Even Newcastle would find it difficult not to get promoted after the season they have enjoyed so far.
In two years’ time, when we have the pre-recess Easter Adjournment debate, we will be celebrating Britain’s freedom from the yoke of the European Union; much of this speech will be about unfinished business as the House rises for the Easter recess.
I am delighted that my Homelessness Reduction Bill had its Third Reading in the other place last Thursday and now awaits Royal Assent from Her Majesty the Queen. I place on record my thanks and appreciation to Lord Best, who ensured the Bill’s smooth passage through the other place. We can look forward to it becoming law in the not-too-distant future. The Department for Communities and Local Government is doing all the necessary work to prepare local authorities for their duties under the new Act. I trust that it will advantage homeless people throughout the country forevermore.
I also place on record my thanks and appreciation to Glenn McKee, who was the Clerk of the Public Bill Office and before that the Clerk of the Communities and Local Government Committee, and who is retiring after, I believe, 34 years’ service. He gave brilliant help and assistance to ensure that we did everything necessary to get that private Member’s Bill through.
On unfinished business, we had a wonderful debate last week on Equitable Life. I have the privilege of co-chairing the all-party group on justice for Equitable Life policy holders, which now has more than 230 MPs as members. I shall not go over that debate, but let me be clear that we will not cease until such time as every individual who suffered as a result of that scam is properly compensated. The Government have a debt of honour, and it sends the wrong sort of signal to young people in this country when, at a time when we are asking them to save for their old age, the Government will not properly compensate the people who suffered, even though it is proven beyond doubt that the regulator, Equitable Life and the Treasury knew about the scam but did nothing about it. We need to right that wrong.
I am also chairman of the all-party group on smoking and health. Smoking is the single biggest cause of cancer, heart and respiratory disease in this country, with 78,000 people alone dying unnecessarily each year. I am concerned that we still do not have the tobacco control strategy that the Government announced. The previous one ran out in December 2015. There has been an extended period of consultation on why a new strategy needs to be put in place, so I trust that the Government will publish the long-awaited strategy shortly after Easter, so that we can get in place the measures we need to take to combat this terrible affliction and addiction.
Ian Mearns
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the tobacco control strategy. He mentioned football earlier: I used to say that the 90,000 people who died each year was around the capacity of Wembley; now, we are talking about the capacity of Old Trafford, but it is still very serious. The tobacco control strategy really is long overdue.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He is absolutely right.
I welcome the fact that the Government introduced a minimum excise duty in the Budget, and it will add, on average, some 35p to a packet of cigarettes. The money should go to the national health service to ensure that treatment is provided. We have introduced standardised packaging and a whole series of other measures to encourage people not to smoke, but that has meant that a number of local authorities are either phasing out, or removing completely, their smoking cessation services. The job is not yet done. In my own local borough of Harrow, the stop smoking services are being removed. Closing those services is a false economy when they have helped 1,751 people to give up smoking in the past two years alone. Such a move will return to haunt us unless we invest properly.
This week, the Government published the long-awaited consultation document on the use of the term “caste” and on caste discrimination, which was introduced in the Equality Act 2010. The term was added in the other place via an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. There was no proper oversight or proper debate on the repercussions of introducing such a term into the British legal framework, and indeed it was not properly debated in this Chamber either. A considerable amount of hurt has been suffered by the Hindu community in particular. I encourage the whole Hindu community across the UK to participate in the consultation, so that we can get this unnecessary, divisive and ill-thought out legislation off the statute book once and for all.
I have also raised in the House this week Pakistan’s decision to annex Gilgit-Baltistan, which had been illegally occupied by Pakistan in the first place. The annexation has caused widespread concern across the community and across the whole of Jammu and Kashmir. The reality is that we in Britain have a strategic role in helping to bring this divisive issue to an end, and we should use our good offices to prevent Pakistan increasing the impact on this area, especially as it had no right to occupy the area in the first place. The United Nations has registered that in a series of resolutions, yet Pakistan chooses to ignore them. We should ensure that we put that right.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I support everything that the hon. Gentleman says in respect of both the caste legislation and Pakistan, but may I bring him a little closer to home? He is a great campaigner for his local constituents. I am a frequent user of Stanmore station. Whenever he has spoken in such debates, he has mentioned the new lifts to be installed at the station. Has he brought any good news to this debate about those lifts?
Bob Blackman
I would dearly love to give the right hon. Gentleman good news about Stanmore station, especially as he uses it regularly. The sad fact is that a planning application was made by a private developer for a site alongside Stanmore station. The developer offered £1 million towards providing a lift. Harrow Council’s planning committee, in its infinite wisdom, decided to turn it down. It did not want the £1 million, so the developer, not unreasonably, took it away as part of their offer, but they still got their planning application for the flats alongside the station, which has received lots of objections from residents.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I realise that I am transgressing your informal time limit, but, having given way a couple of times, I will conclude on three quick issues that are of particular concern to local residents.
First, Harrow Council introduced the unwanted garden tax at the highest level in London—the highest garden tax in the country for garden waste collection—and has now increased it even further in this year’s budget. It is rightly objected to by residents all over the Borough of Harrow. Secondly, I am delighted that progress is happening, albeit slow, on the redevelopment of the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital, which I have been campaigning on for an extended period.
The final issues are of education and the police service in Harrow. I have registered with the Secretary of State my concern that the proposed new fairer funding formula will discriminate against schools in Harrow, as 17 schools in my constituency will actually lose money, not just in real terms. That is completely unacceptable. Equally, the concern about police funding is that the new proposals for amalgamating boroughs will mean that Harrow, which is the safest borough in London, will lose police and therefore be at greater risk of crime. That is also completely unacceptable, and I trust that we will put it right.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, the staff and everyone else involved in running the House a very happy and peaceful Easter. I look forward to coming back after the recess suitably refreshed. I apologise in advance that I am unlikely to be here for the wind-ups and the reply from the Deputy Leader of the House; I have to use the national health service for a long-awaited medical appointment that has to take precedence in these circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
May I remind hon. Members that the eight-minute limit does include interventions? If everybody takes this much time, I am afraid that the last Member who wants to speak will not get to do so.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate and pleased to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I am grateful to him and the mover of the motion, the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, for the work that they do in facilitating colleagues to raise important matters in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall. They do a very difficult job. Having been to the Committee only this week to bid for time, I know that its members have pressures to balance. I am sure that they will make the right decision, but I am happy to wait to hear their conclusions in due course.
The title of the debate on the Order Paper is “Matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment”. Such debates are an opportunity for colleagues to present their shopping lists to the Government and the House, and I hope to be brief in presenting mine. I shall begin with a few thanks. As co-chair of the all-party group on maritime and ports, may I express my appreciation to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), and congratulate him on commissioning Lord Mountevans to chair the maritime growth study? The growth strategy produced by the study led to Maritime UK, which is chaired by David Dingle and is trying to showcase British shipping and ports. That positive initiative is very important post-Brexit, and I wish it well.
I also wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his negotiations with the Treasury for an extra £15 million for support for maritime training—SMarT—for ratings and officer cadets on board merchant navy vessels. The SMarT money was introduced by the Labour Government in their 1997-to-2001 term. It produced 50% of funding for maritime training, but that is now down to a third. The right hon. Gentleman is arguing strongly with the Treasury, and I wish him success. The amount is only £15 million, which would double the £15 million that is already in the kitty, so he is not asking for a great deal. He is also working strongly on the contribution of shipping to air quality, and we are grateful for his efforts on that.
During my Adjournment debate last Friday on cochlear implants, I did not get the opportunity to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat), who explained that it was for not the Department of Health but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to decide who gets cochlear implants. Some 600,000 people out there could benefit from them. The Minister’s comments were positive and supportive, and I was grateful for the way in which he gave the Government’s response to the debate. NICE will come forward with the conclusions to its review this summer, so I hope that it will have listened to what he and I said.
The Department for Communities and Local Government has produced a White Paper on housing, and the Minister for Housing and Planning is in charge of taking it forward. The Governments of 1986, 1993 and 2002 all tried to reform leasehold provisions, but were unsuccessful, and now this Government are trying again. The hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and I co-chair the all-party group on leasehold reform, and I hope that the Government will be able to bring forward proposals on that in due course. The Housing Minister might also want to examine the role and accountability of housing associations, which is probably worth doing, given how important they now are within the housing market. They do great work, but when they do get things wrong, it is hard to rectify those problems.
I want to express gratitude to International Development Ministers for facilitating meetings between their officials and the international aid charity Fire Aid, which I chair. It is a small non-governmental organisation that is, on behalf of UK plc, delivering the millennium sustainable development goals put forward by the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. It works to reduce the one and a quarter million people dying on the world’s roads every year and the 20 million who are seriously injured. DFID deals in billions of pounds. We are a small NGO, and £20,000 or £50,000 is life or death to us, but this does not feature on DFID’s radar. DFID Ministers are reviewing the role of small NGOs in delivering international objectives, and we would be very grateful if they were to proceed on that more positively.
I want to issue an apology to the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). During proceedings on the statement on personal independence payments made by the Secretary of State for the Department for Work and Pensions in late February, I asked about reports of the hon. Gentleman’s comments about PIP and those suffering from mental health conditions. The Secretary of State advised me that his hon. Friend had issued an apology for his reported remarks and hoped that the House would accept that. Obviously I completely accept the assurance of the Secretary of State and the apology issued on the hon. Gentleman’s website, which I have since had a chance to visit. Having raised the matter as a complaint, it is only right for me to put on record my acceptance of his position.
There is still a case for the fire service to have a statutory duty to deal with flooding. I see the chair of the all-party group on fire safety rescue, the hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), in the Chamber. The Government’s position has been that the fire brigade will turn up to floods like it turns up to fires, special services and road traffic crashes. Those are all now statutory duties, but it took decades for them to arrive. I think that a statutory duty on flooding will arrive, but the quicker it does, the better. I welcome the joint working between the fire service and the national health service on social care issues in Greater Manchester, and with the ambulance service in London. I recognise that in many counties the fire service is now answering more medical calls than fire calls. This is clearly moving the fire service into more combined working. The Government are disinclined to create a fire and emergency medical rescue service, as we see in most other countries. However, it seems to be happening none the less, even though the Government are not putting it forward.
The final political matter I want to raise is the lack of prosecutions following the court case on electoral fraud and other offences in Tower Hamlets. Despite the judgments and penalties handed down by the electoral court, and despite the allegations of fraud, corruption, mortgage fraud, wrongful disposal of buildings, abuse of grants and so on, there have been no prosecutions—all has gone unpunished. I hope that the review by the Mayor of London and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary might mean that something will be satisfactorily concluded for the residents of Tower Hamlets.
Naturally, last week’s events are still very fresh, as is the grieving of the families and friends of those who were killed and seriously injured, who are very much in our thoughts. The lockdown was a stressful experience for many of us here in the Chamber and the Lobbies, notwithstanding the safety we were in. I want to place on record my thanks to the Deputy Speaker, the Doorkeepers, the police and security officers, and other staff for looking after us. I hope that we all have a safe and peaceful Easter, and that those who are still in emotional and physical pain secure some relief.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Before the House adjourns for the Easter recess, I wish to raise a number of points. I shall end with a tribute to two Officers of the House who are retiring today.
We are leaving the European Union. My goodness, it has taken nine months actually to start the process, but now that we have done so, local fishermen Daryl Godbold and Paul Gilson have drawn to my attention the fact that marine conservation zones prohibit fishing in 20% of UK waters, but allow dredging for sand and gravel. That is weakening the British fishing industry, as Thames estuary fish stock levels are at a bare minimum due to dredging. Crabbing is popular in our area and apparently there is a shortage of local crabs. I hope that we will get on with addressing that issue quickly.
Last week there was a Westminster Hall debate about Iran. It is absolutely disgraceful that its regime funds Hamas and Hezbollah.
If the national schools funding formula goes ahead unchanged, every single school in Southend will be worse off and I will have to vote against the proposition.
Southend hospital has a successful regime. There is new management in place and I wish it well. It is very important that local residents realise that the A&E at Southend will not be closing. As the new chief executive officer, Clare Panniker, has said:
“We are not discussing any plans to move Southend A&E to Basildon. Our current thinking is that there should be 24/7 A&E services at all three hospital sites in mid and south Essex for the majority of people who go to A&E.”
I shall hold a health summit in April to take that matter further.
I hope that the House realises that Southend is the alternative city of culture. It was such a joy to welcome the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) to talk about the wonderful books that he has written. Tonight, after I have left here, I will go to the Southend’s Got Talent competition. In May, stilt-walkers will walk nonstop from Southend to No. 10 Downing Street, where they will present the Prime Minister with a letter from our good selves asking for Southend to become a city—[Interruption.] Unfortunately, we are not a city. It is 125 years since the inauguration of the borough, and I am delighted to say that we now have a town crier. We will celebrate a festival in Chalkwell park between 27 and 29 May.
I was delighted that Princess Anne visited Southend recently and paid tribute to all our volunteers at the citizens advice bureau. Members of Parliament really do benefit from such bureaux.
Following on from what the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, we recently visited the excellent Fire Service College in Moreton. I hope that the facility will be promoted as a national training service by the Department for Communities and Local Government, and that the Ministry of Defence seriously considers the college’s bid to provide defence fire and rescue programmes for the armed services. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) joined me on the visit to that wonderful centre.
Uber is a delicate subject, but I for one am not very happy about the situation, which is certainly having an impact on the taxi trade in Southend. I therefore hope that the Policing and Crime Act 2017 will be amended accordingly.
Two constituents of mine, Valerie and Tony Rochester, have brought to my attention the situation regarding freeholders. They say that they have been mistreated by Gateway Property Management and the freeholders, Westleigh Properties. They were asked to pay £5,220 in February 2016 for building works that did not begin until 2 August 2016. The eventual work was unsatisfactory, and that is just one case of many in which leaseholders have been led to believe that they owned their property. Clearly the Government need to review the situation.
On 12 July, as I mentioned a couple of hours ago, the responsible pet competition will take place near Westminster. I hope that everyone will enter it.
I have the honour of being chairman of the all-party group on the Maldives. The Government occasionally send me on the odd trip to the Maldives, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Investment held a meeting recently about new trading opportunities.
The Made in Britain trade centres are absolutely wonderful. I recently hosted a reception for the Alliance for Human Relevant Science and Safer Medicines, which does wonderful work.
On funerals and bereavement, following meetings with Dignity funeral services and Golden Charter, I congratulate them on the high-quality services that they provide and their desire to ensure that people are adequately accompanied during times of bereavement. I was especially moved to find that Dignity does not charge funeral costs for anyone under the age of 17. Both groups raised concerns about the lack of licensing and regulation of funeral services, which often leads to people being charged an unfair amount for funeral costs. I pay tribute to Rio Ferdinand, as I think that the recent BBC programme about his bereavement struck a chord with us all and I very much support what he wishes to do. His brother, Anton, whom I will be seeing later this evening, happens to be the captain of Southend United, who are back in the playoff zone.
Last week was Salt Awareness Week, and we need to do much more on the matter. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association roadshow visited Southend and I pay tribute to the secretary-general, who attended the event with me.
We are leaving the European Union. As a result, Borough Plating has already gained £9 million in additional business, which is excellent.
The Jazz Centre and National Jazz Archive have opened in Southend. Digby Fairweather is leading that project, which is truly wonderful. The YMCA “Sleep Easy”, at which people raised money overnight, was led by our mayor, Mrs Judith McMahon, and Syrie Cox, the chief executive of Southend YMCA.
On lobbying, I really despair about social media. There are some low-lifes who put the most disgusting remarks on newspaper comment sections as soon as an issue is mentioned. Why they are allowed to do that, I do not know.
Southend airport will benefit once again from duty-free goods.
I end with a tribute to two officers. John Wrighton, who has worked in our post office off Members’ Lobby for 38 years, is retiring today. He has done an absolutely magnificent job. Alan Dickens is our longest-serving Doorkeeper, and he leaves the service of the House tomorrow. He has been a Doorkeeper since 1993 and senior Doorkeeper since 2004. He entered the Royal Marines Band Service in 1969, and he was invalided out of the service aged 24. He has been a loyal servant of the House. Apparently, he intends to spend his time caravanning with his wife of 41 years, Maureen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and your team under the Speaker, and all colleagues, a very happy Easter.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Before I start, I want to add my tribute to the many others that have been paid to Keith Palmer, who lost his life protecting us; and to his colleagues, who went straight back to work protecting us. Our thoughts are with all who were injured and bereaved in the incident last Wednesday, and our gratitude goes to those in the emergency services and the many others who responded so quickly. It was also helpful to get messages of condolence from our faith leaders, including our local Muslim leaders.
It is almost two years since I was elected to this House. It has been an honour, and it has sometimes been hugely rewarding, but too often it has not been a pleasure. Sadly, too much of my constituency casework has been about dealing with the impact on my constituents and their families of this Government’s deliberate decisions. I and my small and overstretched team have dealt with more than 20,000 requests for help or support in the last 22 months. Although many people who contact me do so to seek my views on everything from Brexit to animal welfare, a very large—and growing—number of people turn to me because they just do not know what to do to get the change that they so badly need. That includes the many people who are dependent on council services and other services, or on disability or bereavement benefits that are being withdrawn or rationed because of Government funding cuts.
In the short time that I have available, I will touch on some local examples that illustrate the Government’s lack of interest in, and compassion for, my constituents and people across the country. First, though, I have been wondering why the Government hold children in such low regard. Children who have lost their mother or father, and whose family will lose bereavement benefits; third and subsequent children in families who benefit from tax credits, who will no longer be entitled to benefit for those additional children; and children in school, whose schools already face cuts and will be cut further when the national funding formula comes in, are just some of those who will be affected by this Government’s policies.
The Prime Minister started her term of office by expressing concern for those who are just about managing and are worrying about paying the mortgage. In my constituency in west London, most people not already on the housing ladder worry about paying the rent, and having a mortgage is a distant and unlikely dream, given that the average sale price is two and a half times the average salary. The rent of a modest two-bedroom flat in Isleworth in the middle of my constituency costs three quarters of the take-home pay of an average Heathrow worker or even of a teacher. As such a family are considered to be adequately housed, they do not have any hope of getting a council house or a housing association flat. The income of those constituents is way below that needed for any of the so-called affordable housing schemes—shared ownership, starter home or 80% market rental—promoted by this Government.
I want to move on to the confluence of policy and bureaucracy, starting with the roll-out of universal credit. For those of my constituents who are on low incomes or who are unable to work at all, universal credit has been torture, on top of the punishment of ever lower benefit caps and the cutting back of support for people with disabilities and long-term health conditions. I do not know whether this Government are consciously driving through the enforced destitution of those on low incomes and the slightly better-off families who do not have benefits to fall back on, or whether civil service cuts mean that there is just no one to implement the system properly, but that means claimants have no money at all for weeks and families whose members are working have enough to buy food but worry about whether the money they are due for their rent will ever come through. There is the sheer bureaucratic mess: one form was on its 54th iteration when we last looked at it.
Sadly, crazy bureaucracy led by mendacious policies are not confined to the Department for Work and Pensions in my experience as a Member of the House. Over 40% of my constituents were born overseas, and I have lost count of the number of people in my weekly advice surgeries who have told me that their application to the Home Office has been turned down without Home Office staff even looking at their paperwork. For example, there was the woman whose application was refused on only one count of the many she had to pass. She was told she had failed the English test, despite the fact that the certificate stating she had passed with distinction was right there as part of her application. There was the French citizen whose application for UK citizenship was refused because she failed the test of permanent residency. Why? Because she had had the temerity to go on a two-day break abroad exactly three years to the day before the date of her citizenship application. Both these cases illustrate how those affected and their families feel that they are victims of the rule about getting net immigration down to 100,000—a pledge dreamed up by the Prime Minister when she was Home Secretary. The last example leads me on to Brexit. I supported remain, and 60% of my constituents agreed with me because of what it means to their family, their work, their business, or their hopes and aspirations for the UK. For many, it is personal. The French national I have mentioned—her family had a referendum vote, but she did not—is worried for her future. She has now retired, but has lived here and paid taxes continually for 30 years. She has married a UK citizen, and has two UK children. She applied for UK citizenship, which she had never wanted to do, because, like 3 million others, she has been given no assurance that she can stay here and claim the pension—and, if needed, the social and health care support—that she has paid for throughout her working life in the UK. She would not of course be eligible for any of that support if she were forced to return to France.
I want to finish by mentioning the concern of our communities about the impact of the third runway at Heathrow. Heathrow is the major driver of our local economy, and it is and will continue to be vital to UK plc, but until we develop glider passenger planes, the expansion of Heathrow will mean more noise for many more people—300,000 people—in and around London.
I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all Members and staff of the House a peaceful and happy Easter recess. I hope you will accept my apologies, but I have to leave before the winding-up speeches in order to chair a community meeting about station overcrowding.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I want to raise again the ongoing and tragic situation in Syria. Of course we want to help Syria, but equally we do not want to be dragged into another Iraq or Afghanistan situation. To date, our strategy has been carefully sculpted so as not to get committed on the ground, yet to provide help from the air and with intelligence. The stark truth is that President Bashar al-Assad, the 19th President of Syria, is going nowhere. His regime, which many predicted would topple several years ago, has been stabilised by Russian support, and the Russians are there to stay. They want to keep their port at Tartus and their airbase, Hmeimim, south-east of Latakia. Those are now strategic jewels for Russia and are unlikely to be given up easily.
Whatever we may think of the current Syrian Government, though, for many people in Syria, President Assad is their best hope, and it is all they have got. For those living in Damascus, he is their only choice. They believe that the stark option is between Assad and Daesh. In truth, such people would receive short shrift from Daesh. They also think, with good reason, that no foreign country would intervene to save them if Daesh arrived in their capital city. For them, Assad is all they have got, and they are probably right.
However, I feel that the circumstances could now allow for the establishment of a humanitarian safe zone. That would not be easy to achieve, but it is possible. If the international community was determined enough, it could happen. From what he says, President Trump and his Secretary of State Rex Tillerson are now also prepared to accept the establishment of safe zones. Maybe the Russians and President Assad might also agree to it, but Daesh certainly would not. Thus, it is clear that safe zones must be positioned where the chances of interference from Daesh, or indeed al-Qaeda, are reduced to a minimum.
The easiest of such areas to establish may be in the north of Syria. The first possibility appears to be in the north-west of the country, perhaps stretching from Kilis to Aleppo, then south to Idlib and thence to the Turkish border again, near Reyhanli. Another possibility could be in north-central Syria, bounded in the west by Azaz and stretching east to the Euphrates while extending south to al-Bab.
Let me focus on the north-west zone, which is around 1,500 sq km in area—about the size of Wales. There is a little al-Qaeda activity there, which would have to be sorted out by military action, but that may not be too difficult. Importantly, Daesh does not operate there. Nor is the region of great strategic interest to Russia or, really, to President Assad. Right now it is predominantly controlled by the Free Syrian Army and other moderate groups. It already contains about 500,000 displaced persons who really need help. The British charity Syria Relief has a few functioning schools there, and the Union of Medical Care and Relief Organisations also runs several effective hospitals and clinics nearby. Both schools and medical facilities could readily be expanded if the safe zone concept were allowed to come to fruition. Personally, I would not be averse to using British soldiers for such a purpose. In my experience, they are quite good at that sort of thing.
In conclusion on Syria, I believe that the time is right for us to be more energetic there. Can we make safe zones work there? Of course we could, if the international community really wants it. In truth, the chances of success are greater now than they have been for the last six years.
May I end by quickly mentioning that I, too, like my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess)—who is not in his place at the moment—feel that Uber is taking the biscuit? It is under-regulated, its drivers undertrained, and it is putting very good, proper black cabbies out of work. That has got to be sorted. Perhaps Transport for London requires investigating on the matter.
I am desperately sad that Keith Palmer was killed last week—we in the House all feel that way. God bless him. God bless everyone in this House who has worked to make us safe over the last Session, and thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for all you and the House staff have done.
Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)
I would like to use this debate to highlight three areas where I feel our national health service might do a bit better. The first, regular attendees of this debate will not be surprised to learn, is about the medical procedure of hysteroscopy.
To refresh our memories, a hysteroscopy is when a small device, often including a camera, is inserted manually through the cervix into the womb, usually to cut a sample from the tissue or lining which can be used to help to diagnose cancers and fertility issues. It is usually performed without any anaesthetic. I am told—reassured—by medical professionals that it rarely causes discomfort. However, as we have heard before in this House, it can also be horrifically painful.
This is the fourth time I have raised the issue and when I last spoke I asked for a letter from the Minister to address the issue. I must thank those on the Government Benches for ensuring that such a response was forthcoming. Unfortunately, the response from the Department of Health was, if I can put it gently, bland in the extreme and did not really move the issue forward. I have written again, this time to the Secretary of State for Health. I have asked him or one of his Commons team to meet me and discuss this issue in person. The Secretary of State is not a bad man, so I hope that with the encouragement of the Minister on the Treasury Bench I might be successful.
Since raising this issue in December, I have been contacted by even more women. Given how short the debate is, I will mention only one story. This is from a woman in Leicester, who said:
“The prior information leaflet suggested there would be minimal pain...it was so excruciatingly painful that I began to cry out, my body went into shock and I started to sweat profusely. I came over disorientated and dizzy, I felt heavily nauseous and I began to pass out. I have never experienced agonising pain like it in all my life...when arriving home, I spent a long time crying, curled up in a ball doubled over with pain...the use of no local anaesthesia in this procedure seriously requires investigation.”
Bob Stewart
I have heard the hon. Lady on this subject several times before. It deeply upsets me that doctors do not recognise the pain that women undergo and apparently continue to say, “There will be mild discomfort” when women are in agony. For goodness’ sake, this has to be sorted!
Lyn Brown
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has listened to me, wincing, through the many debates in which I have raised this issue. I know I have genuine support on both sides of the Chamber, so I am hopeful that his Secretary of State will come up with a solution that will enable us to move forward.
A colleague of ours in this place had to undergo this procedure and she was mindful of my words. She attended a central London hospital and, with no little trepidation, asked about anaesthesia. The doctor looked at her with disbelief and said, “They use anaesthesia as a matter of course, because to do anything else would be barbaric.” All we are asking for is that all women get the same care and attention whichever hospital they go to and whichever part of the country they live in.
My second issue is the speed of cancer diagnosis. West Ham has a relatively low incidence of cancer, but patients from my constituency are, unusually, likely to die within a year of being diagnosed. The essential research done by Cancer Research UK makes the primary reason for this clear: too many of my constituents die because successful diagnosis takes too long. To be honest, they also do not get to the doctors early enough to seek diagnosis. Less than half of cancers in the Newham clinical commissioning group area are diagnosed early, significantly fewer than the national average. This problem was highlighted this Wednesday by the “Today” programme on Radio 4. Currently, many patients across the country go through a drawn-out, stressful and expensive process of diagnosis. They may be referred to an oncologist for testing too late, and there is clearly a role for better and more consistently observed guidelines to prevent that.
Even when patients are referred, however, they often face a series of appointments with specialists, waiting for test results between those appointments. Many symptoms of cancer are ambiguous, especially at the essential early stages. A shift in policy towards rapid testing for multiple cancer types could be expected to improve early detection rates, giving more patients a new lease of life, saving patients and healthcare staff a great deal of stress and time, and, indeed, saving the NHS money through the adoption of a more efficient process.
I have personal reasons for raising this issue today. Had such early detection been available a few years ago, my mum might still be with me today instead of leaving us far too soon, and completely unexpectedly, on a Mothering Sunday morning. I give notice that I shall be seeking a longer debate in the House, but, in the meantime, I should be grateful if the Deputy Leader of the House would ask the Department of Health to write to inform me of its current plans to move towards faster and more joined-up cancer diagnosis.
I also have some concerns about plans for a weakening of the link between the recommendations of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the availability of recommended treatments to patients. Access to treatments can already be delayed by 90 days, but under the new rules, approved treatments with a high overall cost—regardless of the cost per treatment—could be delayed by health commissioning authorities in England for at least three years, 13 times longer than is currently allowed. Colleagues in all parts of the House have argued in recent months that the right balance between affordability and equal access to effective treatments for those who need them has not yet been found. I echo that view, and I would appreciate any reassurance that the Government can offer that they are committed to re-examining these issues soon.
I, too, will be remembering Keith Palmer over the break, and I will be thinking of everyone and hoping that they are all safe. I say to all Members, and to all the members of staff who look after us so well: have a great Easter break.
Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her passionate speech. She speaks with great eloquence.
Let me join other Members in paying tribute to PC Keith Palmer, whom my hon. Friend mentioned, and who tragically lost his life in the attack on Westminster last week. His death was a reminder of the vitally important and dangerous work that our police forces do every day to keep us safe. I join others, too, in sending my deepest condolences to his wife, children, family and friends, and to the wider family of the Metropolitan police.
I also pay tribute to the Serjeant at Arms for what he did during that crisis. He was so cool, and he was able to calm the nerves of so many people in the Palace. I am grateful to him for the work that he did—and, indeed, I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House, who, recognising that I had diabetes, approached me several times to offer me biscuits. It was the first time that he had offered me biscuits; he usually borrows chocolate biscuits from me at Norman Shaw North. I was very grateful for the concern that he showed for Members.
Sadly, attacks on our police officers are all too common. In February, the Police Federation of England and Wales revealed that more than 6,000 officers are assaulted every day on our streets, which means that a police officer is attacked every 13 seconds. That is a staggering statistic. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for the work that she has done in raising the issue of attacks on the police force. It is important for us to recognise that they are happening on a daily basis, and I commend her campaign.
When he responds to the debate, will the Deputy Leader of the House tell us what measures are being taken to reduce the number of such attacks, and to provide better protection for our police officers? He will remember all the excellent work that he did on the Home Affairs Committee when we considered these issues, but it would be good to know what the Government are doing.
Bob Stewart
I intervene very briefly just to remind people that nowadays some police widows lose pensions when they remarry. I think that the House should take action to deal with that, because it is totally unfair. It does not apply throughout the country—it does not apply in Northern Ireland—but we must get this right: police widows deserve justice.
Keith Vaz
The hon. Gentleman must have read my speech or hacked my emails, because he clearly knows that I am going to come on to the subject of police widows shortly, and I agree with him on that point. Let me first turn to the other issue of policing that I want to raise: the police funding formula.
Given the dangerous roles our officers play in keeping us safe, I am sad to see the damage done by reductions in police force budgets over the last few years. Of course I understand why this is happening, but it is right that we should point it out. This problem has been compounded by the continued failure of the Home Office to implement a new funding formula, something that affects every single Member of the House here today.
As a result, police forces cannot predict their future funding. At a recent meeting with the police and crime commissioner for Leicestershire, Lord Bach, and Chief Constable Simon Cole, Leicestershire MPs were told that constabularies like Leicestershire have complex funding challenges, that the funding they have is inadequate for a mix of urban and rural policing, and that forces cannot adapt and keep up with modern crime issues like cybercrime unless they know what is happening in respect of their allocations.
In November 2015 the former policing Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), said the review on this was being paused until the National Police Chiefs Council carried out a capabilities review. Sara Thornton, chair of the NPCC, has said that this review does not stop the Government continuing with announcing the results of the funding formula. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House when the new funding formula arrangements will be published.
Another area that needs urgent review is police pensions—I am most grateful to the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) for raising this point, because he is right to do so—particularly in relation to how officers’ widows receive their pensions. Legislation passed in 2006 meant that the partners of any new police officers were entitled to receive a pension for life. Those falling under the 1987 regulations—the year I was elected to this House—were allowed to opt into the new scheme. However, the new rules introduced in 2015 effectively deny police widows in England and Wales who remarried before 1 April 2015 the right to move on with their lives and find happiness, as they cannot get this pension. The flip-flopping of legislation that has affected these families is totally unacceptable. How can it be fair that a widow who has remarried after 1 April 2015 can be awarded a pension for life, but one who has remarried before that date is denied that entitlement on a mere technicality?
Keith Vaz
And, indeed, her children. There are disparities in how the pension regulations apply across the United Kingdom. The remarriage deadline applies only to England and Wales. There is no such cut-off date in Scotland. In Northern Ireland all survivors rightly keep their pensions for life, no matter how their former partner died. Can the Deputy Leader of the House explain why English and Welsh widows are treated in this way, while their Scottish, Northern Irish and other counterparts are not faced with that difficulty?
Finally, let me raise the issue of written parliamentary questions. The Deputy Leader of the House is a master at giving replies to difficult questions. I was reading a debate in which he was involved recently, and he used the following phrases when asked about the timetable for the restoration works on the House of Commons: “in due course”, “in the fullness of time”, and “shortly”. These are his favourite replies; he could star in his very own version of “Yes Minister”, playing both the Minister and Sir Humphrey.
I recently wrote to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), Chair of the Procedure Committee, to complain about the disappointing answers I had received to two written questions: from the Minister for Immigration and the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). Parliamentary questions are about facts: we ask a question and we get a reply. I asked the Minister for Immigration how many entry clearance officers there were in Mumbai, and back came not a reply giving me the numbers but a press release on the wonderful work being done by entry clearance officers. I already knew about that. I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union how many civil servants had been seconded to his Department, and again I got a press release. I did not get the facts and figures, which are what we need. Will the Deputy Leader of the House look into the issue of written parliamentary questions? Let us get rid of all this “in due course” and “shortly”, and concentrate instead on providing factual answers to factual questions.
I do not want to delay my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) from beginning her speech, because it is her birthday today and I know that she wants to go off and celebrate. I cannot end, however, without wishing Members of the House, the Serjeant at Arms, the Chair and all the Officers who do such fantastic work a very happy recess. There are three supporters of Leicester City football club in the Chamber: myself, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I do not know why I always think that my hon. Friend is the Member for Skegness; it is nearby. Leicester City are the only English team remaining in the Champions League. Forget about all the others that spend billions of pounds on their players; we are in the last eight, and on 12 and 18 April, we will be playing Atlético Madrid. Easter is a Christian festival, and we believe in rebirth and in the blessings of almighty God. We hope that those blessings will be upon the Leicester City team as they undertake the most important two matches in their entire football lives. I am sure that the whole House will be with me on that.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). I should just like to thank him for blowing my cover; I was trying to keep my birthday quiet. He was the first person in the House to wish me a happy birthday today, however, and I am grateful to him for that—[Interruption.] Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I should like to echo my right hon. Friend’s comments about PC Keith Palmer and to extend my sympathies to his family and to the families and friends of all those who died during the terrible events of last week. Two things have come out of those events. The first is that we are going to have a review of our response, which is the right thing to do. I will certainly be feeding in my views on what we could have done better. Some things were done very well, and I am grateful to all the staff of the House for protecting us, but we as MPs should have taken more responsibility for our reactions and for looking after the numerous visitors and children in the building. I did not know what on earth was going on, and the people I was with did not know either. I think that we could look after our visitors better.
For me, there is a second issue that has come out of last week’s event. The Prime Minister has encouraged us as MPs to learn more about first aid, but I am struck by the fact that it was this Government who talked out a Bill to introduce compulsory first aid training in schools. Try as I might, I cannot see the logic of the Government encouraging people to learn first aid while putting a block on making it a compulsory part of our children’s education. What better way could there be to teach children first aid skills that they can carry with them for the rest of their lives, so that they can feel confident about dealing with emergencies? With that in mind, I have written to the Prime Minister to ask her to revisit the question of teaching first aid in schools. I await her reply.
I want to take this opportunity to raise the issue of the Government’s drugs strategy. Drug-related deaths in England and Wales have hit record levels, with cocaine deaths reaching an all-time high in 2015 and deaths involving heroin or morphine doubling over three years to reach record levels.
The Prime Minister is facing a barrage of criticism over the policies she pursued while Home Secretary, with Niamh Eastwood, the executive director of drugs charity Release, saying:
“The Home Office’s pursuit of a ‘tough on drugs’ strategy and refusal to acknowledge the evidence for best practice in drug treatment is quite literally killing people.”
Martin Powell, of the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, echoes that view and says:
“The Home Office—under the now Prime Minister’s watch—is responsible for the highest number of drug deaths ever recorded. That the Prime Minister keeps claiming her drug policy is working should send a chill down the spine of every parent and reasonable person in the country. She knows, from countless studies, what keeps communities safe, and it isn’t driving people away from help and into the hands of criminals. It is responsible reforms that take the drug market away from dealers, and puts it into the hands of doctors and pharmacists.”
Drug-related deaths are increasing, and new drugs and associated problems are causing problems in prisons and emergency departments. In February 2016, the Government confirmed:
“We will shortly be publishing a new Drug Strategy.”
At the Christmas Adjournment, my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon) reminded the House that, barring an unexpected delivery from Santa Claus, it was still not to be seen. She asked again in the new year and was told that it would be “soon.” So “soon” in Government terms, means months, and “shortly” means more than a year. Will Ministers please announce an actual date for the drug strategy, or would we be better off asking the Easter bunny?
Local Authorities have seen their funding for drug and alcohol treatment slashed by 42% since 2010. Many clients seeking treatment for addiction lead chaotic lives and many struggle with a whole host of difficulties that go far beyond their addiction. They might be embroiled in the criminal justice system and need advice, they might have housing problems or be struggling with trauma, or they might have been in care and survived institutional abuse. Positions for psychologists in drug and alcohol addiction teams who could provide treatment for complex trauma related to sexual abuse have also been cut.
Members of the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party parliamentary group, of which I am a member, are today debating in the other place the cost of alcohol misuse to the National Health Service. There are more than 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions each year, and alcohol is a contributory factor in more than 200 different health conditions. Our cross-party group will be discussing alcohol misuse and treatment after Easter, on 26 April. As one regular contributor to group meetings, John Jolly, has said:
“As Chief Executive of a drugs and alcohol charity I see the harm that alcohol does on a daily basis. I saw the impact as a police officer. I saw the impact as a probation officer. I saw the impact on children and families as a social worker. For this reason I would urge the Government to take urgent action to develop a national alcohol strategy”.
The shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), whose father was sadly an alcoholic, has also called for greater recognition of the damage done by excessive drinking. Drug and alcohol abuse and addiction are not going to go away. Let us hope that both a drugs strategy and an alcohol strategy will be forthcoming as a matter of urgency.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in the House on any issue. I begin by joining those who have already conveyed their sympathies regarding PC Palmer and the innocents who were murdered just over a week ago. We also think of the injured, some of whom are critical even today, and their families.
I rise to speak not about the geological components of drought and what causes it, but about the suffering of men, women and children in Africa and what can be done to help them. We all know the issues, and we see them on TV. I will not be the only one in this Chamber who has seen the devastating images of children who are so malnourished that they cannot even stand. I read the report from Save the Children, which brings home the extent of the problem in Africa at present. It states that an estimated 6.5 million children could be at risk of starvation in the horn of Africa as a result of the back-to-back droughts in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Nearly 500,000 children in the region are already suffering from severe acute malnutrition.
What is malnutrition? It is a lack of nutritious food, which has an horrific effect on quality of life. Malnutrition increases the risk of infection and infectious disease, and even moderate malnutrition weakens every part of the immune system. For example, it is a major risk factor in the onset of active tuberculosis. Protein and energy malnutrition and deficiencies of specific micronutrients, including iron, zinc and vitamins, increase susceptibility to infection. All that happens to people who do not have food.
Malnutrition affects HIV transmission by increasing the risk of transmission from mother to child and by increasing the replication of the virus. Again, the complications are far-reaching. In communities or areas that lack access to safe drinking water, those additional health risks present a critical problem. Lower energy and impaired brain function represent the downward spiral of malnutrition as victims are less able to perform the tasks needed to acquire food, earn an income or gain an education. That is a massive problem, as several seasons of either failed or erratic rainfall have led to severe water shortages and the death of livestock, leaving nearly 15 million people across the three countries in urgent need of assistance. We have seen charities requesting help on TV, and the Government are doing a lot, but I urge them to do more.
With the next rainy season again expected to bring below-average rainfall across the region, the situation for already desperate children and families in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya will only get worse, leaving millions at risk of hunger, lifelong health problems and, worse, death. I take on board the urgings of John Graham, the Ethiopia country director of Save the Children, who in January 2017, ahead of the UN meeting in Addis Ababa, said:
“we urge them not to forget the plight of these children and families by stepping up their efforts to fund this response. The lives of millions are at stake. We must not allow many of the same past errors that resulted in the deaths of 130,000 children under five during the last Somalia famine alone, to be repeated.”
I continue that plea and look to our International Development Ministers. What have the Government done since January to help address this tragic situation? What is in place to ensure that aid reaches its destination intact? And what more can we do in this place to ensure that that happens? Focusing attention in this debate is one way of doing it.
With 5 million people, nearly half its population, facing severe food and water shortages, Somalia is now on the verge of famine. Malnutrition rates across Somalia have already reached critical levels and are expected to worsen in the coming weeks. Thousands of families are on the move in search of food and water, and many are now crossing the border into Ethiopia, which is dealing with its own effects of the drought, in search of help.
After screening on arrival at Dollo Ado camp, 77% of children show signs of malnutrition. In Ethiopia, the drought is forcing many children to drop out of school, leaving them at risk of early marriage and forced migration, both of which we do not want to happen. Again, those are the side effects of drought. The Ethiopian Government are working to mitigate the effects of last year’s drought, and the country is appealing for $948 million of funding. Ethiopia itself has already committed some $47 million to help 5.6 million people in need, but even that will never come anywhere near addressing the issue. In Kenya, more than 1.25 million people are in urgent need of food, with hunger levels expected to worsen over the coming months.
The level of need can be, and is, overwhelming, but the young man who threw starfish back into the sea was making a difference to as many as he could, which is all I ask today. Are we making a difference to as many people as we can? I understand that we are not able to solve all the problems of that nation, and that we are not able to solve all the problems of our own nation, but we can make sure that we do all we can to see that the aid we have to offer is going directly to the right places and ends up in the hands and the bellies of the children and others who so desperately need it.
I understand that the Deputy Leader of the House will be responding, but I hope my message will go to the Department for International Development either directly or through him. I hope that, either now or at a later date, there is a strategy in place to secure our goals. I seek assurance that we are doing all we possibly can, and in the best possible way.
I conclude by thanking you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this House on a regular basis, and I thank the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker for also making that possible. I am very honoured to be the Member for Strangford and to sit in the greatest seat of democracy in the whole world. What a privilege it is to be able to sit in this place on behalf of our people. I say, with respect to everyone else in this House, that I know I represent some of the most wonderful people in the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the people of Strangford. These are people I have known all my life.
I also wish to thank all the House staff and the right hon. and hon. Members for their courtesy and good manners. I thank the Deputy Leader of the House and the shadow Deputy Leader of the House in advance for the contributions they are going to make. I also wish to remind people of the real meaning of Easter, which is that our Lord and saviour was crucified on the cross and came into the world to save sinners.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is always a great privilege to respond from the Front Bench in these debates, where we hear an eclectic mix of issues and we realise the true passion that colleagues have on a great many issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) opened the debate and said he was going to offer some home truths from his north-east constituency, and he certainly did so. He painted a vibrant picture of the Haredi Jewish community in Gateshead celebrating Purim, and it crossed my mind as we move into the Easter recess that it is important to remember the connections between Easter and the Jewish Passover. Obviously much of the symbolism is the same, as is the position in the calendar, but in many languages the words for “Easter” and for “Passover” are identical or very similar. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just reminded us about the true meaning of Easter, which is that the Lord loved us so much that he gave his son, who died for us but then rose again. Some hope can be offered to this House through that Easter message.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead had some banter with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about football. Unfortunately, the latter cannot be in his place at the moment, but he said he did not want to jinx Newcastle United’s good season by mentioning them. I should point out that when I mentioned Barrow A.F.C. during the Christmas Adjournment debate it absolutely jinxed their great winning streak, and I apologise to all Barrow fans who might be watching this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) came in with his shopping list, and he is a passionate co-chair of the all-party group on maritime and ports. He raised some important issues, as we leave the European Union, about the way in which we support and train the next generation of merchant navy seamen, and I supported his calls on that. I also support his calls for the fire and rescue service to have a statutory duty in respect of flooding, as our firefighters already respond to flooding incidents when called to do so.
The hon. Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) raised the issue of the school funding formula, and I am sure that there is not a Member who does not have a case from their constituency where they feel their schools are losing out. I certainly have cases in my constituency; I was most surprised, given the Government’s rhetoric on grammar schools, to receive a letter from the Lancaster Royal Grammar School outlining the huge cuts that it faces to its budget. It appears that no school is safe from these cuts. The hon. Gentleman was heading off to Southend’s Got Talent competition and if he was in his place I would have wished him good luck with whichever talent it was that he was hoping to win the competition with.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised the issue of the 20,000 requests she has had for help and support in the past 22 months, which highlights the work of Members in serving their constituents, doing much of it behind the scenes. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) raised the issue of Syria and reminded us of the role that we all play as a country on the world stage when the answers do not always seem very obvious. This Easter recess might be a time for many Members to reflect on the role we can play.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) once again raised the issue of hysteroscopies. If Ministers think that she will be going away any time soon, they might want to think again. I suspect that if things are not resolved, she will be back at the next Adjournment debate before a recess raising the exact same issue, as she does at every opportunity she gets.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) talked about many issues relating to police matters and about the real need for justice for police widows. As we move towards the Easter Adjournment, we do so with a great sense of loss and sadness in our hearts, because last week we lost PC Keith Palmer, who was part of our Westminster village. That has affected every one of us. On behalf of the Opposition Front-Bench team, I add my condolences to PC Palmer’s family, friends and colleagues in this place as they mourn his loss. We remember all those killed and injured in last Wednesday’s act of terrorism and thank all those who work so hard to keep us safe, not only here in the Houses of Parliament but in our constituencies. We also thank all those who work for the security services doing work that goes unseen but that saves a great many lives.
I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) a happy birthday; I suspect she will be getting many birthday greetings now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East has outed her birthday. She raised the important issue of compulsory first aid in schools. The issue came to light in my constituency recently when I was at a large gathering. I had just taken the microphone when somebody on the back row had an epileptic fit. It surprised me that there were just two of us in the room who knew what to do in that situation. It was a room full of 100 people, and just two of us responded as first aiders. I call on the Government to think again about the campaign for compulsory first aid in schools, which I fully support.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the issues in Ethiopia and Somalia. He is a great, passionate campaigner for global justice and against poverty, and I know he will continue his fight for justice.
As we move towards the Easter Adjournment, I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers, the staff of the House, and all Members and their staff who work on this estate, a happy Easter. In particular this Easter, I wish the police and security staff—who work very hard and who may often have gone unnoticed but certainly not in the past few days—a happy and peaceful Easter. Happy Pesach to everyone.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Michael Ellis)
It is a real pleasure to be the Minister at the Dispatch Box for this debate and to follow the eloquent remarks of the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith). In the few minutes remaining, it falls to me to try to answer some of the points raised and sum up the debate.
My hon. Friend—he feels like a friend, but I should say the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, is not currently in the Chamber. I know what a powerful and effective Chair he is, and the charm with which he performs his functions really does help to get things done. He spoke movingly about Gateshead, its nightlife and the coast and surrounding countryside there. As the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said, he spoke about the orthodox Jewish community in Gateshead and about Purim. I thank him for speaking so affectionately and welcomingly about his community.
The hon. Gentleman also spoke about the National Citizen Service. To use its catchphrase, we should “Say yes to NCS”, because it is a wonderful organisation—a charity—that really is very popular with people. It has an extremely high success rate, and the last time I looked its approval rating was well above 90%. It is an organisation that is working very well indeed.
It is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not present because I want to mention the Gateshead Millennium bridge. When he said that he pressed the button to tilt the bridge, I was reminded that he himself, I think it is fair to say, is a bridge linking his constituency so very effectively with this House. He is as much Gateshead as the Gateshead Millennium bridge is. I hope that a Minister complimenting him in that way will not adversely affect his credibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) has also had to leave the Chamber. I am tempted to call him Bob bhai, which is a nickname that he has affectionately been given by the Hindu community in Harrow East. He spoke of his Homelessness Reduction Bill, which he should be terribly proud of. Congratulations are due to him on getting that Bill on the statute book. It is always an achievement for any Member to get a Bill on the statute book, but that Bill, which helps homeless people, really is an achievement.
My hon. Friend told a very concerning story about the lifts at Stanmore railway station and about how his local council—Harrow Council—is so flushed with funds that it refused a £1 million gift to improve the railway station. No doubt, there will be some local questions about that decision. I can see the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) nodding sagely at that.
Next we heard from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) who spoke about cochlear implants. I was particularly struck by the fact that no fewer than 600,000 people could benefit from them. I wish to reiterate what was said to him in an earlier debate, which is that the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence is duty bound to consider such matters and to make decisions on them. I wish him well in his campaign in that regard.
The Department for International Development is looking at small non-governmental organisations, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I recommend that he seek a meeting with the excellent Secretary of State of DFID, because she is a powerful voice and one of those people who regularly gets things done. He should certainly seek a meeting with her. If I can help in any way, he should speak to me.
The next Member to speak was my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) who most certainly is in his place. Traditionally, he puts on a tour de force at the end-of-term Adjournment debates. He spoke of Southend, the alternative city of culture, and about Southend’s Got Talent competition, which is on tonight. I do not know whether he is a contestant—[Interruption.] I hear the words, “He should be.” He certainly is a talent in this Chamber and in this debate. He said that it was 125 years since the inauguration of his borough. I think that he has been the Member for a large proportion of that time—certainly a fifth of it anyway—and that is a real achievement for him. He spoke of the recently appointed town crier. No doubt, that town crier can thank him for his remarks by shouting about how effective my hon. Friend is as MP for his area.
My hon. Friend very kindly mentioned two officers of this House who are retiring after very long service: Post Office member John Wrighton who has been here for 38 years; and Alan Dickens, a Doorkeeper since 1993 and senior Doorkeeper since 2004, who has been a loyal servant of this House, and I thank him for his services. Indeed, I wish to thank all our Doorkeepers here. During the recent terrible terrorist incident, they were remarkable and showed reassuring calm, dignity, professionalism and control. We thank them for their devotion to duty.
The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) made a party political speech about Brexit and many other things. Nevertheless, I feel sure that she will respect the wishes of the democratic majority, who, of course, voted in a referendum to leave the European Union. No doubt, she will join me in wishing the country and her constituents the very best deal that we can get—that we will get—over the coming months and years.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke movingly about Syria. He is an authoritative voice in this House and particularly so on such a subject. The United Kingdom has, of course, pledged more than £2.3 billion in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria and the region generally. That is our largest ever response to a single humanitarian crisis, and it is right that it should be. We are co-hosting the forthcoming Brussels conference on 5 April, which will be an important opportunity to take stock of the situation in Syria and to reaffirm and build on the London conference commitments. I thank him for raising the matter at this time and in this place.
The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) spoke, as she has on previous occasions when I have had the honour to be at this Dispatch Box, about issues very close to her heart, including hysteroscopies. She said that she wishes to meet the Health Secretary about the subject, and I commend her for that. I found it disconcerting that apparently some areas consider anaesthetic to be routine, whereas others do not. No doubt, she will wish to raise that with the Health Secretary, and I wish her well in her campaign in that regard.
The hon. Lady also spoke of cancer diagnoses. I was moved by her description of the loss of her mother. She said that she has written to the Department of Health about faster and more joined-up cancer diagnoses. As she knows, more than £1.5 billion has been put towards the cancer drugs fund, which has helped more than 100,000 people. Although there is always more that can be done, £130 million has gone into modernising, for example, radiotherapy equipment across England, and more than £5.5 billion a year has been spent on other cancer drugs and treatments, and £2.5 billion on pathology services. Those are large numbers. Cancer affects us all in this House and this country in one way or another and people we know—family, friends, relatives and colleagues—so her remarks will certainly strike home.
The right hon. Member for Leicester East, in his inimitable remarks, spoke powerfully about police bravery and the appalling attacks that some police officers suffer in the line of duty. Before I was in this place, I practised at the Bar in criminal law, and I dealt with many such cases. Anyone who assaults our police officers in the exercise of their lawful duty commits a serious and aggravating offence and should be dealt with to the fullest available extent of the law. It is an aggravating feature in sentencing, and one that we will follow closely along with the individual cases that come to the attention of the House. The right hon. Gentleman also spoke about the police funding formula. He does not like the phrases, “in due course”, “shortly” or “as soon as possible”, so may I just say instead, “as soon as reasonably practicable”? I hope that he will be satisfied with that.
I wish the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) a happy birthday. She spoke about first aid in schools, which is an important issue. The events of the past week have brought home how important it is for people to know about first aid. Whether those issues and all those important things can be made compulsory is, of course, another matter entirely, as there are a lot of priorities for schools and schoolchildren.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke of the wonderful people he represents. I have no doubt of that. He then spoke movingly about the famine in east Africa. It is an urgent and severe crisis. More than 20 million people are at risk, but the UK is delivering life-saving support across South Sudan, Yemen, Somalia and Nigeria. We will not look the other way while they suffer, which is why we have already announced £200 million in aid for Somalia and South Sudan. The phenomenal public response to the Disasters Emergency Committee is testament to the British people’s unwavering generosity in response to suffering. The UK Government have matched that pound for pound—£10 million.
Several Members mentioned PC Keith Palmer. He protected and courageously defended our parliamentary democracy last week. He stood his ground, as one constable proudly described him to me earlier today. He did nothing less than save lives. He bravely defended us and Her Majesty’s Palace of Westminster. We will forever be indebted to him. Our thoughts are with his family, his friends and his colleagues. He was a hero. He was a national hero, and he was our hero.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
Business without Debate
Persecution of Christians
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
I rise to present a petition signed by 306 parishioners of St John Southworth, Nelson, Brierfield and Fence, which was shared with me by Rev. Brian Murphy.
The petition states:
The petition of parishioners of the Parish of Saint John Southworth, Nelson, Brierfield and Fence, Lancashire,
Declares that the petitioners believe that attacks on Christians in 20% of the world's countries since 2014 is concerning and that more should to be done to combat religious persecution.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take further action to prevent and raise awareness of attacks on Christians, worldwide.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002032]
Sanitary Products
(7 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
I declare an interest as chair of the all-party group on women’s health.
I am grateful to have secured the final debate before the recess to raise the issue of period poverty. I have touched on this matter before in this House in the context of homelessness. I wish to expand on that, and also to talk about the shocking recent reports of period poverty among school-age girls in west Yorkshire. The phenomenon of period poverty has gone under the radar for some time and is only now starting to be discussed after the successes of the campaign against the tampon tax. It is a unique challenge faced by women in poverty, who all too often face a choice between buying sanitary products or food. In the worst-case scenario, homeless women have been faced with a choice between stealing sanitary products and doing without.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that women using sanitary products beyond their recommended duration are at risk of toxic shock syndrome, and that homeless women, in particular, self-ration these products at great risk to their health?
Paula Sherriff
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I will be coming to the issue of toxic shock syndrome and other associated health conditions, but she makes that crucial point very well.
The horror of these choices cannot be overstated, and they are choices that women in one of the most advanced industrial nations on earth should not face. Period poverty represents nothing less than the affected women being robbed of their human dignity. As an illustration of this, the Salvation Army has relayed to me the experiences at its Darlington Citadel food bank, where women have turned up literally begging for sanitary products. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will quote its commanding officer in full, because I believe that the House really needs to hear this:
“Since we have started supplying”
sanitary products,
“with tears in their eyes many women have told us what they do when they can’t afford them. They use rolled up socks, they rip up clothing, they even use newspaper, they stuff these into their underwear as makeshift sanitary wear—or they simply have to free bleed. These women however, struggle to pay for electricity and so doing laundry to a sufficient level to kill any bacteria is a problem and they are putting themselves and their daughters at risk of infection resulting in possible medical treatment with antibiotics or even hospitalization. Some women have informed us that they have needed dilation and curettage treatment and courses of antibiotics for infections, costing the NHS money and resources.”
Unfortunately, this testimony does not stand alone. An investigation by Amanda Ternblad of Goldsmiths University into period poverty in London has found that some women resort to using toilet roll, which can pose a risk of thrush infection, or using sanitary products for longer than they should be used—that follows on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins)—which can lead to fatal toxic shock syndrome and the risk of further long-standing health problems. Of course, that costs the NHS in the long run, but that should be as nothing compared with the desperation, indignity, humiliation and degradation visited on those women, who are already among the most vulnerable in our society. That should beggar belief in one of the wealthiest nations on the planet.
The problem is most pronounced for women who are homeless, who typically have no stable source of income with which to buy sanitary products. In the debate on homelessness on 14 December 2016, I mentioned that homeless shelters get an allowance from the Government to provide items such as condoms and razors, but they have no such allowance to buy sanitary products, leaving them reliant on charity donations instead.
When I last raised that point in the House, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), said that the Government provide funding for outreach services for homeless people, meaning that such facilities would ultimately be funded anyway. Unfortunately, the point is that there appears to be a shortfall in toiletries such as sanitary protection for women. In many places in the UK, condoms are given away for free, and there is a clear and well-understood public argument for that. Why, then, is that not commonplace for sanitary products, which every woman requires, and the absence of which can have grave health consequences? Although valuable work has been done in the past couple of years by organisations such as St Mungo’s to ensure that homelessness services are gender-appropriate, the Government’s allowance for such products does not appear to have kept pace and speaks to something of a male-dominated view of homelessness.
In reality, women who are homeless face numerous unique challenges, from their personal safety, to vulnerability and falling into prostitution. Those challenges, while grave, have in various ways been targeted before by the good works of homelessness charities. Period poverty, however, is one of the unique challenges for women that has been under-represented, which makes it all the more important that it is now taken seriously.
The reliance on charity is a problem in itself. Donations of sanitary products to food banks and homeless shelters are often not enough to keep up with demand, while supply is variable across the country, meaning that the donations are not always made in the areas with most demand. The Homeless Period campaign is an attempt to gain more attention for the problem and to secure more donations of sanitary items to homeless shelters and food banks so that their stocks are more readily available. I again wish to pay tribute to the incredible work of Laura Coryton, who campaigned so effectively with me on the issue of the tampon tax, for her work in bringing the issue to wider public attention.
As part of my support for the campaign, I have secured a trial of a donation point for toiletries at a Boots store in Dewsbury to go to the Fusion Housing charity, which supports food banks in the Kirklees area. It is a small step, but I hope that many more like it can be achieved in the near future and that they will make a difference.
If, as we sadly now find, the Government are content to let charity supplant welfare in providing for the needy in our society, I will call on other companies to follow the example of Boots. Every area will have similar problems, and similar charities will try to cope with them. Many companies that deal with toiletries could set up similar schemes as part of their wider corporate responsibility to their communities. I was encouraged by an example on a recent trip to Brussels, where a hotel chain was donating surplus toiletries to its local facility for the homeless. With a bit of ingenuity, companies can make a significant difference to the lives of some of the most vulnerable—as could this Government.
It is not, however, just homeless women who are vulnerable to period poverty. I was absolutely appalled—actually, I was heartbroken—by the recent BBC Radio Leeds report that a west Yorkshire charity called Freedom4Girls, which usually sends sanitary products to girls in Kenya, had been contacted by a school in Leeds to provide sanitary products to girls there. Concerns were raised after girls were found to be playing truant because they could not afford sanitary protection. I ask everyone to take a moment to consider what is happening in one of the richest nations in the world.
As with the homeless women in the examples I mentioned earlier, the same makeshift and risky remedies had been tried. We heard about 15-year-old girls sellotaping toilet roll to their knickers because they could not afford tampons or sanitary towels. Girls would rather not attend school than go through the indignity of doing so in a vulnerable state. There are related reports of teachers having to pay for sanitary products for their pupils. That, too, beggars belief. Schools are the perfect place for the Government to enact early intervention on matters relating to women’s health, as has been borne out by the valuable human papilloma virus vaccination programme. I urge the Government to investigate how the problem of period poverty can be tackled in schools, for example by including menstrual health in sex and relationships education and by looking at the possibility of using eligibility for free school meals for the provision of sanitary products to vulnerable young girls.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate and praise her for the passionate way in which she speaks about the issue, on which she has campaigned for a long time. I have heard the BBC Radio Leeds report about the girls in school. I am a father to young girls, as she knows, so it was something that hit me. Has she thought about whether the tampon tax funds that are being distributed at the moment could be directed to support girls from low-income backgrounds with tampons and sanitary towels? Perhaps pupil premium money could be used, or boosted, to help to provide those much-needed products to girls so that they do not have to go through the horrible situation that the west Yorkshire girls faced.
Paula Sherriff
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I note that the first time we debated the tampon tax in this House, he chose to vote to keep it, but I do take on board what he says about the tampon tax funds. I would much rather see the tax removed from sanitary products, but while it is still there—I appreciate that Brexit causes complications—I would absolutely support some of the money going towards schools.
Jason McCartney
I remember the night when the hon. Lady forced a vote on the tampon tax. As she is well aware, it is due to EU regulation. She had a lot of cross-party support, and this is not party political—it is about coming together to look after young, vulnerable girls, and homeless people. The Government are trying to address that with their approach on the tampon tax. As she knows, through cross-party working, we can help those vulnerable women, rather than scoring puerile, partisan points.
Paula Sherriff
The existence of this problem in our schools speaks to my grave concern that we are seeing just the tip of the iceberg. I dare say that if we looked hard enough, up and down the country, we would find examples of similar schools whose girls face the same problem. Leeds City Council has the same concern. It notes:
“This issue has happened in Leeds—a city where services for children are judged to be ‘Good’ and over 90% of schools are judged to be ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ by Ofsted—and as such could be happening in towns and cities right across the UK.”
The Salvation Army has said that
“it appears that this phenomenon may be more widespread”.
We need to ask ourselves what is so fundamentally broken with our society that the poorest families, even those in work and secure housing, cannot afford sanitary protection for their daughters.
When the House returns from the recess, the two-child cap under the Government’s universal credit will have come into effect. The poverty that led the girls in Leeds into this position existed even before that, but I ask the Government whether they honestly believe that their changes will not make the situation even worse. The Opposition have repeatedly said that any such limit to child tax credit will serve only to punish unjustly the children involved. I fear that we may be setting a time bomb of poverty, misery and indignity for the underprivileged girls of the future if we do not act now to ensure that period poverty goes no further.
My sense of sadness about this issue comes not only from the assault on the health and dignity of the women involved—as I have repeatedly said, they are some of the most vulnerable in our society—but from the fact that the whole situation is absolutely avoidable. It is no accident of history that these women are being left in such a vulnerable situation; it is a direct result of the obsession with austerity of this Government and their coalition predecessor, which is disproportionately hitting the poorest in society. Many families now experience in-work poverty because of increasingly insecure jobs and hours. That leaves thousands of women at risk of being unable to afford sanitary products, with many on the precipice of rent arrears or in danger of losing their home altogether.
This sorry state of affairs was not always the case. Under the previous Labour Government, rough sleeping was nearly eliminated, but last year it increased by 16%—the sixth successive annual rise. In the final year of the previous Labour Government, 41,000 people were given aid by Trussell Trust food banks, compared with over 1.1 million in 2015-16. It should go without saying that when more women are homeless and more are relying on food banks just to get by, period poverty is going to be an increasing problem.
I implore the Government today—I beg the Minister—to find the political will to ensure that these horrors are not visited on any more women in our country. In the words of Tina Leslie of Freedom4Girls,
“we need to give these girls their dignity back.”
May I finish by taking this opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker, to wish you, the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker a very happy Easter? I thank all the staff of the House who, particularly during the past seven or eight days, have performed their jobs at the most incredible level. I also pay tribute to those affected by last week’s horrendous Westminster attack, especially the families of the bereaved.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff) on her continuing and committed work in ensuring the affordability of sanitary products. During the passage of last year’s Finance Bill, she and I had reason to discuss this issue on several occasions, not least in relation to her successful amendment to reduce the level of VAT on sanitary products. I of course stand by the pledges the Government made at the time. Those pledges have been legislated for, as she knows and has acknowledged. I recognise, as I think all hon. Members do, the clear and evident passion with which she spoke, and we know how sincerely she campaigns for the rights of women and girls. I hope to be able to respond to some extent, if not to all her wider points, at least to some of the specific points she made.
Before I narrow down to the specific points, let me turn to the broader ones. The Government have been clear that tackling disadvantage is a priority for us. That includes taking action to help the most disadvantaged, with a real focus on tackling not the symptoms but the root causes of poverty. We are determined to reform the welfare system to incentivise work and to help people to achieve their potential. We believe that, as we have seen during the past six years, our reforms have helped to improve lives and living standards for some of the most vulnerable in our country, most prominently by helping people to get back into work.
That is why in our approach to general taxation we are increasing the personal allowance to £12,500 by the end of this Parliament. Next week, increases in the personal allowance and higher rate threshold will have cut taxes for 31 million people and taken 1.3 million of the lowest paid out of income tax altogether, compared with 2015-16. A significant proportion of them will of course be women. Next week, we will increase the national living wage to £7.50 an hour, which marks a £1,400 a year increase in earnings for a full-time worker on the national minimum wage since the introduction of the national living wage in April 2016. It is also why we are reducing the universal credit taper to 63% from April, so people who progress into work can keep more of what they earn, which will enhance the support provided to working families in meeting day-to-day costs; why we will double free childcare to 30 hours a week, which is worth up to £5,000 a year for eligible working parents of three and four-year-olds; and why we will introduce tax-free childcare in the coming month. These are just some of a range of measures that we are taking to ensure that work always pays and that hard-working families can earn more and keep more of the money they earn. It is by taking these steps that we are supporting ordinary working families, including the women about whom the hon. Lady spoke.
Let me turn to the tampon tax fund, because we have had a timely update from the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who is the Minister for Civil Society. I will take a moment—I think I have enough time—to update the House on some of the work that the fund is going to support. That is important, not least in the light of the hon. Lady’s successful campaign to change the law so that we reduce VAT, as soon as we practically can, as has been mentioned, within the constraints of EU law. In the meantime, we have established the £15 million a year tampon tax fund, which, as hon. Members will know, is equivalent to the amount of VAT paid on sanitary products each year.
Since the 2015 autumn statement, £32 million of tampon tax funding has been allocated to women’s charities. The majority of that funding is through grants to frontline charities that aim to improve the lives of disadvantaged women and girls. Those include health, wellbeing and education initiatives and support services for vulnerable women. A significant proportion of this round’s funding will focus on initiatives that help to tackle violence against women and girls—something that all of us across this House want to see borne down on—alongside a broader criterion to support disadvantaged women and girls.
Jason McCartney
I saw today’s update on where the tampon tax funds have gone. Rather than point scoring, I want something positive to come from this debate. Will the Minister please consider using some of those funds to help with supplies of sanitary products for schools, to make sure that all girls, no matter what their economic background, have access to tampons, pads and towels?
Jane Ellison
I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s comments to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East, the Minister for Civil Society, and I will come to some of the support available in schools and the work already under way as a response to recent questions in Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Civil Society has today announced the full list of funding for charities from the latest round of the tampon tax fund. That means that more than 90 charities are now set to benefit from the fund over this Parliament. The fund continues to benefit organisations in every corner of the UK, from Children North East to the Women’s Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre in Cornwall. It is helping to improve the lives of women and girls who suffer disadvantage, supporting our wider ambition to create a fairer society for everyone.
Paula Sherriff
I recognise that some excellent charities are receiving funds from the tampon tax, including Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, which I have been working with very closely. How will those charities be provided for when we finally see the abolition of the tampon tax, which I hope will come very soon?
Jane Ellison
Indeed; that is something we have explored in debates. We said at the time that while this is inevitably a time-limited fund by its nature, we will look at all those issues in the round. It is, of course, only one of a number of sources from which we support civil society organisations. I am glad that the hon. Lady picked out Jo’s Cervical Cancer Trust, a charity that I greatly enjoyed working with when I was at the Department of Health and that does excellent work.
A number of worthwhile organisations are going to benefit from the money, and the Government have committed to continuing the fund until EU rules allow a zero rate of VAT to be applied on women’s sanitary products, or until the UK leaves the EU—whichever comes first within the legal framework. The hon. Lady mentioned this in her speech, but I note that she has recently championed national retailers in her constituency to support the cause through charitable means, as she has outlined today, for those least able to afford sanitary products. I noted her work with her local Boots on that.
Turning to practical matters, like hon. Members on both sides of the House, I, too, heard the same BBC Radio Leeds report that has been referred to. It was a distressing listen. It was very difficult to hear about the girls in Leeds who were unable to attend school because they could not afford sanitary products. Of course, if this country is going to work for everyone, we clearly need an education system that enables people to achieve their potential. That is the Government’s clear aspiration. If someone cannot attend school on the days that they are having their period, it is obviously much harder for them to reach their potential.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) talked about school funding. Schools do have discretion over how they use their funding. The Department for Education does not currently give schools guidance on this specific issue, as we believe that headteachers should be able to use their professional judgment. However, we do encourage all schools to use their resources to support their pupils to be safe, healthy and ready to learn each day, so schools are free to support girls in this way if they need to. The evidence is clear—we have all seen that every extra day of school missed can affect a pupil’s chances of achieving good GCSEs, with a lasting effect on their life chances. We therefore strongly encourage all parents and schools to do everything they can to support children to attend schools.
The hon. Member for Dewsbury made a number of suggestions about funding. As one would expect, that question has been raised in recent days by a number of hon. Members. In fact, in response to the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland), the Secretary of State for Education acknowledged the importance of the issue and said that she is looking carefully at it, and she has undertaken to write to him. I think there is more to be said by the Department for Education on this subject. The Secretary of State was very clear about the seriousness with which she takes the issue and her own commitment to gender equality is well documented.
We touched on the support available through the education system and the wider welfare system. We talked about the legal commitment we have made to zero-rating sanitary products as soon as possible, fully recognising the importance of the issue. In the meantime, we are using the VAT we receive to benefit women’s charities. I hope those responses go some way towards addressing the issues raised in the debate.
More widely, I believe the Government can hold their head up high on supporting women. The gender pay gap is at a record low and the number of women in work is close to a record high. We are one of the first countries in the world to introduce gender pay gap reporting, but we always acknowledge that we can go further. As I mentioned earlier, the national living wage will be increased to £7.50 an hour from next month. We expect that two thirds of those who will benefit from the rise in the national living wage will be women.
As well as continuing our efforts to get more women back into the workplace, we are providing an additional £20 million of funding over this Parliament to support organisations working to tackle domestic violence and abuse—a strong personal priority for the Prime Minister. She has committed to bringing forward a domestic violence and abuse Bill. The funding I have just mentioned increases the total funding for the Government’s violence against women and girls strategy to £100 million over this Parliament.
The hon. Lady raised the additional vulnerability of homeless women, which I think we all acknowledge. In October, the Prime Minister announced a new £40 million programme to provide an innovative approach to tackling homelessness, with prevention at its heart, looking at the complex underlying causes that I think all of us as constituency MPs acknowledge can lead to a person losing their home. That includes a £10 million rough sleeping prevention fund and £20 million for local authorities to trial new initiatives for those most at risk. I will draw the hon. Lady’s particular concerns about the additional vulnerabilities of homeless women to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones).
All in all, the Government are committed to supporting those who are struggling to get by. I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this important issue to the attention of Parliament. We feel that by taking steps to improve the living standards of ordinary working families across the country, committing to eliminating the VAT charge on sanitary products, and striving to provide greater equality more generally for women, the Government are showing they are sensitive to these issues. There are 200,000 fewer children in low-income households than in 2010, which is one of the ways in which we have demonstrated our commitment to tackling the root causes of disadvantage. I hope that in my response today I have shown that the Government take these issues seriously. We are looking carefully at the points raised today and will aim to respond further to them.
In closing, I echo the words of the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the actions of many of the staff of the House in recent days, and in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as hon. Members on all sides and all staff of the House, a restful Easter recess.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Backbench Business
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
Local and Regional News
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
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the future of local and regional news providers.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Nuttall. Is it in order for the debate to proceed without a Minister present on behalf of the Government, or is it simply a gross discourtesy to the House?
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
It is in order for the debate to proceed. [Interruption.] The door opens, but there is no Minister. The debate will proceed, so there is no need to adjourn the sitting.
Kevin Brennan
Further to that point of order, Mr Nuttall. On the second part of my point of order, is it considered a discourtesy by the Chair?
Mr David Nuttall (in the Chair)
It is always considered best practice for the mover of the motion and the Minister who will respond to be in their places when the debate begins. I am pleased to say that the Minister is now in his place.
Helen Goodman
It is very nice to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Nuttall.
I begin by thanking the National Union of Journalists for helping me to prepare for the debate, which forms part of its week of campaigning on local news, called Local News Matters. I must also point out that I chair the NUJ’s parliamentary group. The arrangements for the group’s secretariat are set out in my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am sure that all hon. Members agree that local news is essential for our democracy. It is through local news that people like us get our messages across to our communities, but more importantly, it is the way that communities hold us to account. However, local news is not only about democracy and boring council meetings or boring court reporting, important though those are; it is about the way that communities are bound together. It is through local newspapers and radio stations that people know what is going on and identify with their local communities.
As it happens, my experience of the local news media in my constituency and in my part of the country is extremely positive. My local newspapers have not only covered issues that national outlets would not have been interested in covering; they have made a significant difference to the community. For example, in my constituency is the palace of the Bishop of Durham. When the Church Commissioners wanted to flog off its paintings by Francisco de Zurbarán, it was a campaign that I ran with The Northern Echo, which put the paintings on its front page for several days in a row, that pushed the Church Commissioners back and made them realise that people wanted and loved those paintings. The upshot has been far greater than we could ever have imagined. The story came to the attention of a philanthropist, Jonathan Ruffer, who put £50 million into the castle, and we now have a whole regeneration project. That would not have happened without the initial support of The Northern Echo.
At the other end of the scale is a newspaper, owned by the sister of Lord Barnard, called the Teesdale Mercury. It has a small circulation of 10,000, but it has been running campaigns to save local village schools. In effect, it saved the Forest of Teesdale Primary School.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for our local press. Over the past year, the Liverpool Echo and Wirral News have movingly told the story of the Hillsborough campaign for justice. The Liverpool Echo has been a campaigning newspaper on that issue, it has highlighted the local crisis in the NHS and it has mounted a food poverty action campaign called “Share Your Lunch”, which has raised thousands of pounds from the generosity of local people and raised awareness of that important issue. Does she agree that, as she mentioned in her opening remarks, it is crucial for our national democracy that we have local papers that shine a light on the impact of what we decide here in Westminster and how that rolls out across the country?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to point out the role that Bishop FM, the local radio station, is currently playing in the campaign on the sustainability and transformation plan and the possible closure of Darlington memorial hospital’s A&E, which is a matter of great concern to my constituents. Bishop FM and the local and regional news outlets were also the only outlets to cover the potential closure of Vinovium House and the loss of 80 jobs there.
I agree 100% with my hon. Friend, but what she says applies not just to local newspapers, but to excellent local radio stations—both the BBC stations and the commercial independents, such as Star Radio, which operates from Darlington. I am sorry to say that one of the community stations in my constituency, Teesdale Radio, was forced to close. Will the Minister comment in his response on whether it is fair that community radio stations are not allowed to advertise? Every parish magazine has advertisements, but community radio stations do not. That does not seem right.
Local news outlets make a reality of localism. Communities are very diverse and different; they are not homogenous. This country is extremely diverse, which is reflected in our local newspapers. They are the voice of people, but they also reflect back to people what their community is like.
The NUJ has commissioned, and this week published, a piece of research, “Mapping changes in local news 2015-2017”, by Dr Gordon Ramsay, who is part of King’s College London’s excellently named Centre for the Study of Media, Communication and Power—something I am sure we would all like to get hold of. He was supported in his work by the Media Reform Coalition, the Political Studies Association and colleagues from Goldsmiths University. The research shows a continuing, if not accelerating, decline in the number of local newspapers. Some 200 local newspapers have closed since 2005. In the past 18 months, 22 have closed and 13 have been set up, which is a net loss of nine. Unfortunately, that involved the loss of 418 journalists’ jobs.
Margaret Greenwood
The mayoral election for the Liverpool city region takes place on 4 May. Does my hon. Friend agree that the decline she so clearly describes is significant, given that, with the growth of devolution, we will need more journalism in our localities rather than less?
Helen Goodman
My hon. Friend makes another very good point. It is a matter of concern that 58% of people in this country have no local daily newspaper. That hollowing out is dangerous. Newspapers are not really local if they are run by such a small number of journalists that, in effect, they are four pages of local news wrapped around centrally-produced content, which is mainly lifestyle articles and listicles.
Where real journalists are involved in the production of local newspapers, they are becoming exhausted. I had a meeting with people from the South London Press before Christmas who were busy campaigning against reductions to their numbers. Such journalists also suffer significantly from low pay. This is a profession, and they need to be properly rewarded for their skills, energy and efforts.
It is a vicious circle. If we hollow out the quality of the local newspapers, they become more boring, so of course the readership will fall, whereas if we maintain the quality, people will want to keep reading them. The absence of local newspapers is dangerous too. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) said, people will lack information and will not be able to hold local institution to account. Communities will suffer a loss of identity. That creates an environment in which fake news can flourish, because there is no real news. What we need, across the board, is good-quality information and journalism.
Another very interesting thing that came out of the research by Dr Ramsay is the growing concentration in our local newspapers. That, too, is dangerous. I do not suppose many people are aware that four publishers are responsible for three quarters of the local newspapers in this country: Trinity Mirror, Johnston Press, Newsquest and Tindle. One of the absurdities is that they take over local newspapers and then either close them or shed more jobs. Of the 400-plus jobs that have been lost, 139 were cut by Newsquest and 102 by Trinity Mirror.
While I do not wish to appear not to be a true socialist internationalist, foreign ownership in this arena can be quite dangerous. It means that decisions are taken about the way newspapers are run and the closure of newspapers in boardrooms in New York by people who have no idea that Sunderland and Newcastle are two different places. We need to get back better control of the way newspapers are run and restore the idea, most recently voiced by Harry Evans, that journalism is a sort of public service. It is not purely a commercial enterprise; it is also a public service.
Why have we got into this mess? Obviously technology is part of the reason. More things are moving online, and more advertising is moving online. There is a change in the readership and habits of the public. However, that is not the whole explanation. The problem from the newspapers’ point of view is that 80% of their revenue comes from their print editions and some 12% from their online work. Facebook and Google are expected to have a three-quarters share of the advertising market by 2020. I wonder whether the Competition and Markets Authority ought to look at that, and whether it can look at the behaviour of these big international corporations after Brexit. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister has any insight into that.
Technology is not the only explanation for what is going on. Some people might call it greed, and others might call it unrealistic expectations, but too much money has been taken out of local newspapers. By way of contrast, Tesco—one of the most successful supermarkets in this country—makes a 7% return on its capital each year. These publishers are extracting between 20% and 30% each year. That is what they expect. If they cannot make that, they say the papers are uneconomic. Of course, the papers are not financially unsustainable; they are perfectly financially sustainable. They are making enough money to keep going and even to expand; they are just not making whopping profits of 30%. If these people were content to make the kind of profits that our supermarkets are making, we could have a flourishing of local news across the nation.
Let us look at what has been done so far about local news. We continue to require local authorities to put statutory notices into local newspapers. That is very positive, both financially and in terms of providing people with information. Newspapers have a VAT exemption as well.
The Government have done two things to try to provide direct support. The first was the initiative by the previous Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to set up local television franchises. I am sorry to report that the research shows that three quarters of those licensed areas sought a relaxation of the requirement for news provision. On every single occasion that relaxation was granted, so the initiative is not having the positive effect that was intended.
Now we have a new initiative: democracy reporters. The licence fee is being top-sliced, and the BBC is providing 150 local democracy reporters across the country. There is a question mark here. It is really important that there is a system to ensure that those posts are genuinely additional. We do not want the BBC to send two people into a local newspaper and for the managers of that paper think, “Fantastic! We can sack two of the people we were paying.” We absolutely cannot have that, and we need a system to prevent it from happening.
The Minister must also ensure that the Government initiatives and all the things we want to do are not sucked up by the big four publishers. What we want is more variety, more diversity and more new ventures. We need to ensure that the things we do reach those people, not just the big multinational chains.
In addition, more measures can be taken. The Government introduced the Localism Act 2011, which enables people to deem an asset an asset of community value and run it themselves for the benefit of the community. Normally that is done with pubs, but it would a good idea if, before a newspaper closed a title, it was required to offer it to the local community as a community asset. As I have said, many local papers, such as the Camden New Journal, could be run on a financially sustainable basis—for example, by co-ops of journalists—and we need to put that option on to the statute book.
Many of us think it is reasonable, in the current climate, to tax the large social media organisations such as Facebook and Google, and others as well. I know everybody wants to tax them because they are evading their taxes and everyone has schemes for spending the money that would be raised, but I think some direct read-across to the very industries that those companies are undermining would be reasonable.
The House has taken a considerable amount of time over the last six months to consider the proposed Fox takeover of Sky. That is extremely important, and we are all very worried about it. However, we have not taken the same amount of time and care to look at what is going on in local newspapers. The concentration in local newspapers is also very serious. The final suggestion I would like to make is that we have a short inquiry that looks specifically at what is going on in local media.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman). I had a fantastic season, while I was at BBC Radio Cleveland, reporting on the fortunes of Bishop Auckland football club. At the time, there was no ISDN line at the ground, so to report goal updates, I had to go into the clubhouse and on to a landline and wait for two minutes. Sometimes there would be a big cheer from outside while I was on air, and once the presenter back in the studio said to me, “Jason, has there been a goal?”, and I said, “No, Joe has just dropped the jackpot on the one-armed bandit.” That really is local news and local reporting at the heart of the local community—and I cannot remember whether Joe bought a round or not.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting our request for a debate on the future of local and regional news providers. We are in a great time of change. There are great challenges ahead, but there are also great opportunities. Therefore, it is more important than ever that as many people as possible have access to quality, trusted news sources. That means a big role for local and regional news.
I must declare that, as I have just suggested, I am a former BBC local radio reporter. I went on to work for ITV television as a broadcast journalist. I am now chairman of the all-party parliamentary ITV group and—just for balance—I am one of the vice-chairmen of the all-party parliamentary BBC group. I am a former National Union of Journalists member. I was father of the chapel at ITV Yorkshire and I took my members out on strike, because job cuts were being forced by the poor business decisions of the then ITV boss, who was still raking in his £9 million bonus. I am now a Tory MP and that fat-cat boss is now a Labour peer—what a funny old world.
I am a keen consumer of local news. I wake up in the morning with Liz Green on BBC Radio Leeds. I get a paper edition in my constituency office of the Huddersfield Examiner and follow it online—I also follow the Yorkshire Post online. When I am with my girls in the car, we are listening to Capital radio. It is great that that independent radio station has a news team. They often ask me and fellow Yorkshire MPs to record clips and send them via our iPhones. That is a good use of innovative technology. We have two excellent regional TV news programmes: “Calendar”, which I used to work on, and “Look North”. Sometimes, if there is a big local news story, I make a point of trying to watch both—one at 6 pm and the other at 6.30 pm—to see the different ways in which they cover their news stories.
We have a very local free newspaper, the Holme Valley Review, which has been around for about two years. Again, I have to declare an interest: I have a monthly column in the Holme Valley Review. It has an excellent reporter, Olivia, who is always ringing me and other people, asking for local news stories.
I would like to focus on local newspapers for a moment. As I said, I am very lucky to have in my town the Huddersfield Examiner, with its dedicated band of locally based journalists. They produce six editions a week, Monday to Saturday, and they are very good at holding Kirklees Council to account—it is run by Labour, by the way—whether the councillors are parking illegally while they go on holiday for a few weeks or damaging town centre trade with their disastrous bus gates scheme.
However, it is with their campaigns, as the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, that local newspapers come to the forefront of their communities. My local paper has also been backing an NHS campaign, the Hands Off HRI campaign, which is trying to prevent the accident and emergency department at Huddersfield royal infirmary from being downgraded and moved to Halifax to fund the disastrous private finance initiative deal that was signed there. That campaign is led by local campaigner Karl Deitch and, with the support of the Examiner and the community, we are still hopeful of getting our clinical commissioning group to listen.
More positively, the Huddersfield Examiner puts on two fantastic awards ceremonies every year. The Huddersfield Examiner community awards celebrate the best in our community—campaigns, charities and volunteers—and in the autumn the Huddersfield Examiner business awards celebrate the best in local small and medium-sized enterprises and bigger businesses, connecting up the business community. That means that we have an unemployment rate that is below the national average, and textiles and engineering are doing well in our part of the world. I commend the excellent coverage by the Examiner of my beloved Huddersfield Town. As we chase promotion to the premiership, every bit of injury news is followed closely by Huddersfield Town fans.
One big challenge that local newspapers face is changing technology—the changes in the way people get their news. However, the Examiner is responding to that. It is now very much a digital newsroom, producing strong stories not only for the print edition but for the website, which it updates regularly with videos. That is surely the future—print supported and enhanced by digital output, not replaced by it. The Examiner is recruiting a video production editor, but of course its big challenge is providing engaging and challenging content for two very different audiences. With that in mind, the Examiner is also embracing social media.
The debate has been triggered by a worrying trend for local and regional newspapers. There was a net loss of nine regionals between November 2015 and March 2017. As Opposition Members have said, the number of UK local authority districts with no daily local newspaper coverage has risen to 273 out of 406. There is also the loss of plurality, which we are concerned about. The five largest publishers, including Trinity Mirror, which owns my local newspaper, now account for more than 77% of all UK newspapers. We need to halt the decline and to look at new models.
As a member of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, I have been questioning BBC bosses on their development of the plans for 150 local democracy reporters. I echo many of the excellent questions that the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland asked. Those reporters will be funded by the BBC and employed by qualifying local news organisations to cover councils and local public services, but will they enhance and be an addition, or will newspapers be tempted just to use them as a cut-price replacement for their existing services? The BBC has also announced the formation of the NewsBank, which will give online media organisations access to BBC video and audio. In total, that will be an investment from the licence fee of up to £8 million. I and others will be following those developments very closely.
For the vast majority of adults, their main source of news is still television, and we need a plurality of providers. I have talked about the BBC. I welcome ITV—as I said, I chair the all-party group—investing £100 million a year in national, international, regional and nations’ news. As I said, in Yorkshire we are lucky to have two quality regional TV news programmes: “Look North” on the BBC and “Calendar” on ITV Yorkshire, which I used to work on.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman and support what he is saying. Does he agree that local radio and local television are not the same, that they cannot provide the same detailed coverage as local newsprint, and that we need local newspapers as well as local television and radio?
Jason McCartney
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I am saying that we need all the different news sources. We have talked about Sky and about the strength of the BBC in the regions, but we need plurality. We need different local newspapers—we need dailies and weeklies. We need them online, but we also still need the print editions. Obviously, many hon. Members are au fait with social media, but a lot of our constituents are not and they still need to know what is happening in their community—what is happening with charities, with their hospital and council, and with planning applications and so on.
Having worked in both the BBC environment and an ITV newsroom, I know that there was healthy competition between the two. There was an eagerness to be first with the story and to cover it best, which increased the quality of journalism and drove up audiences. We need that kind of healthy competition.
I will bring my comments to an end to allow other Members to speak. I began by talking about challenges. One big challenge is accurate and trusted news sources. We are in an era of fake news and I am pleased to say that my Culture, Media and Sport Committee is starting an inquiry into it. By the way, I remind everyone that fake news is false news with false facts, and not just news that someone does not like—that gets bandied around a lot.
Finally, I echo the thoughts of the NUJ general secretary on the Localism Act 2011. Former council buildings in my patch are being taken over as community assets and I would certainly support ideas and developments on that model for taking over local newspapers. I am very open to innovative ideas for new local journalism models. I would look at levies on social media and online companies—the internet—tax breaks, investment funds and community trusts, because after all, for the sake of our democracy and our constituents, local news really does matter.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall, and I thank my colleagues and the Backbench Business Committee for granting us this debate.
The uncertain future of local news providers is particularly significant in Wales. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Welsh national press is relatively limited, confining Wales to getting much of its broadcast news and its newspapers from London. I am proud to say that I am a former news reporter with the Holyhead & Anglesey Mail, the Caernarfon & Denbigh Herald, Herald Mo^n and Herald Cymraeg. I, too, have memories, for example of putting photographs on the bus to get them to the head office.
Historically, Wales has a strong national and local press tradition. In 1966, the people of Wales could turn to a plethora of news publications, with 1 million morning, evening, weekly and bi-weekly local newspapers in circulation—that is, the total circulation. By 1990, that had fallen by a third, and now there are only six daily papers in any shape or form—morning or evening papers—in the country. The people of Wales have become increasingly reliant on the London-based media for their everyday news. To illustrate that, despite the Daily Mirror seeing a 50% fall in circulation between 2008 and 2015, it still has a daily readership of over 700,000 in Wales. However, the daily national paper of Wales, the Western Mail, sells only 17,815 copies a day. That gives hon. Members an idea of the newspapers’ reach and the impact on democracy.
Despite the widespread readership of London titles, interestingly, those newspapers no longer produce Welsh editions and there has been a steady decline of journalists based in Wales for London newspapers. There is the question of how the stories that are relevant to the people of Wales reach them. Perhaps they are seeing stories that give them a different perception of what affects their lives.
Interestingly, Welsh-language journalism is experiencing a revival in the form of online content, with BBC Cymru Fyw and Golwg360 attracting over 57,000 readers a week between them. However, only two national Welsh- language newspapers are now in circulation. Y Cymro is based in Porthmadog in my constituency, although it was announced last week that that is at risk of closure unless new owners are found by June, and Golwg is a magazine based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams). Both publications appear weekly.
The robust tradition of community-based Welsh language news continues in the form of papurau bro, and I must list them. These are voluntary activities, and I am honoured to record the hard work of teams of volunteers and dedicated individuals who work monthly to produce—forgive me, Hansard—Llanw Lly^n, Y Ffynnon, Yr Wylan, Llafar Bro, Llais Ardudwy, Y Dydd, Dail Dysynni, Y Blewyn Glas and Pethe Penllyn. Those are all in one constituency. We also have a weekly newspaper in Welsh, Y Cyfnod, although that is up for sale—it is looking for owners—so hon. Members can see the vulnerability.
Clearly, with the decline in commercial print media, Wales urgently needs redress through broadcast media. The UK Government have committed to having a “Scottish News at Six” programme, without considering making similar commitments in Wales. The media provide a crucial role in holding Government to account for their actions and flushing out weak policy, corruption and self-interest. Wales’s democracy and our national institutions will not flourish in darkness. Politics is strengthened by the light of scrutiny and grows stronger in weathering the storm of public interest. It is always a temptation for Governments to avoid the awkwardness of public accountability—it makes for an easier life—but the long-term cost is disengagement from democracy, which is a far greater threat. A “Wales Six” should be just the beginning. We need more opportunities to hear our own stories, and to celebrate and mourn with the world through our voices in both the national languages of Wales.
On the significance of local journalists and publications in representing the lives and needs of the communities they serve, Wales has seen its local newspaper groups being bought out by giant multinational companies, as has been mentioned of the UK as a whole. Our communities deserve better. Local newspapers play a fundamental role in keeping people on top of the issues affecting their communities. The Cambrian News—the local weekly bilingual newspaper distributed in mid-Wales—has managed more or less to remain an independent voice. Certainly, journalists such as Alex Jones do not shy away from posing awkward questions, and Arwyn Roberts, of the Herald newspapers, has portrayed the communities that he loves in his photojournalism over the years.
As a local MP and a former local news reporter, I recognise the democratic value of a regional newspaper to hold politicians and local councils to account. The local journalist, by recalling campaign promises and doing the mill work of attending council meetings, makes politicians accountable to the communities they purport to represent. Despite the Daily Post being the best-selling regional newspaper in Wales, it suffers from the perpetual problem of dwindling staff numbers due to “continuing tough business conditions”, to quote one of its reporters. Cuts have become the default business strategy to survive amid the falling revenues and print sales and the boom in free online media. Its newsroom has been stretched thin, with journalists having to work longer hours under significantly more pressure to keep the publication alive. I am sure that that scenario is not unique to the Daily Post.
In conclusion, I call on the UK Government to hold an inquiry into the future of Welsh print media, to assess the current levels of distribution and the state of current publications. I also ask them to review the potential of an increased role for the Welsh Government in safeguarding the existence and independence of struggling community newspapers and ensuring media plurality. We cannot let print media outlets close down and do nothing about the serious void that that would leave in our communities. Their absence would be a major loss, not only to individual readers but to our civil society as a whole. I am sure you would agree with me, Mr Nuttall: democracy needs watchdogs with a powerful bark.
Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)
We are having this debate because of our deep concerns about the increasing erosion and loss of local news sources, but I am very blessed in Castle Point. I have a huge number of local papers, such as the monthly Canvey & Benfleet Times; at least three weeklies that cover my patch, the Yellow Advertiser, the Rayleigh, Rochford & Castle Point Standard and Essex’s The Enquirer; a small publication called the District News, which is exclusively for Canvey Island; and, still, a daily paper, The Echo, part of the Newsquest group.
The Echo actually produces two different editions for my constituency, including a specific edition just for Canvey Island, which is incredible when we consider that it is an island of fewer than 40,000 souls. Moreover, a daily paper is a hungry beast—it is very stretched, and it is hard work to keep filling a daily paper. As a politician, people might think that I am constantly trying to get my face in the press, but actually, on several occasions I have found myself apologising that I have not given papers news stories, which is a no-brainer and would have been helpful. I therefore feel a responsibility, in speaking up in support of local newspapers, to remember to ensure I give them news.
The success of the papers that we have kept is because they have the right local and community formula. The fact that they continue to be supported might be due to the strong sense of community, but it is clearly a two-way street, in terms of the local paper helping to reinforce a sense of community spirit, which is what makes them so important. As has been said, they carry information that would not otherwise be covered.
It is sometimes easy, when looking at other people’s local newspapers, to laugh and deride the total parochialism of the “cat stuck up a tree” story or, more often, the local councillor with a lanyard and high-vis jacket pointing angrily at a pothole, but without local papers and radio stations, a lot of issues that matter enormously to local people would get no coverage at all. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) pointed out, local media are often critical to important local campaigns. I have often had reason to be extremely grateful to my local media. I am indebted to them for their support of local public campaigns with which I have been involved, including saving the Deanes secondary school in my constituency. Although the suspension of postal deliveries on unmade roads affected few people, it was incredibly important locally. It would never have got any coverage except in the local paper, but that helped hold Royal Mail to account.
Local media are unbiased compared with some of the nationals. I have rarely read anything in a national paper about which I have known the inside track that has been accurate in every respect, but I have often been quite pained by the accuracy of my local paper, as have local residents. I do not understand why they want to report accurately the age of everyone mentioned in the paper, but they seem to get those ages right, which we do not always appreciate. That also relates to the issue of clearing up misleading rumours—fake news has been mentioned—which can easily prosper in online forums. If not for investigation by honest, trusted, dedicated local journalists who can be relied on to put the facts straight, there would be a lot of misinformation out there and a lot of harm caused by rumours.
I return briefly to the community function. In my experience, the value of local papers cannot be stressed enough. They keep democracy thriving, keep local organisations and businesses under proper scrutiny, support local charities and community groups, and provide a platform for issues and organisations that otherwise would not have one. Elderly residents find them incredibly important to countering the risk of loneliness and a sense of isolation. It would be an enormous loss if we did not have thriving local media in this country.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this important debate, which has given us the opportunity to highlight how valued, valuable and appreciated the work of our local newspapers and press is. After this debate, I will be able to go back to complaining about them.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I will not speak for long, because I know that others wish to speak.
I support the National Union of Journalists in its campaign. I am a member of the NUJ parliamentary group and, as a strong trade unionist, I think it is important to support it. I am concerned about the suffering of many NUJ members who have lost their jobs or the possibility of career advancement due to the decline of local newspapers, but I am equally concerned about the decline and loss of local news outlets and reporting. I am amazed by what the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) said. In my town, which has 200,000 people, newspapers have declined, been squeezed and disappeared. They are not all gone, but they have certainly declined dramatically over a long period.
I was first a councillor in 1972, which makes me quite elderly. I remember those days well. It was typical for the local newspapers to send reporters along to council committees. I would be chairing a committee, and there would often be journalists there from multiple competing newspapers. I knew them well. They were often highly skilled and knew their politics. I tried to ingratiate myself with them occasionally by saying nice things about them, but they said, “Don’t trust us. We’re all just the same.” It was a good, humorous, robust relationship with high-quality journalists who saw a future for themselves in journalism. One of them was Larry Elliott, who started at the local evening paper that we had in those days and went on to become economics editor at The Guardian. Not everybody reads The Guardian, but Larry Elliott, a very fine journalist, started his days at the Luton Evening Post.
Those were the career possibilities for journalists in those days. I suspect it is not like that anymore. However, local democracy is what I am really concerned about. It is important to have newspapers with different owners in the same town, so that they compete with each other. They are more truthful and accurate and try harder to get stories right if they know that another newspaper is covering the same issue.
Interestingly, all those years ago, we had an evening newspaper, which was very good, a weekly paid-for newspaper and a weekly free newspaper. The weekly free newspaper was owned by a wealthy proprietor who happened to be a member of the Labour party. I am not saying that our newspapers should have a political bias, but it was interesting. He was not just a token member—I do not want to upset my colleagues in the party—but leaned to the left as well, so we had a lot in common. Having a left-wing millionaire proprietor of a giveaway newspaper was an interesting experience. We got a genuine spread of opinion across the town. Democratic views were expressly, which was healthy.
That has changed. The free Sunday newspaper recently merged to become Bedfordshire-wide, with hardly any Luton coverage at all. We have a paid-for newspaper, but even there, the number of journalists has been squeezed and squeezed, so we do not get as much in the way of reporting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) said in her excellent opening speech, there is a small amount of local news surrounded by national articles and massive amounts of advertising.
During the first 15 or so years of my time in this place, every five weeks, local MPs—Conservative and Labour—were given a column to themselves. That is all gone—doubtless the newspapers have no time to sub-edit our articles, or whatever they do—and local democracy has suffered tremendously from the narrowing of news. Fortunately, we have an excellent local BBC news station and very good local radio.
I support the NUJ in its campaign to save local newspapers. We have heard a summary of its survey, but I thought I would quote in full what Séamus Dooley, the NUJ acting general secretary, said at the launch of the report this week:
“Journalism is a pillar of democracy and this survey should be of major concern to anyone who cares about local, regional or national government. The stark decline in journalism is a direct result of disinvestment in editorial resources. This survey points to a deep crisis in local and regional news provision. There is an urgent need for government and media organisations to halt that decline, to examine ways of developing sustainable media business models operating in the interests of democracy and the public interest. The price of a continuous decline is too high for citizens to pay.”
That says what we need to hear today and I hope the Minister takes note. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland on launching this debate, and other Members who have spoken for the fine speeches that we have heard, all of which have been interesting. I have never been a journalist myself, although I used to write a 1,000-word article every month for the Socialist Campaign Group News. It did not have wide circulation, but some of us, including the leader of our party, have been regular columnists for it. I have done journalism in a sense, but I was not an NUJ member, and the paper circulated among people with my opinions.
I have said what I came to say. I hope that the Government take note; that the decline in local news coverage and local newspapers is arrested; and that they will flower again in future.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Nuttall. I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which really shows how the Committee responds to issues such as local journalism when they are at a crunch point.
I will focus on local media in York. We are well served in print by The Press and The Yorkshire Post, online by YorkMix, and in broadcast media by BBC Radio, Minster FM, ITV and BBC TV. We have already heard so much today about the excellence that local media bring. Local media are where stories are broken, where research is done, where we find out what is really going on in our communities and where people are held to account. They really prove that local news matters.
Local media are part of our local democracy and local citizenship. They strengthen the bonds across local communities such as those in my city of York. I thank the National Union of Journalists, Unite and all those who support people on the print side of media and across the industry so well. It is very hard for journalists to tell their own story about what is happening to their own industry, so today’s debate is timely and important.
As we have already heard from hon. Members, it is clear that we need a proper inquiry into what is happening in the governance and structures of local media. I will return to that point shortly, but first I want to raise the importance of local media on a very practical level. In the floods of 2015, when my community was cut off—the phone lines went down and there was no means of communicating outward—BBC radio had to move location and work night and day to get out messages not only about what was happening across the community but about public safety. It made us think back to the public service ethos that Lord Reith wanted for public broadcast. I thank BBC York for the service that it provided to the community at that time; everyone said that it provided a lifeline at that crunch point.
I want to talk in particular about print and about what we are seeing in our local paper—a story that is echoed right across the country, as the NUJ report that was launched yesterday confirms. We have a great history, as so many towns and communities have. The Yorkshire Evening Press was first published in 1882. It used to have four publications a day; people used to get their papers literally hot off the press because they wanted the latest edition with the latest news. Obviously the news process has moved on, but 17,342 people read the print edition of The Press daily, which proves that it still has a strong leadership. However, media are changing, as we know. Some 54,000 people now access The Press’s digital content—the eighth highest readership in local news. The trends are changing, but the digital content is clearly not providing the revenue, because 80% of revenue comes from print. The industry is really challenged by the shift to an online presence.
We have heard about the importance of local papers and local media in providing a democratic solution and ensuring that stories are well balanced and investigated. We know that social media can often be an echo chamber for news, where fake news is often recirculated, whereas local media really work at the craft of reporting stories and getting to the heart of matters. We also know that the industry is challenged not only by digital changes but by changes in advertising: in the economic global recession, advertising in local media dried up significantly—another financial challenge for local papers—and the market has not picked up since. Advertising has moved more online, particularly because readership is higher there, but also because there are new means of operating.
We have to come back to the issue of ownership. As we have heard, the press in York is owned by Newsquest Media Group, which has 211 titles. Printing no longer takes place in York, and nor does the editorial function. That has taken away from the local community. Although there is excellent local content—community news and events, charities, political reporting, events in the city and, not least, sports news—a lot of the content is national. People do not necessarily want to read it, but we can understand why papers have moved to that model as a means of filling space. Thankfully, there is still a lot of local content, but those pressures are building.
We have seen real cuts in the number of local journalists. Since 2008, the number of journalists at The Press has fallen by 50%. They now have to work under incredible stress, trying to produce copy constantly to ensure that they get good cover in the paper. They have to churn out content at a really high level, so although they are incredibly industrious, they are more tied to their desk rather than out in the community building relationships and learning their craft. They are also constantly worried about what the future is bringing down on them. The pressure is there.
As journalists are being made redundant, trainees are losing mentors, so they are not able to learn skills or how to avoid errors. Instead of learning their craft from senior mentors, trainees are often left on their own because there is not enough time for a proper structure to bring them through the apprenticeship—if I can call it that—of learning the skills and craft of journalism.
We have also seen a cut in the number of editors. The Press has lost its subbing sub-editor and its page sub-editor. The checks and balances in producing copy have therefore been withdrawn, which puts more pressure on journalists to ensure that everything is accurate, along with the pressures of balancing news and finding time to research and dig into stories and get the other side of the story. They have to work incredibly hard, often on low pay, to get the right story into their papers.
Kelvin Hopkins
In my early life in politics, reporters went out and met people, spoke to them and interviewed them at length. They got to know the local politicians, the local community and the local areas; they were really in touch with the local community, and they were better for it.
Rachael Maskell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly what journalists want—to be the people who are uncovering the stories, building the relationships and really getting that personal touch into their stories—but the limitations that are now placed on them are curbing their ability to do those things.
We are also seeing a reduction in the number of photographers—a profession that has not yet been mentioned today. The York Press, which would once have had six, seven or eight photographers, now has only one professional photographer, with others freelancing. A photograph tells a story, and there is an art in being able to get that photograph well. We are often requested to send in a photograph, so readers get the typical line-up instead of the creative story that a photographer can provide. We need to remember the essential role that photographers play and the pressure that they, too, are under when they contribute their skills to produce a paper.
We need to think about what we want for the future of our papers. We can all agree that the corporate ownership model has not delivered the local democratisation of news, and that we need to rethink it. That is why an inquiry would be so timely: it would ensure that we could look at all the options that are now open to local papers.
I have had some discussions about what a co-operative model looks like. I both agree and disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman); I think it is too late to start looking at that kind of model when a paper is failing. We need to look at it now. We need to build local co-operation from the community into papers, to ensure that there is a local eye on what is happening, not just a distant editor doing their best, possibly over a number of publications, or even just their own paper, but who is not based in the local community.
How do we bring that local voice right into the workings of a paper today? We need to raise the voices of journalists, the people working day and night on our papers, to ensure that they have real input into the shape and the future of not only their own publication but their industry, to make sure that they can use their professionalism in determining what a real community paper looks like.
I certainly support suggestions about hypothecated taxation being a means of supporting the industry in the future, ensuring that there is a real wall between content and income sources but ensuring that papers receive the injection of income that is obviously needed to keep alive the vital democracy that they provide.
We face the challenges that I have set out and we must ensure that we respond to them, because these papers and in particular their journalists, who are at the frontline, are looking to us. At the moment they are just part of the wider corporate picture, and if the money is not returned to these corporate giants, which we have heard monopolise the sector, we could lose a real element of our social democracy and we will regret that when it is gone.
I thank the NUJ for raising this issue with Members of Parliament, I thank the Backbench Business Committee for recognising the urgent need for this debate, and I ask the Minister to ensure that there is a proper inquiry into what is happening now to our local media, particularly our local print media, so that we can sustain the sector and put a proper model in place for the future.
Corri Wilson (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
I start by saying that I believe local media should be seen as an asset to the communities they serve. They are vital for a healthy democracy, they benefit local businesses, they provide a platform for local campaigns, they hold local politicians to account and they shine a light on some of the important local issues that matter to our constituents.
The local press promote local fund-raising initiatives, highlight local government achievements and failings, and can be found at every gala and every community event. They are the voice of their readers, or listeners, and they act as a watchdog. People trust them and see them as somewhere to go when things goes wrong or when things need to be put right. Essentially, a quality local paper or radio station can supply part of the glue that holds local communities together, giving people a sense of themselves. So the crisis affecting local news is one we need to address urgently.
More than half of all parliamentary constituencies, including my own constituency, do not have a dedicated daily local newspaper. The geography of my constituency means that we benefit from three excellent local weeklies. Each publication focuses on a different part of my constituency, each one caters for the different demographics of their unique area, and each one offers timely and balanced reporting of current events. However, each one faces challenges in what is now an extremely difficult marketplace.
The declining circulation figures of local, regional and national papers across the country have resulted in editorial cuts, job losses and office closures. As more people move online for their news, the decline in the printed press has been partially offset by website growth. However, competition for advertising means that most UK local newspapers are seeing a fall in their overall revenue, and the impact of the BBC’s expansion in online local news coverage is being felt by many local publications.
We have seen job cuts throughout the sector. The National Union of Journalists has highlighted surveys that show that journalists have been put under considerable pressure as a result of staff cuts and mergers. Some journalists have confided that they are being stretched more and more, and consequently mistakes are made and quality suffers.
In such challenging times, many local papers face the choice of shutting up shop or allowing themselves to be subsumed by a larger media group, and, as has been mentioned previously, just four publishers now account for almost three quarters of local newspapers across the UK. In my own constituency, two local papers are owned by Newsquest, one by Johnston Press, and one by Trinity Mirror, with all the tabloid news values that come with that. That brings me to a personal gripe. I do not know about others in this Chamber, but when I arrive in a part of the country that I am unfamiliar with, I turn to the local paper to give me an idea about the area. Local papers are often a great way of finding out what is going on in an area, and what local events and attractions I can visit, and they can provide a taste of what the area is like. So, when a local paper focuses almost exclusively on a combination of crime and incompetence, scandal and conflict, and when it does little more than highlight all the negatives of the community it serves, the effect is to talk the area down. Local people can start to feel negative about their community and the visiting reader is left wondering how quickly they should leave the area.
I recently spoke to a friend who had been considering moving to a new town, but scouting around the local paper left her thinking that underneath the façade of what seemed like a nice enough area there lurked a dark underbelly of crime and corruption. Quality local news reporting should highlight problems, but it should also illustrate what is good about a community and indirectly promote the area to tourists and locals alike. However, if a paper’s ownership has no vested interest in the community it serves and is only concerned with shifting product, it is inevitable that some publications will do more harm than good, and cease to be an asset.
Concern about the steadily increasing amount of news production accounted for by large corporations is nothing new, as it dates back to the rise of press barons in the days of Queen Victoria. Not only did the press barons own chains of newspapers but some of them had no qualms about using their papers to promote their pet cause or to dismiss ideas and people they disagreed with.
However, the rise of multimedia conglomerates that have significant stakes across a range of central communications sectors means that it is no longer just a simple case of owners intervening in editorial decisions or firing personnel who fall foul of their world view. News production is now strongly influenced by commercial strategies, which are built around the overlaps between a company’s different media interests, and there is a growing trend whereby different publications in a group share resources. There is a high degree of co-operation between editorial units and the implementation of group-wide policies on many issues. The general effect of the monopoly of media ownership can be seen in research that concluded that those who work for large chains are less likely to have an attachment to the community in which they work. Editorial staff can be moved around a news group, fliting from one publication to another, and failing to put down roots in any one place. For some, the media organisation takes precedence over the local community.
There is a widespread debate in Scotland about the relationship between the media and democracy, but there is a strong belief that critical and well-supported journalism is essential to a thriving democracy. We need a media environment that values, respects and promotes quality news reporting.
Finally, in a contracting industry the economies of scale take over, but it is the duty of both the free media and the Government to ensure that the local media sector delivers robustly evidenced and well-balanced news. Merging titles and laying off good journalists has an impact on local media’s ability to support democracy and high-quality debate, but we all have a vested interest in supporting this vital sector.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and the Backbench Business Committee for tabling this debate, which has proven to be passionate and interesting in its discussion of all the social media, local newspapers and so on that everyone has talked about. It is a matter of some interest to me, in trying to sum up the debate, that I have heard the same issues being repeated from across the entire UK. Members will have to forgive me if I do not pick up on the particular points they made.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland referred to the National Union of Journalists and said that local news is essential for our democracy. I think everyone here would agree with that. MPs need to get messages out—we need to let our constituents know what is happening—and our constituents need to be able to hold us to account. The hon. Lady’s local newspapers have run campaigns that helped her to help her constituents, and I think all of us in this Chamber have had the same kind of experience.
The main issue seems to be that local newspapers are no longer as local as they once were, and I say that from my own experience. I have two—I should say two and a half—local newspapers. The Motherwell Times and Bellshill Speaker are run by Johnston Press and the Wishaw Press is run by Trinity Mirror, but those local papers no longer have local newspaper offices. The Wishaw Press sends a journalist to the Wishaw library every week and asks people to contribute stories online by email, and Johnston Press has an office at the very top part of North Lanarkshire that runs our local paper, whereas Motherwell is very much in the southern part of the county.
There has been a lowering of both quality and pay, which has helped to drive down readership and led to the growth of fake news. Most local newspapers are owned by one of four publishers, as all Members who have spoken in the debate have said. It drives a wedge between newspapers and their communities when they do not have a footprint in the local area. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) referred to his time as a councillor. I, too, can remember when local journalists reported from local council meetings. That has stopped being the case, even since I was a councillor a few years ago. Journalists simply do not have the time.
Facebook and Google’s advertising revenue is expected to grow, and that may need to be looked at, because if they are not taxed properly and that money does not go back into the newspaper industry or local media in all their forms, we are all much the poorer for it.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) regaled us with his experiences as a local radio journalist and as father of the chapel. It is pretty obvious that with fewer and fewer news journalists, the quality of news goes down. He also talked about a drop in the number of newspapers and staff in his area. He spoke about how he uses his membership of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to question how BBC local democracy reporters will be used. That is also an issue in Scotland, where we will have 80 of them. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) has already touched on how difficult the situation is and how they should not be used to replace locally based journalists.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley also talked about local TV. In Scotland, we are getting to the stage where we have local TV stations run by Scottish Television and the BBC. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about the Scottish Six. It will not be on the main BBC Scotland channel. It will be broadcast on a second channel that will only be on from 7 pm to 11 pm. It will therefore not necessarily get the viewership figures that we would want, especially in these times of constitutional debate and interest in Scotland, with Brexit and how it will affect our people. There is also interest in how the BBC will spend the money it raises in Scotland in Scotland itself. The BBC only spends about 55% of what it raises in Scotland in the country. In other areas, the figure is 75% or 80%. That is a real problem. The hon. Lady also talked about Welsh language media. In Scotland, there is an issue with the funding of Gaelic programming. I do not want to beat the drum for Scotland all the time, because what is happening there is happening across the UK.
It is important, as many Members have said, that local media are prevalent, as they are a bastion for local democracy. Local media really understand what is going on locally and can be a good force for local campaigning and fundraising. How many of us look at our children and our grandchildren in the weekly newspaper and sigh and feel very proud? I am really proud of my local papers. Last week, there was a local rally welcoming refugees to Wishaw, and the Wishaw Press turned up in force and had it on the front page. That is local democracy in action. The paper will also cover the proposed Scottish Defence League rally, and I hope it gives that the same amount of coverage, because we have to be balanced in what we say.
I may not agree with what local newspapers write, but their right to write it has to be preserved. The NUJ has highlighted that in its mapping exercise. We need to preserve and protect what we have. The Government should consider an inquiry into local media. I hope the Minister will listen to the calls that Members have made. I am not going to stand here and repeat everything that everyone has said, because although these things bear repetition, I do not think it would advance what has already been said this afternoon. This industry is vital for all of us and all our constituents, and we have to look at it in that light.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Nuttall. It is also a pleasure to sum up for Her Majesty’s official Opposition.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) on her speech and on persuading the Backbench Business Committee—I thank it, too—with other colleagues to grant this debate. She made an extremely passionate case for local media. Her proposal about the importance of treating local media as a community asset was echoed by others. She also talked about models and ways that we can take that forward in the future.
The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) told us about his career as a local journalist. I am surprised he did not get a Pulitzer prize for his reporting of the football in Bishop Auckland, but he made some sensible suggestions on the way forward for local media, and his speech will bear careful study by the Minister following the debate.
We also had a very good speech from the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She listed Welsh language titles during the course of her speech. Fortunately for Hansard reporters, the Welsh language is highly phonetic, unlike the English language, so they will have no problem whatever in spelling all the names of the publications she mentioned in the course of her speech.
We also had a very good speech from the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who said how blessed she was with the richness of local media provision in her constituency. She castigated the local press for their accurate reporting of age, and I think we all had a tinge of sympathy with that pertinent point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) made a strong case for local papers and told us about his column in a socialist publication. It did not sound like it had a mass circulation, but he did have the consolation that he was trying to form a mass movement.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The paper did not have a mass circulation. It had a rather limited circulation, but it was not a commercial paper, so it was not in any way undermining journals across the country.
Kevin Brennan
I am sure the press barons of this country are mightily relieved to hear that.
My hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) spoke with a great deal of wisdom about the role local media can play in local emergencies. She described how in the floods, the local media were a very important public service and not just reporting organisations. She was also the first Member today to mention the importance of photographers. She emphasised the value of adopting a co-operative model for local media not just when they get into trouble, but before that so that it is not just a response to a crisis. I thought that was an interesting point.
The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Corri Wilson) expressed concerns about the monopoly of media ownership, about which she made some good points. Speaking from the Scottish National party Front Bench, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) spoke about the “Scottish Six”, BBC funding and the new channel that will be on the BBC in Scotland. I am on record being highly critical of the amount of money given to Wales in that same announcement. Scotland got £20 million and Wales should have got £12 million, but we only got £8 million. Additional investment is nevertheless important. She also mentioned Gaelic language provision. I am an avid watcher of BBC Alba when it covers the Guinness Pro12 rugby matches. Despite the commentary being in Gaelic, I think I can pick up enough of it to understand what is going on. She made a useful contribution to the debate.
I was quite surprised that we were not joined by the right hon. Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne) this afternoon.
Kevin Brennan
Perhaps he is too busy, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley says—we know that he has many jobs that he has to perform. I understood that the right hon. Gentleman’s purpose in taking the editorship of the Evening Standard was to bring that experience from outside the Chamber into Parliament. I would have thought that this afternoon’s debate might have afforded an appropriate opportunity for him to allow us the benefit of his wisdom and knowledge on this subject.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is making a very good point. I wonder if he might inquire if the right hon. Gentleman has joined the NUJ.
Kevin Brennan
I think it is more likely that he has bought the NUJ rather than joined it, having looked at his entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Nevertheless, we miss him. I hope that the Minister, who I know is very friendly with the right hon. Gentleman, will send him our warm regards and our regret that he was unable to join us. I am sure he is very fruitfully engaged elsewhere, rather than being here in this debate in Westminster Hall this afternoon in our House of Commons.
I should also thank the Minister for kindly gracing us with his presence, albeit slightly late. I am sure there was a very good reason why he was not able to be here. As a man known for his humility, I am sure he will explain that to the Chamber when he gets up to address us after I sit down.
[Mike Gapes in the Chair]
Since other Members have given us the benefit of their experience, I will do the same. I started off after university as a news editor of a local community paper in my home town of Cwmbran. It was a fairly humble publication called Cwmbran Checkpoint, but nevertheless we did a lot of journalism of the kind that Members have talked about—reporting on local council meetings, holding the local council to account and publishing stories of local interest.
Of course, the media have been transformed in the 30 or so years since I performed that humble role—much more humble than that of the right hon. Member for Tatton, obviously. We had golf ball typewriters, we laid out the text using wax rollers and we had Letraset to make headlines. It was very different back then in the analogue world—the Minister is far too young to know anything about that, but he can read about it in the history books. It was a very different world than we have now. Hon. Members have rightly pointed out that the technological revolution that has taken place over the last few decades has transformed media and had a big impact on local media in particular.
We have all agreed this afternoon that regional and local media are crucial to the strength of our communities and the health of our democracy. It is, therefore, a pleasure to speak in this debate in the week celebrating Local News Matters. Whether on paper or on screen, local news has a wide readership, reaching 40 million people a week. People continue to trust local journalists, perhaps a bit more than they trust national journalists. In some ways, perhaps there is an analogy with politics: people are generally in favour of their local MP but not necessarily in favour of politicians in general. The same impact is seen sometimes in local journalism.
I am sure that every hon. Member—we have heard from many this afternoon—is able to name local papers, news websites, radio stations and even, these days, local TV stations in their constituencies that help create a sense of local pride and identity, and inform residents about local issues. In my city of Cardiff, there are many outlets, including Radio Cardiff, Wales Online, the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo, not to mention the local BBC productions and Welsh-language publications such as Y Dinesydd, all of which make an important contribution at a local level.
However, as we have heard, research by the Press Gazette suggests that local and regional news provision is reducing. Since 2005, 200 newspapers have ceased circulation and the number of journalists has more than halved. We can all wax lyrical about our constituency’s local news provision and its contribution to our local communities, but the reason we are having this debate is that the future of those outlets is far from secure. There are fewer local papers, fewer local journalists and fewer local editorial teams, being run by an ever smaller number of conglomerates. As we have heard in the debate, about three quarters of the local press is owned by a mere four companies.
It is not just about the number of papers and reporters. There is also the issue of independence and the resources available to journalists and editors to hold authorities to account at a local level. Research by Cardiff University that followed the trends in local journalism in Port Talbot from 1970 to 2015 found that over time, as hon. Members have mentioned, fewer and fewer stories were informed by journalists attending meetings in person, while the use of managed media sources, such as press releases, rose to more than 50%. Journalists increasingly quoted high status sources, with less input from members of the public. Naturally, that affects the ability of local media to scrutinise those who make decisions about their communities.
I do not think anyone is suggesting that we can turn the clock back to the days when I and others started out—to an analogue age when local newspapers were pretty much the only source of local information. Modern technology, starting a long time ago with TV and radio and now with online media sources, social media and so on, offers huge opportunities for the democratisation of news and the diversification of views, but also for the potential proliferation of fake news, as hon. Members have mentioned. Even though we cannot turn the clock back, we need to ensure that current and future technological developments are working to benefit everyone.
Local and regional news provision is transferring from one format to another, but local and regional services on TV and radio need support too. The National Union of Journalists has been mentioned several times in the debate. It undertook a survey of the closures of BBC district offices covering local TV and radio. I would like to share the results of that with the House today. Pointing out that the BBC is due to announce another round of cuts to the regions in the near future of perhaps £15 million out of a budget of £150 million, the survey’s results show that, over the past 10 years, more than 20 district offices have closed, and that, once the district office closes, the designated reporter is often close to follow. In many towns, the nearest BBC reporter is now over an hour’s drive away, which makes localised news coverage increasingly difficult.
For example, 10 years ago, BBC Radio Gloucestershire had three reporters: one for Gloucester and Forest of Dean, one for Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and another for Stroud and the Cotswolds. Now, only one reporter covers all six constituencies in that area, and the post has been vacant since the end of September. There is no longer a day reporter covering drive-time stories. Instead, there is only an early reporter working from a satellite car for the breakfast show and a late reporter covering stories for the next day. Likewise, 10 years ago in Lancashire, there were four district studios. Now there is only one, and only two full-time and two part-time reporters. The Newcastle, Durham, and Sunderland offices all closed in 2011, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland is fully aware.
News services that have moved or begun online often have issues too. Companies are struggling to replace lost print revenue with new profits generated online. A News Media Association survey found that 81% of media organisations’ revenue comes from print readership and only 12% from digital. However, the industry continues to close its newspapers in favour of digital formats. When one visits a modern local newsroom, as I am sure many hon. Members here today have done, one is struck by the extent to which stories and deadlines are driven by online clicks, with advertising revenue related to those trends. That sparks fear of a genuine danger that clickbait journalism will be encouraged and will replace real local reporting. It would be a genuine shame if all our local news outlets eventually mirrored the Mail Online sidebar of shame in their approach to reporting. That is the fear and the potential danger of that approach.
Be it in print or on screen, the trends that I and others have outlined are of course long term and have been developing over decades. I mentioned the NUJ’s survey of the closure of BBC district offices. Other public service broadcasters are also crucial to regional and local news. The Welsh language TV channel, S4C—Sianel Pedwar Cymru—focuses on Welsh issues and consistently features local news and views from around the country. Again, rather than wholeheartedly supporting the channel, the Government’s policies are creating uncertainty about its future. In my letter to the Minister on St David’s day, I asked the Government at least to freeze S4C’s funding until the independent review of the channel is completed, and to announce the review’s terms of reference. Instead, they have offered only a six-month freeze and further talks mid-year, and they still have not launched the review. I am afraid the UK Government are dragging their feet on setting up the review, and we want to know why. S4C and Welsh audiences deserve better.
This gives me the opportunity the right to put the Minister right on his somewhat ludicrous rewriting of the history of the establishment of S4C, which we have heard him rehearse several times in the Chamber recently. Yes, it was established under Mrs Thatcher’s Government, but only after a long and bitter campaign by Labour and Plaid Cymru, which forced them to withdraw proposals that would have breached their own manifesto.
Kevin Brennan
The Minister says, “Oh, give over!” from a sedentary position. Given that he has decided to challenge my assertion, let me read him the Cabinet note from 18 September 1980. The then Home Secretary, Willie Whitelaw, said
“that the Government would withdraw its plans to share Welsh language programme, between two television channels. Instead the programmes would, for an experimental period of three years, be broadcast on one channel, as had been proposed in the Party Manifesto. He still thought that the previous plans were preferable but he had agreed to change them in response to representations, put to him by Lord Cledwyn and others, of the views of informed and responsible opinion in Wales.”
Lord Cledwyn was, of course, Cledwyn Hughes, the former Labour Welsh Secretary. I forgive the Minister, because he probably was not even born at the time of that great struggle, but it is wrong for him to glibly assert that S4C was established without a bitter fight, which some of us remember well.
Helen Goodman
Just to reveal how old I am, my first job was working for a Labour Member of Parliament in 1979-80, Phillip Whitehead, who was on the Committee for that Bill. What my hon. Friend says is absolutely right: there was a significant Labour campaign to achieve that.
Kevin Brennan
There was, and I acknowledge Plaid Cymru’s contribution to that campaign. It is only right to put the historical record straight, rather than allow the hares that the Minister set running—
Matt Hancock
I am always very happy to contribute to the hon. Gentleman’s dreams. To deal with this one right now, I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Gentleman has welcomed the Conservative Government’s establishment of S4C and has accepted that, in fact, it was introduced by a Conservative Government. We, as Conservatives, welcome the cross-party support for it.
Kevin Brennan
Let me quote from another document from 1980. Wyn Roberts, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Welsh Office, said:
“I travelled home yesterday with Lord Garonwy Roberts who told me that the Shadow Cabinet last week”—
that was the Labour shadow Cabinet—
“decided to put forward an amendment to the Broadcasting Bill in the Lords to concentrate all Welsh language programmes on the Fourth Channel…If the Lords were to carry the amdmt. it would clearly weaken our position very considerably.”
It was that pressure that led to the Government having to fulfil their commitment, which they wanted to renege on at the time.
I will not test your patience any further, Mr Gapes. As a former history teacher—[Interruption.]
Mike Gapes (in the Chair)
Order. I would be grateful if the Minister confined his remarks to his winding-up speech.
Kevin Brennan
I accept your ruling, Mr Gapes, although I enjoy the Minister’s sedentary remarks. They liven things up considerably.
That is evidence that S4C is not a priority for the Government. Meanwhile, the Welsh Government are providing a grant to it and supporting Welsh-language papers—the papurau bro, as the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd called them. That is because that Government understand the importance of local news to communities.
I do not want to paint too gloomy a picture. Regional and local news outlets continue to break very important stories, often of national significance, while both entertaining residents and informing them of community events and developments, but they do that despite rather than because of the Government’s action. I encourage the Minister to do more after this debate. He has had encouragement from both sides of the Chamber to do something.
The BBC has announced the local democracy reporter programme, which hon. Members have referred to, and which is going to cost £8 million of licence fee money. BBC reporters will work with local papers. Superficially, that is a welcome initiative, but in effect the Government are outsourcing a complex issue to another body rather than taking charge of the situation. Against that background, we support the call for the Government to carry out a national review into local news and media plurality. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will commit to undertake such a review? Other hon. Members have also called for one.
The NUJ’s research, “Mapping changes in local news 2015-2017: more bad news for democracy?”, which was published this month, shows a net loss of nine regional papers since 2015, and a loss of more than 400 local journalism jobs over a 17-month period. In 2015, two thirds of local authority districts, encompassing more than half the UK’s population, no longer had a local daily newspaper. Between November 2015 and March 2017, the number of local monopolies rose to 170 out of 380 in Wales, England and Scotland.
The Government are in a unique position to pull together views from across the industry—from multinationals to trade unions, civic society groups and the mutual sector—to judge the effect that these changes have on society and to discuss potential solutions. I would be interested if the Minister can tell us how he will respond to the demands set out in early-day motion 1109. Will the Government undertake to launch some kind of national review into what is going on? Setting party politics aside, we are all in agreement about the importance of local news in all its formats. It is crucial to safeguard these precious community assets into the future. The Government have a role to play, and we would be interested to hear from the Minister what role he will play in achieving that.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I apologise for my earlier interruptions, Mr Gapes, but I wanted to correct that one point before I started my full response to this very thoughtful and interesting debate. I thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) for securing this important debate on the future of local and regional news providers.
Kevin Brennan
I do not want to labour the point too much, but while the Minister is in the mood for apologising, perhaps he could apologise to the House for being late to the debate.
Matt Hancock
Of course I am very sorry. I am glad that we managed to begin appropriately at the start of the debate.
The many Members who contributed to the debate have a clear direction of travel, which is to underline the importance of journalism and local media—especially newspapers, but also broadcast and online media. As the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland said, quoting Harry Evans, journalism is a public service. The point that was made about devolution meaning that there is need for more, rather than less, local scrutiny, which journalism obviously helps to provide, is important in this context. More decisions are being taken at a local level, and it is really important to ensure that they get appropriate scrutiny.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising a point during the passage of the Digital Economy Bill about the importance of ensuring that whistleblowers and journalists are protected from the tightening-up of the enforcement of data protection rules. The Digital Economy Bill is a very positive step, in terms of data protection. The hon. Lady and a couple of other Members rightly raised the important matter of ensuring that the law is explicit, rather than implicit, in the protection of journalism and journalists, and I am very grateful to her for bringing that to my attention.
As MPs, we all understand the importance of local newspapers in bringing communities together and providing a local voice to communities, as well as holding us and others in positions of responsibility to account. I am going to follow the trend in this debate. In my constituency, I am fortunate that the local press is widespread. There are 13 local titles that cover my patch, including the East Anglian Daily Times; Eastern Daily Press; Newmarket Journal; Newmarket Weekly News; Haverhill Echo; Haverhill Weekly News; Thetford and Brandon Times; Brandon Life; Ely News; Bury Free Press; Bury Mercury; and Cambridge Evening News, which just covers the corner of my constituency. That is just the press. I also have local radio stations, local BBC radio and TV, ITV, and Heart FM. So there is no shortage of high-quality local journalism in West Suffolk, but absolutely there is pressure, which is what has been highlighted by this debate.
Everybody has had a chance to mention their local newspapers. Mr Gapes, I am sure that if you were to speak, you would mention the Ilford Recorder, too. It is appropriate that the debate is this week because this is Local News Matters week, spearheaded by the NUJ. I welcome its report, published earlier this week, into this matter, some of which was referred to by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), and which highlights the importance of local news to communities across the country. Many important points were in the review, including how we get investment into good quality local journalism. One of the new ways to do that has been the initiative by the BBC to put in place 150 local democracy reporters.
Questions were raised about how the reporters were going to operate, and there was a lot of work and consultation by the BBC to develop criteria for the local democracy reporters, including making sure that they had a previous track record in public service journalism, with content provided in lots of different ways, and that the operation could work locally in practice. I heard the point about additionality clearly, and it is important that the 150 local democracy reporters are genuinely additional. I am sure that the BBC has also heard that point. Alongside that, the NewsBank will allow BBC video and audio material to be available shortly after transmission. Local newspapers have complained that they cannot use BBC material that is freely available on their websites to enhance their own material, but the NewsBank will enhance the online offering.
A data journalism hub will be created, with staff seconded from the local news industry to make data journalism available to news organisations across the media industry. The first wave of recruitment will start in the spring. So the BBC is playing its part, and I am glad that that has been welcomed. We should thank my predecessor as Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), who at the time of the charter review ensured that that happened.
We are about to bring in a different initiative: business rates relief for local newspapers to help with cost pressures. In our manifesto we committed to consult on a business rates relief for local papers. In the Budget in March last year we announced that that would be introduced from 1 April this year, so it will start in a couple of days’ time on Saturday. Local newspapers in England with an office space will be eligible for a business rates discount. I am eager to see the impact of the scheme. I urge any of the titles that we have discussed today, and other local papers, to take advantage of it.
On the concentration of ownership, plurality of media ownership is an important consideration. Legislation was introduced to relax the cross-media ownership requirements, allowing local newspapers to be involved in local TV as part of our attempt to ensure that local newspapers are sustainable. Local TV has a role to play. Some £25 million of funding was set aside in the previous BBC funding agreement to set up local TV. Some stations, such as London Live and Notts TV, have close links with local newspapers, and a Kent local TV service is forthcoming. STV in Scotland has taken advantage of the local TV licences and is launching its STV2 services to bring together a network of its current services with localised news content as well. We have to look at local media and journalism in the round.
Commercial radio was also mentioned. Obviously, commercial radio is incredibly important and in many areas is thriving. It reaches a very high proportion of people. We are currently consulting on reducing some of the burdens on commercial radio. I was involved in a commercial radio station, Oxygen 107.9, when I was a student—I was minority sports correspondent. It attempted to be a commercial radio station, but in fact it folded shortly after I left. It was more fun making the radio than it was listening to it. At least, that is what our advertisers must have thought.
Community radio has an important part to play. Several hon. Members mentioned its importance and we have taken action on it. The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland raised the question of community radio being able to raise money from advertising. Two years ago, in April 2015, we increased to £15,000 the amount that a community radio station can make without the limits on that being in place. There is a reason why there is a limit. Community radio station licences are genuinely for community purposes. We would not want them to be used for commercial radio squeezing out community providers. We increased the limit to £15,000, and I hope community radio stations will take advantage of the fact that they can now raise £15,000 of advertising revenue before any of the other limits kick in.
I want to stress some additional facts. The fact that 58% of people do not have access to a daily local press was raised, but if we take local press in print and online into account, 95% of the country is covered, according to NMA industry figures. Although clearly under stress, there is availability of local reporting, whether in print or online, right across the country. The challenge of new technology is to find a way to ensure that it provides a sustainable business model for local journalism. We cannot hold back the tide of technology. The key is how we can harness it in a way that provides for a sustainable business model, and allows citizens to access their news more readily than they could before when there was only print available. That is the big challenge we face.
The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland also asked about treating newspapers as assets of community value. The legislation on such assets, however, refers only to the land and buildings. That might potentially cover the physical assets of a local newspaper, but her point is that there is more to the assets of a local newspaper than the physical asset. I will therefore have a conversation with Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government, the lead Department, to see whether we can make any progress. We will have to look into the practical questions, but I understand her thrust.
Many other very good points were made in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) not only enlightened us with his experience, stressing again the importance of plurality and that the BBC proposals need to be an enhancement of and addition to what is already on offer, but raised the issue of fake news. The Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is investigating fake news and I very much look forward to the results of its inquiry. In Government, we are well aware of it, as one might imagine, and it engages many interested parties, but we will wait for the report of the ongoing Select Committee inquiry before we come forward with anything.
The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was clear about the importance not only of English-language but of Welsh-language newspapers. That is a good point to take into account. As she said, democracies need watchdogs with a powerful bark—whether that bark is in English or Welsh, it must provide for the local audience.
Liz Saville Roberts
I emphasise that, although Plaid Cymru is expected to talk about Welsh-language matters, e need to bear in mind that 20% of Wales speaks Welsh and 80% of Wales speaks English. In terms of plurality of media in Wales, it is equally significant to look at the accountability of democracy in English as in Welsh.
Matt Hancock
I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. I am a strong supporter of the Welsh language and of S4C—I love it so much I even had an unnecessary argument about who came up with it. It is incredibly important that people are held to account in a language that is understood by local citizens. That is what democratic accountability is all about, and that includes in Welsh. I take her point. I thought that the additional support we have announced for S4C would get a warmer welcome from the hon. Member for Cardiff West. The millions of pounds extra for S4C underlines the Government’s support for the Welsh language.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris) and others made the point that local papers are often more unbiased, and are certainly perceived to be. They have to cater for the whole community to survive. She mentioned that they also campaign on behalf of local communities, whether about local deliveries on unadopted roads or elderly residents. In my case, a few years ago the Haverhill Echo campaigned to bring the Olympic torch to Haverhill. The paper also campaigned alongside the Thetford and Brandon Times to save the Brandon day care centre, which we successfully did this year. Engaging in campaigns of value to the local population is a classic role of the local newspaper.
The hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned new technology. Indeed, many hon. Members have rightly pointed out that this industry is changing at dramatic speed. We need to ensure that the technology works for the public interest of journalism, and initiatives are under way to ensure that. Google’s Digital News Initiative was launched with €150 million to support digital local news journalism. A number of UK publishers, including publishers of local media Trinity Mirror, Johnston Press and The Ferret, are receiving funding from that. However, we have to see how the market develops and keep a close eye on it to ensure that it is sustainable, because local accountability matters.
On the call for an inquiry, we have to see how the BBC initiative beds down and how the business rates support, which comes in only on Saturday, works in practice. We keep this question under constant review. This area is of great significance and is of importance to the Government. Of course, I am happy to debate it in the House at any point. Rather than having a single fixed inquiry, we will keep it under constant review, and I will be surprised if the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland does not ensure that that is the case.
Helen Goodman
We have had an excellent debate, and I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who took part. This is a significant issue. There was consensus today about the significance of local news for democracy and communities, and agreement that we need to keep a watchful eye on this matter. Some positive action has been taken but more might be needed. I am grateful to the Minister for responding positively to the assets of community value idea, and to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us the opportunity to look into this issue in more detail.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the future of local and regional news providers.
Written Statements
Companies House Public Targets 2017-18
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)
My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior), has made the following written statement:
I have set Companies House the following targets for the year 2017-18:
To digitally enable 99% of all possible accounts filings
To achieve an 87% take-up of our digital filing services
To maintain an availability of our digital services of 99.9%
To reach a compliance level of 75% of confirmation statements filed early or on time
To reach a compliance level of 95% of accounts filed early or on time
To reduce the costs of our baseline activities by 3.5%
To achieve a customer satisfaction score of at least 88%
These targets reflect the key priorities for Companies House in the coming year, with a focus on moving customers away from paper to digital channels, and ensuring the register is up to date.
[HCWS576]
Intellectual Property Office: Performance Targets
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
As an Executive agency and trading fund of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, we set targets which are agreed by Ministers and laid before Parliament. For 2017-18 our targets are:
We will have ratified the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement for international registration of designs by 31 March 2018 and be in a position to launch the service on 6 April 2018 (the common commencement date).
We will publish 90% of acceptable applications for national trade marks for opposition within 90 days of filing.
We will offer faster handling of patent applications, by providing an examination report with a search report when both are requested at the application date, and meeting at least 90% of requests for an accelerated two-month turnaround for search, publication and examination.
We will ensure that overall customer satisfaction is at least 80%.
We will work with industry and enforcement partners to build a co-ordinated response to the growth of illicit streaming, including robust analysis of current legal sanctions and developing proposals for change as appropriate.
We will increase the number of businesses that better understand how to manage their IP: at least 35% of an expected 100,000 businesses we reach will make an informed decision regarding management of their IP.
We will provide market-specific IP advice to 5000 current and prospective British exporters. As part of this work, we will deliver bespoke one-to-one business support activity to at least 200 companies annually.
We will demonstrate our commitment to diversity by securing external validation for our approach to inclusion for under-represented groups.
We will achieve return of capital employed of at least 4%.
We will deliver an efficiency gain of 3.5%.
[HCWS575]
Cabinet Committees
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Ben Gummer)
Today the Government are publishing an updated list of Cabinet Committees and implementation taskforces. As part of the changes, the Prime Minister will chair two new Sub-Committees of the European Union Exit and Trade Committee.
The two new Sub-Committees are as follows:
European Union Exit and Trade (Negotiations) Sub-Committee: to oversee the negotiations on the UK’s withdrawal from, and future relationship with, the European Union.
European Union Exit and Trade (International Trade) Sub-Committee: to focus on issues relating to the UK’s trading arrangements with non-European Union countries.
Copies of the associated documents will be placed in the Library of House and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS587]
Convergence Programme
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
Article 121 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU) requires the UK to send an annual convergence programme to the European Commission reporting upon its fiscal situation and policies. The UK’s convergence programme will be sent to the European Commission by 30 April. This deadline was set in accordance with the European semester timetable for both convergence and national reform programmes. The UK will continue to have all of the rights, obligations and benefits that membership brings up until the point we leave the EU, and as such the Government will continue to submit the UK’s convergence programme until that time.
Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993 requires that the content of the convergence programme must be drawn from an assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position which has been presented to Parliament by the Government for its approval. This assessment is based on the Budget 2017 report and the most recent Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal outlook and it is this content, not the convergence programme itself, which requires the approval of the House for the purposes of the Act.
Article 121, along with Article 126 of the TFEU, is the legal basis for the stability and growth pact, which is the co-ordination mechanism for EU fiscal policies and requires member states to avoid excessive Government deficits. Although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, by virtue of its protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro, it is only required to “endeavour to avoid” excessive deficits. Unlike the euro area member states, the UK is not subject to sanctions at any stage of the European semester process.
Subject to the progress of parliamentary business, debates will be held soon in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, In order for both Houses to approve this assessment before the convergence programme is sent to the Commission. While the convergence programme itself is not subject to parliamentary approval or amendment, I will deposit advanced copies of the document in the Libraries of both Houses and copies will be available through the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office.
The UK’s convergence programme will be available electronically via HM Treasury’s website prior to it being sent to the European Commission.
[HCWS582]
Business Rates: Plant Nurseries
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Since at least 1928, plant nursery grounds have been treated by the Valuation Office Agency as exempt from business rates as part of the general exemption for agriculture. However, following a recent Court of Appeal decision, the Valuation Office Agency has started to bring into business rates buildings at nursery grounds including structures such as polytunnels.
The exemption for agricultural properties is an important part of the rating system. It ensures that large areas of agricultural land and buildings are not liable to a property tax which could have a significant impact on the cost of farming. I can confirm to the House that the Government’s policy is that land and buildings at plant nursery grounds should benefit from the agricultural exemption for business rates.
Therefore, we intend at the soonest opportunity to amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 to ensure both agricultural land and buildings at plant nursery grounds are exempt from business rates. This will return the law to align with the practice followed by the Valuation Office Agency before the decision in the Court of Appeal.
[HCWS585]
Architects Registration Board Review
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
The UK has a reputation for the high quality of its architectural profession. To maintain that reputation it is important that anyone who hires an architect can be assured of their competence. This is partly why we have a system of regulation under the Architects Act where nobody can use the title of architect unless they are registered with the Architects Registration Board (ARB). However, it is critical that the board conducts its regulatory function in a way that is proportionate, cost-effective and transparent and does not impose unnecessary burdens on those wishing to practice as architects.
The ARB has been the subject of a periodic review, in line with Cabinet Office guidance for reviews of arm’s length bodies. I am today publishing the report of that review. This confirms the decision taken by the last Government to continue light-touch regulation of architects based on protection of title to provide protection for home owners, businesses, builders and others commissioning work from architects.
The ARB also acts as the UK competent authority role for architects under the mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive. While the UK remains a member of the European Union, ARB will continue to play that role but this will be kept under review in the light of any arrangements made as the UK leaves the EU.
We have been grateful for suggestions about how to modernise the operation of the board and the review has identified a number of opportunities to reduce costs and improve services. These include strengthening the board’s governance and accountability and improving the complaints handling and disciplinary processes. It is the Government’s intention to implement these recommendations.
The review also made a number of recommendations relating to the way in which qualifications are set which entitle people to register as architects. These recommendations could lead to extensive change for UK architects and architectural education but also relate directly to UK compliance with the EU mutual recognition of professional qualifications directive. The Government have decided that it would be premature to take forward these recommendations at this time, but as the UK leaves the EU, we recognise these will need to be addressed. This will minimise disruption and cost to business, architects and the educational sector.
The Government are grateful for the work of the board in delivering its role. The recommendations of the review will enable the board to serve both architects and their clients even more effectively and the Government look forward to working with the board on implementing them.
I am placing a copy of the review report in the Library of both Houses.
[HCWS583]
UK Anti-Doping Tailored Review
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tracey Crouch)
I am announcing today the start of a tailored review of UK Anti-Doping (UKAD).
The principal aims of tailored reviews are to ensure public bodies remain fit for purpose, are well governed and properly accountable for what they do.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-reviews-of-public-bodies-guidance
UK Anti-Doping is the UK’s national anti-doping organisation responsible for ensuring sports in the UK are compliant with the world anti-doping code. UKAD is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and implements and manages the Government’s national anti-doping policy.
The review will consider UKAD’s position and its status as a DCMS-sponsored non-departmental public body (NDPB), and if the functions of UKAD are appropriate. If they are found to be, then the review will go on to consider UKAD’s efficiency, effectiveness and governance; and how it is preparing for the future.
The review process and findings will be examined by a challenge group, chaired by DCMS non-executive director, Matthew Campbell-Hill.
In conducting the review, officials will engage with a broad range of stakeholders across the UK (and further afield) in sport, science, medicine, law enforcement and education, and they will explore best practice in the public and private sectors. The review will follow guidance published in 2016 by the Cabinet Office: “Tailored Reviews: Guidance on Reviews of Public Bodies”. The terms of reference for the review and a public survey consultation about the work of UKAD can be found on gov.uk .
I will inform the House of the outcome of the review when it is completed and copies of the report of the review will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS586]
Primary Assessment in England
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)
Last October, I made a statement to Parliament about the primary assessment and accountability system in England. In that statement, I reaffirmed the importance of a good primary education, and particularly the importance of mastering the basics of literacy and numeracy, to ensure that every child is given the best chance to succeed in life, whatever their background. I also recognised that we must move to a settled system which is ambitious, supports teachers to help every child to reach their potential, allows schools to benchmark their own performance, and enables them to be held to account in a way that is fair and accurate.
Since then, we have taken a number of steps to improve the operation of the assessment system. We have worked with the teaching profession to produce new guidance for the moderation of teacher assessment, to improve the quality and consistency of that moderation, and we have provided additional training for local authority moderators. We have also taken steps to improve the test experience for pupils this year.
We have also talked to headteachers, teachers and others about the longer-term issues that need to be resolved to establish a settled, sustainable system. We are today launching a public consultation on the primary assessment system in England. Our consultation document, “Primary Assessment in England”, sets out wide-ranging proposals for improving our primary assessment system. These include how the system can help to prepare children to succeed at school, the starting point from which to measure the progress that children make in primary school, how we can ensure that the primary assessment system is proportionate, and how end of key stage assessment can be improved, particularly in the case of the statutory teacher assessment frameworks.
It is important that our assessment system can assess the progress and attainment of children of all abilities. The report of the independent Rochford review, also published last October, set out a number of recommendations to improve the way that the attainment and progress of children working below the level of the national curriculum tests is assessed in primary schools. The recommendations, if adopted, would result in significant changes and it is important that we hear the views of those who would be affected, and particularly teachers and others working with children who have special educational needs. That is why we are today also publishing a consultation document on the Rochford proposals and their possible implementation.
During the consultation period, which will last for 12 weeks, we want to hear from as many headteachers and teachers as possible to gather their views and feed them into our final decisions. I would encourage all those with an interest in primary education to engage with these consultation exercises and to share their opinions and insights.
Copies of these consultation documents have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS584]
Justice Update
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Elizabeth Truss)
As I committed on 27 February, when I set the new discount rate, I am today launching a six-week consultation on how the personal injury discount rate, used to help calculate lump sum payments of damages in personal injury claims, should be set in the future. The consultation document is available at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/personal-injury-discount-rate/.
It is a long-standing principle under our system that people who suffer injuries wrongfully at the hands of others should be compensated fully, and put in the financial position they would have been had the injury not happened. Where damages are awarded for future loss in the form of a lump sum, that award is adjusted to take account of the effect of the injured person being able to invest the money before the loss or expense for which it is awarded has actually occurred. The factor by which the award is adjusted is determined by the discount rate.
Under the Damages Act 1996, the Lord Chancellor has the power to set the discount rate from time to time. The rate must be set in accordance with the Act and the applicable legal principles set out in case law, particularly the 1998 House of Lords case of Wells v. Wells. The principles in Wells v. Wells lead to the conclusion that the discount rate should be based on the investment portfolio that offers the least risk to personal injury claimant investors in protecting an award of damages against inflation and against market risk. A change to the current legal framework would need primary legislation.
The power to set the discount rate was used first in 2001, when Lord Irvine set the rate at 2.5% by reference to a three-year average of real yields on index-linked gilts (ILGs). Following a review, I announced a change to the rate on 27 February this year to minus 0.75%, which came into force on 20 March. In doing so, I pledged to review the current law to consider: whether the rate should in future be set by an independent body; whether more frequent reviews would improve predictability and certainty for all parties; and whether the methodology—which in effect assumes that claimants would invest only in virtually risk-free ILGs—is appropriate for the future.
The consultation document I am publishing today covers these points, and includes a call for evidence on how investors in the position of personal injury claimants are likely to invest. The consultation document explores what an appropriate investment risk profile could look like for such investors, and what the effect would be of moving from the current virtually risk-free model, to a low-risk model. While my responsibility extends only to England and Wales, the principles and method for setting the rate have read-across to all jurisdictions in the UK, and the consultation is produced in partnership with the Scottish Government.
We must have a justice system that works for all. I fully recognise the impact that the discount rate has, not just on claimants—including some of the most vulnerable in society—but also on defendants in both the public and private sectors, and the further impact this has on consumers’ insurance premiums and taxpayers. The consultation I am launching today will look at the way the rate is set in future, and I am inviting anyone with evidence and expertise to take part. The consultation will close on 11 May.
[HCWS579]
EVEL Standing Orders Update
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
The Government introduced English votes for English laws on 22 October 2015 to address the long-standing West Lothian question. English votes for English laws has provided MPs with constituencies in England (or England and Wales) the right to consent to legislation that applies only to England (or England and Wales).
Upon introduction, the Government committed to a technical review of the Standing Orders related to English votes for English laws and the procedures they introduced. The Government launched the technical review on 26 October 2016.
I am pleased to announce the publication of the Government’s report following the technical review. The Government report also responds to three parliamentary Select Committees which have led inquiries into English votes for English laws over the past 12 months.
The publication can be found through the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-votes-for-english-laws-review
[HCWS581]
Light Dues 2017-18
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
A strong and growing maritime industry is vital to the economy of the United Kingdom and it is critical that we treasure and protect this vital artery if we are to remain a world-leading maritime centre.
The work of the general lighthouse authorities, which provide and maintain marine aids to navigation and respond to new wrecks and navigation dangers in some of the busiest waters in the world, is crucial to underpinning that vision while maintaining our vigorous safety record and continuously improving standards of safety.
Reductions in the three general lighthouse authorities’ running costs has already enabled the UK to reduce light dues for three successive years.
For 2017-18 I intend to cut light dues by a further half a penny to 37½p per net registered tonne. This will mean that light dues will have fallen by 25% in real terms since 2010.
Light dues rates will continue to be reviewed on an annual basis to ensure that the general lighthouse authorities are challenged to provide an effective and efficient service which offers value for money to light dues payers while maintaining the highest levels of safety for mariners.
[HCWS578]
MCA Business Plans
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)
I am proud to announce the publication of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency’s (MCA) business plan for 2017-18. The MCA does vital work to save lives at sea, regulate ship standards and protect the marine environment. The agency affects not just those working on the coast or at sea, it upholds the legacy of our great maritime nation.
The business plan sets out:
The services that the agency will deliver and any significant changes it plans to make;
The resources the agency requires; and
The key performance indicators, by which its performance will be assessed.
This plan allows service users and members of the public to assess how the agency is performing in operating its key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.
The business plan will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The business plan can also be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-30/HCWS577/.
[HCWS577]
Motoring Agencies Business Plans
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I am pleased to announce the publication of the 2017-18 business plans for the Department for Transport’s motoring agencies—the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA), the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA).
The business plans set out:
the services each agency will deliver and any significant changes they plan to make;
the resources they require; and,
the key performance indicators, by which their performance will be assessed.
These plans allow service users and members of the public to assess how the agencies are performing in operating their key services, managing reforms and the agency finances.
The business plans will be available electronically on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2017-03-30/HCWS580/
[HCWS580]
Personal Independence Payment
(7 years ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The second independent review of the personal independence payment assessment by Paul Gray is being published today. This is the second of the two independent reviews as required by the Welfare Reform Act 2012.
Building on the recommendations from the first independent review, Paul Gray has explored how closely the ongoing implementation of the personal independence payment reflects the policy intent. He has considered:
How effectively further evidence is being used to assist the correct claim decision, and the speed and effectiveness of information gathering;
The degree of claimant confidence and transparency in the claim process; and
How to further promote quality and consistency to produce fair outcomes for all.
The Government welcome the publication of the review and will consider its findings and issue a detailed response in due course.
[HCWS574]
Grand Committee
Local Arts and Cultural Services
The Earl of Clancarty
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take to protect and improve local arts and cultural services, including museums, libraries and archaeological services.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, we have a rich and diverse local arts and cultural life within the UK. I refer to the museums, libraries and archaeological services in the title of the debate because when I first tabled it in May last year, none of these areas had been discussed in this House for some time and they form something of an intimate group. But we could also talk about the visual arts, film, theatre, music, dance, digital arts and many other areas that also make up the arts aspect of the debate. This cultural life is hugely important to us all as individuals, for the good of society, the development of the arts and the protection of our heritage. It is essential that this broad range of work is protected and developed, but it cannot be overemphasised that since 2010, with the onset of austerity, provision for local arts and culture has been steadily and in some cases drastically eroded, mainly through cuts to local authority arts and cultural funding.
This year, councils will spend £10 billion less than they did in 2010-11. According to the Local Government Association, councils will face a gap of £5.8 billion just to fund statutory services, including social care. Local authority investment in arts and culture has declined by £236 million—overall, 17%—since 2010, and in the period 2010-15, Arts Council funding fell by 36%. The Museums Association reports that between 2010-11 and 2015-16, local authority spending on museums and galleries declined by 31% in real terms and that at least 64 museums have closed since 2010—the majority due to local authority cuts—including many much-loved museums such as the Lancashire textiles museums. The Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals records that in 2014-15, more than 100 libraries closed in the UK, while in the same year 11% of the libraries in Wales were closed. These are fairly shocking figures.
Many authorities are now faced with impossible decisions. I am grateful to the Minister for his concern over the future of the internationally important New Art Gallery Walsall and I am glad that it has been saved. But the same round of cuts in Walsall has led to the decision to close nine of Walsall’s 16 libraries—a library service which this year happens to have been nominated for Library of the Year at the British Book Awards. It is not just a question of outright closures, but of the quality of provision. The Museums Association stated that in 2015, one in five regional museums was at least part closed. There are reduced opening hours for museums and libraries and significant reductions in staff, and the number of qualified librarians employed in libraries has fallen by 25% since 2010. Reductions in outreach programmes are reported by theatres, art galleries, museums and archaeology. There are concerns about the risk of inappropriate deaccessioning, and in 2014 two Northampton museums lost their accreditation status over the sale of the Sekhemka statue. There are increasing difficulties with improving collections, not just because of funding but because often, there is not the expertise to oversee it. Now, we even see the introduction of charges at our once entirely public museums—for instance, the York Art Gallery and Brighton Museum and Art Gallery.
The latest authorities to announce huge cuts include Bath and North-East Somerset Council, Bristol and Birmingham, where the Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery is now quite extraordinarily under threat. The community organisation Theatre Bath states that cuts will be,
“killing off any hope of a supportive arts infrastructure for emerging or small-scale artists”.
Theatres such as the Playhouse in Liverpool and Newcastle Theatre Royal have become host venues for touring productions rather than producing their own work. We are in danger of destroying the innovative grass roots, including those which supply the West End.
Local authority involvement in archaeology is clearly necessary, not least because 90% of known archaeological sites are undesignated and rely on local planning. It seems clear to me—I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Renfrew and Lord Redesdale, will clarify this further—that local archaeology cannot be divorced from the work of local authorities, yet as a result of the cuts, since 2006 there has been a 33% decline in crucially important local authority archaeology staff. Unless local authorities can identify concerns, the protection of our archaeology will be neglected.
All who work in the arts and cultural sector are resourceful people; it is part of their nature. I read this week of two artists who have received planning permission to open a skip as a gallery in Hoxton Square in Shoreditch. On the wider scale, resourcefulness will only go so far. If it went further, museums, libraries and arts organisations would not be closing or going to the wall. It is telling that the Library of Birmingham Development Trust, established to attract philanthropic donations, has now been wound up. Philanthropy will most often not work in the places where funding is most needed.
For local arts and culture, local authority involvement in funding is crucial. At its best, it works because local people are the experts on their own region. It works because it is effective and efficient. It is important because it provides geographically comprehensive coverage, yet, in the face of cuts, Sharon Heal, director of the Museums Association, has said that,
“there is a danger that whole communities will be left without museums and the rich and diverse stories that they can tell”.
Every locality and every person, irrespective of where they live or who they are, deserves arts and cultural access. This is not in the first place a business, as the Government are trying to turn many of our services into; it is a right and it is a necessity. There should be statutory provision for local arts and culture. This is not about competition between services. Central government should ensure that every local authority has enough funding to do its job properly in every service they cover. It is failing in that duty.
I hope that the Minister will not refer to specific projects as though they are the main narrative—welcome as such initiatives may be individually, they should not be treated as such. The Arts Council continues to make it clear that they are not a substitute for local funding. I say this because of the understandably angry reception given this week by writers to the new £4 million Libraries Opportunities for Everyone Innovation Fund, calling it,
“a smokescreen to hide the cuts”.
The fund is of course a drop in the ocean compared with the £180 million loss to libraries since 2010. Francesca Simon has said with perfect simplicity:
“Libraries first and foremost need to be open, with professional librarians and well-stocked shelves”.
Funding is not now the only problem. The growth of what might be termed a “developer and investor-led culture” and the selling-off of public spaces and buildings—trends rooted in central government policy—mean fewer opportunities for local arts to gain a purchase. A new report, Creative Tensions, by the London Assembly Regeneration Committee, finds that a third of artists in London are expected to lose studios by 2019. There needs to be protection of the arts and cultural sector against soaring rents. It should not be said that, in London, individuals and smaller arts organisations are not suffering a tough time as well. I ask the Minister, too—this is a question about the private sector—whether he will look into the potentially disastrous effect of the new business rates on our high street bookshops, which are important alongside libraries in the fight against illiteracy.
I make no apology for having painted a bleak outlook for the day-to-day running of the arts and cultural services. Unless the Government change their strategy, it will become bleaker. Where this trend has been bucked to an extent, it has been for particular reasons, not least the substantial help that the EU has given over the years, including, for instance, to the Sage Gateshead and the Liverpool Everyman. Indeed, Liverpool has benefited hugely from being European Capital of Culture in 2008, as is Hull now as UK City of Culture. I ask the Minister whether there will be an attempt to maintain these EU funding connections, which are intrinsically bound up with all-important cultural co-operation. A significant purpose of arts and culture at the local level, both for individuals and local areas, is as a vehicle for connection to the wider world, both nationally and beyond. If we leave the single market, it will be disastrous for artists and all those working in the cultural sector, for whom free movement within Europe is essential.
It can rightly be argued that, to encourage access to art and culture for young people, education is crucial. I welcome Nicholas Serota’s announcement on Tuesday of the Durham commission, which I hope will look to a time beyond the EBacc when children in all schools will have a properly rounded education.
Baroness Bakewell (Lab)
My Lords, in his first speech as the new chairman of the Arts Council, Sir Nicholas Serota made clear his priorities:
“I need to voice long-term concerns around public investment, and especially the loss of local authority funding—which is now the most pressing issue, day to day, for many cultural organisations across the country”.
Spending by councils on arts, culture, museums, galleries and libraries declined from £1.42 billion to £1.2 billion between 2010 and 2015, a 16% reduction, because of the squeeze put on local authorities by central government. But local authorities are making an enormous effort to cherish their arts and community policies; they know how valuable they are in economic terms—the creative industries are now worth £84 billion a year to the economy—as well as in human terms.
I shall cite two examples. In 2016, Manchester’s six largest cultural organisations contributed £135.9 million to the local economy. Over the past 20 years, its strategic investment has transformed the cultural reputation of the city—solving its social problems, too, such as loneliness—and its community spirit and well-being, nursed through the emotional and spiritual value of music, theatre, dance and literature. In 2016, Lonely Planet rated Manchester eighth out of the 10 best cities to visit, calling it a cultural dynamo of British culture. Culture has been one of the sectors enjoying double-digit employment growth in Greater Manchester. How much more could have been achieved in wealth and social cohesion without the shackles of ongoing government cuts?
Take another local council with an enlightened view of cultural value—my own borough of Camden, which prioritises culture, primarily by keeping a community festival funding stream that promotes community cohesion through local cultural celebration. I see for myself how this brings neighbours together and promotes literacy, opportunity and well-being. Camden is developing ways of working and seeking new partnerships at all times.
Both Manchester and Camden are vigorous, enlightened Labour councils, fighting in the teeth of government cuts to keep and extend their cultural reach. For whatever reasons—entrepreneurial, social or inspirational—the Government must recommend the Manchester and Camden models and recognise and value the range of inspiration nestling within those rural and urban communities.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, in three minutes you can hardly say anything, but I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for including archaeology in the debate. I shall deal with a couple of points raised in the excellent briefings from the Council for British Archaeology and the Society for Museum Archaeology.
Some 90% of archaeological sites at present are protected only by the planning system, which is a problem given that one-third of those employed by local authority planning services in archaeology have lost their jobs since 2006. That is an ongoing problem for archaeology because, like every other arts area, it is within the discretionary spend of local authorities and is therefore probably the only area they can squeeze. But of course, that is leading to major problems. In a recent survey, half of museums did not have an expert in the field of collections, and many museums have stopped taking archaeological artefacts into their collections because they do not have the space or the money to do so. That is going to cause real problems. It has been pushed on to the private sector, and the excellent work of the York Archaeological Trust should be noted. However, given the flooding of Jorvik, the ability to undertake this work on behalf of the local council is severely under threat, which will cause a major problem for the digging up of artefacts in the York area.
There is another problem coming down the line. Because archaeology is not a statutory responsibility—although it could be seen as one in the planning Bill—how long before developers start seeing it as something they have to undertake because they know that councils do not have the expertise or even ability to do anything about it? That question has been asked several times and is probably rhetorical, but I hope the Minister can give an answer.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, truly successful places that people want to visit and live in are always much more than economic powerhouses. Strong economies are always underpinned by a sense of creative vibrancy and cultural identity. That is as true now for towns and cities in the UK as it was for Florence in the Renaissance and London in the 1850s.
Unlike the noble Earl, I speak with no special expertise in this area, but as a local historian I am a heavy user of the museums, study centres and county archives of Norfolk and have come to appreciate the extraordinary role that local authorities can and do play in investing in our arts. I know that 2015-16 seemed like a bad year, with a sharp decline in educational visits and some predictable reductions in overseas ones, and it can feel extravagant to a local authority to invest in this area. However, new analysis by the Local Government Network showed that, perhaps surprisingly, if we look back over the past two to three years, the picture is not quite as the noble Earl reported. Many local authorities have protected their arts and culture funding and it has not taken disproportionate cuts. It is worth remembering that they have managed to sustain investment when some people here speaking up for social care would say that they have taken even further cuts. So they have managed.
How do we tackle this problem? Joint enterprise has already been mentioned. The Minister will remember last year’s report from the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which highlighted Norfolk museum service’s hub model of museums and galleries, with collaborations with national institutions such as the British Museum, the Tate and the National History Museum—a mutually creative partnership since 1974 and a very cost-effective way of investing. Norfolk and Suffolk have also combined to create an East Anglia cultural board, which recognises that cultural tourism brings people into the region and encourages people to settle there. Social mobility is fostered by local arts, and social capital is not always allied to intellectual capital. Social creative capital can create social mobility.
I want in my last minute to comment on the crazy imbalance in arts funding between London and the rest of the UK. I know that Arts Council England is uplifting 4% more funding in 2018-22 to the regions, but at present the imbalance is shameful. It is often the provinces that produce artistic capital. It is a great shame that we do not have agreement on how to tackle the shift. We need to agree on a mechanism to get more money into the regions.
The Lord Bishop of Derby
My Lords, I invite us to think about this issue from the point of view of the local and that of the consumer. As a poorly-paid clergyman, I have been a consumer of libraries all my life to get books. We are in an age that is moving from discrete organisations such as museums and libraries to what are called cultural hubs, and moving from the static to the dynamic and participative. We have to think about the people who we want to engage with culture and the arts. We are also in a moment where municipal life is dissolving before our eyes. That is partly because of lack of interest in public space and responsibility, so we have to be careful about looking simply to local authorities to bail us out.
Churches have, as your Lordships know, long been cultural hubs with all kinds of activities such as music, worship and learning, and building values between people. Let me give a very quick picture. A phenomenon in the Church of England is called “messy church”. People of all generations come together there for worship, craft making, consuming food and having fun. It is a cultural-bonding, value-creating moment with which people join in. That is where culture is going and where we have to make our pitch to keep the arts and culture alive. In the city of Derby, where I work, we have secular equivalents of our messy church. The museums have come together to form an independent trust. QUAD is an independent trust and charity, which has a cinema with other activities. They are messy cultural and artistic spaces which invite people to join, learn and be developed. They are the models that we have got to go with.
I have four questions for the Minister about the practicalities of how we are going to develop a culture of cultural development. First, VAT relief is available on theatre tickets and production costs but what is the equivalent for non-profit cinemas, for instance? Secondly, business rates have been mentioned but what is the guidance for business rates on emerging cultural hubs? Thirdly, there is a lot of pressure on local government and the national Government are blamed for withdrawing grants. What is the potential for local taxation to invite local people to participate properly? Fourthly, how are our churches, 15,000 of them across the country, going to be able to contribute to culture and art as a local phenomenon that people participate in?
If we are going to be worried about education, health and priorities, only a healthy cultural connectivity in our society will enable people to have the will and the wherewithal to support important things such as health and education.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn (Con)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for this timely question on local arts and cultural services. As my time is so short I will, like the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, restrict my contribution mainly to archaeological problems. I should declare an interest as chair of the Treasure Valuation Committee. The workings of the Treasure Act, like those of the local planning authorities, owe much to the archaeological expertise on the ground: to the finds liaison officers and archaeological officers working in county planning departments. In general the system works well, or at any rate has worked well until now, with the help of finds liaison officers. The relevant planning authorities generally seek the advice of archaeological officers.
As the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has already emphasised, however, the 33% decline in local authority archaeology staff since 2006 is a matter of great concern. The number working has declined from 400 to 271 staff. They advise on planning consents, conditions and circumstances where rescue excavation is appropriate and, where necessary, they maintain the historic environment record. It is a matter of concern that this attrition has left a number of local authorities without professional archaeological advice. Middlesbrough is one case which is a matter of concern.
Museums are responsible for maintaining archaeological archives, and the archives, which are the result of rescue excavation and other studies, are essential for supporting the historic environment record, which is the basis for granting planning permission or for withholding it where there are archaeological objections. This is a general problem. I am not certain that it is fair to lay the problem at the door of the present Government, nor have members on the other side of the Committee—who are very numerous—done so in particular. But it is a matter for all local authorities to give sufficient priority to the archaeological and cultural resources which we are discussing. Archaeological resources in England are at risk through attribution. We must all do our best to maintain funding on all sides in this area.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I refer your Lordships to my registered interests. We are discussing extremely important issues that go to the heart of our communities. I sincerely thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for not only securing this debate but also his brilliant opening submission. I reiterate that we are discussing the steps that the Government intend to take or are taking to protect and improve local arts and cultural services, including museums, libraries and archaeological services. As we have heard, such services are always under threat, especially when local authorities are faced with diminishing budgets, not least from central government and as already outlined by the noble Earl.
Local authorities face very real and difficult choices, for instance when funding the increasing demands for social care services, but I would argue that it must not be one or the other; it should be both. What is the quality of life if it is devoid and deprived of culture, arts, libraries, museums and archaeology—the very things that open our minds and give us reasons to learn and live? Yet this is exactly what some local authorities and funders are having to face: difficult choices, creating a concept of basic services that will be supported and others which will not. I do not accept that concept. Indeed, my own life and life chances were enhanced in my very poor, impoverished community in the East End of London in the late 1950s and 1960s precisely because schools and local authorities believed that lives would be improved by exposure to and familiarity with the arts. I want these chances and experiences to reach beyond my generation and to be accessed by all.
I wish to refer to evidence given by the actors’ union Equity and to concerns expressed among visitor organisations. Equity expressed concern to your Lordships’ Select Committee about cuts in public funding of the arts through Arts Council England and local authorities, as this impacts on theatres that no longer produce their own productions, with a subsequent loss to the local economy and talent pools. It called on the Secretary of State to provide leadership on this and give local authorities direction on how to tackle these difficult funding issues.
Smaller, local authority museums and civic collections are deeply concerned that they are at the mercy of local authority cuts. They say that the decisions by some local authorities to place their collections into independent trusts may work in some circumstances but not all, and that it requires ongoing investment. Finally, a case in point is Birmingham City Council, which placed the stunning Birmingham Museums and its galleries into a trust but will not commit to providing core funding beyond this year. There is a very good argument to make that such collections, along with others, should be re-designated as national collections—like Liverpool’s—and therefore that the DCMS and Arts Council England should become responsible for them. Will the Government adopt such a model nationally?
Lord Freyberg (CB)
My Lords, in the brief time allowed I will concentrate my remarks on the future sustainability of local and regional museums. The rapid reduction in local authority budgets has put huge pressure on museums and will inevitably weaken the sector further if we do not think more strategically about how we wish to support them.
I therefore welcome the various public consultations that the Government have initiated, in particular the DCMS’s museums review and the review of Arts Council England and its work. These take place against a backdrop of ever-expanding costs of statutory services, most notably in adult social care. Unsurprisingly, museums in less well-off areas suffer most. I wholeheartedly agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. We must do more to address these regional funding differences while expanding imaginative income-generating schemes—although these are rarely enough to cover lost funding. The oft-suggested introduction of entrance fees is not necessarily a solution either. Brighton & Hove Council and York Museums Trust both introduced charges in 2015; both have since experienced drops in visitor numbers of more than 50%. The looming question of leadership and “What next?” has never been more important. We need to strengthen management capabilities so that directors and curators can meet the challenges of today’s curatorial reality, where expectations have risen but funds have diminished.
My question to the Minister is: why do the Government in effect stand by when we can all see what is happening in the sector? The remarkable success and potential of non-national museums, as well as the public impact of partnerships with national museums, are now at risk due to the significant and swift decline in investment from local authorities. In the wider context of local and central government spending, the amount allocated to these museums is very small. Cutting it will have only a minimal impact of reducing spending, yet the value of what is lost will be considerably greater.
In the winter edition of the Art Fund’s Art Quarterly magazine, its chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Finsbury, stated that he hoped that public consultations would articulate the word “essential” when it comes to museums and galleries. He believes:
“We need to continue to assert the value and importance of museums to us and our communities”.
Yesterday’s formal exit from the EU has made the case only more relevant as we strive to make sense of that tension between nation and internationalism. So while there is inevitably a focus on funding at the moment, it is also vital to recognise how museums continue to play an important part in our public realm, be it in education, engaging in communities or attracting people to live in, work in and visit a place.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Earl for securing this debate. I declare an unpaid interest as chair of a charity called Worcester Live, which is the main provider of the arts in the city. It runs the only theatre; the only concert hall; one of the largest festivals in the county; an outdoor Shakespeare in partnership with the city council; an indoor Shakespeare in partnership with Worcester Cathedral—last year we commemorated the 800th anniversary of the death of King John by staging Shakespeare’s play around his tomb in front of the altar; a ghost walk, which is a tourist attraction; a one-year part-time foundation course for young people wanting to get to theatre school; a number of youth theatres; and much more.
Worcester Live exists for three reasons. First, it receives generous core funding support from Worcester City Council, which, per head of population, probably contributes more to the arts than any other district council. Secondly, it has a small number of wonderful individual benefactors, trusts and patrons. Thirdly, its productions and events are well-supported by local residents.
However, Worcester Live gets not a penny from the Arts Council, and that means that its finances are constantly on a knife edge. In my view, a disproportionate amount of arts money goes to London, and a huge percentage of it goes to classical music in one form or another—orchestras, opera and ballet—and to flagship venues, a point made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. I am far from convinced that the balance is entirely right, and I would like the Arts Council to recognise the value to local communities outside the south-east of popular non-elitist organisations such as the one that I am involved with.
I also want to mention another reason why local arts can be vibrant: the role of volunteers. There is in Worcester a splendid historical museum called Tudor House in the medieval heart of the city. It is because of the 60 or so volunteers that Tudor House is able to maintain free admission. At any one time there are about 30 of them working regularly as room stewards or in the coffee shop. Another group supports the education days, another group works as an operations committee and so on. Without volunteers, Tudor House and countless other local history museums would not exist, and they deserve better recognition from all of us. I hope the Minister will agree with me when he replies.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, how timely that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, should air this important subject just as we start the process of leaving the EU. When I, a born optimist, asked at Oral Questions on 7 March this year if the Government were concerned by the threat of closure facing many libraries and leisure centres, I was told that I was being pessimistic. Pessimistic? The Government were reminded by several noble Lords on 13 October 2016—and the Minister in today’s debate, I believe, answered—that several hundred libraries have closed since 2010.
While it is true that we all have to cut our cloth according to our means and that the internet has brought access to books and music much closer, nothing can replace the actual live experience: the object, a book, the sound of a bow hitting a string and the social cohesion factor of meeting and listening together or discussing literature in groups. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that the publishing industry and the creative industries in general are part of the great economic success story of this country. But they need nourishing and investing in for our future prosperity and cultural excellence.
Many music clubs, festivals and orchestras up and down the country depend on visiting artists and chamber ensembles to enrich their programmes. How will Brexit affect them? Will British players be excluded from European orchestras, particularly European youth orchestras, where it will not be a matter of work permits but of actual acceptance into the group? Even for well-known soloists like the cellist Steven Isserlis, who has written to me on this subject and who gives many concerts in the EU, there is the worry of constant visa applications, which could be turned down if Brexit turns sour.
What about the colleges for whom the lost income from losing students, who might no longer be supported by the EU to come here, might well be a disaster? We have already heard of two orchestras that are decamping to warmer artistic climes. We need to act now to make sure this does not become an exodus and that we are not starved of cultural intercourse with our neighbours.
As I pointed out on 7 March, it is often rural, isolated communities who face bleak opportunities for education and entertainment, and I am sure the Minister would agree that the natural law of economics means that it is precisely those communities who are most likely to be hit hardest in times of economic drought.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for securing this timely debate. I intend to focus my brief remarks on local museums, and I declare an interest as chair of the advisory board for the Modern Record Centre at the University of Warwick, a wonderful archive of trade union and industry history. I am also a supporter of the People’s History Museum in Manchester.
It is clear that times are bleak for a whole range of arts and cultural services, but in the current climate, it is local museums, those directly managed and funded by local authorities, that are the most vulnerable. Others have charted the recent decline in local authority investment in museums. Arts Council England acknowledges that councils understand that investment in cultural services shapes local identity, promotes tourism, stimulates creative industries, and creates happier and healthier communities. Age UK showed that creative activities such as visiting museums improve well-being in later life.
It is sadly inevitable that, given their shrinking budgets, local authorities see their non-statutory funding of museums as a low priority. The museums review announced in last year’s culture White Paper is due to be published this summer. I hope that its state of the nation report will enable us to understand how museums might need to keep changing to survive and thrive. But museums facing the sudden withdrawal of local authority support are sometimes forced to close before any alternatives are considered. In light of this, can the Minister assure us that the review will contain realistic recommendations to prevent closures and sell-offs? Will the review outline steps better to identify early warning signs, which would allow enough time to develop proposals to transfer museums into trusts or community management schemes, for example?
I read that museums are not meant to become monuments to themselves—they can and should relocate collections or develop new partnerships or new directions if that will attract new or more visitors. In my home town of Bradford, a new £1.8 million gallery opened last week in the newly renamed National Science and Media Museum. Tim Peake’s spacecraft will be on display there. New exhibits—and the new name—reflect the museum’s changing focus on the science behind the magic of photography, film and television. It aims to combat a recent history of falling visitor numbers and to keep the museum fresh and relevant in our fast-changing, high-speed world. This is wonderful stuff, not least for the people of Bradford, who are fortunate that the museum is part of the London-based Science Museum group, which receives about £40 million a year from DCMS.
This brings me to one final point: those of us who live in London—the museum capital of the world—know that we have unrivalled riches on our doorsteps. If we look beyond these to our wonderfully varied and quirky local museums, there is much to discover: other speakers have indicated their favourites. They all help to preserve, protect and promote our nation’s history. We use them or we lose them.
Lord Shipley (LD)
I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for initiating this debate and I concur with the points made by him and other speakers. I should remind the Committee of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I want to address two issues: first, regional cultural resources that have national and international importance; and secondly, the role of the private sector in supporting culture outside London.
We have heard a little bit about Manchester. I was there recently, visiting Mrs Gaskell’s house and the home of the Pankhursts. Both are wonderful to visit, but both have limited public opening times—three days a week and one-and-a-half days a week respectively. There might be perfectly good reasons for this that I am unaware of, and I pay a huge tribute to those running them for their achievement. It might simply be a lack of finance, but whatever the reason, will the Minister look at this issue to see if everything is being done that can be done to support longer public opening hours for such important international visitor destinations?
Right across the country, similar buildings that are major international resources can be underused and under-visited. In Newcastle, where I live, we have the Mining Institute, where the electric light was first demonstrated and which could become a major public destination in its own right. Does DCMS have a register of such key buildings across England that could be invested in? If there is not one, might one be created?
The Arts Council has a good record in starting to address the regional imbalance that we have heard about, but it needs to keep going. I noted in the recent culture White Paper that, while total DCMS grant in aid from 2009 to 2015 has declined in cash terms, non-public investment has doubled in that period. That is very good to see, but I suspect that corporate giving mostly benefits London, where so many company headquarters lie; yet corporate responsibility should be to invest in culture across the United Kingdom because profits might well derive from outside the immediate area of a company HQ. Will the Minister tell us what data the Government have on the extent of non-public investment for each part of England? Would it be possible to publish those data if they have them, or to secure them if they do not?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a fantastic debate. I thank, as have others, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for his tireless efforts in the arts and cultural world, for his support of it and for his really excellent speech which I could not match—certainly not in three minutes. I am sure that the Minister will want to respond in detail to that, so I will not cover that ground. Instead, I want to use my short time to make two main points.
When the industrial strategy Green Paper was introduced, Greg Clark, the Secretary of State for BEIS, spoke of the importance of recognising the country’s strengths,
“from science to the creative industries”.
The Prime Minister is also on record as saying that special emphasis in the industrial strategy would be placed on helping sectors of the economy such as the creative industries. However, the specific challenges mentioned in the industrial strategy are energy, robotics, satellites and space, leading-edge healthcare, manufacturing and materials, biotechnology and quantum, and transformative digital technologies. It might be possible that the last one includes creative industries, but they are not mentioned. It is an awful gap, so can the Minister confirm that the interests of the DCMS will be represented in the final version of the industrial strategy? It is very important that we see it there and that it is part of the discussions.
Secondly, the Government need to think carefully about research in the creative industries if they are going to see a vibrant sector arrangement. As part of the Autumn Statement, a £4.7 billion announcement was made about an industrial strategy challenge fund. This will be cross-disciplinary and cover a broad range of technologies to be decided by an evidence-based process. As part of that process, a number of consultative workshops have happened and it is evident from those that there is a high level of interest from the cultural and creative industries in bidding for and obtaining money from the fund. We do not know, however, whether that will be possible.
An interesting aspect of our creative industries sector, which is enormous and does a fantastic job for our economy, is that it is largely made up of very small companies—micro-companies and very small SMEs—that rarely have the scale to engage in research. There is a research council—the Arts and Humanities Research Council—and it has a plan to create eight regional hubs, anchored in higher education institutions, that reach out to SMEs in the creative sector. This is a very good idea and I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that the creative industries will get a fair share of this vital research funding.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords, and especially to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for securing this incredibly wide-ranging debate. My reply will probably only scratch the surface but I will try to answer as many points as I can. It is clear that this is a subject that noble Lords are very interested in and in which they have their individual specialities. It is a very daunting prospect to face this array of specialised interests—with, admittedly, some help. I will do my best.
The Committee has shown the breadth and depth of its interest in arts and culture. The presence or absence of beautiful buildings, galleries, museums, libraries and treasured archaeological sites has a huge impact on whether somewhere thrives and is a good place to live. These institutions help bind communities together and link current generations to those that came before; they console and inspire individuals. They are remarkably popular: 76% of adults in England engaged in the arts in 2015-16, and in the same period—surprisingly to me—53% of adults visited a museum or gallery.
The whole Government recognise that, and it is why there have been excellent recent funding settlements for DCMS sectors, even at times of economic difficulty. Central government’s main financial support for the arts, culture and museums is delivered via Arts Council England; it plans to invest £1.1 billion of public money in the period 2015-18. These sectors also benefit from public funding through the National Lottery. The Arts Council alone is to spend an estimated £700 million over the same period. Furthermore, the Heritage Lottery Fund spent £434 million in 2016-17; it supports museums and heritage projects, including public libraries. Archaeological-sector projects are supported by Historic England, and museums receive £400 million a year from the DCMS in grant aid. Let us not forget, also, that to assist the sector we have extended the museums and galleries tax relief to permanent exhibitions.
The Government are also investing in flagship projects such as Hull UK City of Culture 2017, which thereby raised over £1 billion of additional investment, and the Great Exhibition of the North in Newcastle and Gateshead in 2018. Arts Council England, the Heritage Lottery Fund and Historic England have come together to create the Great Place scheme, which will spend £20 million on embedding arts, culture and heritage in local plans and decision-making.
However, the nature of the political system is that much responsibility for locally delivered services is devolved to local authorities. This principle has had the backing of all political parties. I recognise that local authorities have had challenging financial settlements over the past few years as we tackled a very large national deficit. That had to be done for the sake of our children and grandchildren. Nevertheless, many local authorities have acknowledged that not supporting arts and culture is both a serious failing and a false economy, and continue to invest in all those sectors.
One of the most effective ways for local authorities to develop and sustain arts and culture is through collaboration with other organisations. For example, Dig Greater Manchester, supported by the University of Salford and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities, is giving thousands of Manchester residents the opportunity to take part in real excavations. Nearer to here, the Museum of London is receiving £180 million from the City of London Corporation and City Hall for its new premises, which will showcase the best of London’s history and archaeology, including brand new finds from Crossrail and other projects.
The merits of collaboration were recognised in the Government’s Culture White Paper, published last year. It announced a review of culture and digital technology, which is bringing together organisations such as Arts Council England, universities, the BBC, Culture24, and Connecting Cambridgeshire. The Government are therefore offering strategic support in a variety of ways. Together with the Local Government Association, we set up the Leadership for Libraries Taskforce. It published Libraries Deliver, an ambitious strategy containing a range of practical and innovative ideas for how local authorities can maintain and improve library services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, reminded us that last September the Government launched a museums review led by Neil Mendoza. It recently concluded a series of round tables exploring issues in the sector and is now considering its recommendations. The review is expected to be published in the summer. Of course matters such as opening times could well be included in that. The noble Baroness also mentioned the Bradford Media and Science Museum, which I was due to see last week but was prevented from doing so by the events of last week.
The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Renfrew, talked about archaeology. As a result of the issues that they raised, we have asked Historic England to work with representatives from the local government archaeology and development sector to consider how best to respond to the reduction in the number of historic environment specialists employed by local government. This follows a report by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and John Howell MP. This will involve developing professionally recognised standards and guidance, a review of local authority models for charging for archaeological services and research into the impact of heritage service changes in the south-west. It produced an update on progress in February 2017 on its proposed way forward, which it issued in October last year—I cannot go into all the detail now. In addition, Historic England is looking into training and skills retention and developing plans for heritage apprenticeships.
I wanted to say a few words about regional funding, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lords, Lord Shipley, Lord Freyberg and Lord Faulkner, among others. We agree that we want to disperse funding across the country, and Arts Council England continues to do that. It will rebalance funding between London and the regions over the next few years. In the past three years, 70% of the funding was invested outside London, and that will rise to 75% by 2018. National portfolio funding outside London continues to increase and will increase further in the 2018 portfolio. It will have increased by 4% between 2015 and 2018 and another 4% between 2018 and 2022.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, talked about Manchester. The Government have invested heavily in Manchester: £78 million in a new theatre and arts venue called The Factory. The South Asia gallery of the Manchester Museum received £5 million. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, there is a 4% uplift in national portfolio funding, but furthermore, the 70% of lottery funding outside London increased to 75% over the past three years and 80% to 90% of the Ambition for Excellence scheme to support talent is spent outside London. That is £35 million. The strategic touring fund of another £35 million funds touring of arts productions and focuses heavily on areas of low engagement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, specifically asked whether the museums review will help to show museums how to avoid closures and sell-offs and identify early warning signs. The review is looking specifically at the sustainability of local museums as a key line of inquiry and will make recommendations this summer. The noble Baroness also mentioned the reopening of the National Science and Media Museum, a national museum. That is another trend—that national museums are having more and more venues outside London.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about culture and whether that is genuinely included in the industrial strategy. First, of course, the Secretary of State was a member of the committee that put that together. I can say to him that the cultural sector is included in the definition of “creative industries” that is mentioned in the Green Paper in an early sector review, the Bazalgette review. We are certainly looking forward to working with him and all interested colleagues in the coming weeks and months. The review is focused particularly on prosperity across all the creative industries, and we recognise that the cultural sector as part of those is contributing to UK prosperity through its many national and international commercial successes.
I must really speed up now. The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and others made a very valid point about EU funding. Of course it is too early to say where we will do that, but I can say that we are extremely well aware of it. It is not only about the money; it is the partnership and the links with EU organisations that are important here. Of course we will have extra money when we are not a net contributor, but this is all part of the negotiation and we are very well aware of it, as we are cultural people in terms of free movement, which will be part of it. One of our jobs, and one that we are taking very seriously, is ensuring that the Department for Exiting the EU is aware of the concerns of the cultural sector. That is definitely a job that the DCMS has.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned the fact that half of museums do not have collection specialists and that many are no longer accepting archaeological archives from developers. The museums review is specifically looking at the issue of archaeological archives and storage, and will report in the summer.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby asked four questions, one of which I am going to answer; I am afraid the others on tax are pretty well outside my remit. The Government are keen for churches to contribute and play a full part in community life. In December 2016 we announced the English churches and cathedrals sustainability review. That is now in progress and exploring these issues. I might mention that on broadband, for example, the WiSpire initiative is one very good way in which they might contribute.
There were other questions but I apologise that I do not have time to answer them. If I may, I will write. I will conclude by saying that arts and culture are a huge part of what makes the villages, towns, cities and nations that comprise our United Kingdom so special. We want them to be available to everyone, to be cherished and protected and to have the strategic and financial support that they need. This is the central mission of the DCMS, and it is heartening to be reminded that this House shares our determination.
Educational Attainment: Boys
(7 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lingfield
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the educational attainment of boys of all ages at state schools.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my education interests in the register, and thank them for taking part in this debate this afternoon.
A retired general known to me was inspecting a school cadet corps, and as he went round, he noticed that, whereas the girls had large numbers of badges on their arms for military pursuits such as shooting, first aid and field-craft, the boys had virtually none. When he addressed the parade he said, “Boys, you must really pull your socks up. You’ve got hardly any badges on your arms”. While he was speaking, a lad in the front row kept putting up his hand, military discipline vying with indignation, and said, “Sir! We’ve got just as many badges as the girls, but the girls won’t sew them on for us!”.
That is a somewhat frivolous introduction to what is actually a very serious subject: boys in our state schools are doing badly compared with girls. I want to pay tribute to the excellent debate on this issue in Westminster Hall last September, secured by my honourable friend Karl MᶜCartney, MP for Lincoln. Many excellent points were made by members across the political spectrum and I shall refer to them from time to time.
There are enough statistics to last the whole afternoon, but here are just a few of them. Last year’s figures show that in state schools girls are 30% more likely to enter university than boys. In Scotland, the figure is 43%. Indeed, the head of UCAS has recently predicted that, if current trends continue, girls born today will be 75% more likely to enter higher education. At the other end of the spectrum, there is a gap of nearly 16% between girls and boys judged to be achieving a good level of development at the end of the early years foundation stage—74.3% for girls and 58.6% for boys. These trends persist: when finishing primary school, some 57% of girls reach the required standards in literacy and numeracy; only 49% of boys do.
When we move to public examinations, last year girls opened up their biggest gap over boys in A to C grades for 14 years—71.3% of female entries were awarded at least a C grade compared with just 62.4% of their male counterparts. Especially in arts subjects, a quarter of girls earn As or A*s, but under 17% of boys do. It is only in mathematics that boys squeak ahead. At university, women are more likely to graduate than their male peers, and typically they get better grades.
Whichever way the data are read, they show that girls outperform boys at all educational stages in most areas of the curriculum. So boys are doing badly compared with girls, with all that that means for society, when surely their attainment ought to be closer to equal. Why is this? No one knows the answer as too little research has been carried out into this important question. Many theories abound and I shall consider some of them.
First, about 15% of teachers in English primary schools are full-time male teachers, and the figure for secondary schools is only 38%. Overall, therefore, three-quarters of all state school teachers are female. This means that the majority of boys, many of whom have no man in the house, never encounter a male role model at home or at school. Please do not get me wrong: I am not knocking our many wonderful women teachers—we obviously could not do without them—but common sense suggests that schools need nearer a 50:50 split, which, by the way, independent schools come closer to.
Does this worrying situation make a difference to boys’ performance? There have been a few studies, based on small samples, which suggest that boys’ attainment is not necessary better when they are taught by male teachers, but in reality no one knows. The decline of boys’ performance has, however, coincided with the drop in the number of male teachers since the 1980s. Could it be that many schools are now not focused enough on supporting boys, understanding what makes them tick and providing a clear disciplinary framework and an environment that does not fail to encourage masculinity? Boys develop more slowly in their teenage years, and many observably have less positive attitudes to schooling. It is very possible that male role models are vital in instilling in them the importance of education.
Whatever the answer, the Government need to address the imbalance of male teachers to female teachers in our schools. Why are men not joining the teaching profession as they used to? Again, there is only anecdotal evidence. Not long ago I talked to a number of newly graduated men at one of our universities. Would they think of teaching as a career? All were emphatic that they would not. Was it the salary? No, they thought that it was fine for someone in their 20s. They unanimously suggested that they could not put up with the disciplinary problems and the chance that there might be unwarranted accusations against them. When I questioned this, they told me that they had been at school only three years before and knew exactly what they were talking about.
It is also perceived wisdom that methods of teaching and examinations have been feminised in the past decades, particularly with the replacement of written examinations with continuous assessment and coursework in many subjects. This is thought to favour girls, who are better capable of the steady, organised work required, whereas boys, it is suggested, do better at putting a towel around their head and revising for all-or-nothing written papers. There has been a trend of late for schools and examining bodies to rely less on coursework and more on end-of-course examinations, but it is too soon to see if this will narrow the gap in performance again, as is suggested.
There is no doubt that the difference in attainment between boys and girls is a complex subject. It is visible across all ethnic groups. The Government have in the past rightly pointed out that most other OECD countries have similar gaps. One would have thought, therefore, that there would be plenty of research in other countries to address this problem, but there is very little of real relevance. Girls are often said to do even better at single-sex schools than at co-educational schools. Do boys do better at boys’ schools than at mixed schools? There seems to be no research available to enable us to take a view. There are some 150 grammar schools in this country, some single sex, some co-educational. Do boys do better in selective education? We cannot tell as there are no useful immediate statistics to help us.
I do not ask the Minister to come up with any answers today to these complicated and vexing questions, but I am sure that we need to hear that the Government will consider a wide-ranging review of the issue. We badly need some high-quality investigative work, and I know that Members on all sides of the House will agree that that research should be free of political correctness and ideology. We need to find out what is putting men off seeking teaching careers so that we can encourage more of them into the profession. We need to know whether the teaching of boys by men really does make a difference to the performance gap. We need to know whether single-sex education is helpful to boys’ attainment or whether there is little difference. We need to know whether boys in selective schools do as well as girls similarly selected. We need to look at comparative studies from other countries—some work has been done in Sweden, the USA and Australia —to see whether there is anything we can learn. Above all, we need to know what can be done for boys without affecting the performance of girls.
Too many boys at present are discouraged by their results and tend to leave education unskilled and poorly qualified for future vocational courses. More young men than young women are not in proper employment or training. Their next steps are too often to be benefits claimants and then, too regularly, they encounter the youth justice system. We need to address these issues, and to do so we badly need far more objective research into them; otherwise, we shall let down further generations of boys with the most serious consequences for our society.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for raising this question. It is a perennial problem facing our education system. Across all parties and groups there is a wish to solve it but so far there is not a lot of evidence that any of us have succeeded. The more we can focus on it, the better. I am grateful for the opportunity today to contribute.
I used to be an optimist about this. The noble Lord mentioned that boys’ attainment fell away in the 1980s. I remember that period well: it was when I was a secondary school teacher. I think what happened is that girls’ attainment improved while boys’ attainment stood still and that is when the gap started. In a strange way, I have always taken comfort from that fact. When I was Education Minister, we saw the performance of children from ethnic groups improve so that it overtook white children, who got left behind. I had seen that as optimistic, thinking that if we could do it for girls and ethnic groups we could do it for those boys, too. Until fairly recently, I thought that was probably the approach we ought to adopt, with focused targets on boys to try and replicate what happened in raising the attainment of other underachieving groups.
I have begun to change my mind on that, partly because we have a much stronger schools system than we had. We have better school leaders and better-quality teachers, yet we have not made that difference. It has not worked. Sitting around just saying, “Focus on boys and have another load of initiatives”, with £1 million spent here and there will not work. I am much more persuaded now—it is a more complex argument and a greater challenge to achieve—that the whole of the gender difference is wound up in the income difference. I take the phrase from the Social Mobility Commission, which says:
“The income gap is larger than either the ethnicity gap or the gender gap”.
I thought we could overcome that by focusing on boys but do not believe so any longer. The way we must go now to close the gap between girls and boys is to take on that big issue of the income gap. If we do that, we will raise standards everywhere and boys will rise with that.
I do not say that there is no issue with boys. This debate is about underachievement of boys in the state system but there is also underachievement of boys in the independent sector—I am not sure why they have been squeezed out of this debate—and from wealthy backgrounds. However, when you look at the nub of the problem, the hard edge is among poor boys. Whatever we do for poor boys would help other underachieving boys as well.
We could get drowned in statistics—I entirely agree with that—but I offer this set of statistics because they support my argument. Girls who do not get free school meals, so more affluent girls above the measure of poverty, are 107% more likely to gain five good GCSEs than free-school-meal girls. Boys who do not get free school meals are 135% more likely to gain five good GCSEs. So there is an issue about boys and girls. If you look at the difference between free-school-meal boys and girls, it is only 33%. If you get even for poverty, the gender gap is 33%. If you plonk poverty back into the measure through free school meals, the gap is 107% for girls and 135% for boys. There must be a message in there that the gender gap is real but it is accentuated and made worse because, at its core, this is about poverty.
We must address the wider educational and inequality arguments and issues that face us. The most interesting set of statistics I found in the Library briefing on this—I could have sat for a week looking at all the statistics; they are fascinating and contradictory, which is one of the problems—is where gender gap by local area was looked at. We know that the largest gender gap is in St Helens, South Tyneside and Darlington. The lowest gender gaps are in Richmond upon Thames, Calderdale and North Somerset. I say no more. It is bound in with poverty. On the next page, one sees something interesting. The most deprived local authority in the country is Tower Hamlets, whose gender gap is 15%. That is too large, but it is only a percentage point away from the second-least deprived local authority in England, which is Rutland. My analysis of that is that Tower Hamlets has overall good standards. There has been good, solid school improvement. It is a high-achieving borough, even though it is an area of high deprivation.
Somewhere in that lies the answer. If you get school improvement right—we now know a lot about this, which we did not know years ago—you close those gaps. You close the poverty gap and you close the gender gap. My marker in trying to address this is that first we have to address poverty. That is not beyond the Minister’s brief, because it is not beyond anybody’s brief. If you address poverty, that will solve the gender gap. Secondly—and this is where I share my conclusion with the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield—we need to look at the barriers that are caused by being poor. This is about high expectations, social capital and, predominantly, early years education and language development. It is about having a space to study and role models. This is a big issue and I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss it. We do not have a good track record in tackling it, but I think that we now know enough about school improvement to take us further forward.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for raising this important issue. As he and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, it is a complex subject, to which it is hard to do justice in one hour, so I will focus on the lack of male role models, which is a significant factor in boys’ underachievement. To set this in a broader context, UK studies show that only one-fifth of the variability in pupils’ achievement can be attributed to school quality; the remaining four-fifths is attributable to pupil-level factors. The influence of family background accounts for half of that four-fifths. To put it plainly, 40% of variability in pupils’ achievement has absolutely nothing to do with the school or the neighbourhood.
Here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. Poverty is an inadequate explanation. Attainment among pupils on free school meals from Bangladeshi, black African and Chinese backgrounds has improved by more than 20% over the last 10 years, while poor white pupils do worst in their GCSEs among all the main ethnic groups and have seen no such uplift. Boys do especially badly: less than a quarter of boys on free school meals achieve five good GCSEs, compared with just under a third of girls.
The right honourable Member for Birkenhead, Frank Field, said:
“Raising the aspirations and results of white working-class boys would do more than anything to cut the supply route to Britain’s burgeoning underclass”.
Joseph Rowntree Foundation research shows that raising aspirations requires working with parents, yet a 2011 Ofsted survey of 37 secondary schools found that none of the schools was focusing specifically on drawing in the families of white British students. One high-attaining inner-city secondary school was working effectively with groups such as black Caribbean boys and Somali girls but had not attempted similar work with its lowest-attaining group: white British students eligible for free school meals. It is a fairly small survey, which highlighted only one otherwise successful school, but it is telling none the less.
Over 3 three million children are growing up in lone-parent households, about a million of whom have no meaningful contact with their fathers. Rates of lone parenthood are far higher among poor white and black groups than among Chinese, Indian and Bangladeshi populations. Research clearly shows that family breakdown is a risk factor for educational underattainment. Can the Minister explain how we are supporting families to prevent family breakdown? I draw the attention of noble Lords to my entry in the register of interests in quoting from the Centre for Social Justice’s 2013 report, Requires Improvement. In it, Sir Robin Bosher, director of primary education at the Harris Federation of academies, emphasises that 25 years as a head teacher has taught him that,
“society must not underestimate the impact of family breakdown and the colossal effect a parent leaving home has on children”.
John d’Abbro OBE, who heads the outstanding-rated New Rush Hall School, argues that underlying almost all the exclusions that he sees is the issue of family breakdown. Boys are three times more likely to be excluded than girls, and many of the boys whom d’Abbro sees excluded grew up without fathers. A lack of discipline at home means that boys will test boundaries to the limit and beyond at school. US and UK research shows that, even if he is not spending a lot of time doing things with his son, a father’s presence is still a protective factor. We should not underestimate how hard it is for even the most dedicated single mothers to compensate for the psychological impact of a boy’s father not being there to encourage him, pull him up when necessary and show him love and care. The father gives a boy more reason to try harder, push himself and overcome: all vital for doing well at school, as is a father’s modelling of being able to provide for one’s family by linking effort and reward.
There are micro-communities in our country where three-quarters of households with children have no father living in the house. Male teachers are, therefore, even more vital in these local schools, as was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield. In 2012, however, one in four English primary schools had no full-time qualified male teacher and 80% of state-educated boys were in primary schools with three or fewer full-time qualified male teachers. In one low-income area—Lewisham, in London, which has well over twice the national average of lone-parent families—one-third of primary schools had no qualified full-time male teachers. Can the Minister update us on the number of male teachers today and tell us what is being done to increase their prevalence, especially where lone-parenthood rates are high?
Keeping fathers involved, even if they are separate from mothers, is vital. We have to start early: the last Labour Government passed legislation to ensure that all fathers’ names are on birth certificates in all but the most exceptional circumstances. This part of the Welfare Reform Act 2009 should be brought into force. Will the Minister inform us what is currently being done to improve the rates of active fatherhood?
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, who—as we established in a debate here a couple of years ago—is a very distant kinsman of mine. I congratulate him on bringing this debate forward and on the way he did it. It is quite clear that this is a complicated problem and that a cocktail mix has led to this result: there is not just one answer. The more we look at it in that way, the closer we will get to finding some form of solution or a series of solutions to apply to this situation.
I am dyslexic, I am president of the British Dyslexic Association and I have other educational interests. I was first dragged towards this by something that I was told as a youth, which was that dyslexia is four times more common among males than among females. That would fit quite nicely into this debate, apart from the fact that all the work now says that it is not true. Most of the work that has been done states that it is as common. A study by Olson and DeFries at the University of Colorado looked at 400 pairs of twins and discovered that there was absolutely no variation.
A myth has been put to one side, so why do we start to have this change? It is quite clear from all the statistics that boys are being outperformed by girls. It is quite clear that there are variations through the social structure and income levels, so what is happening here? It is clearly some mix between the two. It was put to me that boys tend to have—whenever you make a statement here, there is always a general twist—better spatial awareness and spatial memory. The female of the species tends to be better at naming and locating types of memory. Different types of memory will work differently at acquiring reading.
My background in dyslexia tells me that when you have problems acquiring reading you have problems with the way we work within our school system. When we talk about reading and attainment in the school system, we are talking not about intelligence but about how we apply it. How do we get through that and make it work?
It is also clear that if you come from a background where you are expected to read, you will do it. The average male may not do it quite as naturally as the average female, but he will do it. A cocktail of events has clearly led to where we are now.
Some say that the problem comes from not having a father figure. I come from a broken home and I got to university, as did my brother. Indeed, the late Earl Russell, of great memory, used to point out that he came from a broken home. The fact that his father was Bertrand Russell may have altered the effect on him. There is not one single bullet here, there is not something that excludes you. However, it is clear that when schools have worked on bringing fathers into the system and said, “You will get involved, it is part of your role”, that helps.
Having more male teachers helps a little, but if the male teacher is not a figure who inspires you but is one who you try to avoid because he tries to give you work and makes your life difficult, that may make the situation slightly worse. We do not know how this works. That is the important thing, but we have to start addressing this, because the world of work, and access to it, is becoming increasingly tied into the idea of acquiring the ability to read to get through the education system.
Furthermore, and in contradiction to the way this debate was introduced, will the Minister say what, if any, work has been done on improving the identification of special educational needs within the classroom? Another problem is probably masked in these figures: the underdiagnosis of females with special educational needs. This underdiagnosis is very high, because males in the classroom tend to be more extrovert, their problems are seen and they are more trouble, while the female hides in the middle of the classroom. Those are both normal classroom survival techniques for those having problems. We are missing many of them: can we look at that? The problem may actually be bigger than these facts suggest if we take that into account. What are we doing to find the true facts, so that we can start to look at solutions?
The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, has started—or rather, given impetus to—an important discussion here. It is incredibly important to identify what is going on: if we do not, we will underutilise our population and make the lives of the group that misses out slightly worse. Surely we should spend a little more time and energy on identifying the problem.
Lord Suri (Con)
My Lords, this is an important debate, especially now that we have entered into the last few years of our membership of the EU. Creating an excellent education for all—academic or technical—is key to keeping Britain competitive in days to come. Our human capital is one of the greatest assets that commerce can nurture and safeguard, and the current situation for boys is simply not good enough. I am glad of the widespread realisation that the demise of technical education was an error. My tireless noble friend Lord Baker and his university technical colleges have gone some way towards stemming that decline, on which I congratulate him.
I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for his work in ensuring that many more schools can have greater autonomy. I have always advocated the devolution of spending when it is reasonable to think that funds can be spent more effectively. On average, poor boys start school with a basic literacy level 15 points behind their female counterparts. The gap narrows to 10 points for wealthier households. This figure represents a significant and unnecessary loss of talent. This deficit can dog young men for the rest of their educational careers and have obvious negative impacts on their real careers and prospects.
The solution is not targeted support for boys but a better scheme to bring good educational reforms to parts of the country that have been left behind. Teach First has been an excellent initiative, and bringing more young and highly motivated people into the workforce to become positive role models and great teachers is an excellent idea.
The real change will come from a fairer school funding formula. It is time for funding to shift away from schools with high results and falling percentages of pupils on free school meals. It should move to schools in serious decline and need. London has been a real success story, and higher funding has undoubtedly helped, but London’s schools are now on the whole some of the best performing in the country, while free school meals have dropped by some 10 points. Support has worked, but some schools must be gradually moved off higher funding when there are others that are plainly more deserving. This will be politically painful, as redistribution always is, but it is absolutely necessary to our future.
Real attention must also be shown to former industrial towns, such as Rotherham and Wigan. The former Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central referred to his constituency as a place,
“without a culture of formal education”.
That kind of attitude could be allowed to slide in a town where jobs for life could be found in a local factory, but the decline in manufacturing has been disproportionately hard on young men. There still exists a skills gap, especially in engineering and other technical subjects. The answer is to make technical education an attractive prospect and to remove the stigma attached to it. Primarily, this can come through greater investment in such subjects, across all schools, and not just restricted to specialist schools.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lingfield for introducing this important debate and to all noble Lords for allowing me to speak briefly in this gap.
My knowledge of this area comes from five years’ teaching boys and young men basic literacy skills in a young offender institution as part of a voluntary one-to-one teaching scheme. Not many children who leave education without educational attainment, let alone qualifications, will pursue a life leading to a custodial sentence, but it is true that many boys in young offender institutions have little functional literacy or, indeed, numeracy skills. This represents a real cost to society, not to mention untold misery for victims, their families and indeed the boys themselves.
Over five years, I taught a number of boys individually, which is, perhaps, the only way of making real progress in the prison environment. Of course, from my point of view, teaching was made immeasurably easier once issues of crowd control were removed. It was voluntary on both sides. Many had been labelled dyslexic, although I rarely saw any evidence of this and, using synthetic phonics and various online programmes, most made rapid progress. Almost without exception, they wanted to learn—but privately, away from mocking eyes of some of their peers, as though learning were something shameful. Almost universally, their lack of attainment in mainstream school could be attributed to truancy from an early age together with a lack of discipline at home. It is true that many admitted—almost all, in my experience—to having no resident father, and the person to whom the boys afforded the most respect was their nan or grandmother.
We should ponder not only why boys underperform girls but how to encourage boys at the earliest stage in their education that learning is useful, fun and will afford skills that will enable them to lead more fulfilling lives than they would do otherwise. Surely, the most significant factor in that would be the quality of teaching staff and the teaching staff’s training. I know that noble Lords will agree that the quality of teachers and their training has been improved through initiatives such as Teach First.
Even more can be achieved for boys in other ways, perhaps through engagement with sport and the valuable lesson that it gives beyond the skills of the game. I am also aware of various mentoring schemes in London boroughs for boys who lack encouragement at home. Some of these younger mentors have provided valuable role models. One of the most humbling lessons that I learnt in my time behind their bars was how much these supposedly tough young men valued someone—anyone—taking time with them individually, teaching them a skill that they were ashamed not to have mastered already and then showing a real, personal and non-judgmental interest in their progress.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for initiating this debate and I particularly thank the House of Lords Library, the Sutton Trust and Teach First for sending briefings.
It is clear from all the research carried out that there is a real and continuing problem with the educational attainment of boys at state schools, particularly boys from disadvantaged backgrounds. My noble friend Lord Addington rightly said that there is no one silver bullet that will deal with the problem, but consideration of and action on a series of interventions, policies and practices may help.
Sometimes, we learn from our own experiences. I was head teacher of two primary schools, both in deprived communities. My last school was in Halewood, which was a white working-class community. It was a large primary school of 600 pupils. In a sense, we threw everything at those pupils to get them up to a good level of literacy and numeracy. Thanks to our success, our results in literacy and numeracy were above the national average, and we celebrated that fact, as did the five Ofsted inspections we had while I was there. But it used to always concern me that when my pupils left to go to a whole plethora of secondary schools, their results declined dramatically, and I never understood why.
I was interested in researching for this debate to come across Sutton Trust information which said among the various facts and figures that every year there are high-achieving boys at primary school—pupils scoring in the top 10% nationally in their key stage 2 tests—who five years later receive a set of GCSE results that place them outside the top 25% of pupils. How is that, with all the work carried out at primary level?
I can also tell noble Lords that a third of my staff were male teachers, and two were from ethnic backgrounds.
All that work is carried out at primary school. Two weeks ago I visited a primary school near Preston—I will not name the school—which is in a very deprived community. It is an oasis. It has a children’s centre linked to it and early years provision, all through a school purposely built by the local authority. I was really impressed. Ofsted rated it outstanding. It is an outstanding school in a desperately deprived community. I said to the head, “What happens to the pupils?”, and he reiterated what I just said: “Actually, sadly, they do not do as well in secondary education”.
So what is going on? I do not know the answer. I hear the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talk about poverty; I hear people talk about the importance of the home—of course, the home and poverty are important; of course, having role models is important. But we cannot sit around and wait for those things to happen; we have to do something now. There is no time to wait around for role models to become available if families are to get immediately out of the poverty trap. We need a plan of action to make sure that we succeed.
Early years provision is of course vital. It should not be about a national childminding service; there need to be trained staff who create stimulating, challenging learning environments and know the importance of learning through play. It is important that we develop those policies and strategies. Here is my starter for 10—I am suddenly conscious that I was rambling at the beginning and lost time. We need to use high-quality information about pupils’ current capabilities to select the best steps for their education and teaching. We need to use high-quality structured interventions to help pupils who are struggling with literacy. We need more highly qualified teachers—I do not think this has been mentioned—to teach in deprived schools. I am again indebted to the Sutton Trust research, which has shown that teachers in advantaged schools are more experienced than those in deprived schools. We should perhaps have our most experienced teachers in deprived schools. The research found that financial incentives and more time for lesson preparation would attract those experienced teachers to teach in deprived schools.
Let us implement targeted attainment improvement programmes. Let us continue to look at using the pupil premium. We must make better use of teaching assistants, who are a valuable resource to primary and secondary schools, and adopt evidence-based interventions to support teaching assistants in their small-group and one-to-one sessions. We need peer tutoring, one-to-one tuition, collaborative learning and effective setting of homework. I am sure that if we have a plan of action, we can turn things round.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, has done us all a favour in opening up this important matter for debate. I listened to him with interest. His concluding remark that we need more objective research on this matter is true. There is a plethora of research and all noble Lords have been given a considerable amount of backing material for this debate, but there are still areas that would benefit from further research.
The debate highlights a real and entrenched sociological conundrum: why do girls consistently outperform boys in educational achievement? I might in passing ask why men nevertheless overtake women in the workplace in both levels of pay and getting the top jobs, but that is a debate for another day.
Boys in England are nearly twice as likely as girls to fall behind in early language and communication. Despite a dramatic improvement in overall results over a period of more than 10 years, the gender gap has hardly changed for five year-olds. Research by Save the Children, which noble Lords will have seen, shows that while there has been a 20% improvement in overall attainment in state schools and an 8% reduction in the poverty gap since 2006, there has been a reduction of just 1% in the gender gap in educational attainment. As recently as 2015, boys accounted for 51% of children who started primary school in the state sector but for 66% of those who were behind in their early language and communication. The pattern is the same across all ethnic groupings.
I am not sure whether the announcement earlier today that the Government are about to end SATs tests for seven year-olds has relevance to this debate, but at key stage 2—that is, 11 year-olds—girls who are eligible for free school meals outperform boys eligible for free school meals by a greater margin than those not eligible for free school meals. I agree with the point made by my noble friend Lady Morris about poverty being a determinate factor—that is undoubtedly the case—and it was interesting that noble Lords each identified a different subject. The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, talked of the lack of role models.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, said there is no one answer, and of course that is right. A number of aspects contribute to this. There is no obvious reason for the general disparity between boys and girls, but a recent study by the University of Bristol showed how big an impact the gender gap in the early years foundation stage has on boys’ primary school attainment. That is not a silver bullet, but it is the area I want to concentrate on. Two-thirds of the total gender gap in reading at key stage 2 can be attributed to the fact that boys begin school with poorer language and attention skills than girls.
That is just one piece of research, but the evidence from a wide range of studies over recent years clearly points to high-quality early childhood education and care provision being the most powerful protection against the risk of falling behind, especially for boys. This is, of course, the case in respect of all children, but especially so with children from disadvantaged backgrounds. The Government say they want to improve social mobility. I do not doubt their good intentions, particularly as regards apprenticeships, but I have regularly criticised their recently discovered priority of grammar expansion, for which they have managed to find pots of money at a time when comprehensive schools are in a real funding crisis. There is no evidence to show that grammar schools have a positive impact on social mobility. If social mobility is to become a reality, the resources made available to it must be targeted first, second and third at early years provision because that is where it really can have a meaningful and lasting effect.
Yet since 2010 more than 400 of the Sure Start centres championed by the Labour Government have closed. In July 2015, the then Childcare Minister announced that the Government would be launching an open consultation on children’s centres that autumn. It never happened. Does the Department for Education still intend to proceed with that consultation? It is not only overdue but very necessary.
The Government really need to grasp the fact that they must invest in the best early education and childcare provision, particularly in the most deprived areas, led by graduates and supported by skilled staff at all levels. That would be showing a commitment to children who are falling behind by providing them with the chance they deserve of a fulfilling—in all definitions of that word—early years experience, one that supports their development and increases their chances of a full and successful adult life.
A well-qualified early years workforce is vital if young children are to have the support they need to thrive and enjoy success in school and then in later life. The entire workforce is important. Better-qualified early years practitioners deliver higher-quality care, which means better outcomes for children. The Government need to recognise the importance of continual investment in improved professional development for those working in early years, in their status and in the progression routes for staff at all levels. There is also a need to take steps to increase the number of 0-5 early years teachers and those with equivalent graduate qualifications in the workforce. Evidence shows they deliver significant improvements across all aspects of provision and are linked to better Ofsted ratings and higher-quality early years teaching. Studies show that the difference in the quality of provision between nurseries in the most and least deprived areas is almost completely wiped out if a graduate is present, yet the 2015 early years census found that less than half of private, voluntary and independent early years providers that offered free childcare had staff with EYT status working with three and four year-olds. That is not a loophole. It is a gaping hole, and urgent action must be taken to begin to fill it.
I shall finish with a quote from the Save the Children report that I mentioned earlier,
“we cannot wait for disadvantaged children and boys to get to school before they receive the support they need, by which time they may already have fallen behind”,
with negative consequences for their childhoods, school attainment and life chances. We must invest in the best early years provision, led by early years teachers and supported by skilled staff at all levels, particularly in the most deprived areas. Minister, please take note.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a short but fascinating debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for raising this important and complex issue. I shall start by setting out what we know about the issues affecting boys’ performance at school and describing the measures that we are putting in place to address many of the problems.
We have known for decades that boys develop at a different rate from girls and that there are certain areas of the curriculum, such as English, in which girls tend to outperform boys, but it is only in recent years that a pervasive gender attainment gap has begun to open up in state schools in England, with girls now outperforming boys at all educational stages and in most curriculum subjects. The gap opens early and persists—indeed widens—through school. Let me give some statistics. Last year, 75.4% of five year-old girls achieved the expected levels for all the early learning goals, compared with 59.7% of boys. As my noble friend Lord Lingfield said, at the end of primary school, 50% of boys—I think that he said 49%—and 57% of girls achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. By the end of secondary school, girls outperformed boys across all the GCSE headline measures. I could give more statistics that confirm this pattern.
As a result, it is not surprising that boys are less likely to go on to further study at 16 or to apply to university, but let us look at the reasons why. What is clear is that the early years are critical. The noble Lord, Lord Watson, raised the issue of research, which highlights stark differences in early cognitive and social development. Girls start school with more advanced social and behavioural skills and, for example, more well-developed language and attention skills, which have been shown to account for two-thirds of the gender gap in reading observed at age 11. While girls outperform boys across all major ethnic groups, there is considerable variation. Boys from particular ethnic backgrounds, including Chinese and Indian, do much better than others, notably white British and black Caribbean boys.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, boys are much more likely than girls to be identified as having special educational needs, although he also said that the underdiagnosis of SEN among girls may also be an issue. There is a much higher incidence among boys of social, emotional and mental health needs, speech, language and communications needs and autistic spectrum disorder. Boys are much more likely than girls to be temporarily or permanently excluded from school, yet it is not clear from research evidence whether negative behaviour in school is a cause of poorer academic attainment or one of its consequences. Similarly, there is a lack of good research into how educational outcomes are affected by family structures and, in particular, the absence of a male role model. One recent study found that families with single mothers are associated with greater gender gaps in children’s non-cognitive skills, but it did not look at academic attainment.
My noble friend Lord Farmer asked what was being done to improve the rates of active fatherhood and how we are supporting families to prevent family breakdown. There can be no doubt that parental conflict causes heartache and damages children’s upbringing, potentially harming their opportunities well into the future. We now understand more about the mechanism through which children’s outcomes are affected by parental conflict and that it impacts directly on children’s well-being, as well as getting in the way of good parenting. We must make reducing conflict between parents our priority, regardless of whether they are together or separated. That means making support to reduce parental conflict a part of local provision. To achieve that, we will continue to work with local authorities to help them to embed this work into local services.
We understand the importance of both mothers and fathers to children’s future outcomes, regardless of whether couples are together or separated, but we often hear that services are less likely to identify men as parents and to consider them as having responsibilities to their children. We are ensuring that both mothers and fathers are supported through our parental conflict work and will look at whether more can be done to ensure that services recognise fathers and help them to play a full and active role in their children’s lives.
International studies suggest that boys and girls differ in their behaviour and attitudes towards school and academic study. Girls are more likely to use self-regulation strategies, to do their homework and to respond to school work more positively. Noble Lords may agree that this is a rather obvious conclusion. However, the impact of school factors on the gender attainment gap is not obvious. There is some research that shows no conclusive link between the size of the gap and overall school performance. However, we know that schools with little or no gap have a positive attitude to study, high expectations of all pupils, excellent teaching and classroom management and rigorous tracking of individual pupils’ achievement.
Some common assumptions about boys’ underperformance in school are not supported by evidence. For example, there is no evidence that the emphasis on coursework at GCSE, which has been thought to be a factor favouring girls, has adversely affected boys. Similarly, some people have suggested that boys are held back by a lack of male teachers, particularly in primary schools, but there is no conclusive evidence to back this up.
My noble friend Lord Farmer asked what was being done to increase the number of male teachers, especially in certain hot spots where there might be more of a plethora of lone parents. Current data show that in 2015 there were more than 119,000 male teachers, full-time equivalent, compared to 115,000 in 2011. Men comprise 26% of teachers in state-funded schools in England, a proportion that has remained broadly stable over time. We are aware of concerns around the number of male teachers in our classrooms and we want all schools to be able to recruit high-quality teachers, regardless of their gender, since evidence shows that quality of teaching is the single most important factor in determining how well pupils achieve. Research has not found that the gender of teachers has a differential effect on boys and girls, but we will continue to monitor the composition of the teaching workforce by gender and will consider what if any steps would be appropriate to increase the number of men entering the profession.
Having set out the scale and nature of boys’ underperformance and briefly described its causes, I now turn to how the Government are tackling this issue. We are committed to tackling educational underachievement wherever it exists, not by targeting specific pupil groups but by setting high expectations for all pupils and building a self-improving school system offering world-class education to every pupil. I begin with the early years—which are so important, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said. Every three year-old and four year-old is entitled to 15 hours per week of free early education. Numbers of qualified staff and graduates in the early years workforce are rising, and we have introduced early years teachers, who must meet the same entry qualification requirements as teachers of older children. At primary school, we have introduced a stretching national curriculum with higher standards in English and maths so that all pupils secure the basics in literacy and numeracy by age 11. At secondary school, through the English baccalaureate, we have set a strong expectation that all pupils will receive a rigorous academic education that prepares them for further study and employment.
Beyond the core curriculum, we want to ensure that all pupils can develop essential life skills—qualities such as resilience, perseverance and self-control. We actively encourage schools to develop these qualities in their pupils through activities such as team sports, volunteering, arts, drama and cadet training. I am minded of the anecdote that my noble friend Lord Lingfield mentioned at the beginning of his speech.
Our vision for a self-improving schools system is fast becoming a reality. The growing network of teaching schools and multi-academy trusts ensures that schools can collaborate and be supported to raise standards. We are working hard to create a sustainable pipeline of high-quality head teachers and school leaders, and have put in place reforms to improve teaching quality at all levels. My noble friend Lady Bloomfield highlighted the importance of good teachers and Teach First. I also acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, about the need for more experienced teachers in deprived schools. He is, of course, quite right.
However, while there are now nearly 1.8 million more pupils in good or outstanding schools than in 2010, there are still a million pupils in schools which are inadequate or require improvement. A good school place remains out of reach for too many, particularly those from less well-off families. The ban in place since 1998 on opening new selective schools makes it harder to create good school places and limits access to the most stretching academic education to those who can afford to move near to existing grammar schools or pay for independent schooling. That is why we propose to scrap the ban on new grammar schools and allow them to open where parents want them, with strict conditions to make sure they improve standards in local schools and beyond. However, recognising that highly academic routes are not for everyone, we are also reforming technical education, offering training for highly skilled occupational areas such as engineering and manufacturing, health, science, construction and digital. We continue to develop the increasingly popular apprenticeships route, with which noble Lords will be familiar, through a strong partnership between government and industry, equipping young people with the skills that employers need to grow.
I am fast running out of time. A very important point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, on the link with poverty. If I had more time, I would speak about that. I shall write to her and copy in all noble Lords who took part in the debate, because there is a link and some very important messages there which we are aware of and need and seek to address.
To conclude, as my noble friend Lord Lingfield said so eloquently, this is a complex topic. I think that all noble Lords recognised that there are no quick fixes, yet the far-reaching reforms of education set in train by this Government, covering the early years right through to higher education, are equipping schools with the tools to tackle these entrenched issues. I passionately believe in the transformative power of high-quality education, that that is a right for all children—both boys and girls—and that strong leaders in good schools are in a unique position to make it happen. Above all, and as noble Lords said, there is undoubtedly more work to be done to tackle these issues. The focus of the Secretary of State for Education must be and is on the 1 million boys and girls stuck in underperforming schools and how to ensure that each one is able to reach their potential. Only then can her and the Prime Minister’s unerring focus on improved social mobility truly become a reality.
Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Lord Bowness
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the future role of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, in the light of the continued conflict in the east of Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I declare at the outset that I have the privilege of leading the UK delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and am a vice-president of that Assembly. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, and 10 other colleagues from the other place are members of the delegation.
In 2012, in Questions for Short Debate about Her Majesty’s Government’s view of the role of the OSCE and, in November 2013, about their hopes and priorities for the Helsinki+40 process, I raised the whole question of the OSCE. I ask this further question as circumstances have changed and because there is, even in Parliament, a lack of awareness of the OSCE, what it does and the complex and varied issues with which it is concerned in some of the most troubled parts of its region.
It is difficult to get attention. I failed abysmally with even our own The House magazine, and in two long debates in your Lordships’ House on the UK’s international relations post-Brexit and our future engagement with the UN and US, I could not find a single reference to the OSCE. I know that the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who as a Minister had the misfortune to reply to my two previous Questions, are well aware of the activities of the OSCE. For the record, though, I would like to state that the OSCE region comprises 57 states stretching from the United States and Canada in the west to Mongolia in the East. The chairmanship rotates among the participating states, currently Austria, and the meetings are chaired by that country’s Foreign Minister. There are also relationships with other Asian and Mediterranean partners not within the organisation itself.
The Permanent Council, comprising the ambassadors of the participating states, meets weekly in Vienna, as does the Forum for Security Co-operation. There are three major institutions: the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the High Commissioner on National Minorities, and the Representative on Freedom of the Media. The annual report of 2015—the 2016 report is not yet available—listed 17 field missions or operations including four in the western Balkans, one in Ukraine with a special monitoring mission alongside the observer mission at Russian checkpoints, and another seven in the Caucasus and Eurasia. All these missions or project offices deal with a wide variety of issues: anti-terrorism, anti-trafficking of people measures, building democratic institutions, training police and judiciary, human rights and much more. Within the secretariat, the conflict prevention centre is the link with the field missions charged with early warning of potential conflicts in any participating state.
At the Dublin ministerial in December 2012, there was much optimism. The then chairman-in-office from Ireland spoke of setting out a clear path from then until 2015 for work that would significantly strengthen the organisation. That enthusiasm was shared by the then UK Foreign Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Hague of Richmond, when he said that a key outcome of the 2012 Ministerial Council was an,
“agreement on a new initiative designed to inject a fresh dynamic into the OSCE as we approach the 40th anniversary”.
In 2015 the OSCE did indeed mark 40 years of the Helsinki accord, which was drawn up to establish a new security order for the region and agreed standards governing not only relations between states but the treatment of states by their own people. Sadly, by then those agreed standards, which had already been weakened by events in Georgia, were shattered by the Russian annexation of Crimea and support for separatist movements in east Ukraine. Moreover, there is no sign that the Russian Federation is going to change its approach to Ukraine despite the sanctions, and the situation is in danger of joining the other frozen conflicts in Georgia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Moldova and Transnistria. In all these cases the Russian Federation is an essential part of any solution.
The need for consensus in OSCE severely restricts the organisation’s ability to act. In the very short term it could find four major posts falling vacant. The Secretary-General is retiring, as is the director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. There is no High Commissioner for National Minorities, in that there has been no agreement on either appointment or replacement. The mandate for the Representative on the Freedom of the Media expires this month. There are problems with extending the mandate for the mission in Armenia, and the mandate for the mission in Tajikistan expires in June. Further, there is no budget for 2017. In the light of President Trump’s remarks about “America first” and the funding of the UN, does the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have confirmation that the United States, which is the largest contributor followed by the United Kingdom, is going to continue its support for the organisation? In our new global future outside the European Union, are we prepared to make sure that the OSCE has the resources to operate?
The organisation experiences practical difficulties due to its lack of legal personality. How do Her Majesty’s Government see these issues developing in the situation in Ukraine? Are there further steps that we as the United Kingdom could take, especially given the importance of the City to the Russian Federation? Questions remain unanswered about the extension of the special monitoring mission in Ukraine and the possibility of a much-discussed police mission. Do we acknowledge that our zero-increase policy towards the budget may have to be revised? While we all favour money being spent on the ground and not on administration, the missions in Ukraine alone have created additional needs.
In replying to the debate in 2012, the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, referred to our funding of 48 national secondees and contracted staff. Can the Minister tell us what our present contribution to the organisation is in that area? The western Balkans, a region that the UK has historically backed for a future within the European Union, gives cause for concern. The alleged coup in Montenegro, political instability in other states, and the somewhat ambiguous position taken by Serbia towards Kosovo and its links with Russia are all matters of concern. Our decision to leave the European Union has been a disappointment not only to many of us but to those countries, and while the Prime Minister has assured us that we will continue with our involvement, important and specific work is being done by the OSCE, so an assurance of backing for this work, if necessary with resources, would be welcome.
Lastly, perhaps I may say a word about the Parliamentary Assembly. In January 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said:
“We regret that there is on occasion a degree of rivalry between the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE’s secretariat as such and we would very much like to see the Parliamentary Assembly and the OSCE secretariat working more closely together”.—[Official Report, 16/1/12; col. 422.]
Since January 2016, when Mr Roberto Montella assumed the office of Secretary-General, there has been a dramatic and welcome change, not only in the relations between the Parliamentary Assembly and the secretariat but between the Assembly and the institutions of OSCE, particularly the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. Members from different delegations pay tribute to Mr Montella in helping to bring about this change.
I thank the UK permanent representative, Sian MacLeod, who is also playing an important part not only as the chair of the Human Dimension Committee this year but in bringing members of the Permanent Council and the Parliamentary Assembly together. The Parliamentary Assembly is considering ways in which it can support—not, I emphasise, control—and remained informed about the work of the institutions and field missions, and build a long-term relationship with them, to the advantage of both. Members of the Assembly are committed to playing a role in trying to encourage dialogue and increase understanding. Immediately after the attempted coup, as a gesture of support, current President Muttonen took a small group to Turkey’s elected Government to stress the need to maintain all the democratic norms and rule of law in the face of such provocation.
Members from different delegations have had discussions with representatives of Uzbekistan to encourage them to renew participation in the Assembly and OSCE, which appears to have been successful, at least in regard to the Assembly. The Assembly is meeting in Belarus, which, despite some current problems, will present a further opportunity for contact and dialogue. I hope the Minister will feel able to give encouragement to this parliamentary diplomacy, which many in the Assembly believe is an important part of our role in addition to, not instead of, the important election-monitoring activity. In connection with that, I must pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, although she is not here this afternoon, for her record in undertaking so many of these monitoring missions over so many years.
I look forward to the contributions from other noble Lords and the Minister’s response.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on securing this debate and introducing it so ably. It is pity that there seem to be as many chiefs as Indians speaking in it; I seem to be the only speaker who has no direct connection to the organisation. I speak mainly as someone who has worked a lot on Russia and its relationship with Ukraine.
The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is tangled and fraught wherever one looks. Even the Eurovision Song Contest has become embroiled. This year it is to be held in Ukraine. The Russian contestant, Yuliya Samoylova, has been banned from the country because she performed at a concert in Crimea in 2015. Each side is blaming the other and, so far, there is no resolution in sight. Samoylova sings from a wheelchair. One Ukrainian observer declared:
“They”—
the Russians—
“are using this girl as a live bomb in the propagandistic hybrid war against Ukraine”.
The Russian view, of course, is diametrically opposed, as is their attitude towards Jamala, the Ukrainian singer who won the contest last year, with a song about the deportation of the Tatars from Crimea by the Soviet Government in 1944. Like the OSCE, the song contest, which involves 43 participating states, is based on inclusiveness and consensus.
The OSCE was created during the Cold War but got what seemed like a whole new life with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Paris charter of November 1990 spoke of the coming of,
“a new era of democracy, peace and unity”,
which the OSCE would play a fundamental role in preserving. The ideological backdrop to this was captured by the then-celebrated work of the American political scientist, Francis Fukuyama, with his announcement of “the end of history”. History very soon reasserted itself in the failure of West and East to agree a new security architecture for the European continent.
I consider this to be the structural backdrop to the stresses and strains that we see at the moment. A market economy failed to materialise in Russia while democratic reform remains stunted. The OSCE was marginalised while the western states remain locked into NATO, from which Russia was excluded. The common security space that the Russians have advocated never saw the light of day. Its last gasp was the blunt rejection of the Medvedev plan, originally put forward in 2008. I remember asking a Starred Question about it, and the Minister at the time gave a really dismissive reply.
The OSCE became increasingly seen by the Russians as driven by the aim to create regime change, while its civil rights missions were interpreted as attempts to infringe on Russian sovereignty. The Russian leadership also felt betrayed by NATO’s role in Libya, as it went well beyond the stated aims of the UN resolution that Russia had reluctantly, under pressure, endorsed.
The OSCE looked to be going nowhere, but it has been propelled back to the forefront precisely by the Ukraine crisis. The current chair, Austria, has inevitably made defusing that crisis one of its main priorities. Its capabilities to do so are self-evidently limited because of the need for consensus and the lack of legal personality, thus the Minsk 2 agreement—or a version of it—was implemented by members of the Normandy format, the Government in Kiev and representatives of separatist groups plus the Trilateral Contact Group on Ukraine. The OSCE is part of that latter group and was important in its overall monitoring role. Nevertheless, it is a collaborative organisation in a world seemingly once again becoming disturbingly geopolitical.
There are new challenges for President Putin inside Russia with the recent surge of street demonstrations. The response so far from the authorities has been straightforward repression and the arrest of its most prominent figure, Alexei Navalny. As the noble Lord said, President Trump’s likely policies with regard to NATO are, to put it mildly, still unclear, as is the real meaning of the friendly overtures that he made towards Russia in his campaign. He has virtually no experience of international politics. Russian hackers almost certainly intervened in the American election, and Russia is both cultivating populist leaders in Europe and being cultivated by them. The stand-off between Russia and Ukraine is a frozen conflict that could become very dangerous. This is a period of world history that could become deeply unstable.
In the past, the OSCE has been variously described as a toothless tiger, a sleeping beauty or a wining and dining club for diplomats. However, its role in the current conflict has been crucial, so I have two questions for the Minister. Does she agree that lessons learned from the experience of the special monitoring mission to Ukraine could potentially open up a new role for OSCE in other conflicts? Does she also agree that this is a time when, as a country, we must actively seek to defend and sustain multilateralism? This is, after all, by far the most interdependent world ever.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, who has long experience of the OSCE. I accompanied him during a 2011 IPU visit to Kosovo, where the OSCE still has a major presence. I returned to Kosovo with the IPU a month ago to find that most of the current Balkan gloom is not about Russia, but about Brexit.
We think again of the troubles of Ukraine and Crimea, but the wider context is the humiliation felt by most Russians since the collapse of the Soviet Union. President Putin has been able to conjure up old Russia with all its conservatism and Orthodox Christianity, and we have to remember that both medieval Rus and the industrial heartland of the Donbas were and are firmly set in Ukraine. None of that can excuse the illegal annexations or the outright aggression and dirty tricks performed by Putin’s agents and the military in recent years, but it helps to explain why many Russians feel a little more national pride today, while still putting up with corruption and appalling human rights violations, as Russians always have. It explains why we have to work harder towards dialogue through organisations such as the OSCE.
The OSCE is a superb example of soft power. It is an obscure organisation, but that may not matter unless we have high political ambitions for it, which I think would be a mistake. I know that some used to see it as a might-have-been alternative to NATO. The European Leadership Network advocates better use of its conflict prevention centre, and there have been many attempts at reform, not least those described in the short debate led by the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, which was fascinating for facts such as that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, trained Kazakh officials preparing for the OSCE presidency, which I did not know.
In February 2015, 11 months after Crimea was annexed, our EU External Affairs Sub-Committee, of which I was a member, published its report The EU and Russia: Before and Beyond the Crisis in Ukraine. One finding of the report was that neither the EU nor its members had adequate understanding of Russia or the necessary analytical skills to interpret what was happening there. Georgia’s then ambassador, Dr Gachechiladze, said that there was,
“not a good understanding of Russia in the West”,
and our then Europe Minister, David Lidington, said that by 2014,
“there were very few officials in any government department”,
with expertise from the old Soviet era.
Other witnesses confirmed that relations between Russia and the EU had suffered from political neglect.
Yet Russia and Europe, historically and economically, have always had to come to terms. We have only to look at the map of natural gas entering Europe from Russia to realise that there is already a degree of interdependence with several EU states. Meanwhile, the war around Donetsk and Luhansk rages on, almost unreported in this country. Detailed bulletins from the OSCE’s special monitoring mission provide evidence of fighting and breaches of ceasefire on a daily basis.
Could it be that we here are out of touch with the conflict in Ukraine? Despite its historic connections with Poland and Russia, Ukraine remains a vast blank in the minds even of those who know about Eastern Europe. While the loss of Crimea hit most of us, I am not sure how much the daily fighting in Ukraine really matters to British people. I was surprised that last week’s defence debate, which dealt considerably with our Armed Forces’ capability, barely touched on security in Europe or the situation in the Balkans or Ukraine.
Our sub-committee took evidence on the OSCE, especially from Dr Tom Casier of Kent University, who felt that it lacked legitimacy and had been ineffective as a security mechanism. Both he and Vladimir Chizhov, the Russian ambassador to the EU, said that there should be a new security architecture which included Russia and NATO and OSCE members. We recommended,
“a serious dialogue on issues of shared interest”,
building on a range of agreements, cultural exchanges and common spaces between the EU and Russia. The OSCE conference in Rome in March last year called for a much stronger, more strategic EU-OSCE partnership.
In the sub-committee, we recognised that Russian perceptions of NATO as a security threat had to be acknowledged, while also challenged. We have to try harder to understand Russian fears of EU and NATO expansion. EU enlargement may be on hold, post-Trump and post-Brexit, with Brussels talking more of multitrack solution, as already applied to Romania and Bulgaria, but hearts and minds are still being won, and western influence in Ukraine presents a problem for President Putin. NATO ensures that Russian military expansion has been contained although, unsurprisingly, OSCE members have been unable to implement the Minsk 2 agreement, and dirty tricks continue.
In Crimea, all opposition to Russia by Tatar leaders and Ukrainian activists has been cruelly put down. Direct political interference continues all over the Balkans. Serbia’s continuing claim to northern Kosovo is undoubtedly backed by Russia. I could see examples of this on the bridge at Mitrovica and the other business with the train plastered with slogans saying, “Kosovo is Serbian”. How can Serbia be allowed to continue on a path to EU membership if it behaves like this?
My forebear, Samuel Morton Peto, built the first-ever railway in battle from Sebastopol to the front line. Of course, as a European, I do not feel that I am on any front line or have any claims on Crimea, except to wish that its people will gain more freedom from the Russian torments that they have suffered over many years. I hope that, in future, we can hold a much fuller debate on relations with Russia, because discussion of the OSCE undoubtedly raises much wider questions, including our own future post-Brexit foreign policy in the region.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, on having secured this debate, and perhaps even more importantly, on the very positive role that he has taken as leader of the British delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly. He and I have discussed on numerous occasions the work of the assembly and the OSCE in the wider sense. There are, of course, a number of issues on which reform is desirable, and I know that the noble Lord is battling hard to achieve those reforms, so I am delighted to be part of his delegation and I salute him on the work that he has been doing.
I have been a member of the parliamentary assembly for several years. Last year, we saw Roberto Montella become the new Secretary-General, which was desirable. We also have a brilliant British ambassador to the OSCE in Vienna, Ambassador Sian MacLeod. We had dinner with her in a restaurant in Vienna and an excellent briefing from her and her staff, and that was very positive and helpful.
One of the most useful things that the parliamentary assembly does is election monitoring. That is not because we uncover all sorts of scandals; it is because the countries that are having elections and know that we are coming take care not to do anything that we might pick up as being a breach of proper electoral behaviour. Of course, one occasionally sees administrative inefficiencies—I saw some myself—but we keep the system clean. People ask why the OSCE monitors British and American elections. The answer is that if we monitor elections in Russia and in some other countries that have more dubious democratic credentials, they will say that we cannot monitor just them; we have to monitor here as well. There have been monitoring missions to our elections—of course, we cannot take part in monitoring in our own country; but it is a positive part of the work.
I noticed that some countries attach great importance to the work of the parliamentary assembly. I cannot speak so much for the OSCE, but it is interesting that there was a resolution criticising one of the Stans—I cannot remember which one—and we immediately had the ambassador on our doorstep demanding to see us and demanding that we vote against the resolution. I pointed out to him that the only time we ever saw people from his country was when there was a resolution down for an OSCE plenary. Why did he not show more interest in us at other times? That fell on somewhat deaf ears; I had better not mention him.
It is, however, clear that some countries attach more importance to their delegations to the assembly than perhaps we do, as evidenced by the fact that too many representatives at the parliamentary assembly seem to confine their speeches to government handouts. Perhaps our Government would like that: no, I am sure that they would not. We, in fact, are pretty free-thinking, and although we get briefings from Ministers here before we set out, and the Foreign Office gives us written briefing, we do our own thing as seems right. It is somewhat depressing that some countries feel that their only job there is to make political speeches on behalf of their Government. On one occasion, I said something that was slightly critical of the British Government—I am sure that Ministers would accept that—and somebody came up to me and asked for my speech. I said, “I haven’t got a speech; I have five words on a bit of paper, because that tends to be the way we do things, as opposed to these handouts”.
Having taken the tragic step of leaving the EU, we will need more international links in the future. Whatever criticisms we might therefore make of the OSCE, subject to the reforms which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, will achieve in the near future, it is still clear that we will need those international links. Whatever the weaknesses of the OSCE and the debates there, at the very least it gives us international context, the chance to have debates and, on the fringes of the conference, the chance to have chats with politicians from other countries. That is pretty positive.
A lot of time in the parliamentary assembly has been taken by specific discussions about Ukraine and the Crimea, and Russian action there. The parliamentary assembly has given us some chance to contrast the way in which the Russians went into the Crimea and had a quick referendum, as they called it, without any of the objective context which we, for example, had in Scotland for its referendum or indeed in Northern Ireland. I say to those people: just have a look at Scotland. We had several years of debate and there was an even-handed approach. There had to be even access to the media on both sides. There was no army there telling the people how to vote. At the end of that time, the people of Scotland decided they did not wish to leave the United Kingdom. Contrast that with what happened in the Crimea.
In the excellent Library briefing pack, I see that there is a letter dated 15 March and headed “Statement by the Delegation of the Russian Federation”. It says:
“The multi-ethnic population of Crimea took the corresponding decisions”
—to join Russia—
“by a huge majority in a free and fair expression of its will. The status of the Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol as constituent entities of the Russian Federation is not open to reconsideration or discussion. Crimea is and will remain Russian. This is a fact that our partners will have to come to terms with. This position is based on and fully complies with international law”.
Well, we know what we think about that stuff. It seems to be wrong in every respect. I say to the Russians: have a look at the way we decide things in the United Kingdom—for example in Scotland, where an important decision was done fairly and democratically.
Briefly, I am a member of the migration committee of the OSCE, which does some quite useful work in looking at refugees and other issues. I am also a member of the Moldova committee, which is more difficult these days.
There is a disconnect between the OSCE and the parliamentary assembly. I would like that assembly—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, would like this, too—to get closer to the day-to-day work of the OSCE. When visiting a country, I sometimes suddenly realise that there is an effective OSCE mission there. But the parliamentary assembly is not able, so far, to engage with that as fully as we would like. I know that changes are on the way. A final thought: as far as I know, no country of the 57 in the OSCE still has the death penalty, with two exceptions: the United States and Belarus. Our next plenary will be in Minsk in July and we will have to tell them a thing or two about the death penalty.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, it was very kind of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, to remind me of past speeches. I should declare a couple of interests: I am a member of the European Leadership Network and I am very sorry that the note from Ms Shetty came round so late today. Nevertheless, I hope your Lordships find it useful. I was also the British secretary of the British-Soviet Round Table from 1979 to 1989. When it was launched, it was a very difficult process. When I was there from Chatham House to provide the secretariat, we found ourselves talking to hard-nosed Russians who had a different view of what reality was, let alone truth. We were roundly attacked by the Sunday Times and others for being soft on communism but we persevered and found it useful to maintain a dialogue, even under difficult circumstances. It got easier over the years.
The CSCE, as it was then, was also set up to build a dialogue between the Soviet Union and the West, with the great advantage that the younger generation of reformers in the Soviet Union wanted to be recognised and accepted as part of a wider Europe. They were therefore willing to make concessions on things such as human rights in order to be accepted. After the Cold War, the West took its eye off the ball and we found that Russia was not evolving in quite the way that we had recommended. The aggressive enlargement of NATO, first in the late 1990s and then most disastrously with the insistence of the George W Bush Administration that we should offer membership to Georgia and Ukraine in Bucharest in 2008, made matters worse. However, one always has to remember that those countries wanted to join NATO. They applied pressure, because they wanted to get out from under Russian control.
The Russian system of government, meanwhile, has gone backwards towards crony capitalism, a corrupt elite and now the closing down of civil society. We face a Russian regime that has been there for some time and is becoming increasingly hostile to the West, including the European Union. We have the old frozen conflicts: Georgia is the one that I know best, and it has been deeply frustrating over the years. There have been attempts to interfere in the Baltic states, even though they are members of NATO and the EU. There is subversion—as already mentioned—in various states across south-eastern Europe. Russia Today is trying to produce its own versions of reality in our own national debates. We have Russian support—possibly including financial support—for hard-right parties across Europe, and perhaps even interference in American elections.
We have, therefore, a very difficult Russian regime to deal with. There is systemic corruption, continuing killings of journalists and prominent critics of the regime and an underlying weak economy—I learnt this morning that the oil price is expected to go down to $40 or even $30 in the next year or two, which will make the Russian situation even more difficult. In addition, we see cybercrime mixed with cyber interference, military adventurism and defence spending as a distraction from its domestic difficulties—including in the Middle East—and this extraordinary identification of the legitimacy of the Putin regime with tsarism, traditional Russia and orthodoxy, so that in remembering World War 1 they want to commemorate not the Russian revolution but the sacrifice of the honest Russian peasants and the role of the tsar in looking after them. Above all, Russia claims the status of a great power, alongside the USA and superior to the rest of Europe.
The OSCE is the only body we currently have for multilateral dialogue; it is ineffective but necessary. It is hard work—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, feels that it is in many ways deeply unrewarding—but we do need to keep talking and have conversations around the table. The younger generation that you occasionally meet are people through whom one can at least begin to convey messages and do business with for the future.
I hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, will say that the British Government will maintain their strongest support for the OSCE and nominate strong candidates for the posts where those in office are stepping down. I stress that we need to know more about the British approach to this. I have read most of our new Foreign Secretary’s speeches. In his November speech at Chatham House, he said that it was the first of a series of strategic speeches on British foreign policy. I have not yet found anything strategic in what he has said on British foreign policy or about Russia, although I recognise that he was due to be in Russia this week and has been unable, for various reasons, to go.
FCO expertise on Russia was run down in the 1990s. Is it being rebuilt, given that we now realise that we again have a very difficult Russian regime with a very uncertain future? There is money laundering by Russians in London; there is a substantial population of Russian oligarchs in London. What response are we making to the extent to which influential Russians close to Putin use London as one of their vacation spots in the West? Lastly, how do the British Government see the need for continuing European co-operation in managing the Russian regime in all its uncertainties and in assisting the states in Russia’s neighbourhood—which is also Europe’s neighbourhood—given that we have now accepted, it seems, that Germany is the leader of the West on this and our future relationship with Germany and our other European partners seems unclear?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Bowness, for initiating this important debate. I also congratulate him on his role in the OSCE. The Minister and I have come straight from a debate on the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2017, so this makes a refreshing change. I have to make sure that I do not confuse all my notes. There were not too many volunteers for that debate. However, I am glad that we have an opportunity to hold a relatively short debate on this issue. It is important because we do not devote sufficient parliamentary time to this aspect of international relationships.
Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Dubs, have said that the key role of diplomacy and multilateral dialogue is something that we need to focus on increasingly in the very fragile world that we are living in. A lot has happened since Helsinki, and of course our world view from here is clearly different from the world view in Russia. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for the email I received just before lunch and I have read the documentation, but one element that was missing was something about the world view we have compared with that of Russia. The Russian narrative is one of post-war grievance, fear of encirclement and regime change; that is what underpins its position. The serious point about that world view is not whether it is justified or true, it is the fact of whether the leadership in Russia holds it and whether that governs its reactions. I have no doubt that the view is held and therefore our response has got to take that into account, whatever it is. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, I do not for a moment suggest that dialogue means that we do not raise concerns about human rights abuses or about the need for democratic action.
This comes to that point, and I hope that the noble Baroness will respond to the questions about how we can continue our support for the OSCE, in particular in its key working areas of diplomacy, multilateral dialogue and monitoring on the ground. Noble Lords have mentioned that important work and our focus today is of course on Crimea and Ukraine in the context of the work undertaken by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. That monitoring work across the 57 nations is particularly about how we can uphold democratic values. It is key to ensuring that those values are kept at the forefront of our activities.
Something I want to focus on is the reports we have had from Crimea. On Tuesday there were reports from lawyers and human rights activists saying that the Russian authorities in Crimea are increasingly imprisoning human rights activists in psychiatric hospitals. They are no longer denying them in an overt way, rather they are using other means to deny people their human rights. Reports have been made of some 43 Tatar activists having been abducted since the annexation by Russia. What have the Government done in terms of these reports? How are they being taken forward and are we engaging with the Russian authorities and international bodies to address this issue? Of course there have been specific incidents in both Crimea and Ukraine, in particular that involving armed men intervening in the activities of the special monitoring mission and the use of armed force in relation to the use of what I suppose we should call a drone to conduct monitoring. Does the Minister share the view of the chief monitor of the SMM on the firing on unarmed civilian monitors? Have the Government taken account of that and what steps are we taking within the OSCE to ensure that those responsible are held to account?
In the brief time that we have, I conclude by saying a little about what the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said. With those two competing world views, how do we use multilateral organisations—I am not necessarily saying that the OSCE is enough—to take the temperature down? How do we ensure that we manage to avoid incidents that could escalate? Clearly, there is a role for the OSCE in this regard, particularly in terms of an investigative function. That is not only to examine the details of specific incidents but, most importantly—and again the noble Lord introducing this debate referred to this—to enable a learning process whereby incidents can be avoided. We learn from them so that we can better manage them and avoid them in the future. I am particularly keen to hear from the Minister how she sees that might be taken forward in the OSCE’s toolbox for the future.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to today’s debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Bowness, who has a distinguished reputation in relation to the OSCE, for raising the important issue of the future role of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. I also welcome the work of my noble friend and other Members of this House in the UK delegation to the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly.
As many have indicated, the OSCE is a pillar of international co-operation. It has both a uniquely comprehensive approach to security and an important geographical spread, with participating states stretching from Canada to central Asia—a fact that my noble friend Lord Bowness rightly highlighted. The autonomous institutions of the OSCE are an essential element of its early warning and conflict prevention apparatus. The strength of these institutions means that, with the will of all the participating states, the organisation can contribute significantly to the promotion of security, stability, democracy and the rule of law across its region. That point was made very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who eloquently advocated the attributes of the OSCE in these important and vital matters.
The OSCE oversees a body of commitments that include human rights and democracy, conflict prevention and conventional arms control. These commitments bind all 57 participating states at a political level to a set of principles. The OSCE’s institutions hold participating states to account and support them in their efforts to uphold these principles and commitments. The United Kingdom is a long-standing supporter of the OSCE. We fully support, and where necessary defend, the work of the autonomous institutions and their mandates. This includes supporting a senior adviser in the office of the Representative on Freedom of the Media, and the nomination of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, for the role of High Commissioner on National Minorities. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, of the UK’s belief in and commitment to the OSCE.
The OSCE carries out valuable work right across its region. As contributors have indicated, it has maintained a long-standing presence in the western Balkans, South Caucasus and Central Asia, where it provides support and expertise on a range of key issues, from institutional reform to media freedom. Its role in supporting future reform in these areas will continue to be crucial.
Today, nowhere is the importance of the OSCE clearer than in Ukraine, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. The crisis in the east of the country continues to have a devastating effect on millions of people on both sides of the so-called line of contact. Civilian casualties and ceasefire violations this year have already reached record levels. The sensitivities are widespread and acute, and have been eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens. The OSCE has been active throughout Ukraine since the crisis began in 2014. It provides crucial information to the international community and is a platform for dialogue aimed at bringing about a de-escalation of the crisis.
The United Kingdom has strongly supported the special monitoring mission in Ukraine since its establishment in 2014. We are one of the largest contributors to the mission’s budget. We have provided specialist training and support, and we have one of the largest contingents in the mission, second only to the United States. In the face of escalating violence, this civilian mission is bravely monitoring the line of contact. We must pay tribute to that courage and determination as it is not a safe or easy job. The monitors are providing balanced, factual reporting, which is a vital component of what is happening in Ukraine. We are deeply concerned by the continuing violence against monitors, including recent incidents where Russian-backed separatists have aggressively denied them access to certain areas of the country. Quite simply, this violence must end. The mission must have unrestricted access to all parts of Ukraine, including Crimea, as mandated by all 57 participating states.
It is three years since Russia illegally annexed Crimea. The United Kingdom does not recognise this illegal annexation. Russia’s disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty and territorial integrity and its continued support for separatist forces in eastern Ukraine are at the root of this crisis. Continued Russian denials of responsibility distort the facts. The United Kingdom believes that to achieve a lasting resolution to the crisis, Russia must end its destabilising activities in the region, comply with its commitments under the Minsk agreements and return Crimea to its rightful place under Ukrainian Government control.
A number of very interesting points were raised, and I will try to address them as best I can. My noble friend Lord Bowness raised the consensus principle. The consensus rule can be a hindrance to progress and delay effective, meaningful decisions, including on areas of work which are a priority for the UK, such as on human rights and fundamental freedoms. However, there is another side to it. The consensus nature is a fundamental characteristic and is key to ensuring the continuing participation of those states with which we have fundamental differences of opinion. Ongoing dialogue is preferable to alienating them by challenging the way business is done in the OSCE.
My noble friend Lord Bowness also raised the position of the United States of America. Our understanding is that the United States continues to be active in the OSCE and we see no evidence of a lessening of interest by the United States. He also asked about UK secondees to the OSCE. That is an important area. I understand that we have 57 secondees in Ukraine and two in organisational activities outside Ukraine, one in Moldova and one in the media freedom office. We are looking to fund more, especially in head of mission posts.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, raised the important issue of the special monitoring missions and posed the interesting question of whether this exercise by the OSCE and the SMM in Ukraine demonstrates a role that perhaps could be used elsewhere. That is a good question to ask. Given the unusual and, indeed, unique work of the OSCE, it is a point worth reflecting on. The noble Lord also raised the issue of multilateralism, suggesting that we should be both pursuing and defending multilateralism in these difficult times. Let me be clear that I think that this is a desirable objective. I have not ever been and will never be a unilateralist supporter, but I think that multilateralism is an important objective.
The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, rightly identified the complex and difficult history of the Balkans, and raised the question of engagement with Russia, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. Managing tensions with Russia will be a long-term challenge for the UK and our allies. There will be no return to business as usual while the situation in Ukraine remains unresolved. We will not ignore the fact that Russia-backed and directed separatists have effectively tried to redraw the boundaries of Europe. At the same time, it is important that we continue to engage with Russia; to avoid misunderstandings, we should push for change when we disagree and we should co-operate when it is in the UK’s national interests to do so.
The noble Earl also raised the question of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea, to which I referred briefly. I reiterate that we do not and will not recognise the illegal annexation of Crimea by Russia, whose intervention in eastern Ukraine and illegal annexation of Crimea is a flagrant violation of a number of its international commitments, including under the United Nations charter, the OSCE Helsinki final act and the 1997 Russia-Ukraine treaty of friendship, co-operation and partnership.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in a characteristically colourful, entertaining—if that is the correct adjective—and certainly well-informed contribution made an important point, praising the precautionary effect of the electoral monitoring. I was very struck by that; there is no doubt about it that if people know that others are coming to look at their activities, they will possibly try to put their house in order before that point arrives. The noble Lord also raised the issue of the Parliamentary Assembly relying on government press hand-outs, to which I have written down in response, “Old habits die hard”. If I may say so, the noble Lord is testament to original speech and original thought. The noble Lord also made an interesting point in relation to the Scottish independence referendum —and I think that this is important. That was a fine example of a free election process; it was a good process and, in my opinion, it was a good result. If I have any regret, it is that certain parties are paying no attention to the result, but that is another aspect of the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised a number of points which I have tried to cover in my responses to other noble Lords. If I have managed to overlook anything, I shall check Hansard and undertake to write to him. I think that we are both slightly fatigued by our engagement with the southern hemisphere.
It is clear that there will continue to be an important role for the OSCE into the future. We welcome the decision reached at the OSCE ministerial council last December to begin a structured dialogue on the current and future challenges and risks to security in the OSCE area. That could be a useful forum to help to reduce risk and build confidence, trust and security among the participating states. The OSCE’s vision of common security and close co-operation is one that we wholeheartedly support. The crisis in Ukraine not only highlights the continuing threats faced by countries in the OSCE area and the rules-based system, it highlights once again how relevant the OSCE is and reinforces the need for international co-operation more broadly. We must continue to strengthen the OSCE and the international rules-based system. I assure noble Lords that the UK will continue to play a leading role in this vital work.
Local Post Offices
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests.
The Post Office is under serious threat, with the Crown office network being decimated and sub-post offices closed. Yet, frustratingly, there could be a positive future if only the Government would support the establishment of a post bank.
In the last Parliament, the Tory-Lib Dem Government split the Post Office from the profitable Royal Mail letters business, which today is paying out more £200 million a year in dividends. The split was unprecedented. No other Government have separated the retail arm from the rest of the mail operation. This was done despite the fact that the Post Office was, and always has been, heavily reliant on the Royal Mail letters business for its income; and despite the fact that the Post Office was also dependent on public funding to support the network and would be left exposed to government austerity cuts, as indeed it has been.
At the time of the separation in 2012, concerns were raised both here and in the other place about how the Post Office could survive. The Government’s answer was to transform the Post Office into a,
“genuine front office for government”,
covering everything from benefits and public services to passports and driving licences, and to oversee a significant expansion of its income from financial services. Five years later, neither of these pledges has come even close to being delivered. Indeed, Post Office revenues from government services have fallen by some 40% in six years. The promised expansion of financial services has never materialised. Post Office’s revenues have grown by a paltry 2% in six years, not even keeping up with inflation. Alongside that performance, we have seen a huge reduction in annual government funding. In 2012, the Post Office received a subsidy payment of £210 million to keep open its network of local branches. Next year, this will stand at just a third of that, at £70 million.
The consequence of these three things—the separation of the Post Office from Royal Mail, the failure to grow new revenues and the fall in government subsidy—has all too predictably been a programme of cost-cutting from the board of the Post Office that bears all the hallmarks of a service in a state of managed decline. In the past year alone, the Post Office’s cash handling business, Supply Chain, has ceased all its non-post office work at a loss of 600 jobs. The long-standing defined benefit pension scheme, with 3,000 active members, is due to be closed this very Saturday, 1 April. One hundred-and-thirty customer-facing financial specialist roles, in what was meant to be a growth area, have been made redundant. The Post Office card account is being phased out.
These things are just the tip of the iceberg. The Post Office appears determined to cast off the Crown office network, the largest flagship branches in high street locations. In 2012, there were 373 Crown branches; today, there are around 285 following two closure and franchise programmes in 2014 and 2016. A further 70 are currently earmarked for closure and franchise. But why is this happening? The Crown office network as a whole is in profit; its offices are in prime locations throughout the country—they are the largest branches with the greatest potential to bring in new work, yet they are being closed. The Post Office has only one justification for this: cutting costs. Yet the closure and franchise of Crown offices leave customers worse off on a range of measures including queue times, customer service and disabled access. They mean the loss of good jobs, which are replaced by part-time, minimum wage roles, with a consequent loss of quality. It moves the Post Office from being prominent on the high street into the back of a WHSmith. Is this the stewardship we expect of a valued public service? Is this the sort of business model that the Government are really proud of?
The sub-post office network is also under relentless assault. Postmasters are being pushed on to new lower cost contracts and they face the threat of losing their post office altogether unless they sign up. For too many of them, the sums no longer add up. More than 700 post offices are currently up for sale and more than 700 branches are under what the Post Office terms “temporary closure”, which in many cases is a euphemism for saying that it cannot find anyone to take on a branch, so it has closed. What are the Government doing about the serious concerns being raised by postmasters about the viability of the new business model? Again, when it comes to these new lower cost models, it is post office customers who lose out. As the Federation of Small Businesses has said, the range of services available is more limited in franchised outlets than in traditional branches. In 2015, Citizens Advice called on the Post Office to implement what it called a,
“rigorous and wide-ranging improvement programme”,
to address major failings in the model. Can the Government tell us whether the Post Office has implemented such a programme or that it will now commit to doing so?
All of this points to a service in trouble. In January, a group litigation order hearing in the High Court gave the green light to a group claim against the Post Office for postmasters claiming losses arising from the Horizon computer system. This could see the Post Office facing compensation claims worth tens of millions of pounds, and in court the Post Office conceded something that it has long denied—namely, that the records on the Horizon computer system could be changed by a third party. Given that the Criminal Cases Review Commission is reviewing some 20 convictions that have relied solely on Horizon records under prosecutions brought by the Post Office, that is deeply concerning. Will the Government now finally recognise the need for a full, independent inquiry into this issue? Do the Government stand by the way the Post Office board has handled these cases?
If the Post Office is to survive and remain relevant to people today, it must surely innovate and deliver new services. Cost-cutting can take it only so far. It is neither new nor novel, yet the obvious answer is the establishment of a post bank. In 2006, the French Government set up La Banque Postale through its post office network, which in 2015 made a profit of €1 billion. Italy and New Zealand provide further examples of countries establishing post banks in recent years, which have quickly become the linchpin of their postal operators. There is no reason why the UK should not do this rather than set out to make our Post Office a world leader in decline. Part of the key to La Banque Postale’s success seems to be the size of its network, with almost 12,000 outlets. That gives it a presence in communities across the country. Moreover, there is a level of trust in a bank based in the post office, which customers already have a relationship with, along with its reputation for socially beneficial activities, such as tackling financial exclusion, providing micro credit loans and lending to social housing projects. With its own 11,000 outlets, this is exactly the sort of model that a post bank in the United Kingdom should adopt.
Villages have long lost their banks along with their pubs, their shops and now their post offices. Local council front offices have closed under the pressure of government cuts. Public service access directly with the public is disappearing. Thousands of bank branches in towns throughout the United Kingdom are being remorselessly closed. Glastonbury in Somerset, with its population of 9,000 and many more in nearby villages, now has no high street banks at all. The worst hit are elderly customers who do not drive or go online. The massive decline in high street banks surely is an opportunity for the Post Office to step in and provide a local banking presence in communities throughout the United Kingdom, if only the Government would back the proposal. The Post Office’s current offering in this area is frankly abysmal. The partnership with the Bank of Ireland is not driving the revenue growth we were promised. It does not even provide core products like a business bank account or a children’s account. Some four and a half years into a pilot scheme, it still has no nationally available current account. These are surely core products that any serious challenger bank should be offering as a minimum.
Last year, the Government launched a public consultation on the future of the Post Office; it received tens of thousands of postcards collected by the Communication Workers Union calling for it to set up a post bank through its network. If France can do that successfully, why not Britain? Despite huge technology and lifestyle changes in our society, the need for a high street outlet remains, and only the Post Office can still fill that need for both local residents and small businesses. Local post offices could be the new-age front offices for a whole range of national and local government services and financial services across the country. Why are the Government not supporting this exciting new vision, instead of putting the very survival of the Post Office at risk?
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I hope not to take up all of the luxurious 10 minutes which we have been allotted. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hain—in view of our happy working relationship in a former life, I hope that I may call him my noble friend—for providing this opportunity. I shall not follow his comprehensive, powerful and compelling speech, with most of which I thoroughly agree, because I want to concentrate on those parts of the country which are most marginal in terms of not only post office provision but other services.
I take as my example the County of Herefordshire, where I live. I should declare that I am a deputy-lieutenant of the county and Chief Steward of the City of Hereford—although I am glad to say that in modern times that post is almost entirely ceremonial—and that my wife is about to become high sheriff of the county. Herefordshire has one of the lowest population densities in England. Two-thirds of the county are among the 25% most deprived areas in England, measured by geographical barriers to services. Average income is below both regional and national averages. In addition, Herefordshire’s population is older than the national profile, with one in five people aged 65 or above, as opposed to one in six nationally.
The criteria set out in the Post Office’s consultation, which closed at the end of last year, were that 99% of the population should live within three miles of a post office and 90% should live within one mile. The village in which I live is small—the entire parish has a population of 70—but it is five miles from the nearest permanent post office, and one would have to travel five miles further away again before getting to an alternative permanent post office. I must acknowledge that there is a mobile post office in the pub in the next village, but it is open for only two hours on only two days a week.
It is welcome that the Post Office and the Government have affirmed that the post office network will not fall below 11,500 offices, but of course, this is against the background of the savage reductions of 2008, in which some 1,500 post offices were lost, and the overall loss over the decade 2000-10 of about 4,500 post offices—reductions which bore disproportionately on the most rural areas. It used to be said—the noble Lord, Lord Hain, touched on this in his speech—that you could tell a viable village community by the eight Ps test: parish church, pub, policeman, provisions—that is, a village shop—primary school, petrol, phone and post office. In the age of mobiles, the phone is probably no longer relevant, but it is depressing to see how many village communities no longer meet many of those criteria. In our case, we used to meet all of them, apart from having a policeman five miles away, but we now meet only one: we still have a parish church. One of those we lost was a post office.
Post offices cannot be seen in isolation. They are—especially, perhaps when operated from a village shop—crucial to community and communication. Without such community hubs, the life will go out of a village. The elderly and the less mobile—perhaps people who cannot afford a car—will move away, as will others, economic activity will reduce and the village will become yet another statistic in the spiral of deprivation which constantly threatens rural communities.
If the Government’s thinking is to be truly joined up, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, they need to recognise that relatively small expenditure of public money in sustaining rural communities and stabilising their populations can save many millions in social care and housing which result from moves towards urban centres, to say nothing of savings in the environmental costs of transport. So, for example, the suggestion by the Association of Convenience Stores of improving remuneration for those taking on a post office business should receive serious consideration, as should increased investment in mobile post offices, which act as a sort of force multiplier.
I end with one particular form of development that may address two problems. Here I should make a second declaration: my wife is a Church of England priest and chairman of our diocesan board of finance, and I am a churchwarden. My distinguished friend and neighbour in Herefordshire, Sir Roy Strong, has a great love for and understanding of parish churches. At the same time, he has also been an extremely effective and imaginative advocate for increasing their use for secular purposes while safeguarding their use for worship. I will give your Lordships one outstanding example that could serve as a model for many others. Yarpole, just on the Herefordshire side of the border with Shropshire, lost its village shop 10 years ago. The parish church now houses in its nave the community shop and, crucially, the post office, with a cafe in the gallery above. The footfall is constant and significant, with car journeys greatly reduced. There are five part-time paid staff, including the postmaster, and 60 volunteers. The now ecclesiastically housed post office plays a key part in a vibrant rural community.
I would be very grateful if Ministers could focus their minds on how such enterprises might be encouraged and how villages and parochial church councils who want to move in this direction might access the relatively modest sums needed to make a church suitable for this sort of additional use. The conventional sources such as lottery funds have too many other calls upon them and, in any event, their focus is not on the most rural areas or small populations, which is just where the need is greatest.
I would entirely understand it if the Minister were not able to respond in detail today but I would appreciate the opportunity of meeting with her at a later stage. I suggest that the prize of sustaining marginal rural communities and their post offices, and at the same time breathing new life into our great heritage of parish churches, is a win-win, and one that I heartily commend.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for raising this vital issue. It is clearly quality not quantity participating in the debate this afternoon. I declare an interest as a former joint general-secretary of the Communication Workers Union.
I hope that whatever views the Government express this afternoon, they share the one that the post office is a vital part of all our communities. Despite all the activity online with email, e-banking and internet shopping, the local post office still has a role to play in rural and urban communities—as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, exemplified to us. I had not heard of the eight Ps formula before but will endeavour to remember it. The point he made about post offices being community hubs is absolutely true. It occurred to me as he and my noble friend spoke to ask whether there has been an impact from the increase in business rates—I do not expect that the Minister has the facts before her now. I hear the good news that she has that information; I do not know if the information itself is good news, but I hope so.
I will touch on some of the points made by my noble friend Lord Hain, both because they are worthy of repetition and because I may come at some from a slightly different angle. Even the House of Lords Financial Exclusion Committee pointed out the importance of the local post office, and it is absolutely right. We still have a situation where 95% of the population say that they use the post office within the year. Every week, 17 million visits to a post office take place. So the Post Office is still thriving but is under a great deal of pressure.
Some 97% of post offices are run by small retail businesses on an agency basis, typically alongside convenience retail. I share my noble friend’s concern about ensuring that the quality of the service they offer is what they are contractually obliged to do. I think it is in many cases but not in every case, and I would welcome a response from the Government about how they are going to ensure that the quality of service is being contractually honoured.
The point that my noble friend raised about a Post Office bank is important. We have heard that there was an agreement recently about banking services—I have forgotten the precise name of it—being available in local post offices so that in theory they are offering a range of banking services. Although there is already access to day-to-day banking for the majority of customers of UK banks, that is what they are going to provide access to under a new industry-wide agreement; 99% of UK personal bank customers and 75% of business customers should be able to carry out day-to-day banking at any post office branch. However, the public awareness of the service is not great, so again I would welcome a response from the Minister about what the Government are doing to ensure that the public are aware of the service.
That in no way gainsays the point that my noble friend made about a Post Office bank. There is a certain irony in the fact that the Government are encouraging competition in banking, yet here is something that we know has the necessary reach. Although there is more competition in banking, it tends to be cherry-picked into the main urban centres. If we are serious about it, here is a great opportunity for the Government to support the Post Office in this manner. Again, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
As my noble friend has said, huge changes are taking place because of the number of branches that have disappeared, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane. It is vital that we ensure that we retain those branches that currently exist, and we know that some of them are in difficulty. The subsidy has been reduced significantly, as my noble friend illustrated; there might be a slight difference on the figure but we are agreed that it has come down from £210 million in 2012 to—this is the figure I have—£80 million in 2016-17, a very significant reduction, yet the process of modernising branches continues. Do the Government see a continuing role for a subsidy to assist in that modernisation programme? If we do not get that right, we are going to see more closures and the loss of more of the community hubs described by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane.
I hope that the Government are seized of the importance of the issue. Post Office staff are naturally concerned about their future. I stress that this is from their perspective but they see it as a business in decline. Surely we should be aiming for a business that responds to the needs of local communities, not just rural but urban communities. There are 3,000 branches that are literally the last shop in their village. There is an investment fund to support those branches, but will it continue? That is another question on which I would welcome a response from the Government.
If we look at the social value of post offices, independent research shows that the Post Office Ltd continues to deliver more than £4 billion in social value each year to people and businesses throughout the UK. We know its vital role as a part of local communities, as the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, said.
I also want to raise the future of the Post Office card account. I am told that there are currently 3 million users of the card account. They are people who cannot get a bank account or who are not used to dealing with a formal bank account and so value the services of a Post Office card account. I will be disappointed if the Government cannot say that they are not going to phase out the Post Office card account. With 3 million users, it is obvious that there is a requirement for it, and it will continue. A significant number of people still see it as a key way to manage their finances.
At this stage in the afternoon, I do not want to repeat all the arguments that were put so well by my noble friend, who dealt with them more than adequately. I look forward to a response to the questions I have raised.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for bringing this debate to the Committee today. Time is on our side, so I shall be able to reply as fully as possible to all three noble Lords who have spoken today. I hope they will forgive me if I am repetitive, but I think I have the luxury of time and I want to be able to reassure noble Lords as much as possible. The speech I have before me is in stark contrast to that of the noble Lord, Lord Hain. I believe that we have a really good story to tell. The story I have in my head relates very much to the village where I live—Goring-on-Thames. It has an incredibly vibrant post office. It has most of the Ps to which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, referred. I think it is only missing the phone and the petrol. The reality is that the post office is still a critical part of the community and the infrastructure. I think of it as the bush telegraph, alongside the local grocery store.
I shall begin by setting out the Government’s story on this and will then respond, in a perhaps slightly repetitive fashion. The Government recognise the important role that post offices play in communities across the country. We have said so time and again, and we mean it. Local post offices are an important option for customers, particularly more vulnerable and remote customers, and small businesses to access a range of mails, financial and government services. That is why the Government committed to securing the future of 3,000 rural post offices in our manifesto, typically those branches that are the last shop in a community.
Between 2010 and 2018, the Government will have provided nearly £2 billion to maintain, modernise and protect a network of at least 11,500 branches across the country. The Government set the strategic direction for Post Office Limited, which means that we ask it to maintain a national network of post offices that is accessible to all and to do so more sustainably with less need for taxpayer subsidy. Post Office Limited delivers this strategy as an independent business. The Government do not interfere in its day-to-day operations, such as the provision and location of branches.
Today, there are more than 11,600 Post Office branches in the UK, and the network across the UK is at its most stable for decades. This is because Post Office Limited is transforming and modernising its network, thanks to the investment that the Government have made. Government support has enabled more than 7,000 branches to be modernised, more than 4,200 branches to be open on Sundays—I wish we could say that of banks—more than 200,000 weekly opening hours to be added to the network, losses to be reduced from more than £120 million to £24 million—in financial terms, that is real progress—and subsidy to be reduced by more than 60% from its peak in 2012-13. We have the most stable network in more than a generation and customer satisfaction has rightly remained high, at more than 95%, to which the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, referred.
The best future for the Post Office network is a sustainable future, and that is what the Government are making possible through significant investment and reducing the network’s reliance on taxpayer support. We want to create certainty for all who work in the Post Office and for customers. In short, the business is offering more for customers, doing so more efficiently for the taxpayer and ensuring that Post Office services remain on our high streets throughout the country.
There has been a lot of assertion and suggestion that the Post Office is in crisis. Indeed, those were the opening words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hain. Far from being in crisis, however, the Post Office is following a successful course to commercial sustainability under the leadership of its management team. The Government disagree with the unions’ view that the Post Office is failing, as it is reducing its losses, reducing its need for subsidy and continuing to offer a high-quality service to customers with longer and more convenient opening hours. This is not the sign of a Post Office lacking a strategy, but a clear signal that the Post Office management has a goal of a secure network and increased financial sustainability. The Post Office is working hard to achieve this. The business already engages with its stakeholders, such as the National Federation of SubPostmasters and its unions, and I encourage them to continue their dialogue with the Post Office. While significant challenges remain to completing the goal of securing its future, the Government believe that the business is on the right path.
On the question of creating a post bank, as was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, this was considered in 2010, but it was decided that the government investment then available would be better used to modernise the network. The success of this approach has seen more than 7,000 modernised branches, opening hours extended during the week and at the weekend, and a network at its most stable for decades. While the Post Office did not create its own bank, it has built a successful financial services business, offering loans, mortgages, savings and foreign currency. These are delivered through its partnership with the Bank of Ireland and offer all the key benefits of a post bank. The Post Office has also developed its insurance offer by building its in-house capability. These services are available across the Post Office’s nationwide network and online, offering reach that no other bank in the UK can match.
Moreover, the Post Office has been working with the banks and the British Banking Association to create a standardised framework for access to third-party banking services. The framework was launched in January and offers simplified access to those holding accounts with other banks across the UK. This means that more than 99% of personal account holders and more than 75% of small business can access basic banking services early in the morning, late at night and throughout the weekend; and, as I said earlier, in terms of timing and access, the banks simply cannot begin to compete.
This is surely both a fantastic opportunity for the business and for the communities it serves, many of which have been badly affected, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, by bank closures. Indeed, that has happened in my village: we are about to lose our last bank. The post office network, therefore, not only already provides a breadth of financial services that rivals the high street banks: with the newly launched banking framework it can also offer customers of other banks access to important basic banking services. It is therefore hard to see what a post bank offers to customers which is not already offered.
On the changes to the Crown network, the Post Office’s proposals for franchising and hosting some of its Crown branches are part of its plans to ensure that the network is sustainable and profitable in the long term. Again, that is all about offering certainty and assurance, particularly to those who work in the Post Office for the long term. This is not about closing branches, it is about moving a branch to a lower-cost model and a better location for customers, securing and improving delivery of post office services in a given area. I have a classic example; admittedly, it is not in a rural area but in Islington. There was a merger of an old branch, unsuitable for disabled access or conversion, and a “temporary” branch had been in place for more than 10 years. The new single branch, which has replaced the two, is bright, welcoming, better located at the centre of the high street and has disabled access. The same goes for Beckenham. Its post office was relocated from an awkward end of the high street, which was difficult to access due to traffic and roads, and is now right in the middle of the high street in WH Smith. So we are thinking not only about access but about convenience for the customer. That is critical, because post offices have to remain competitive, attractive and accessible.
These ongoing plans have to date meant that Post Office Crown branches have moved from a £46 million annual loss in 2012 to breaking even today. The change from a Crown to a franchise or host branch has been undertaken previously in many locations across the UK and is a successful way of sustaining post office services, as a post office can share staff and property costs with a successful retailer. However, as always, more work needs to be done. There continue to be Crown branches which are loss-making, which is why these changes are important. By making all branches more sustainable, including the Crowns, we will help to keep post office services on our high streets throughout the country while reducing the funding burden on the taxpayer. It is worth remembering that 97% of the Post Office’s branch network is already franchised, being run by independent sub-postmasters.
The current funding agreement for the Post Office expires in March 2018. The Government have said publicly that they consider that the Post Office is likely to continue to require some funding to sustain the nationwide network and to meet our manifesto commitment to secure 3,000 rural branches. Funding discussions with the Post Office have opened and continue.
The Government conducted a consultation exercise on the post office network before the end of last year. The aim of the consultation was to help us to understand what the public and businesses expect from the Post Office and to make sure that where the Government are required to comply with any obligations, such as to the European Union, they are able to do so. I stress that this consultation did not propose any changes to the network but sought views on how to make it stronger, sustainable and better for its customers. The Government expect the Post Office to require funding over the coming years. The feedback we received will help test how that funding may best support the network. The Government will publish their response to the consultation in due course.
The Post Office is the largest provider of counter-based government services in the UK—this was another concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hain—and has key contracts with the DVLA and the Passport Office for a number of transactions. Its extensive geographic reach and key role in the heart of communities mean that it is well placed to bid for and win important contracts. The Post Office continues to work with both local and national government to look at opportunities for delivering more government services through the network, but it is important to remember that the Government cannot simply award contracts to the Post Office. It is right that services must be procured competitively to ensure value for taxpayers’ money. Furthermore, government has an important role to play in ensuring that people can access government services in ways that best suit their needs. I have to admit that I am using online more and more to access such services.
Increasingly, many of us prefer to access government services online, which can be more convenient—as I have just said. While this has an unfortunate impact on the Post Office, we cannot ignore people’s desire to transact with government digitally from the convenience of their own homes. It is for that reason that the Post Office continues to develop its online presence. For example, it is one of the largest providers of identity verification through the Government’s Verify service.
In terms of restructuring at its headquarters, as part of the Post Office’s ongoing transformation to make it more commercially sustainable, there will be a 20% reduction in the 1,100 people at its headquarters function. They are largely based at Finsbury Dials in central London. A more efficient and lean central support team will mean greater scope to share benefits from contracts that the Post Office wins with the agents who run the branch network. This will make the 50,000 jobs in the agency network more secure. There will be no reduction in the service that the public will see.
As we know all too well, it is a difficult time for the high street. Some key presences such as BHS have gone and others are having to make tough decisions to survive. We recognise that the Post Office is a key presence on British high streets and a key part of local communities. That is why we have supported it in transforming to keep post offices at the heart of their communities, which has involved significant change. Many stand-alone post offices have moved into other retailers where the Post Office and the retailer can operate better together, sharing staff and property costs, as I have said, and where Post Office business is a big driver of increased footfall for the host retailer. I appreciate that changes such as these are not easy, especially where it involves staff leaving the business, but it is essential that the business gets a grip on its costs to ensure that it can meet the challenges it faces now, and those it will face as the way we shop and access services continues to change.
Before concluding, I want to reference some of the questions that were raised. I hope I will be forgiven if I find myself being repetitive. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to the separation from Royal Mail. Of course the Post Office and Royal Mail are now very different companies and since separation in 2012 the Post Office, as a separate company with its own board, has had the commercial independence to focus on what is best for the business and to adapt and change to best meet the challenges it faces. There is a long-term commercial agreement in place between the two parties and they have worked together successfully since separation. The Post Office has become increasingly sustainable since separation, with its transformation programme delivering more than 200,000 extra opening hours a week across the country. More than 4,200 branches are open on Sundays, directly benefiting customers.
The changes to the Post Office cash supply chain mean that the business can now deliver the same service to its branches for less overall cost. The Post Office cannot realistically compete for external business against competitors which have lower pay and more flexible working conditions. It is also difficult to make a case to invest in what is a declining market for cash, with the rise of electronic payments such as contactless. The Post Office believes it will be able to deliver the expected savings only by adopting a clear and consistent policy of completely exiting the external market and focusing on delivering cash to its own network.
Moving on, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, also referred to Horizon. I understand that civil proceedings have been issued against the Post Office on the matter of the Horizon IT system. This is of course a matter for the courts and I am unable to comment further. I understand that a number of individuals have raised cases with the Criminal Cases Review Commission—the CCRC. This process is independent of government, so unfortunately I cannot comment further. We do not feel the need for a full independent inquiry, as the noble Lord, Lord Hain, suggested, but feel that the court is the best place to deal with this difficult situation.
Regarding the post office network consultation, it was an important step in determining support for the network in the future, once the Government’s existing funding agreement with Post Office Ltd comes to an end in 2018. No changes to the network were proposed through this consultation; we were seeking to re-affirm views with stakeholders. The consultation ran for six weeks and we received more than 30,000 responses from members of the public, businesses and stakeholders. As I have already said, we will respond to that consultation in due course.
The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, focused on rural areas and asked about accessing criteria. We have run the national consultation to consider exactly the questions he referred to and we will report on its findings in due course. We can say, however, that 98.7% of people in rural areas are within three miles of a post office. Noble Lords will recognise that tightening the access criteria further would mean additional costs to the taxpayer, and that has to be balanced with other pressures on the public purse.
The noble Lord referenced Sir Roy Strong, whom I have heard speak on the issue of how one could make the local church more—I do not know whether I dare use the word “useful”—to secular opportunities. Community centres also present so many more opportunities, whereby you can have the doctor, the dentist and other community services all near the church. This is something that more and more villages are thinking about—or even, when they are very small, sharing them with neighbouring villages. The village in which the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, lives is extremely small, so to try to do all this on its own would be extremely difficult. However, I understand the particular need for us to protect what we have in our rural areas and, if possible, improve on it.
Outreaches are not post offices, and a few hours a week from the back of a van or in the village hall are no substitute for a bricks and mortar office—although that could be a church offering a full range of services. Outreaches are a way for the post office to maintain a service when a branch closes and a replacement postmaster cannot be found. Usually, this is because the branch was not commercially sustainable, and providing an outreach is part of POL’s social purpose, for which it is likely always to need a subsidy.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, referenced a number of issues. I say straightaway that there are absolutely no plans to phase out the card used by 3 million people. On the question of business rates, the Government are committed to backing small and medium-sized enterprises, which include post office branches. The next business rates revaluation takes effect from 1 April and will update rateable values. This will ensure that business rate bills more closely reflect the property market. Nearly three-quarters of businesses will see no change or a fall in their bills from April thanks to the business rate revaluation, with 600,000 businesses set to pay no business rates at all. A £3.6 billion transitional relief scheme will provide support for the minority who face an increase.
The 2016 Budget announced the biggest ever cut in business rates, worth more than £6.7 billion across the next five years. Small businesses will benefit from the doubling of small business rate relief thresholds, and properties with a rateable value of £12,000 and below will receive 100% small business rate relief from April. The Government are also doubling rural rate relief to 100% from 1 April 2017, which will benefit many eligible post offices in designated rural areas.
Quality was an important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Young. The Post Office is committed to ensuring that all branches across its network offer excellent customer service, and has a strong history of working with its many franchise partners and agents to achieve that. Independent research shows that customers are happy, with satisfaction levels consistently high, but it places a lot of emphasis on the need to retain quality.
I confirm that the Post Office is committed to ensuring that all its staff, including postmasters, receive the necessary training to successfully and effectively deliver all its products and services. Of course, the success of the business depends on that. However, any service that the Post Office offers must provide a realistic and viable commercial rate of return for the business.
I shall make a quick reference to awareness. Awareness of the services provided by the Post Office is very important. A House of Lords report published on 25 March, Tackling Financial Exclusion: A Country that Works for Everyone?, references the importance of awareness. On the point about publicity, it says that the Post Office is in a difficult position because quite a number of the banks that it provides a service for do not want the Post Office to proactively make customers aware of the services because that serves to pull footfall away from bank branches that are already struggling, thereby exacerbating the problem of bank branch closures. So there is a difficult balance to strike here.
Lord Young of Norwood Green
My Lords, that is a bit of a disappointing answer. In the situation of which we have given many examples, there are no banks around. If the Post Office is offering the services, it should not be a problem because the banks have withdrawn their services. I thought that was one of the primary reasons for the Post Office offering the basic standard services for other banks. What was the purpose of the standardised framework agreement if it was not for that? Surely it is more important, especially in rural environments where there are no banks available, that the public are aware of this service, otherwise it defeats the objective of the framework agreement.
Baroness Buscombe
I accept what the noble Lord is saying. In fact, I was going to go on to say that there may be a balance to strike between the banks and post offices, but our focus is on the strength of the post offices and on meeting customer requirements. The report makes a number of recommendations, including around whether the Post Office can better publicise what it offers. The Post Office, in response to this, will be working with its partners to explore what it can do to implement the recommendations. That is the point I was going to come on to; we are not just taking the report, sitting down and saying, “Well, that’s a problem. Leave them to work it out”. Awareness of what the Post Office can do and can deliver—and it is growing in that sense—is really important. I add that the Post Office card account contract has been extended to at least 2021.
In conclusion, a more efficient Post Office is better able—
Lord Hain
My Lords, before the Minister finishes, could the Government study La Banque Postale’s success in France, and would the Minister—or Margot James, the Minister primarily responsible—write to me explaining in what way the British situation could match that? Do the Government really think it is doing so with their current policy? I do not think it is.
Baroness Buscombe
I spend quite a lot of time in France and I have to say that my experience of post offices in France does not match those that I enjoy in my local village. However, I will of course talk to my colleague in the other place, Margot James, about this, and see if we have been looking at the French model as the noble Lord suggests.
Baroness Buscombe
And then of course we will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and copy all other noble Lords.
Lord Lisvane
I am so sorry to keep the Minister from her peroration for a moment or two longer, but I wonder if I might take her back to the question of tendering for partner organisations. As she will know, it is perfectly normal practice in any tender to weight the criteria. I think we would be grateful for an assurance that in the case she quoted, the synergies that can be made for the benefit of local communities are appropriately weighted in the tender process.
Baroness Buscombe
I absolutely understand where the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, is coming from. Again, I will talk about that issue and that point with my colleague in another place, Margot James. Thank you for raising it.
The government investment—
Lord Young of Norwood Green
On a further point of clarification, I am grateful for what the Minister said about the Post Office card account being sustained until 2021, but what happens after that? What does the noble Baroness envisage—will there be a review and consultation process? If she does not have the answer perhaps she could write.
Baroness Buscombe
That would be up to the Department for Work and Pensions. We have to see how things are going. Hopefully the response will be positive, but we do not know—it is too far down the line for us to comment now. It will, however, be a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions.
In conclusion, since 2010 the Government’s investment has, along with the hard work of post office employees and postmasters, delivered real improvements. It has enabled the business to offer more to customers and to do so more efficiently, thereby ensuring that post office services remain on our high streets.
I encourage noble Lords to look objectively at the results achieved by the business in recent years: the most stable network for decades, £100 million reduction in annual losses, 7,000 branches modernised and transformed, more than 1 million additional opening hours per month and more than 4,000 branches open on Sunday. While significant challenges remain in completing the goal of securing the future of the Post Office, the Government believe that the business is on the right path: one that will protect local post offices for the long term.
Alcohol Abuse
(7 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their most recent estimate of the cost of alcohol abuse to the National Health Service; and what steps they are taking to reduce those costs.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Chief Whip for finding a slot for this debate, even though it is the last business. I am grateful that I have so many speakers—I am surprised—and equally surprised by the number of people who have written to me in advance of the debate, which seems to indicate that we should look for a longer debate at some later stage.
After welfare, the cost of health is the biggest charge the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to deal with, yet if one examines Budget speeches one sees that it rarely gets a mention. In fairness to Philip Hammond, it did this year, because of the crisis in care, which is of course directly linked to health. Health costs continue to grow at around 4%, but the economy is down around 2%. With an ageing population, the health service, as one ex-Health Minister in the Lords recently said to me, is a car crash waiting to happen. So every action must be taken or at least explored to avoid further injury to or collapse of the health service.
Like the Queen, the NHS is one of the few remaining pieces of glue that keeps us together as a United Kingdom. People everywhere are increasingly fearful of what the future holds but, happily for the UK, at least for the moment, people do not have the fear that illness brings to many people overseas—the fear of how to pay for their treatment. That burden is lifted by the NHS, and it helps faster recovery, but it is at even greater risk if politicians are reluctant or unprepared to engage in an open and honest debate about the problems we have funding the health service. That is at the heart of my debate today—seeking changes that will reduce the burgeoning public health costs but also changes that lead to healthier, happier and longer lives. As part of that, the Government must confront the stark challenge that alcohol abuse presents for the NHS in terms of the financial costs, resources and the impact on staff time and welfare.
Alcohol is estimated to cost the NHS around £3.5 billion per year, which amounts to £120 for every taxpayer. If I have got the figure wrong, I am sure that the Minister will correct me. Even though drinking has declined marginally in recent years, there is a growing burden of alcohol-related admission problems for the health service. As our NHS tries to deal with these difficulties, there is the difference between costs rising at 4% per annum and growth in the economy at only 2%. The consequences of harmful drinking are a factor that we must address—and that is not surprising, given that Public Health England has recently reported that alcohol is the leading cause of death among 15 to 49 year-olds. There are now more than 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions a year. Alcohol has caused more years of life lost to the workforce than have the 10 most serious cancers, and in England more than 10 million people are drinking at levels that increase the risk of harming their health. There are 23,000 alcohol-related deaths in England each year, which means that alcohol accounts for 10% of the UK burden of diseases and death, and is one of the three biggest avoidable risk factors.
Evidence indicates that ease of access and persistently cheap alcohol perpetuates these problems, with deprivation and health inequalities particularly prevalent among men from the lower socio-economic groups. Alcohol is 60% more affordable than it was in 1980, and affordability is one of the key drivers of consumption and harm. Cheaper alcohol invariably leads to high rates of death and disease. David Cameron and the coalition Government recognised this back in 2012 when they produced what I would describe as a progressive alcohol strategy. In its foreword, he talked about,
“a real effort to get to grips with the root cause of the problem. And that means coming down hard on cheap alcohol”.
Regrettably, that just has not happened. Other aspects of the strategy have disappeared, too. There seems to be a vacuum with no discernible sense of direction. I hope that today’s debate might start to move us towards a more positive approach than we have had for the past two or three years.
I will not spend much time on minimum unit pricing. I am sure the Minister’s reply will be quite predictable: we are awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court’s decision on the Scotch Whisky Association appeal. If we did have that, I am sure the Minister would argue that we need to see whether minimum unit pricing is working in Scotland before taking any decision to bring it south of the border. If I am wrong on that, I would be very grateful if he could correct me.
What I would like to hear is whether the Secretary of State is willing to initiate talks with the Chancellor about revamping VAT and excise duties on alcohol so that low-alcohol drinks would not contribute anything, or very little indeed, in the future but we would start to tax at a much higher rate the stronger alcohol, which is particularly damaging to people’s health and which at present does not attract particularly high taxes. I am looking to see whether the Government are prepared to investigate a more differential approach to taxing alcohol.
Wine consumption has increased, particularly in recent years, and, as many people know, wine has got stronger and stronger. At one time it was 11% or 11.5%. Now it is in the order of 13%, 14% or even 14.5%. This is especially true of the red wines from the New World.
Happily, one of the positive sides of Brexit—this freedom we have—is that it will provide greater freedom for adjusting taxation. Such a change could not only raise income for the Exchequer; higher taxes on stronger alcohol could be an inducement for people to drink lower-strength alcohol, which would be better for them.
Is the Minister aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has recently done some research on this? Indeed, in February it produced a report which indicates that moving towards the differential taxes I have been describing could meet half the cost of the welfare bill, which of course is a major account the Exchequer has to deal with annually. Whether or not that is a starter remains to be seen, but I would be grateful if the Minister had a look at that report and let the Committee know whether he thinks the idea is worth pursuing, as well as raising the issue with his Secretary of State.
This week I have been to two parliamentary health meetings, one on gout. “Gout is not a laughing matter” was the title of the gathering. It was interesting to learn that one in 40 people in the UK now has gout, and its prevalence is rising. It rocketed between 1997 and 2012 by an astonishing 64%. Again, much of this is linked to the increased consumption of stronger red wines, and to obesity.
Alcohol is a major contributor to obesity, although many people are not aware of this. The drinks industry has managed to evade the usual labelling requirements for calories and sugar content in products. The Government have failed to effect changes here because they have prayed in aid existing EU regulations on labelling, which they say have prevented them moving in this direction. Showing calories and sugar content in alcohol is not required in Europe. There was an attempt to introduce such a requirement in Europe but it was overturned, so we must stick by existing EU regulations. Again, Brexit means we will have a freedom here we did not have previously. I have been campaigning for a long time to have calories shown on alcohol labels. People should know what they are consuming, just as they do with most other products. Why is it not happening?
In fairness, some producers, such as Sainsbury’s, which has its own brands, have shown calories. Sainsbury’s did that because research indicated that drinkers wanted to know about what they were drinking. Why should it not apply elsewhere? I would like to know what the Government are doing on this, given that they now have a strategy on obesity.
Alcohol also contributes to type 2 diabetes, which is reaching epidemic proportions. There is a direct link there. About 10% of alcohol contributes to diabetes and we need to get some movement on that.
This week I also went to a meeting of the All-Party Group on Liver Health—I declare my interest as patron of the British Liver Trust. Liver disease is now costing £2.1 billion a year, up 400% since 1970, and the upward curve continues in the UK while in Europe the cost is declining. There must be a reason for this, and we should be looking at what it is. This is a great problem for A&E departments, as mentioned in previous exchanges with the Minister. Alcohol is a contributory factor in 70% of A&E cases at the weekends, and I would like to know what the Government intend to do about that.
We need to start examining a whole range of other options, particularly given that this week, the Government are taking steps to withdraw certain free prescriptions. We need to look at the 9 million people with hypertension who are getting NHS medication for it. We need to look at the millions of people—and the number is increasing—who are on tablets for depression. Will the Minister say whether people who are on medication for depression should not be drinking alcohol, and whether it is permissible? If in fact, as I know, many people are taking tablets but still drinking, is it not time to look at that in the context of developments this week? People should have a choice: either they take the tablets for depression and stop drinking; or, if they want to continue drinking, they should pay for their tablets over the counter.
I saw the figures in a recent Written Answer from the Minister on how much is being spent on medication—it has rocketed since 2010. We have to start looking for a different approach. We need the Government to accept responsibility for the policy areas they can control. We need the industry to accept greater responsibility—I will not go on about the industry in great detail today; I will leave that for a separate debate—and we need people to take more individual responsibility, given this new world in which the NHS is under great financial pressure. I hope I will get a positive response on many of these points from the Minister, and maybe we can look forward to a wider debate on drawing up a real strategy in the future.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, this is an important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for initiating it.
A recent study in the south-west showed that one in three adults exceeds the permitted government guidelines and that 83% of at-risk drinkers see themselves as moderate or light drinkers, whereas 69% are not concerned about how much they drink. There appears to be a common assumption that the benchmark for too much alcohol is when control is lost on the occasional bender, reliance on alcohol is required to get through the day or a bad hangover is experienced. Few understand the risk to their health, their family or the wider community. High blood pressure, mental health, accidental injury, violence and liver disease are just a few health issues directly linked to alcohol. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned, liver disease is arguably one of the biggest health issues facing the NHS along with deep-seated serious health problems, and the harm is being done to a large extent in the privacy of people’s homes.
Alcohol admissions and related injuries put A&E departments under huge pressure. Estimates have suggested that three in every 10 patients attending A&E are there because of alcohol. People are calling ambulances like cabs to ferry them to hospital when they become incapacitated. Those who are not injured often just need to sleep it off in a place of safety, but they arrive in A&E by ambulance or cab or are taken there by friends. Those who have sustained injuries can be aggressive towards staff, leading to staff being vulnerable and of course adding to the difficulty of treating the injury.
Alcohol harm knows no boundaries. Its tentacles can affect anyone in a community—rich, poor, young, old, the well-educated and those who are not. What can be done? There is no easy solution. Perhaps the following could help towards people being more responsible about their drinking as well as cutting the cost to the NHS. A combination of price control and taxation would successfully target those who drink more of the cheapest and strongest alcohol products.
A comprehensive cultural change is required to educate young people towards activities that do not revolve around drinking. Is an advertising campaign the way forward to educate parents and families about the dangers? Parents play the biggest role in educating their children about the dangers of alcohol abuse. Parents should know who their children are hanging around with and make an effort to get to know the parents of their children’s friends. When parents are involved, they are more likely to be able to pick up the signs of any problems. Of course, that is the perfect scenario and, as we know, many children come from homes where good parenting is not the norm, so educators have a role to play.
Effective approaches include teaching students how to resist peer influences and improve life skills, involve families and provide students with the opportunities to get involved with positive experiences. There is no point in just lecturing on the dangers. That tends to cause most teenagers just to switch off. What programmes are available in schools? Is health and well-being part of the curriculum, particularly in primary schools where recent reports suggest that one child per week is being excluded for heavy drinking. Perhaps the alcohol industry should be asked to contribute towards the cost of these classes. What training are GPs and psychiatrists being given to recognise the signs of alcohol misuse?
The Nelson Trust, a drug and alcohol treatment centre in Gloucestershire, is talking with the local CCG to consider placing workers in A&E to target frequent visitors whose admissions are alcohol related. A senior nurse told the charity that local hospitals are doing 30 in-patient detoxes a month on individuals who have come into hospitals because of a fall or a gastro problem, for example, and who are found to be alcohol dependent. They require a 10-day in-patient stay only to go out and repeat the process. We are fortunate in this country to have experienced, successful charities involved in addiction. Let us have a joined-up approach and use their expertise in medical settings and educational facilities.
We all have a responsibility to ensure that alcohol is drunk in a responsible way. As an A&E consultant pointed out, it appears that people do not make plans at the end of an evening to get home safely or look after their friends. A whole department can be disrupted from just one drunk patient. The Government’s role is to address the problems caused by alcohol and to support people to stay healthy without unfairly affecting responsible drinkers and businesses.
Lord Colwyn (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be associated with the short debate this afternoon in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, as it enables me to make a few comments relating to my personal expertise and draw the attention of noble Lords to the effects that alcohol and excess alcohol have on the mouth, larynx, pharynx and oesophagus and the consequential costs to the NHS. I declare my interest as a retired dental surgeon and a member and fellow of the British Dental Association. I am a vice-president of the British Fluoridation Society and a life vice-president of the Society for the Advancement of Anaesthesia in Dentistry.
Alcohol and lifestyles closely associated with alcohol can have detrimental effects on dentition—dental erosion, dental caries and periodontal disease being the most common. The new dental contract reflects the aims of the UK Government to focus the attention of dental healthcare professionals on quality, treatment outcomes and how well their patients are looked after. There is now more emphasis on health promotion. Since alcohol misuse affects patients’ general health, tackling that abuse is therefore important for primary care dental professionals from a purely dental perspective. Addressing this in primary care settings also enables dental professionals to meet wider health promotion responsibilities.
As we have already heard, alcohol causes at least seven different types of cancer, and oral cancers are among those most closely linked to drinking. About 70% of people diagnosed with oral cancer are heavy drinkers. There are almost 7,000 diagnoses a year. This means that almost 5,000 heavy drinkers will be struck by mouth cancer every year. The risk is even greater for those who tend to drink and smoke at the same time. It is estimated that heavy drinkers and smokers have 38 times the risk of developing oral cancer than those who abstain from both products.
This particularly debilitating disease, which kills thousands and leaves many of the survivors with disfigured faces and difficulty in eating and speaking, is, worryingly, one of the fastest-increasing types of cancer, with cases up by almost 40% in the past decade. It now kills more people in the UK than cervical and testicular cancer combined. Yet awareness of it and of the role that drinking and smoking play in causing it remains stubbornly low.
Dental professionals are on the front line in the fight against cancer. Dentists are uniquely placed to diagnose oral cancer very early on before the patient notices any symptoms and seeks help. This is crucial, as mouth cancer patients have a 90% chance of survival if the condition is detected early, but this plummets to just 50% if the diagnosis is delayed. As dental teams are the only health professionals who see healthy patients on a regular basis, they are also in a unique position to provide brief advice and support to their patients who drink above the lower risk levels, warning them not just of the increased risk of oral cancer but also of the possible periodontal disease and tooth erosion that is associated with drinking some types of alcohol. Where appropriate, dental professionals can signpost higher-risk patients to their GP or local alcohol services, with such early intervention helping to save the NHS money further down the line.
Screening and primary dental care would involve similar strategies to those used by primary medical practitioners, using the same valid and reliable questionnaires and motivational interventions developed in psychology. These have been found to be effective and cost-beneficial in some dental settings. Although suitable screening tools and treatment interventions are available, it is unclear which of them are most effective and precisely how and when they should be deployed in primary dental care. It is clear, however, that the dental team can contribute and that this contribution fits well with its responsibilities and interests.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for his persistence in keeping the matter of alcohol abuse on the parliamentary and government agenda.
Evidence and reports abound on this matter. Public Health England did a thorough evidence review in 2016, the Government’s alcohol strategy was issued in 2012 and there are numerous reports detailing the cost to the NHS, which has been outlined as £3.5 billion a year. Last year there was an excellent report by the APPG on Alcohol Harm called The Frontline Battle about the huge burden on the emergency services caused by alcohol misuse. However, there is precious little mention in these reports—or, therefore, praise or policy from Her Majesty’s Government in this regard—of how alcohol and its use varies in religious and ethnic minority communities, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report in July 2010, Ethnicity and Alcohol: A Review of the UK Literature, being a notable exception.
What is known is that in many ethnic minority communities the rates of abstinence are higher. According to the Public Health England evidence review that I have mentioned, 15% of white women, 38% of black women and 74% of British Asian women abstain completely. There are many reasons for this, including the physiological. According to the Berkeley university well-being project, it is very common in people from Chinese, Japanese and Korean backgrounds to have difficulty digesting alcohol because of a genetic variant that impairs the production of an enzyme that helps to metabolise alcohol in the liver. Within religious communities such as the Latter-day Saints, Muslims, the Salvation Army and Methodists, and for many within the black Pentecostal churches, refraining from alcohol is advocated, which may explain the lower levels of alcohol consumption in the British black and black Caribbean communities.
While the main government messaging needs to remain around drinking sensibly as this is the majority activity, the lack of commendation by the NHS and government Ministers of religious and ethnic minority communities, particularly Muslims, who refrain is remiss. Having taken part in the parliamentary police service scheme and been out on a Friday night on Shaftesbury Avenue, it is not people in obvious religious attire such as Muslim women or Salvation Army leaders that you see literally in the gutters and then appearing at A&E—a fact that is just not mentioned. These religious and ethnic minority communities are indeed ahead of the curve as they are in tune with the rising number of young adults, the millennials, who drink in moderation or do not drink at all.
Studies have shown that where there are young adults in a college setting with a significant number from a black or minority ethnic community, overall the young people in that group drink less. It has an effect of good peer pressure within the group. Yet the lack of evidence is serious as without it there are none of the bespoke policies needed to help those in these communities who drink. There is evidence that when such people drink they do so at higher levels, hidden away and facing barriers to accessing the help they need from the NHS. Also, if you drink without the enzyme to break down alcohol there are greater health risks and a higher incidence of hypertension. I have not seen any awareness of this within the NHS.
A national piece of work, looking at the evidence and policies in Yorkshire mill towns, city centres such as Birmingham, Chinatown and boroughs such as Lambeth is well overdue. It would show how much ethnic minorities save the National Health Service but also any deficiencies so that people could then access services they need. Perhaps religious leaders could also help bring down the barriers for communities when they need to access other professional services.
Lord Smith of Hindhead (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, for raising this Question for Short Debate today. I recently had the honour of serving with him on the Licensing Act Select Committee and am therefore aware of his concerns about the damaging effects of excessive alcohol consumption. I very much respect his long-term commitment to raising awareness of this matter. It is appropriate that I declare my interests as set out in the register, in particular my role as CEO of the Association of Conservative Clubs, a private members’ club group with some 850 members’ clubs located throughout the UK.
I believe that the vast majority of the population enjoys alcohol with no problems at all. In moderation, alcohol plays an important and beneficial role in the nation’s life. A society that socialises together is a stronger one. For many people, drinking provides and has always provided social cohesion. I made many points in my maiden speech about when, if used in moderation and linked with socialising, alcohol can play an important role in alleviating some life-limiting lifestyles. It is a recognised fact that people who enjoy an active social life avoid loneliness and the devastating effects that isolation can have on a person’s health. Pubs, clubs, restaurants and bars provide a significant part of most people’s social lives. Whether it is meeting family or friends, watching sport or celebrating a special occasion, the common denominator for many is having an alcoholic drink. By and large, this is enjoyed responsibly and without repercussions.
Of course, I recognise that for others alcohol can become a poison and a prison. It is undoubtable that alcohol puts an enormous strain on front-line services, not least the NHS. Would my noble friend the Minister consider updating the direct cost to the NHS that was put at £3.9 billion back in 2014? Then we would have an up-to-date figure of exactly where we stand. We know that per capita alcohol consumption has fallen by more than 17% during the last 10 years. Alcohol-related crime is down and the number of young people consuming alcohol is down by 38% since 2004. Alcohol-related hospital admissions for those under 40 has declined by 11% since 2010 and alcohol-related deaths have fallen by 10% according to the Office for National Statistics. The UK today drinks less alcohol than 16 other European countries, according to the World Health Organization.
However, I would be the first to say that there is still much more to do to prevent people who are sensible consumers of alcohol becoming the irresponsible minority who deliberately drink to destruction, to deter existing nuisance drinkers who pre-load on cheap alcohol and cause trouble in our villages and towns, and to help those who are sadly addicted to alcohol, harm themselves and their families, and greatly risk promoting the cycle of self-abuse and alcoholism on to their children and the next generation. Does the Minister feel that enough is being done to treat people who are addicted to alcohol in the UK? Does he feel that these treatments are proving effective?
There is an increasing trend of stay-at-home consumption, with large quantities of alcohol being purchased—often very cheaply—from supermarkets and off-licences. I have concerns that some of the deals on offer for beers and lager can cut down the cost to as little as 63 pence per pint. I am also concerned that recent statistics show that as much as 40% of all alcohol purchased in the UK is bought by only 10% of the adult population. Does the Minister think that more could be done to restrict offers and implement safety mechanisms within the off trade on a par with those that exist in the on trade?
Local alcohol partnerships are playing an important role in creating healthier, safer high streets. Organisations such as the Portman Group, Best Bar None, National Pubwatch and Purple Flag are working with the alcohol industry and local authorities to tackle crime, disorder and underage sales. Importantly, they are also working to improve responsible alcohol marketing and to provide education and information about the damaging effects of excessive consumption. I hope the Minister will agree with me that education on matters such as smoking has vastly improved, and the same could be achieved on excessive consumption of alcohol.
Finally, I offer a further point for consideration. Every time the police issue a fine for drunk or disorderly conduct, those funds could be shared with the ambulance service. The police do an excellent job, but so does the ambulance service, and it is rare that the two are not in partnership with each other on these regrettable occasions. We have a responsibility not to limit the freedoms and activities of people, while also providing safeguards and information for those who are vulnerable. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate today.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, on securing this important debate. Last January, I chaired a seminar run by the All-Party Parliamentary Health Group on developing a long-term strategy to reduce the harm from alcohol consumption. We heard from several eminent contributors whom I shall mention as I go along. We started with Professor Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance, who described the burden of alcohol harm. He told us that, statistically, alcohol is the number one risk factor for premature death in the UK today. The BMA tells us that 60 different medical conditions are caused by alcohol abuse, and are therefore preventable. Sir Ian Gilmore said that 70% of presentations at A&E on a Friday or Saturday night, and about 20% of all hospital admissions, are related to alcohol. Interestingly, mental and behavioural disorders due to alcohol use account for almost 20% of those admissions, so we know that we are talking about mental, as well as physical, diseases. We know what the diseases are; several noble Lords have referred to them today. In addition to those physiological diseases, of course, accidents are caused by alcohol use, and there are a lot of hospital admissions because of those, as well.
Sir Ian was followed by Dr Mirza, an emergency medicine consult from West Middlesex University Hospital. He began by shocking us all with four real-life but typical situations that had taken place in his department over the past month. They included drunken patients attacking staff or police officers, running rampant and breaking thousands of pounds- worth of hospital equipment, requiring to be restrained and taking up hours of time of the staff, meaning that other sick patients were not treated for hours. The disruptive effect on the department was enormous, he said, and added additional strain to an already overstretched A&E department.
What does all this cost the nation? The Government themselves estimate that it costs £3.5 billion a year to the NHS, £11 billion a year on criminal justice and £7.3 billion in lost production, a total of £21 billion a year. What could the NHS and social care do with that money?
In addition to these costs and the burden of disease, there are costs for children and families. My daughter-in-law is currently writing a PhD thesis about the scale of domestic violence following excess alcohol consumption after major sporting events. Dr Mirza pointed out that there are many children living with one or more parents with an alcohol-related problem, resulting in mental and emotional strain and poor academic attainment for the child.
What are the options for reducing these harms? First of all, we have to ensure that young people are educated in their PSHE lessons about the harm that alcohol can do. We heard from Professor Yvonne Kelly, Professor of Lifecourse Epidemiology at University College London, that, of those adults who drink, 80% to 90% of them start in the second decade of life. Pleasingly, as someone has said, there has been a fall in the number of underage drinkers in the past 25 years, and I put that down to education. However, she told us that the amount being drunk by each underage drinker shows no sign of falling, so these are the people we need to target. A number of options were suggested to us, including those affecting price, labelling, marketing, advertising, availability, low-alcohol options, help with behaviours, et cetera. Many of these have excellent evidence of effectiveness, according to the academics.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Has he done an impact assessment of the reduction in alcohol abuse services following the cuts to public health budgets? Is he aware that this money is well spent? For every £1 spent on alcohol treatment, £5 of public money can be saved. We know that a five-minute chat from a health professional can have a major effect on a person’s drinking habits, yet GPs do not have time to do this in a 10-minute appointment. Will the Minister publish imminently the Government’s new alcohol strategy, and will he consider including in it minimum unit pricing to tackle products such as white cider, which I was staggered to discover costs only 15p per unit of alcohol and is used mainly by very problematic drinkers? Will he ask the Chancellor to increase the general cost of alcoholic drinks? Given what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, what can he do to reduce the comparative cost of low or zero-alcohol products? Will he issue guidance to local authorities which authorise licences to ensure that health is a factor in licensing decisions, so that they understand the effect of long opening hours and high density of premises selling alcohol? Alcohol action areas have already proved the effectiveness of reducing density and hours.
Will the Minister also look at what can be learned from the policies on tobacco? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, about labelling. Labelling of tobacco products showing the health damage they can do could easily be replicated with alcohol. Alcoholic products should not only show the calories and units of alcohol they contain but also have a reminder of the Chief Medical Officer’s advice about maximum weekly consumption and alcohol free days. Perhaps we can do that after Brexit.
There is evidence that increased exposure to alcohol increases the chances of children drinking, so will the Minister also include in the policy a ban on advertising of alcoholic products before the watershed? Will he also consider banning alcohol sponsorship of sports events for the same reason? The health and economic benefits of all these actions would be immense.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the debate. My noble friend made a very powerful statement about the major challenge that we face over alcohol abuse and the knock-on impact on the National Health Service. He opened by asking for an honest debate about funding. The report of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, will be issued on Wednesday, and I hope that it will lead to an open debate. However, no one can be in any doubt about the seriousness of this situation for the NHS. This morning, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation said that there now has to be a trade-off between, for instance, fast, efficient emergency care and non-elective surgery. That shows the state that we have got to. Clearly, the impact of alcohol abuse on the NHS is significant.
My noble friend’s speech was particularly persuasive in relation to low prices. Public Health England produced a very good report on the public health burden of alcohol and the cost-effectiveness of alcohol control policies. That report had a lot of good things to say. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has already referred to the £20 billion a year cost to our society in relation to criminal justice, the economy and the health service. In addition, there is the fact that we now have over 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions per year, and the kind of pressure it puts on the health service and the emergency services, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, referred to. PHE points out that the average age at death of those who die from alcohol-specific causes is 54.3 years, compared to 77.6 years for death from all causes. The other very striking statistic is that more working years of life were lost in England as a result of alcohol-related deaths than from cancers of the lung, bronchus, trachea, colon, rectum, brain, pancreas, skin, ovary, kidney, stomach, bladder and prostate combined. Therefore, the scale of this disease, as we need to call it, is very striking indeed.
My noble friend obviously did not dwell much on taxation and price regulation, because he covered a much wider canvas. However, the analysis by Public Health England said:
“Implementing a minimum unit price is a highly targeted measure which ensures any resulting price increases are passed on to the consumer, improving the health of the heaviest drinkers”,
is surely right. As PHE points out:
“The MUP measure has a negligible impact on moderate drinkers”—
who we do not want to undermine—
“and the on-trade”.
I hope that the Minister will be able to say something about where the Government are on the MUP.
I pick up the point raised by my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, on labelling. Post Brexit what the Government do about labelling will be entirely in their hands. As the Minister is responsible for the Department of Health’s response to Brexit, can he say what work is now being done by either his department or Public Health England to look at what the Government are going to do when they have control over labelling? Potentially, we could be much more effective than current EU regulations allow us to be.
Finally, I acknowledge a very good briefing that I had from the British Medical Association on this issue. It has set out a number of requests—principally, that the Government should:
“Publish a new updated alcohol strategy”.
Will the Minister agree to do that? It mentions minimum unit pricing and reducing,
“the affordability of alcohol through taxation measures”.
It makes an important point about ensuring that health,
“is a key factor in licensing decisions”.
I know that we will receive a Select Committee report on the implications of the big change in licensing 10 or 12 years ago. However, this obviously needs to be considered very carefully. The BMA also goes on to ask for an implementation of,
“evidence-based measures to reduce drink driving levels”,
and,
“a range of measures to reduce and better manage pregnancies affected by alcohol”,
and makes a number of other requests. At heart, there is a request to the Government to take stock of the pressures that we face, update the current alcohol strategy and take some courage in their hands and be prepared to move on from the rather insipid voluntary approach that we have to a tougher approach, in which they must look at taxation and a minimum unit pricing policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on securing this important debate and on his obvious tenacity in pursuing this issue. I am sure that this will be the first of many occasions we will have to discuss this matter. I also thank all noble Lords for a wide-ranging, well-informed and informative debate.
I think all noble Lords accept that the vast majority of people who consume alcohol—whether in my noble friend Lord Smith’s clubs or elsewhere—do so as a pleasurable and indeed even positive part of their social lives. However, we also know there are very serious harms and health costs associated with alcohol misuse, which is estimated, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and other noble Lords have pointed out, to cost the NHS around £3.5 billion a year. The recent Public Health England evidence review tells us that alcohol is now the leading risk factor for ill-health, early mortality and disability among 15 to 49 year-olds in England, causing 169,000 years of working life lost. That is more than the 10 most frequent cancer types combined—a truly alarming figure. As the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, pointed out, that is having an effect in specific areas such as increases in oral cancers.
Alcohol misuse is also a significant contributor to some 60 health conditions, including circulatory and digestive diseases, liver disease, a number of cancers, as has been said, and depression. Alcohol-related deaths have increased in recent history, particularly deaths due to liver disease, which saw a 400% increase between 1970 and 2008. As several noble Lords have pointed out, that is in contrast to trends seen across much of western Europe and, as my noble friend Lady Berridge pointed out, it is also in contrast to outcomes in many minorities in the UK. It is not so much a British problem as a problem of certain communities within Britain.
In the UK, there are currently more than 10 million people drinking at levels that increase risk to their health. Those health risks, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, are both mental and physical. They lead to more than 1 million hospital admissions annually, half of which occur in the most deprived communities, so this is also an issue of social justice. My noble friend Lord Smith was right to point out the work that the police, the ambulance service and other public services do to deal with—mopping up, sometimes physically as well as figuratively—the results of alcohol misuse. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to their work; they often have to deal with both physical and verbal violence in doing so.
We also know the tragedies that can occur from mothers drinking alcohol during pregnancy, leading to problems after birth. This is not just a UK but a global issue. To address the challenges of the prevalence of fetal alcohol syndrome disorders, the WHO is starting a global prevalence study. We will consider lessons from this for further work in the UK.
It is also important to recognise the devastating impact that addiction has on individuals and their families. It is unacceptable that children have to bear the brunt of their parents’ conditions. I was shocked to learn that, according to Alcohol Concern, 93,500 babies under the age of one, which I make to be about a sixth or seventh of the cohort, live in a family where a parent is a problem drinker. As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out, there is a link to domestic violence which affects not just children but also partners. My colleague, the Minister for Public Health and Innovation, recently met with members of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children of Alcoholics to set out our plans to work with MPs, health professionals and those affected to reduce the harms of addiction and support those who need it. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that is an important mission.
However, I am glad to say that we can also observe some promising trends regarding alcohol. As my noble friend Lord Smith pointed out, the figures for alcohol crimes and deaths are down, although there are other problems which we have talked about. People aged under 18 are drinking less, which stands in stark contrast to the data for the over-65s who are drinking more—I am not looking at anyone here—and there has been a huge increase in the number of hospital admissions for the over 65s in recent years of more than 130%. Nevertheless, there has also been a steady reduction in alcohol-related road traffic accidents.
We also have social action campaigns, such as Alcohol Concern’s dry January, in which I have taken part over the past few years, as I am sure other noble Lords have too, which are starting to change attitudes. The point that my noble friend Lady Berridge made about minority and religious groups leading the way was incredibly important. I accept her point about the need for appropriate analysis of how to communicate with those communities. We were unable to get the information, admittedly at short order, that she wanted, but I shall certainly write to her and put a copy of the letter in the Library for noble Lords. She makes an important point and she may have highlighted a weakness in the current strategy.
We have also seen real progress through working in partnership with industry: 1.3 billion units of alcohol have been removed from the market by improving the choice of lower alcohol products; nearly 80% of bottles and cans now display unit content and pregnancy warnings on their labels; and we have published guidance on updating the health information contained on labels better to reflect the latest advice on alcohol published by the UK Chief Medical Officer.
Several noble Lords asked about calories and labelling. This is an area where the European Commission is looking at legislation. It is not always the fastest moving institution in the world, and we have of course just signalled our intention to leave the European Union, but we will certainly look at that legislation as it comes through. It is fair to say—although I am not in a position to make a commitment at this point—that the UK has been a leader in this kind of area, not just on drink but on smoking as well, and I hope that, looking ahead, we would continue that leadership position.
An essential part of our strategy to tackle alcohol harms is the provision of high-quality, evidence-based treatment services. Local government now has the responsibility to improve people’s health, in particular on the public health side. This includes tackling problem drinking and commissioning appropriate prevention and treatment services for the local population’s needs. Several noble Lords asked about addiction and spending on cessation services, which increased from 2014-15 to 2015-16, even within the context of challenging budgets for public health. I see this as a positive move, but it is something to be kept under review.
The NHS remains critical to preventing alcohol harms. There is a new scheme to incentivise investment in alcohol interventions. The national Commissioning for Quality and Innovation indicator has been developed, and in the way beloved of the NHS, it has been given the acronym CQUIN. It links a proportion of service providers’ income to the achievement of national and local quality improvement goals. The practical effect of that is that every in-patient in community, mental health and from 2018-19 to acute hospitals, will be asked about their alcohol consumption and, where appropriate, will receive an evidence-based brief intervention or a referral to specialist services. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, pointed out that the evidence shows that people who receive a brief intervention are twice as likely to have moderated their drinking six to 12 months after the intervention when compared to drinkers receiving no intervention, so it is obviously a low-cost but highly effective action.
In addition, as my noble friend Lady Chisholm mentioned, by 2018, around 60,000 doctors will have been trained to recognise, assess and understand the management of alcohol use and its associated problems. My noble friend Lord Colwyn pointed out that dentists have a vital role in prevention and spotting early problems. The new dental contract means that there has been an increasing number of patient episodes, and Public Health England has developed an alcohol training resource for dental teams. I would be interested, as a follow-up, to find out if that has been successfully adopted within the profession that he represents.
Furthermore, the inclusion of alcohol assessment and advice in the NHS health check, which is offered to all adults in England aged 40 to 74, means that GPs and other healthcare professionals can offer advice to promote a healthier lifestyle. Since we mandated the alcohol assessment and advice component, nearly 5 million people have had a check. Referral to alcohol services following an NHS health check is around three times higher than among those receiving standard care, which is yet another example of how a small nudge in the right direction can make a great impact.
Several noble Lords talked about providing people with the right information so that they can make informed choices. Last year, Public Health England launched the One You campaign to help motivate people to improve their health through action on the main risk factors. This includes a drinks tracker app to help drinkers identify risky behaviour and lower their alcohol consumption and a new “days off” app to encourage people not to drink alcohol for a number of days a week, in line with the CMO’s recommendations.
My noble friend Lady Chisholm and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about education. PSHE is obviously a critical part of making sure that young people are informed about their choices. There has been a review of the PSHE curriculum—we have seen a strengthening of PSHE in recent announcements by the Secretary of State for Education. There must be, at least in part I think, some impact on the positive trends that we are seeing among young people in lower drinking, although it is of course hard to isolate what exactly causes that. We know, however, from the smoking environment that constant public health campaigns do have that impact, particularly for younger people. It is also notable that while the incidence of mental illness has unfortunately and sadly increased among young people, there has not been the same increase in drinking. That is an interesting inverse correlation that is worthy of further investigation.
Several noble Lords asked about the affordability of alcohol. In this context you think of Hogarth’s “Gin Lane” and “Beer Street”, and the important role that taxation has historically played in changing drinking habits. The UK currently has the fourth highest duty on spirits among EU member states, and higher-strength beer and cider are already taxed more than equivalent lower-strength products. In relation to a move in the direction that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, pointed to, noble Lords may know that it was announced in the Budget that duty rates on beer, cider, wine and spirits will increase by RPI inflation. In addition, a consultation is currently seeking views on the introduction of a new band to target cheap, high-strength white ciders which are a particular problem among young people. It is also seeking views on the impact of a new lower-strength still wine band to encourage production and consumption of lower-strength wine—another point talked about by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. It is worth touching briefly on minimum pricing. I am afraid that my answers are entirely predictable on this issue. We await the conclusion of the court case. I will, however, look at the IFS report that was mentioned and we will keep a close eye on that issue going forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about advertising, as, I believe, did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. The Advertising Standards Authority has a vigorous approach to preventing advertising to children and young people, but I am assured that it is kept under review to make sure that it is having an impact. Again, it is worth investigating whether that has had an impact on the lower instances of drinking among young people.
It would be wrong for Ministers to restrict the treatments offered to young people. That is a clinical decision, although I know that clinicians are increasingly trying to change the behaviours of smokers and drinkers before providing significant treatments. There is also a link between drinking and depression, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out.
I close by again congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, on securing this debate on such an important subject. Alcohol misuse has a significant impact on people’s health, the NHS, the wider care system and society in general. I also believe, however, that progress is being made. The Government remain deeply committed to ensuring that people are given the information and support—and if necessary the treatment—that they need to reduce harms from alcohol. I look forward to working with the noble Lord and all noble Lords to reduce alcohol misuse in the years ahead.
House of Lords
Brexit: Crime Prevention
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to continue sharing sensitive personal information with other European Union member states for the purposes of crime prevention and detection following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are clear that our commitment to co-operation with European allies on security and law enforcement will be undiminished as a result of leaving the EU. The effective use of data to underpin that co-operation will be an important consideration as we look to establish a new relationship with the EU, but it is too early to say what the future arrangements might look like.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the issue of information exchange has taken on an added significance this week. I hope the House will forgive me but I take the avoidable death of one of my former police colleagues very seriously. Less than a week after four people died as a result of terrorism on our doorstep, does the Minister think that the implied threat made by the Prime Minister in her Article 50 letter—backed up yesterday by the Home Secretary—that the UK will withhold security co-operation with the EU if it does not get the trade deal that it wants, was insensitive, reckless, an empty threat, or all three?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the people who lost their lives last week and who still lie in hospital injured. However, I take exception to what the noble Lord says. The letter says that both sides would cope, but our co-operation would be weakened. We want and we believe that the EU wants security to be part of a new partnership. That is why it is part of the negotiation. The “threat” was not a threat at all—it was a matter of fact.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the best way to enhance our capability in countering crime and counterterrorism and the ability to share that with our European allies would be to give full support to the Investigatory Powers Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Co-operation going forward will be crucial in all the areas that he talks about.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
Would it assist my noble friend in answering the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, if she explained to him that, far from withdrawing or departing from anything, we are arriving at and entering a global network of new technologies in which the methods of crime detection and prevention are likely to be very much expanded and improved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is absolutely right. It is in the spirit of the improved technologies and improved sharing of data that we enter into co-operation around all these areas as we exit the EU and enter a new phase in this country’s journey.
Lord Kinnock (Lab)
Will the Minister, in the service of the House, read the two sentences in the letter before the one that she selectively read out? Those sentences make it absolutely clear that the Government’s intention and the implied threat is that unless there is agreement on trade—a “comprehensive agreement” as they have called it—there will not be an agreement on security. By that means, they would imperil not only our economic capability but, even more seriously, our security capability.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is quite wrong. The letter says that both sides would cope, but our co-operation would be weakened. We want, and we believe that the EU wants, security to be part of the new partnership. That is why it will be part of the negotiation. That is the right way forward.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend realise that the appropriate reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnock, lies in The Gospel According to St Matthew, chapter 6, verse 21?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Perhaps the right reverend Prelate would like to comment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, perhaps I can bring us back to the Question. Will the Minister clarify whether, if sensitive information is going to be passed to the EU, that will exclude information that is held by the security services and by the police on environmental campaigners, journalists, photographers and even politicians who have committed no crime?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The information that is shared is for the purposes of investigating crime, so someone who had not committed a crime would be unlikely to have their information shared with other countries.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made on the future role of the European Court of Justice for the future of joint working with the EU on security after Brexit?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we will not be bound by the European Court of Justice after we leave the EU; we will be bound by the UK court system.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister not agree with me that the best way of answering the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is to ensure that the Government arrange with our European partners to deal with security issues first and foremost, separately from trade, to make sure there is no moment when we fall off a security cliff?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is quite right in the sense that the Prime Minister put these aspects of the negotiation right at the forefront. I have been in debates in the last few weeks talking about this co-operation. The fact that we have been world leaders in those areas is so important as we go forward, but of course it is all part of a whole deal, bearing in mind the context in which we operate.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Blair, just said, would my noble friend agree that as we begin this long and difficult process, intemperate remarks are hardly helpful?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It depends which intemperate remarks my noble friend is referring to, but yes, I think we all have to be very careful about what we say.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I am afraid I disagree with my noble friend Lord Kinnock on the reading of this particular piece. For some seven decades now, the US and the UK have been the prime safety net for Europe in defence and security terms. We must not allow this very complex web of agreements somehow to be damaged in these negotiations. The security of Europe is crucial for us. Everyone knows that, and we must not be let it be damaged by some silliness in the negotiations. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am very pleased that the noble Lord has put this in the broader context. He is absolutely right about our co-operation beyond the EU. The sharing of intelligence with the EU and international partners is far broader than simple measures within EU laws. He is right in that broader context.
Brexit: Court of Justice of the European Union
Baroness Ludford
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the United Kingdom’s economic interests of the pledge to bring an end to the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister has clearly set out the position that the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the UK will end. Work is under way to ensure that the impact of this across all the UK’s interests, including economic, are understood and factored into decision-making. After we leave the EU, our laws will be made and enforced in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and they will be based on the specific interests and values of the UK.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has in fact reflected what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has just said. But there appears to have been a dose of cold reality, because yesterday’s Article 50 letter to President Tusk states that, in trading with the EU, UK companies,
“will have to align with rules agreed by institutions of which we are no longer a part”.
That means EU rules made by the EU institutions and enforced by the European Court of Justice. This will reassure many companies and universities, whose cross-border research partnerships, for instance, depend on the recognition of EU law. But how does it square with assertions that all laws will be made in the UK and that our courts will be the final decision-makers? It is not true, is it? An exercise in deceit and smoke and mirrors is going on.
Baroness Goldie
The position is very clear. I am aware that the noble Baroness is something of a stranger to optimism, but it is very clear that we are able to leave the EU, we are able to leave the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and we are able to operate within the confines of our own legal systems—which are multiple in the United Kingdom and which, incidentally, enjoy a worldwide and global reputation, and quite rightly so. Of course we will look closely at the impact of ending CJEU jurisdiction, including working out what our future resolution mechanisms will look like—but it is quite wrong to suggest that there is no future outwith the European Court of Justice.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not think it absurd that the Liberals are arguing that, in order for us to thrive economically, it is necessary for us to be subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign court? Is it not as absurd as trying to argue that in order to export things to the United States, the Supreme Court should have jurisdiction over the UK? Is it not high time that they got behind the Prime Minister in the interests of the country and stopped fighting battles they have already lost?
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for a predictably helpful and constructive intervention. I suspect that the answer to all his questions is yes.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Is it not true, however, that if there are changes following rulings of the European Court of Justice, the UK will have the choice of either following those, albeit through our own mechanisms here at Westminster, or ignoring them, in which case there will be an economic price to pay?
Baroness Goldie
I thank the noble Lord for his substantive question, which goes to the heart of an important technical point. For as long as EU-derived law remains on the UK statute book, it will be essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. I can reassure the noble Lord that, to maximise certainty, the great repeal Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU-derived law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
Given Germany’s demand for the acceptance of an ECJ role for access to the single market, will the Government rethink their blanket opposition to this, should that be the price of frictionless trade and a free trade agreement?
Baroness Goldie
As the noble Baroness will understand, I cannot pre-empt the detail of the negotiations. We all understand why these must be able to proceed in an arena of privacy and confidentiality. It is wrong to conflate two distinct issues: one is the current role of the European Court of Justice in the European Union; the other is how we approach the generation of economic growth with the global opportunities in the economy post Brexit. Clearly, there are huge opportunities, and we have set out our ambitions. The Prime Minister has been clear about her ambitions in negotiations to get a full free trade agreement—and that is a very positive aspiration.
Lord Faulks (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one thing is crystal clear: as a result of our no longer being subject to the CJEU, we will equally not be subject to the European Charter of Fundamental Rights—a document to which the party opposite said we were not bound? None the less, the ECJ took a different view, as a result of which there was a great deal of expensive litigation and confusion in the law. I hope my noble friend will confirm that that will be the end of that.
Baroness Goldie
I thank my noble friend for a very helpful observation. It is the case that one implication of leaving the EU is indeed that laws will be made and enforced not in Brussels but in Westminster, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast. That will bring to our legal systems throughout the United Kingdom an overdue clarity—and also, if I may say so, a sense of sovereignty and of being in control of the laws that we make.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry, it is in fact the Lib Dems’ turn.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
My Lords, does the Minister recall that yesterday the Prime Minister stressed that we share liberal democratic values with our European partners? Does she accept that acceptance of the rule of law and of the importance of the rule of law is a fundamental liberal democrat value and that a small number of right-wing lawyers—Sir William Cash, Martin Howe QC and others—who think that common law cannot possibly be contaminated by Roman law have erected that as one of the red lines in our relationship with the European Union and insist that we are seen to be prepared to sacrifice the single market for that? Why do the Government not accept that the rule of law does not stop at the water’s edge?
Baroness Goldie
Let me try to unpick some of the stitches in that closely woven interrogation. First of all, we all agree that the rule of law is important—there is no question about that. Respect for the rule of a law and a suitable judicial mechanism within any jurisdiction of any country is necessary to ensure that the rule of law can be interpreted and applied. I disagree with the noble Lord that in some way the CJEU and the principles of Roman law will be abruptly terminated when we leave the EU. I have made it quite clear that there is a recognition that EU law, which derives from many sources—indeed, my own Scottish legal system is derived largely from Roman law—will not stop being an important component of the body of UK law on leaving the EU. It is not that the jurisdictions of our courts are diminished; it is that we will be taking back control of law-making and law enforcement. That is a very important distinction.
Lord Richard
My Lords, whatever the Minister says about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, will she re-emphasise the Government’s position that they do not intend to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights?
Baroness Goldie
These are technical issues which of course will be reflected upon—that is absolutely clear. It is perfectly obvious to all that when you begin the mechanism of withdrawing from a very complex set of principles and jurisdictions in international law, questions will arise. But the Prime Minister has made it crystal clear that when we leave the EU, we will return sovereignty—including law-making and the enforcement of law—to the UK.
Disabled People: Independent Living
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support independent living for disabled people of working age.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley)
My Lords, the Government believe that individuals should have the opportunity to work and realise the benefit of stable employment where they can, enabling them to live independently and fulfil their potential. We are therefore working to join up the health system, the welfare system and society more widely so that we focus on the strengths of people with disabilities or health conditions and what they can do.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
I very much welcome that reply. The most important thing is that the infrastructure—such as enough care support and accessible transport—is got right around the country. Disabled people must have enough support. I wonder whether the Minister’s department will now agree to conduct a cumulative impact assessment on current government policies, which shows their effect on disabled people. The Equality and Human Rights Commission has offered its support and this should be taken up.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I am unsure that I should necessarily want to do it in the manner suggested by the noble Baroness, but I assure her that we shall continue to examine the effectiveness of all our policies and of all the benefits that we administer on behalf of the Government. Only today, the second of two reviews conducted by Paul Gray into PIP has been published. We promised these statutory reviews as a result of legislation passed some years ago. The Government will respond to the second review in due course.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Spinal Injuries Association. Is the Minister aware that we have many young people of working age who have broken their backs and necks and are paralysed and who need help to get in and out of bed and into their cars? They need expensive personal care so that they can get to work. If they do not get this, they cannot work.
Lord Henley
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to draw attention to the problems of people with spinal injuries. The same is true for people with any of a host of other conditions, be they mental or physical. That is why we offer the help that we can and why we are committed to trying to reduce the employment gap between those who are disabled and those who are not by seeking greater working opportunities for those with health problems.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, the Motability scheme is a crucial element for getting people back into work, yet about 50,000 people have lost out on it. What is particularly worrying is that the vast majority of appeals are upheld, by which time those concerned have lost the vehicle and then have to get it again. It is costing a lot of time and money. Would Her Majesty’s Government consider having a scheme whereby people do not lose the vehicle until the end of the appeal process? This would make much more sense where the appeal is upheld.
Lord Henley
My Lords, I understand the problems to which the right reverend Prelate refers. The department is looking at these matters. My honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is well aware of them. As the right reverend Prelate will know, schemes are available for one-off cash payments to help those who are losing their cars. We shall certainly look at speeding up the whole appeals process to make sure that the problems to which the right reverend Prelate referred do not get any worse.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, to pursue this a little further, I appreciate that the Minister may be thinking about this but the point made by the right reverend Prelate is that people cannot wait. Between October and December last year, 800 people a week were having to hand back their Motability cars because they did not have the money to pay for them any more as a result of PIP reassessment. The Motability website says clearly that you get only six weeks from that decision to hand back your car. Frankly, the DWP is a long way off speeding up assessment to the point where appeals are concluded within six weeks. Will the Minister please look at this a little more urgently?
Lord Henley
My Lords, this matter has been treated with considerable urgency. As I made clear, transitional schemes are in place. The package has already helped many claimants to meet their mobility needs by buying a used car. That is why I referred to that. I am more than happy to have further discussions on that but, as I said, my honourable friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is fully aware of these problems and is engaged with discussion both with Motability and with others.
Child Support: Unpaid Maintenance
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to expedite the collection of over £3 billion in unpaid child maintenance which was ordered by the former Child Support Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley) (Con)
My Lords, the main focus of the Department for Work and Pensions is to collect money owed that will benefit children today. It is well established that much of this old debt is uncollectable due to its age and the circumstances of these cases. The department is currently developing a new strategy for handling historic arrears accrued on Child Support Agency schemes. We will consult on the proposed approach before publishing the new strategy.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I simply do not think that is acceptable because, according to a withering NAO report, around £3 billion in child maintenance is likely to be uncollectable. The Government say that they are offering parents a fresh start by suggesting that they write off debts to which their children are legally entitled. These are some of the poorest children in society, suffering as a result of incompetence and cuts in enforcement work, so why do not the Government restore staffing levels, step up enforcement and ensure that the new Child Maintenance Service is obliged to collect outstanding debts?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I would be more than happy to accept the noble Baroness’s assessment that this is withering and the figures are astronomical if we were talking about figures that related to the children who are likely to benefit today. A lot of this £3.9 billion—sorry, £3.8 billion; there are different figures according to different things—goes back a very long way to the 1993 scheme. Some of it goes back before the reforms introduced in 2003 by the Government of whom the noble Baroness was a member, and some of it goes back before 2008. If the noble Baroness thinks about the number of years that have passed, she will realise that those children are now grown up and will not benefit from recovering that money. It is very sad that absent parents have behaved badly. The only people who have lost out—as the noble Baroness put it—are those children. However, we are concerned about the children of today and to make sure that matters operate properly now, and that the money owed by absent parents, where the department has a role in trying to enforce that, gets paid to the caring parent so that the appropriate children benefit. I am terribly sorry but a lot of that £3.9 billion is in effect lost, as the noble Baroness said, to those children who are no longer children now.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, financial arrears are often symptomatic of an adversarial approach to collecting child maintenance. How is the new child maintenance system encouraging parents to set up family-based arrangements, and what success is it having?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I am not going to go into what we are doing about arrears. However, I shall talk about the 2012 scheme of child maintenance. By bringing in more simplified methods of calculation, we are helping parents to sort these matters out. We are also encouraging parents to sort these things out themselves without necessarily using the department. We are now at a stage where in nine out of 10 cases parents are paying towards the child maintenance that they owe, and paying the appropriate amount. Therefore, we are making progress but there are still some who are not doing what they can.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
But is the Minister aware of the concern that the government arrangements to manage the outstanding £3 billion-worth of arrears are not yet clear? Arrears are still sitting in the CSA legacy schemes. They need to be sorted out because the biggest risk to the 2012 scheme is a botched job in closing the legacy CSA schemes.
Lord Henley
My Lords, as I said, this goes back a long way. It covers Conservative Governments, Labour Governments and the coalition Government. We have all tried to sort this out. I am afraid that a lot of this money is lost for ever. We are looking at a new arrears scheme and will consult on that to try to get what we can, but I am sure the House would agree that the first priority should be to get money that can still benefit the children of today rather than trying to get the money that was owed yesterday, or the money that is owed to the department. The bulk of the money is very historic.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am happy to take the Minister at his word. Let us look at today, but in doing so I declare an historic interest as a member of the board of CMEC before I came into the House. The Government are closing the CSA and if you have an active case on the CSA, instead of transferring it to the new system, it is shut down and you are invited to apply to the new system. The Government estimated that two-thirds of parents would apply to the new system. The NAO has found that only one in five is doing so. The Government have said that most of the rest would make private, family-based arrangements. More than half of families have no arrangement at all in place. This matters because it is not just important for tackling child poverty: a decent child support system sends out a message to the world at large that you might divorce your spouse or separate from your partner but you do not stop being responsible for your kids. Will the Government sort this out?
Lord Henley
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness’s last sentence: the important thing is that the children of today benefit. That is why I cited the figures earlier. We are now at a stage where in nearly nine out of 10 cases parents pay towards the child maintenance they owe. When we are dealing with historic debt, I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the right thing to do is to pursue that debt that is likely to benefit the children of today rather than those of before. I think that we were also right to seek reforms to the Child Support Agency, which the noble Baroness’s party tried to do in 2003 and 2008. That is why we brought in CMS. CMS allows us to provide assistance to parents on some occasions, but on many occasions it allows many others to manage these things for themselves without the interference of the Government. The noble Baroness thinks I have not answered sufficiently, but this is why I started off with the fact that most people are making payments.
Prescribed Persons (Reports on Disclosures of Information) Regulations 2017
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 February be approved.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, there is currently no legal obligation within the whistleblowing framework for prescribed persons to investigate a disclosure made to them. The call for evidence in 2013 identified that whistleblowers did not have the confidence that their reports of wrongdoing were being investigated. The Employment Rights Act 1996, as amended by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 and subsequently, provides employment protection for workers who have blown the whistle. It protects them from detriment if they have made a “protected disclosure” when they reasonably believe the disclosure tends to show wrongdoing and is in the public interest. The legislation is intended to build openness and trust in workplaces by ensuring that workers who hold their employers to account are treated fairly. Individuals should be able to report malpractice without fear of reprisal and employers should be prepared to work with them to resolve any concerns that may arise, particularly by means of effective internal procedures.
To ensure that a worker’s employment rights are protected, they must make their disclosure either to their employer or to the relevant “prescribed person” as set out in the prescribed persons order, or others, such as a Minister of the Crown or the media. Disclosures can also be made to a legal adviser. If a worker decides to blow the whistle to a prescribed person rather than to their employer, they must choose the person or body from the prescribed person list whose remit is relevant to the wrongdoing that they are disclosing. We have kept the prescribed persons list up to date with annual reviews. This will ensure that workers who are not able to go to their employers to report wrongdoing can generally find the relevant responsible body on the prescribed persons list.
There is also comprehensive guidance to assist employers and prescribed persons in handling disclosures, including guidance for employers on creating a whistleblowing policy and a code of practice. The Government are updating the guidance for prescribed persons and will publish an updated version online by 1 April. Workers also have clear information and guidance available on who they can report wrongdoing to and guidance on how whistleblowing works in practice. This will assist workers and give them the confidence—this is the most important thing about these regulations—to come forward with genuine disclosures.
In response to the concerns raised following the call for evidence in 2013, the Government sought a way to increase confidence that disclosures from workers were indeed investigated and followed through. They sought to increase transparency in the system, which might identify which prescribed persons are not as effectively discharging their responsibilities, while respecting the importance of treating disclosures in confidence. The Government introduced a power in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to require certain prescribed persons to report annually on whistleblowing disclosures. The regulations before us today are laid under that power. This approach aims to increase confidence in the actions taken by prescribed persons through greater transparency about how disclosures are handled. In turn, that will also improve consistency across different bodies in the way they respond to disclosures.
I turn now to the detail of the regulations. They require most prescribed persons to report annually on a number of details. First, a prescribed person will need to report on the number of concerns that have been raised with that body in a 12-month period which it reasonably believes are qualifying disclosures. Secondly, from those disclosures they will need to report on the numbers in which a decision to take further action was made. They will also need to provide general commentary on the action taken in response to whistleblowing disclosures and how the information from whistleblowers has impacted on the prescribed body’s activity in its relevant sector.
The regulations require prescribed persons to publish their reports online so that they are available to all or, if not online, in another place which will bring them to the public’s attention. We intend to have their reports collated and to lay them before the House. To minimise the burden on prescribed persons, the reports are not required to be separate documents. For example, they may be included in a wider annual report that a body already publishes routinely. The new measures will require prescribed persons to reflect upon what they do with whistleblowing disclosures. We envisage that this in turn will encourage greater focus on the positive impact of whistleblowing in their respective sectors.
The regulations do not apply to Members of the other House. Although they are prescribed persons so that constituents can contact them about wrongdoings at work without affecting their employment protection, they are not in quite the same position as bodies with a regulatory responsibility in relation to a particular sector or type of wrongdoing. Likewise, the regulations do not apply to Ministers of the Crown.
In conclusion, in recent years the Government have undertaken significant reforms to the whistleblowing framework, working to improve the environment for whistleblowers. This includes improved guidance for individuals, employers and prescribed persons on how whistleblowing works in practice, including a non-statutory code of practice, which we will review this year; bringing the prescribed persons list up to date, including designating MPs as prescribed persons; and delivering on the commitment to review the list annually. These regulations are an important step to ensure that workers have the confidence to report any wrongdoing and ensure greater transparency in the way disclosures are handled and taken forward. I commend the regulations to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for appearing so fresh and alert at the Dispatch Box. She certainly has the upper hand on me, given that we finished near midnight last night and we were in the same positions across the Dispatch Box. The rest of you were all sleeping soundly in your beds, but we were doing the best we could, and here we are again.
We absolutely support the regulations before us today. They come from a Bill that I was involved in and we are aware of the background, which the noble Baroness has very helpfully outlined. We want to give the regulations our full support.
I have two very small points and one slightly larger one to raise with her. I do not necessarily expect an answer today, but perhaps the noble Baroness could write to me, if she wishes. Your Lordships will be aware that I have a long-standing issue with the Government—with all Governments, in fact—for not adhering to the good practice, which I thought had support on all sides of the House, of bringing new regulations forward on set days in the year, even though they may not have a major impact, so that businesses and other persons affected by them can be aware of the fact that there will be a change. These dates are 6 April and 1 October, and they are broadly adhered to now by the Department for Business, which is good. However, I see that this one from the department with responsibility for employment is coming in on 1 April, and I think that it would not have been very difficult to defer it to 6 April. I suggest that, in future, they might think about this. Common commencement dates are important to those who have to respond to SIs. It is therefore important that we try to have a unilateral practice across government.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed explanation. I am slightly fresher because I did not have a late-night assignment in this House last night and I want to try to clear up some confusion in some of the points that she made.
The Minister talked about annual reviews of the list of prescribed persons. As far as I can see, and this is reiterated within the statutory instrument that we are debating today, she was referring to the 111 prescribed persons listed in the Public Interest Disclosure (Prescribed Persons) Order 2014. That does not really tie up with the idea of an annual review, so I find that confusing. Can the Minister also explain how consistency will be maintained, assuming there are still over 100 organisations? It would be so much easier for anyone looking at this to have those 100 or so organisations actually listed in the statutory instrument rather than people having to look back to other legislation for them. As the noble Lord has just said, we are not all lawyers and it should be on the face of the statutory instrument. I find it very sad that it is not. Can the Minister say whether there is going to be any government action to compare these various bodies and how they report? For someone who is a professional it is a fact of life that whatever the regulations say, if you have numerous organisations, they will have different attitudes to how they report.
I also understand that the annual reports will not require the disclosure of any information which could identify the worker who made the disclosure—that is absolutely right. However, I query, and ask the Government to reconsider, that the same anonymity applies to the employer about whom the disclosure is made if it is then found that further action was taken. I can see that there should be anonymity for both employer and employee if there is no further action, but if the employer is found guilty—to use the word in its general sense—why should that person or organisation not be named? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my queries.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I am rather glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referenced our late hour last night, because I am not sure that I will be able to answer all the questions that have been put to me this morning. However, I will do my best to answer at least some of them.
First, on the question about 1 April, the reason for that date is the timing of the reporting period, which is 1 April to 31 March each year. The regulations do not impact on prior business, and prescribed persons whom it impacts on have been advised. I hope that that makes sense.
On Northern Ireland, bodies operating in devolved fields that are prescribed persons for the purposes of Great Britain employment law are included in the reporting duty and will be required to publish reports on their own websites. This does not affect their existing lines of accountability. I can confirm that employment law is devolved in Northern Ireland.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, perhaps I will come back to anonymity across the board in a moment. Sorry, I am advised that it is probably better if I write to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, with respect to whether there is anonymity for the employer if guilty.
It might be helpful, with respect to both noble Lords, if I made some reference to the question of blacklisting, which is important to this. It is important that we address the issue of whistleblowers becoming blacklisted as a result of making disclosures. The Government have taken action to deal with serious offences of blacklisting relating to trade union activity that were uncovered in the past. Among the actions taken, the Government have increased the penalty that the Information Commissioner’s Office can impose for serious breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 to £500,000. Data protection law is undergoing reform as a result of the general data protection regulation, which takes effect from 25 May 2018. The ICO’s fining powers will substantially increase as a result.
We are also bringing forward regulations in the health service to introduce protections for job applicants who have been whistleblowers, and there is a similar power in the Children and Social Work Bill for the field of children’s social care. We think it is right that those who work with vulnerable people need to be able to report concerns about what is happening in their workplace without fear of reprisals—I think that all noble Lords in this House will know of people who have experienced exactly the situation we are determined to deal with. Importantly, if they make a protected disclosure, they should be protected themselves from being blacklisted and unable to find a new role.
We have seen limited evidence that this is a problem with regard to not protecting whistleblowers and blacklisting in other sectors of the economy. Much of the anecdotal evidence has been concentrated in one or two fields where there is legislation in progress. Any new regulation would have an impact on employers, so we need to take care that it is appropriate and proportionate to the aim that it seeks to achieve.
The Information Commissioner intends to undertake a call for evidence later this year to help develop her understanding of the underlying issues, building on the ICO’s own observations from its investigations of blacklisting complaints. I could go on, but with regard to whether the Government will introduce a new criminal sanction in employment law for the blacklisting of job applicants, most employment law is enforced through civil sanctions. However, if the ICO finds a breach, it can also issue an enforcement or information notice and non-compliance with an ICO enforcement or information notice, where this is in place, is a criminal offence.
I am conscious that I have not been able to answer all the questions. I hope noble Lords will accept that I will write to them on any other points. In recent years the Government have undertaken significant reforms to the whistleblowing framework, working to improve the environment for whistleblowers. I know that noble Lords have paid close attention to these developments and indeed have shaped them in a number of ways, for which I am grateful. I am very grateful for the full support of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on what we seek to achieve here.
The duty will increase confidence in the actions taken by prescribed persons through greater transparency about how disclosures are handled—of course, the balance between transparency and anonymity is a very difficult one to strike. The measure is also intended to drive up consistency in the way prescribed persons handle whistleblowing disclosures. By making a public interest disclosure to a prescribed person, a worker will qualify for protection from detriment or dismissal from work if the individual reasonably believes that the information disclosed is substantially true and that the matter falls within the remit of the prescribed person’s responsibility.
Once prospective whistleblowers are able to see that action has been taken as a result of previous disclosures to prescribed persons, I hope—and I am sure all noble Lords will too—that more employees who have witnessed malpractice at work will have the confidence to come forward and report it to the relevant authorities. I commend these regulations to the House.
Deregulation Act 2015 and Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (Savings) Regulations 2017
Baroness Buscombe
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 March be approved.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, I hope I have the right speech. If I may, I will take a few moments of your Lordships’ time to set these regulations into context. They make consequential amendments and savings provisions to legislation that refers to the Insolvency Act 1986—as it will be amended by the Deregulation Act 2015 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 on 6 April 2017—and to the Insolvency Rules 1986, which have been repealed by the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. These amendments will come into force on 6 April 2017.
The insolvency reforms will initially be adopted by the mainstream insolvency processes and it is anticipated that departments responsible for special insolvency regimes will update their legislation in due course.
Regulation 4 is a savings provision. It provides that the Insolvency Act will not be amended and will continue to apply as it does now for certain purposes or certain insolvency regimes. This provision will ensure that these other insolvency regimes remain operational in the interim period.
These regulations make amendments to various pieces of primary and secondary legislation. The most significant changes by volume update the Administration of Insolvent Estates of Deceased Persons Order 1986, which is the procedural framework that deals with the administration of the insolvent estates of deceased debtors, and the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994, which deals with insolvent partnerships.
Over the last two years, the Government have introduced a series of reforms to modernise and streamline the insolvency process. They have achieved this through the Deregulation Act 2015, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 and the new Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016. The policy impetus for these measures was to remove unnecessary burdens and enable greater use of technology to reduce the cost of administering insolvency proceedings. It was part of the Government’s Red Tape Challenge, which asked stakeholders for views on how unnecessary regulation could be reduced and how procedures could be modernised, simplified and made more efficient. The responses produced a package of measures aimed at reducing costs and improving returns to creditors. The changes, which commence in April 2017, will deliver a net benefit to business of £22 million per year.
The key policy changes to which these consequential amendments apply include, first, changes to the way in which decisions are made; secondly, the abolition of final meetings; thirdly, the ability for creditors to opt out of receiving correspondence; fourthly, measures to increase the use of electronic communication and websites; and, fifthly, the removal of a requirement to formally file claims for small debts.
With regard to changing the way in which decisions are made, in the past, to begin some insolvency proceedings and make decisions in all insolvency proceedings the officeholder was required to call a physical meeting of the creditors of the insolvent person. Feedback from stakeholders was that this process was more expensive and cumbersome than was really necessary. In response to that feedback, changes have been made to the way in which officeholders will engage with and seek decisions from creditors. Physical meetings will no longer be the default mechanism for making decisions in insolvency proceedings. In fact, an officeholder will not be allowed to hold a physical meeting unless 10% in value of the creditors, 10% of the creditors in number or 10 individual creditors request that a meeting is held. This puts control back into the hands of creditors, and it is anticipated that this move alone will result in savings of more than £6 million per year. In many cases, an officeholder will be able to use a process of “deemed consent”, where they write to creditors with a proposal and, provided they do not receive objections from more than 10% in value of creditors, the proposal will be deemed to have been approved. Alternatively, officeholders can use an online virtual meeting, a telephone meeting or an electronic voting system, or seek decisions by way of correspondence.
With regard to the abolition of final meetings, currently an officeholder must hold a face-to-face meeting with creditors in order to lay his or her final report on the outcome of the case. These meetings were in fact rarely attended by creditors. Going forward, the officeholder will simply send a final account of the case to creditors, but this will not reduce the creditors’ rights to challenge any actions of the officeholder.
With regard to opting out of correspondence, previously in insolvency proceedings the officeholder was required to send all notices, all reports and all other documents and communications required by legislation to all known creditors, even where a creditor did not want to receive such information. It is inefficient for an officeholder to have to send such documents where they are not wanted. Under the new regime, creditors with no further interest in an insolvency process will be able to opt out of receiving further routine correspondence and reports from the officeholder. This will not include correspondence about the payment of a dividend, as the officeholder will still have to notify all creditors if a dividend is proposed.
With regard to the increased use of electronic communication, where, before the commencement of insolvency proceedings, parties have customarily corresponded electronically with one another, it is government policy that this should be allowed to continue without onerous regulatory burdens as to the means of communication. The reforms remove the need for the officeholder to obtain permission from each creditor to communicate electronically after the commencement of the insolvency proceedings. This will encourage e-communication, which is generally cheaper and speedier than traditional post. With regard to the use of websites, under the current rules an officeholder must obtain a court order if he or she wants to put all future communications with creditors on a website. This considerably restricts the use of technology. The requirement for a court order has therefore been removed.
With regard to no need to formally file claims for small debts, where a creditor is owed up to £1,000, new provisions will allow an officeholder to rely on information contained in a company’s or bankrupt’s records and to pay a dividend without the need for the creditor to submit a formal claim.
It is fair to say that as business practice has developed, particularly through new technologies, corresponding changes to insolvency law have been slow to follow. Users have not always been able to take advantage of the quickest, most cost-effective or most convenient methods of engaging with the insolvency process. The changes coming into force on 6 April modernise the insolvency process by encouraging the use of electronic communication and decision-making processes fit for the 21st century. These changes will increase creditor engagement through more convenient methods of interaction, as well as reducing the costs of seeking decisions. In particular, amendments enabling modern methods of communication and decision-making to be used in place of paper communications and physical meetings will be introduced. This will increase creditors’ engagement in insolvency cases by encouraging the use of decision-making processes fit for the 21st century.
The insolvency reforms have been informed by extensive consultation and engagement with a range of parties affected by insolvency, including the insolvency profession, creditor representatives, insolvency regulators and public bodies. I hope that gives a full explanation of these regulations and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that detailed explanation. I welcome the streamlining and digitising of the system, which is well overdue.
I raise two points, which I hope the Minister can answer. On the European Convention on Human Rights, the Minister for Small Business says:
“In my view, the provisions of the”,
various regulations,
“are compatible with the Convention rights”.
Can the Minister be a little more definite on what legal opinions the Government have taken on these regulations post-Brexit, which is around the corner? The Minister for Small Business just gives her view rather than the legal view, which the House is entitled to hear.
The other points I take up with the Minister are the non-requirement of creditors meetings and the streamlining of methods. That is absolutely ideal and it is the way to reduce the costs, but there is no mention in this legislation or the Minister’s introduction of the statutory instrument of the not insubstantial insolvency fees coming out of the carcass of an insolvency. I am a registered chartered accountant, though I have never been an insolvency practitioner, but I have seen, sadly, many of my clients being subject to bankruptcy and insolvency. The one thing that I have always thought a little worrying was that the insolvency practitioners’ fees—with all insolvency practitioners—come out of the carcass of that insolvency before anybody else gets a dip into it. By streamlining it in the way we have, I wonder whether the Minister and the Government’s civil servants have looked at the attitude of creditors to the size of and, sometimes, lack of change in the level of insolvency fees. It tends to happen in smaller bankruptcies that, after the insolvency practitioner has charged their fees—at a not insubstantial hourly rate, particularly in London—there is not much left.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her very full introduction to this. I was involved in the passage of the Deregulation Bill 2015 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill 2015, so I have some background and previous on this. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, was involved, but he might be advised to read Hansard for both those Bills because extensive discussion of the points he raised took place on the primary legislation. It is not irrelevant for him to be referred to that because a number of very important points were made along the lines of the ones he made. Good responses were given by the Government at that time, which I recommend to him.
There was one point in what the noble Lord said that it would be useful to put on the record again. A lot of the Minister’s statement was concerned with making the case that these changes, which are in practice quite narrow, will make a huge difference to the insolvency arrangements. At the end of my remarks I will come to a couple of points on the broader picture here.
In truth, the main debates we had on the Bills that led to this statutory instrument were about the rule of 10. A lot of weight and some cost savings were put on the idea that control of the liquidations and insolvencies mentioned in the statutory instrument had passed too far away from creditors across to insolvency practitioners. Indeed, the question of fees still needs to be addressed. The arguments used and the decisions that came up did not back up that assertion.
Ultimately, the proposal was to abolish the meeting of creditors, at which some exercise by creditors could be played out in full. The point was made by so many people around the business and many insolvency practitioners that the creditors’ meeting was really the meat of any insolvency. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, would say the same, even though he is not a direct practitioner: it is only when you get the creditors around the table with the IP person that you get the chance to work out exactly what will come and how much will be paid to each of them.
There was also an assumption behind the Bill that was not borne out in practice, which is that all creditors are equal, that somehow the decisions would always be accepted by a group of creditors if they were brought together and that that could therefore be replicated in a virtual space. That is not the case. In most small business insolvencies there is usually a major creditor—usually a bank—that is completely intransigent. The problem is not one of trying to resolve how much is divvied up between them, but trying to get the bank to agree to terms that do not freeze out the smaller creditors, many of whose businesses will suffer if they cannot get the proceeds from the insolvency.
The compromise position that we came up with of a rule of 10 was that you could have a meeting if it was 10% by value of the creditors, 10% of the number of creditors or 10 creditors. It was an uncomfortable compromise. I am sure that the Box would agree that we did not find a very good position on this, but it was the best way of trying to balance those competing issues that I have identified. The overbearing behaviour of the single big creditor, the difficulty of trying to reach out to the smaller creditors and the position of the insolvency practitioner as the person who ran this all play against the creditors being in control. We should not underplay that point.
It is true that the new technologies will help. The noble Baroness did not mention the change in the language, but it is quite striking in these regulations, with a move away from “meetings must be held” to “processes may be carried out”—from the negative, “You are in problems if you do not do it this way”, to the permissive, “If you do it this way, there is a recognition of how it will happen”. That will prove more beneficial in the long run than much of what we have been talking about. Nevertheless, we broadly support what has happened. These are the natural consequences of the discussions held during the passage of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill and the Deregulation Bill. They are appropriate and I am extremely grateful to see that they will be brought in on 6 April.
Baroness Buscombe
I thank both noble Lords for their contribution to this debate. To respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his question of whether legal advice is obtained by the Government before making the ECHR statement, the answer is very much yes. Ministers are advised by government legal advisers before expressing such a view. Further than that, or on what happens post-Brexit, I would not like to comment.
My experience of insolvency goes right back to the Insolvency Act 2000, when I was in the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, is now. The language of regulations and primary legislation in those days was very different but ever since then I have been able to understand where the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is coming from with regard to the not insubstantial fees of the insolvency process. The question, of course, is what the Government are doing, if they can do anything, to interfere in the marketplace with regard to who charges what fees. In October 2015, the Government introduced the need for officeholders to provide a fees estimate, which creditors are asked to agree. These rules will be reviewed and possibly revised, depending on how effective they are proving. I hope that is helpful. I absolutely understand why the question was asked.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for helpfully expanding on where we have come from in terms of the rule of 10, as, yes, on the face of it, these appear quite narrow changes. It was also helpful of him to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that on the question of expenses and so on, we should look back in Hansard to when these issues were discussed in much more detail then they can be in relation to the regulations before us.
The proposal to abolish meetings of creditors is important. It struck me when I first looked at it because, as the noble Lord suggested, of course some people want to be at the insolvency meeting to put forward their case, particularly the smaller creditors involved. I am advised that research shows that physical meetings are very poorly attended by creditors and, as a result, are not an effective means of engaging with them. They do not reflect modern methods of communication that are available and could be used to seek decisions from creditors. There are better ways of seeking a view, such as using video or telephone conferencing or online voting methods, and officeholders are now being given the flexibility to identify and use the most appropriate of these. We very much hope that these new provisions will give more scope for creditors to actively participate in making case-related decisions.
I am reminded of a debate on a recent order before your Lordships’ House, when the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, talked about the need to find more savings in regard to the cost to business. We estimate that this will be a £22 million saving, which is one small contribution to that difficult process. There is always the possibility of unintended consequences when trying to make things more streamlined, effective, efficient or 21st century—whatever that can mean. We have to be very careful that we do not compromise people such as the small creditor who is having to push his or her weight against the larger creditor, who can take his or her place more aggressively—if I may use that term.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, referenced the change of language. I agree that it really does help. It is important that we think about language when drafting legislation in areas such as this—the change from “must” to “may” is a good move in that sense.
I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the regulations and for their valuable contributions to the debate. I hope we can agree that these regulations will bring important benefits from updating the legislation to ensure that it is efficient and effective, delivering the best returns possible for those affected by insolvency. I commend these regulations to the House.
Public Sector Apprenticeship Targets Regulations 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 6 March be approved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, these regulations are the first use of the power under Sections A9 and A10 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 which enables the setting of apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies. There is a fair amount of ground to cover so I hope the House will forgive me if my remarks take slightly longer than usual.
I will start by setting out what we are trying to achieve, the scale of our ambition and how these regulations enable that to be met. The public sector comprises bodies ranging from large government departments, such as the Department for Work and Pensions, to more independent institutions such as local NHS trusts. With 4.2 million people working in the public sector, in professions stretching from front-line nursing to local council administration, it is vital that all those employed have the skills they need to succeed.
Apprenticeships are the cornerstone of our skills strategy and across the country employers are hiring apprentices as part of the workforces of the future. Therefore, to encourage public sector bodies to incorporate apprentices into their own workforce planning, these regulations set an apprenticeship target for prescribed public bodies. The apprenticeship target is for the number of apprentices who start working for the public body over the target period to be equal to 2.3% of the public body’s headcount in England. The target period is from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2021.
I do not intend to go into the formula used to set the target at 2.3% of a public body’s headcount but I will say that this figure reflects the public sector’s proportional share of our broader target to achieve 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. Across the public sector, 2.3% means a goal of more than 80,000 new, employer-led, quality apprenticeships in each year the target is in effect, with the positive impact felt by everyone from police forces to schools to government agencies, and the public benefiting throughout from the delivery of world-class public services.
To realise this, the regulations prescribe the public bodies in scope of the target, how public bodies can calculate their progress towards meeting the 2.3% target, and the information they must publish and send to the Secretary of State. The regulations enable the Government to effectively set and monitor this target, and they will be supported by statutory guidance, assisting public sector bodies to understand how they can best have regard to the target.
I will now focus on quality and benefit. Historically, the public sector has employed far fewer apprentices than the private sector and that is why it is necessary to establish the target, to ensure that all parts of the economy are able to benefit from a skills revolution. Through these regulations we are creating more opportunities for people to earn as they learn in an apprenticeship.
Quality remains at the core of the Government’s apprenticeship reforms. New, employer-led standards will ensure that each apprentice will be fully competent in their profession, and the Institute for Apprenticeships, which is coming on stream on 1 April 2017, will oversee the quality of apprenticeship standards and assessment plans. We have also legislated to protect the term “apprenticeship” by creating an offence for a person to provide or offer a course or training as an apprenticeship in England if it is not a statutory apprenticeship. This is crucial as we must uphold quality in order that the strong benefits of apprenticeships may continue.
Employing apprentices makes sense for everyone involved. It makes economic sense and delivers a high return on investment, with research indicating that adult apprenticeships at level 3 bring £28 of economic benefits respectively for each pound of government investment. Employers benefit, too. In a 2015 survey 87% of employers said they were satisfied with their apprenticeship programme. That is the latest survey that we have.
Finally, the financial benefits to apprentices themselves are immediately apparent. Apprenticeships boost current earnings by 11% and 16% for levels 2 and 3 apprenticeships respectively.
Although we are not intending to set sub-targets for individual groups, we remain committed to improving access to apprenticeships for all, including those from BAME backgrounds, those with learning difficulties or disabilities, care leavers, and those from deprived areas. We are taking a range of actions to make apprenticeships more accessible, including implementing the recommendations of the Maynard taskforce for people with learning difficulties or disabilities, and establishing the Apprenticeships Diversity Champions Network.
We are also investing over £60 million in supporting apprentices from deprived areas. As a priority, we are establishing parity of esteem to ensure that doing an apprenticeship is no longer seen as a secondary choice to the academic route. This is particularly important as we ensure that apprenticeships are valued by all and remain opportunities open to all. Apprentices no longer fit the image of old; now they work in all sectors from education to planning and administration, at all levels from first job even up to management level, and they are from all backgrounds.
During the passage of the Enterprise Act 2016, which inserted this provision into the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, this House debated and voted on provisions enabling the Government to set apprenticeship targets for prescribed public bodies. At that time there was cross-party support for what was rightly recognised as an opportunity to improve public services and provide more opportunities for people of all backgrounds.
We consulted extensively on the proposed bodies and scope and the calculation of the target, and heard from a wide range of 180 public bodies and representative groups of different sectors. The majority of respondents felt it vital that the public sector engaged with our reforms and that public sector bodies also benefited from the growing apprenticeship movement, with one trade union commenting that they,
“welcome the extension of good quality apprenticeships”.
We also listened to concerns raised. For example, some respondents were critical of the target being assessed on an annual basis. As such, while still continuing to monitor public bodies’ progress in annual returns, for grouped bodies the target is calculated as an average over the target period. For all other public bodies, the target is calculated with respect to only those years in which the public body has 250 or more employees. This will enable organisations to plan their training and recruitment of apprentices to meet their workforce needs, and for government to monitor and support public bodies where needed.
Following consultation, we will also allow local authorities to separate the headcount of those bodies where they employ staff but do not direct the workforce planning—including schools and emergency services—in their information returns. We have also responded to those who were concerned about how the target may impact them given their high proportion of part-time workers. We suggest that these bodies can, should they choose to, use their full-time equivalent number in parallel under their obligation to report on headcount, in order to explain any underachievement of the target as necessary.
I will move on to reporting requirements. In order to promote transparency, public bodies will be required to publish and/or provide information relating to their progress. They must do this in the six months following 31 March, in each year of the target period in which the body is in scope. There are two parts to this requirement. First, to make it clear which bodies are leading in their investment in apprenticeships, public bodies must publish and send information about their progress towards the target. This includes how many apprentices they employ as a percentage of their total headcount.
Secondly, public bodies will have to send an “apprenticeship activity return” to the department, detailing the actions they have taken to have regard to the target, why they may not have met the target, and their intended future actions to do so. This information does not have to be made available publicly but will instead be used by government to determine which bodies have had regard to the target before offering suitable support and guidance thereafter. To be clear, we do not intend to use a heavy hand in our approach to public bodies in this respect but rather consider the details that they have provided in the return, before assessing whether they have had regard, or enough regard, to the target.
We do not wish to overburden the public sector unnecessarily and we remain aware of the challenges faced by different bodies. That is why the Department for Education is liaising with the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Department for Health, the Home Office and other departments across Whitehall to support them in delivering apprenticeships throughout their own wider public sectors. Departments will also work with public bodies to develop new, employer-led apprenticeship standards and increase the number of quality apprenticeships, thereby directly improving services delivered to the public.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction of these regulations. He has gone into considerably more detail than Mr Halfon did in the other place, and that is helpful. I will look with interest in Hansard at the amount of information on the different sectors that the noble Viscount outlined. It would probably be quite a surprise if I began by saying anything other than that we welcome these regulations and the aim of the Government that they seek to facilitate. The extent to which it is achievable may be slightly more problematic, but only time will judge on that.
As the Minister said, apprenticeships have a crucial role to play in ensuring that young people—but not only young people, of course—are provided with the ability to take up proper training that enables them to progress to well-paid and sustainable employment into their adult lives. The public sector clearly has a major role to play in that, and I welcome the fact that the Government have placed an onus on the public sector to play, and to be seen to play, its part in the long haul towards the target of 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020.
On that point, I would ask the Minister to clarify the target for the four years spanned by these regulations. I listened carefully to what he said and I think I am correct in saying that he mentioned the figure of 80,000 each year, which he said reflected the public sector’s proportionate share of the 3 million target. We are slightly puzzled by that because those projections do not suggest that the public sector will be pulling its full weight towards the aim of 3 million. My understanding is that the public sector accounts for some 16.2% of the total workforce, yet the figure of 320,000 apprenticeship starts over four years represents around 11% of the 3 million target, and 16.2% of 3 million is almost 500,000. Perhaps I am missing something—the fact that there is a significant gap between the two figures suggests that I may well be—so it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the public sector target is not more in line with that figure of 16.2%.
I was struck by the fact that the only government department excluded from these regulations is GCHQ. I can just about understand why that might be—although is it not rather a shame that there will be no openings for apprentice spies, albeit those who operate in front of a computer screen or in a darkened room wearing headphones? Just imagine the surge of applications for those apprenticeships, had they been available—or is it the case that they are available but the information is classified?
A question which the Minister might be more comfortable answering relates to the figure of 2.3% of a department’s or a body’s headcount being the target for apprenticeship starts. That figure is to be averaged over the four years beginning next month, which is not unreasonable as the target is unlikely to be achieved in the first year and perhaps also in the second year. If that happens, it is self-evident that in future years the figure will need to exceed 2.3% to achieve the average. Is the Minister confident that that will happen? If he is, on what basis does he have such confidence?
I will not repeat the argument made by my honourable friend Mr Marsden in the other place about the demands being placed on local authorities by the funding shortfall that they face. The Local Government Association estimates that figure at £5.8 billion by 2020. The Minister cannot deny that this will place many in a very difficult position when it comes to funding apprenticeships. Yes, most will be subject to the apprentice levy on the basis of their pay bill and will be able to draw from that pot—but the smaller ones will encounter real difficulties.
The Local Government Association has advocated that apprenticeships emanating in supply chains should be open to public bodies to assist them in reaching their target. The Government have changed their position—which I welcome—by allowing a figure of 10%, although that is said to be provisional, to be included. Can the Minister say how the figure will ultimately be arrived at? By that I mean: how will it be calculated? I believe that there is considerable potential for including supply chains, given the multiplier effect that they have.
In terms of social mobility, it is also to be welcomed that Mr Halfon, the Apprenticeships and Skills Minister, announced some £60 million this year for apprentices from disadvantaged backgrounds. Apprenticeships really can make a difference by giving young people opportunities that previously they were unaware of or turned away from. I look forward to hearing of at least a similar figure for the other three years of the scheme. In the meantime, as one who advocates moves that assist social mobility, the Minister will, I am sure, join me in welcoming the vote in your Lordships’ House on Monday on the Technical and Further Education Bill, which provided assistance for apprentices who might be dissuaded by families who stand to lose benefits if their son or daughter takes up an apprenticeship, when they would not do so had their offspring gone into further or higher education.
A similar situation was secured in that vote for care leavers in terms of bursaries. Both these measures will assist with social mobility and so, for consistency’s sake, surely the Minister can regard them only as positive developments. I trust that his colleague Mr Halfon will also adopt that view and will not seek to overturn the vote then the Bill returns to the other place.
Mr Halfon made an intriguing comment in the debate on these regulations earlier this week in relation to Schedule 2, excluding both Houses of Parliament. He mentioned that, although the ban on smoking in workplaces did not formally apply to the House of Commons, the Speaker had decreed that it does. Although I am not aware of the formal position in your Lordships’ House, I presume there must have been an equivalent decree by the Lord Speaker. So will the Minister say whether, although these regulations do not apply to your Lordships’ House, he would be in favour of seeking a means by which they could be applied? It would set an excellent example to other public bodies and there would be many opportunities for apprenticeships in interesting and fulfilling jobs within Parliament were that the case.
My final point concerns the gender balance within apprenticeships. It is widely acknowledged that 53% of apprentices are female, yet they tend to be in lower-paid sectors of the workforce. A year ago, in answer to an Oral Question in your Lordships’ House, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, stated that since May 2015 there had been 366,000 apprenticeship starts in England and that, while a narrow majority were females,
“of the 74,060 apprentices in engineering and manufacturing”,—[Official Report, 14/4/16; col. 354.]
a mere 6.8% were female, while in ICT the figure was 17.5%. I doubt that those figures will have changed markedly in the intervening period, but these regulations allow the Government to lead by example and begin to turn them around, ensuring that young women are encouraged to apply for apprenticeships that both require and develop skills that involve the STEM subject areas. There is certainly a wealth of opportunity within the public sector for that gap to be addressed.
A year ago, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, told noble Lords that only 26% of apprentices in her department were women. It would be both interesting and helpful if the Minister could tell noble Lords what the current percentage is within the Department for Education. His officials may have the figure at their fingertips—but, if not, I would be quite happy for him to write to me, including an outline of what specific plans his department has to ensure that it not only reaches a figure of 2.3% of the headcount as apprentices but indeed exceeds it. Can he say what the projected figure for the Department for Education in the first year will be?
I have posed a number of questions, not all of which the Minister will be able to answer in his reply, but questions of a wider nature will need to be resolved if the Government are to achieve the success that we on these Benches want to see in terms of a broad expansion of apprenticeships, not least in the public sector.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I very much welcome the statement from the Minister. We have seen a revolution in apprenticeships, which of course was started by the previous Government. While I am in favour of targets, they have to be sympathetic to the quality of the provision—I would much rather see quality provision even if we do not reach the exact target that we want.
I have four particular questions. Some of my other questions have already been asked. First, the Minister said that there were not going to be subtargets for people from different ethnic backgrounds—men, women et cetera—but I presume that if, from the information we get back, we find a lack of opportunities for, for example, young people from particular ethnic backgrounds, we might have to revisit that issue. Similarly, if we find a concern about the spread of levels of targets related to age, we might have to revisit that as well. So while I accept his comment about subtargets, we have to keep this under review.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, for their comments and questions. First, I am pleased that in general they welcome what we are doing. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, these initiatives started under the previous Government. We realise that this is long-term work. We fully intend to roll this out and stick with it over the long term. It takes many years to ensure the success of this sort of initiative.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the Department for Education in relation to apprenticeship participation. This is a fair point. The Department for Education is confident that it will meet the target. I shall write to the noble Lord setting out precise numbers and the wider plan in the education sector. I shall also cover his other points as to the percentage of apprenticeships in the department and the percentage of women apprentices. I can certainly do that.
The noble Lord also asked whether the House of Commons or the House of Lords were in scope of the targets. In other words, would we and the other place be taking on apprenticeships? While we are not imposing this target on this House and the other place, there is nothing to prevent us or the other place from creating apprenticeships. We do not fall in scope because we do not seek to have Ministers tell us what to do.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
I understand that the Minister cannot direct either House and I accept that. That is why I referred to smoking in the workplace. That, equally, cannot be enforced. However, it is de facto, if not de jure. I welcome the noble Viscount’s response because he is encouraging both Houses to adopt this measure. It is interesting to have that on the record. We shall see what figures emerge over the next two to three years and proceed with that, perhaps even jointly.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that having this recorded in Hansard encourages the Houses to initiate it.
Perhaps more important, though, is the question that the noble Lord raised about the target and the clarity of the target—in other words, the 80,000 which I mentioned. I may have to write to clarify this matter further because it is somewhat complex. I say, to be helpful, that this is a proportional target. It is based on the proportion of public sector employees as part of the total workforce in 2015. As this target is set from 2017-18 up to 2020-21, the number is not an exact copy of the 2015 number. In addition, following reaction to the consultation, we have excluded certain bodies who presented a good reason for not being included. We reiterate that this remains an ambitious and transformative target. It is important to have targets, but it is not set in stone. However, the 80,000 figure is there, and it is meant to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the support offered to engage those from BAME backgrounds. We are taking action in this area, as he will know. We have launched the diversity champions network, chaired by Nus Ghani MP, to champion equality and diversity. Public sector organisations, including councils and NHS trusts, are among our diversity champions. We are also celebrating the BAME apprenticeships in our Get In Go Far publicity campaign. The question that he really asked concerned what we would do if there was concern about the targets not being met. I reassure him that the targets in these areas will be kept under review. Although I cannot promise any particular action, being kept under review means that, if there were any concerns, they should rightly be addressed.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about child benefit eligibility in an apprenticeship. Ministers fully understand the intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment. The Government need to analyse costs and the impact on the wider system. It is best for the Government to respond to this in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, also asked about supply chains in the target. Supply chains are mostly, normally, in the private sector, so they are not included. However, the Government are using their procurement for contracts of over £10 million to take this forward. In the Department for Transport, for example, we should see 30,000 apprenticeships in the road and rail sectors through the use of the Government’s procurement programme. We anticipate that this will be about 2.3% of employees in those workforces.
The noble Lord also asked about the target of 2.3% and whether a higher target would be achievable in later years. That is a fair question. As I mentioned, we are asking public bodies to have regard to this figure. Some will achieve it each year, and some may not. But where they do not achieve it in the early years, we will look to employers to make further progress. We will do our best to support them to make that progress.
I hope that answers all the questions. I will, of course, read Hansard to check what questions were raised—quite a few questions were asked by the two noble Lords—and I will, of course, write to them if there are other questions to be answered.
Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord O'Shaughnessy
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 March be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to speak about these important regulations, which will continue to ensure the provision of five mandatory health and development assessments and reviews as set out in the Healthy Child Programme. It was a policy I first worked on over 10 years ago. Having had three children in that time, whose births and early months were not always straightforward, my wife and I know from personal experience the benefits of the programme.
The Local Authorities (Public Health Functions and Entry to Premises by Local Healthwatch Representatives) and Local Authority (Public Health, Health and Wellbeing Boards and Health Scrutiny) (Amendment) Regulations 2015 transferred responsibility for commissioning public health services for children aged zero to five from NHS England to local authorities, allowing local public health services to be shaped to meet local needs. This includes responsibility for delivering the healthy child programme. This programme is the main universal health service for improving the health and well-being of children, providing families with health and development assessments and reviews, health promotion, screening and immunisation. This is supplemented by advice around health, well-being and parenting. The five reviews are offered by health visitors to pregnant women, new mothers and children from birth to age five and include the antenatal visit, the newborn review, the six to eight week check, the one year review and the two to two and a half year review. They are required to be provided by all local authorities in England.
I know that your Lordships will agree that health visitors play a crucial role in ensuring that children have the best possible start in life, and lead the delivery of the elements of the healthy child programme which relate to these children. Health visitors provide valuable advice and support to families and are trained to identify health and well-being concerns. Through the health visitor programme, the Government have supported the profession more than ever before to transform the service and I pay warm tribute to its excellent work. In April 2015, at the end of the health visitor programme, there was an increase of around 4,000 in the number of full-time equivalent health visitors in the workplace since May 2010. Health Education England is now ensuring sustainable development of the health visitor workforce and there are presently more than 800 health visitor student training places commissioned. This, along with service transformation, means that more families now have access to the support they need in those precious early years.
The Government are also committed to supporting school-aged children and young people by promoting their health and well-being through school nursing services. There are currently around 1,100 school nurses in England, supported by other professionals, such as community staff nurses, healthcare support workers and nursery nurses. In January 2016, Public Health England published commissioning guidance for school nursing which makes it clear that school nurses should be accessible and responsive to children’s needs. The current 2015 regulations, which place a duty on local authorities to provide the five universal health visitor reviews, contain a sunset clause and so will lapse on 31 March 2017—tomorrow. The legal obligation on local authorities to provide health visitor services is also set to lapse tomorrow. The draft regulations before the House will prevent this. The current regulations also include provision for a review to be undertaken of the operation of the regulations.
The Department of Health commissioned Public Health England to carry out a review of the operation of the five mandated universal health visitor reviews following the transfer of responsibility to local authorities, as set out in the 2015 regulations. A review was carried out in summer 2016 and Public Health England’s report of the review was published on 1 March 2017. The review found widespread support from local authorities and commissioners for the universal health visitor programme remaining in place, in order to secure the delivery of long-term benefits from the healthy child programme, including improved health and well-being outcomes for children and their families. There was also a strong view held by professional representatives of local government and the nursing profession that the services are essential for prevention and early intervention and a general agreement that they deliver a positive return on investment and contribute to other government priorities such as reducing childhood obesity, controlling tobacco and improving maternal mental health. I thank Public Health England for its important work on the review and for helping to inform these regulations.
Local authorities will continue to be funded to deliver the mandated health visitor reviews. They will receive more than £16 billion between 2015-16 and 2020-21 to spend on public health, which includes children’s services including health visitors. This is in addition to what the NHS will continue to spend on vaccinations, screening and other preventive interventions. The Government announced earlier this month that the ring-fence on the public health grant will be retained for a further year, until 2019, as we move towards implementing 100% local business rate retention. This is a step on the way to a more locally-owned system and will help smooth the transition by providing some certainty for the next two financial years.
It is right that local authorities should have appropriate flexibility to deliver against their local priorities, but it is also appropriate that there are some key requirements set nationally, such as the five universal health visitor reviews. By continuing these mandated elements of the healthy child programme, this Government intend to maintain consistency across all local authorities when ensuring the delivery of these services. The draft regulations before your Lordships today will remove the sunset clause from the current regulations, ensuring that local authorities continue to provide these important visits to families. Removing the sunset clause will ensure that the current duty on local authorities to provide these services does not lapse on 1 April. I am confident that this sends a clear signal to health visitors, family nurses, local authorities and the public of the Government’s ongoing commitment to universal public health support for pregnant women, children, and their families.
This Government are committed to improving the health outcomes of our children and young people, so that they become among the best in the world. What happens in pregnancy and during the early years of life has a huge impact throughout the life course. Therefore, a healthy start for all children is vital for individuals, families, communities and ultimately the nation. I commend these regulations to the House.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the intent of this statutory instrument. The Opposition supported the transfer of public health functions from the NHS to local government, including those for children from birth until the age of five in public health services. Indeed, that was the only bit of a lamentable Act of 2012 that we did support. We also support the provision of a universal health visiting service and the prescribed reviews, which are elements of the healthy child programme. The noble Lord has said that this decision was supported by the outcome of the PHE review, and I would like to come back to that.
I want first to refer him to the question of resources. He mentioned the changes in local government funding but he will be aware that, overall, the Government’s record in funding public health services has been lamentable. In February 2017, the Department of Health told local authorities that an average 3.9% real terms cut to health service budgets per annum would take place until 2020. This is a large reduction, as it accumulates. According to the King’s Fund, which has done an analysis of the impact that has had, as a result of these reductions stop-smoking services and interventions have lost 25% between 2015-16 and 2016-17, while other areas such as the health check programmes and sexual health services lost 7% to 14% of their funding. As the Local Government Association said, given that the Government issued a firm commitment to the NHS five-year forward view, with prevention put very much at its heart, to then make significant cuts to the public health service budget over the next five years sends entirely the wrong message and could undermine the objectives that we all share to improve the public’s health and keep pressure off the NHS and adult social care.
Recent work by the King’s Fund on sustainability and transformation plans—an Orwellian phrase, if ever there was one—points out that what is actually happening on the ground is going in the opposite direction to that which was set out in this plan. It is the same in public health. I would therefore like the Minister to explain a little more about how the Government justify the reductions in funding for public health services.
I refer the Minister to table 29 on page 58 of the report by Public Health England. It is a summary of written feedback from professional representative and membership organisations. Comments were made by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives on the issue of the mandation of services, about which clearly local authorities have some reservations. It suggests that the Government collect and review all mandated public health services next year, including health visiting, when the overall position on local government funding and business rate reforms is clearer. In a sense, the Local Government Association has made the same request. Will the Minister inform the House whether the Government are going to respond to that?
On the outcome of services so far and the PHE review, it says that there was a statistically significant increase in the eligible population reach by a universal service during 2015-16. It states also that, largely, there is a positive national picture of progress with statistically significant improvement observed in many relevant outcomes over the lifetime of the national health visiting programme. However, it points to some large local variation and trends in the rates of breastfeeding, which it says are disappointing. It points also to the fall in the number of health visitors in employment in 2015-16. Will the Minister comment on the issue of disappointing rates of breastfeeding on the one hand and the fall in the number of health visitors on the other? What action do the Government intend to take on that?
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to support these regulations because I am an enormous fan of a universal health visitor service, and in particular the healthy child programme. Our economy is never going to keep up with the demand for health services unless we pay more attention to the issue of prevention. That really is the public health agenda. Any doctor will tell you that you really must lay the foundations for a healthy body, lifestyle and habits in the early years or you will get illnesses later on. The review of the programme so far has been very positive. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there have been significant improvements in the populations reached. However, we will not see the true benefit of this programme until we are years down the track and find that those young children who have been given a healthy foundation grow up to have fewer of the terrible but preventable chronic diseases that are costing the country so much.
I am very proud of the coalition Government’s vision of improving the health outcomes of children, young people and their families. Transferring the responsibility to local authorities was part of that: it gives them the chance to combine services, right up to the age of 19. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, there are serious questions to be asked. The first, of course, is about resources. Although these services are mandated, and although the Minister may say that the money has been ring-fenced, budgets have been cut and are going to be further cut. Local authority councillor friends of mine tell me that it is getting more and more difficult for local authorities to provide even those services which they are mandated to provide because things are getting so tight financially. I hope the Minister can give us some encouragement on that, although I somehow doubt it.
The other question on resources is about people. We have heard from the Minister about the number of health visitors in training. Are they going to be enough to serve rising demand? We have a rising population and a lot of additional young people and families who require services. A universal service is terribly important because you do not just get health problems among the most deprived. However, there is a great deal of poverty in this country and the need for these services is growing. How confident is the Minister that we will have enough sufficiently trained nurses, given the stresses on all health service staff and given that so many people are leaving and retention is getting more difficult? Are we going to have enough people?
Are there any plans to extend these services a little further up the age range? I am particularly concerned about the large number of children who are starting school between the ages of four and five already overweight, obese or with poor eating habits. So, although the healthy child programme and the reviews that are mandated here in these regulations go up to the final check at two to two and a half years, it is really important that we do it again just before the child goes to school, because at that point they are already at a disadvantage. Many of these children are from a disadvantaged background and sadly these problems occur more frequently in those backgrounds. They get to school and they are already developmentally a good deal behind children from more advantaged backgrounds. I think the proof that we have had over the few years that this programme has been in place is sufficiently convincing to tell us that perhaps we ought to extend it a little bit further.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for their endorsement of the universal health visiting service. The noble Baroness is quite right to emphasise the long-term benefits that derive from a universal health visiting service of high quality and it is true that it is a great coalition achievement that we should be proud of. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his endorsement of not only the programme but also the mandated reviews and indeed of local authorities taking ownership of the programme.
To deal with the funding issue first, as I set out there is both the £16 billion that is going into local authorities for public health and the extension of the ring fence for another year. I will not gloss over the fact that it is a challenging fiscal environment. We know why that is; it is because the country continues to borrow more than it is bringing in in tax. I do not want to go into the reasons for that for fear of being accused of being too political, but we do operate in a challenging environment. That is why the business rate retention and reform is so important, to give local authorities more sustainability for their own funding base. I should also point out that, whether the issue is smoking or other risky behaviours, we are still making good progress, so it is possible to continue to reduce these kinds of risky behaviours, notwithstanding the pressures that are inevitably placed on budgets. In the round, total health budgets are increasing, not just in the NHS but across all health budgets. So while I do not gloss over the fact that it is a challenging fiscal environment, we are still making very strong progress, not just on health visitors but on a number of important public health issues.
In terms of the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review by Public Health England of mandated services, obviously there are no plans to review the health visiting service, as I think we are all agreed that this is something we want to happen. Health visitors are popular and desired. I am not in a position to say at this point whether any other services are under review but I shall certainly write to him about that.
Both the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the numbers of health visitors. They increased by 50% in the last Parliament, which I think is a huge achievement. It has become slightly more difficult to track their numbers because they have a number of employers now that the budget has been devolved, but there are still very high numbers of them as a result of the changes made in the last Parliament. There are over 800 training places for health visitors and there are more nurses in the system as well. So there is investment going into the workforce, and I absolutely recognise that there has got to be a high-quality workforce. It is also the case that other healthcare professionals are able to deliver some of these services. If a family, which of course will more likely be a poorer or more disadvantaged family, is receiving support from a family nurse partnership, then the nurses that are delivering that can also deliver the health visit and some of the early reviews, so it is a mixed picture. The number of family nurse partnership places has increased over the past few years as well.
There are a couple of final issues. Breastfeeding is part of health visitor training and indeed their mandate is to encourage greater breastfeeding. I am not aware of the specifics of the variability. I shall certainly look into that. It is a critical part of maternal and child health and to be encouraged. I know that there are variations from one part of the country to another. Whether they are due to training and workforce or to other cultural or longer-term issues is a different question and it is bound to be more challenging in some areas than others.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the age range. It is important for the health visiting service to stick to what it does best. I certainly recognise the picture she is describing, having worked in primary schools. There is an increase in children coming unprepared to school, or increasingly to nurseries, whether in their eating habits or toilet habits or whatever it is. The increase in formal childcare places that has been made available to both three year-olds and disadvantaged two year-olds will go some way to addressing that but I shall certainly keep an eye on that issue.
Baroness Walmsley
Sorry to spring this on the noble Lord but there was something that I forgot to ask him. He mentioned the accessibility of school nurses. The fact is that if a school nurse is looking after five schools they are not terribly accessible. I wonder if he might write to me as to whether there are any plans to increase the number of school nurses, because that is part of increasing the child’s health right the way through the age range.
Lord O'Shaughnessy
Yes, I shall certainly be happy to do that, probably looking at it in the round in terms of all the local health support that is available for school-age children. I hope, in responding, that I have been able to talk to all the points that have been made by noble Lords in this debate. I am glad that we all agree that health visitor support to families is vital and is about giving children the best possible start in life. It is why the Government have taken this action to continue to ensure the provision of the five mandatory health and development assessments and reviews so that this service continues to be provided for all families with children aged nought to five. I beg to move.
Motion agreed.
European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 2017
Baroness Goldie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 February be approved.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this order amends the 2009 order of the same name, and this revision confers on British nationals working for the organisation the limited privileges and immunities to which they are entitled under an international agreement between the organisation and the United Kingdom.
The European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere is important to the United Kingdom. We contribute £17.5 million annually to its budget for a 16.4% share and 40 British nationals currently work there. The space sector offers significant research and economic opportunities. UK academics and businesses operating in the sector are internationally renowned and are in a strong position to take advantage of those opportunities.
I now turn to the details of the order. The European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere was established by a convention in 1962. In 1974 its member states agreed by protocol to confer, in their respective jurisdictions, legal personality and certain privileges and immunities on the organisation and its staff. The United Kingdom acceded to the convention and joined the organisation in 2002. In 2012 we acceded to the protocol. The protocol was given effect in domestic law by the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2009. However, the 2009 order failed to confer on British nationals working for the organisation the limited privileges and immunities to which they were entitled under the protocol. That error came to light in June 2014, and for the United Kingdom to continue its fruitful relationship with the organisation we must make this amendment order to give full effect to its international obligations.
The amendments concern three issues. First, on the taxation of employees, the protocol requires the UK to exempt from taxation the emoluments of officers who are British nationals or permanent residents. Of around 40 UK nationals or permanent residents working for the ESO, we know that at least 38 are based overseas in Germany or Chile; the remaining two have previously or occasionally work in the UK and are directly affected. Secondly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to confer on officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents immunity from legal process in respect of their official acts, excluding motor vehicle offences and damage, which are not included in this immunity. Thirdly, the protocol requires the United Kingdom to grant social security exemptions to officers of the organisation who are British nationals or permanent residents.
The 1968 Act of Parliament under which the 2009 order was issued permits social security exemptions to be granted only to “high officers”, namely the director-general and his or her deputy. This amendment order therefore confers exemption from national insurance contributions on the director-general and his or her deputy. In respect of social security exemptions for all other officers, the UK has entered a reservation to the protocol. The UK filed this reservation with the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which acts as a repository for all papers relating to the convention and the protocol on 14 February of this year. I make clear that the other states party to the protocol have 12 months to object to the UK’s reservation. In the unlikely event that another state party objects, the reservation will not be valid between the UK and the objecting state. However, the UK’s membership of the organisation should be unaffected.
Article 2(3) of this order amends Article 15 of the principal order to ensure that, if the director-general or person appointed to act instead of the director-general has a form of British nationality or permanent residence, that person shall benefit from: immunity from suit and legal process in respect of official acts, excluding motor vehicle offences or damage; exemption from income tax on emoluments received as an officer of the organisation; and exemptions relating to social security.
Article 2(4) amends Article 16 of the 2009 order to provide that any officer of the organisation who has a form of British nationality or permanent residence, other than the director-general of the organisation or his or her deputy, shall benefit from immunity from suit and legal process in respect of official acts, not including motor vehicle offences or damage, and they will benefit from exemption from income tax in respect of emoluments received as an officer of the organisation.
Both the 2009 order and this order apply to the whole of the UK, but some provisions do not extend to, or apply in, Scotland. The opportunity has been taken to clarify which of the provisions in the 2009 order apply or extend to Scotland. Article 2(2) therefore inserts new Article 1A into the 2009 order to clarify the existing position. A separate Scottish Order in Council has been prepared in respect of those amendments within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and has been laid in parallel before that Parliament.
I reassure your Lordships that the privileges and immunities afforded to officers of the organisation, including those with a form of British nationality, are limited to those that the organisation needs to conduct its official activities. They are in line with those offered to officers of other international organisations of which the UK is a member.
Leaving the European Union will have no direct impact on the UK’s membership of the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere. The ability for UK staff to work effectively for the organisation before and after the UK’s departure from the European Union is controlled by our adherence to legislation that accurately reflects the convention and its protocol, and the privileges and immunities they afford to staff. In the light of that explanation, I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I see that there are not too many volunteers for this one. This order appears to have had a difficult gestation period. It has gone through all kinds of hurdles and has failed at each one. That gives rise to a number of questions.
When I first saw that this order was on our forthcoming business, my noble friend Lord Foulkes suddenly thought that it was a great opportunity to raise the question of why a telescope on St Helena is not being funded by this organisation, as that might also ensure that we can improve travel and transport links there. However, on detailed reading I advised him that there was not really an opportunity to do that here, although I said that I would mention it. I hope that the noble Baroness could make some reference to that.
As the noble Baroness said in her introduction, we joined the convention in 2002, which of course was signed in 1962. According to the briefing from the Foreign Office—I express my appreciation to officials there, who helped me with the background and briefing on this—we signed the protocol in 2012, although it was given effect by this order in 2009, which of course is the beginning of the journey for this matter. I do not quite understand why the protocol was acceded to in 2012 when it was given effect by that order in 2009.
The error that the Minister referred to, namely that the 2009 order was defective as it did not give clear immunities in accordance with the protocol that we signed up to, was not discovered until June 2014. This error must have some implications; the individuals involved must have raised the issue, because they would have been working with people who were employed in accordance with the overall protocol. Therefore, when this error was discovered, how many people were affected by it, and is there any liability on the United Kingdom Government for this error? I assume that there may well be, if two people have been working in the United Kingdom. However, it may be more extensive; it may be that some people, this error being no fault of theirs, may be seeking some sort of recompense. I would like to be clear about that for the future.
I was also slightly concerned that the noble Baroness referred to the numbers that could potentially be affected. Of around 40, we know that at least 38 are based overseas in Germany and Chile. These are not huge numbers—I would have thought that we would be able to be a little more specific about the numbers involved and how we will put right this error.
On the general principle—the Minister referred to this—the briefing says:
“Providing privileges and immunities to International Organisations is standard practice where the Organisations need these privileges and immunities to operate and function effectively”.
That is accepted and I understand that, particularly if that is a requirement of the original protocol. It continues:
“The UK only agrees to confer privileges and immunities on International Organisations to the extent necessary for the proper functioning of the Organisation”.
What does that mean? How do we measure that? Why have we determined that certain individuals will benefit from the requirements of the protocol? This would be a classic episode of “Yes Minister”, I suspect, in terms of understanding the language and the errors and the fact that this 2009 order has been brought before the House three times and still failed. It would help in terms of general policy to understand exactly how these things operate. I hope the Minister will forgive me for this direct approach and will be able to answer.
Baroness Goldie
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins, predicted, there is hardly a rush of enthusiastic interrogatories to deal with on this issue. I thank him for his insightful and helpful contribution to the debate. The amendment order simply corrects a number of errors in the order it replaces and aligns domestic law with the obligations we have made to the European partners, with which we share an endeavour to increase our knowledge of space.
The UK’s commitment to the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere remains unchanged. We remain committed to strengthening our position as a world leader in astronomy and space exploration. Belonging to this organisation brings with it opportunities from which British companies and our scientists, academics, astronomers and astronauts of the future are well placed to benefit.
I will try to deal with some of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised. He mentioned the nature of the journey to this point. I will be quite candid. The journey has involved a road with a number of potholes, and a certain degree of stumbling into and over the potholes has taken place. Why has it taken three years since the order was laid? While the order was laid in 2009, the UK did not complete payment of all the joining fees until 2010 and thereafter we went through necessary internal processes to ensure that we acceded to the protocol. This process took two years as it was given low priority because it was likely to impact on very few UK nationals.
As an aside, the noble Lord mentioned his noble friend Lord Foulkes and the matter of St Helena. I have no information on that but I undertake to look into his question and to write to him. I should make clear that the current telescopic facilities are based in Chile.
The noble Lord also raised the important issue of why the staff of the ESO need privileges and immunities. It is a legitimate question and important we endeavour to answer it. The UK is obliged to confer privileges and immunities by virtue of its accession to the convention establishing the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and the protocol on the privileges and immunities of that organisation. Privileges and immunities are important for the organisation to conduct its official activities in the UK, irrespective of whether it has a physical presence in the UK. In particular, tax immunities ensure that partner contributions are directed to the construction and operation of the project and not into tax revenue.
The other issue that the noble Lord raised in that connection—and again it is an important one—was its impact and the personnel affected. As I said, my understanding is that of the 40 identified personnel, 38 work in Chile and two have worked or sometimes work within the UK.
I make it clear that UK nationals or permanent residents working for the ESO overseas are not liable to pay income tax in the UK on emoluments received as an officer of the organisation. However, if UK nationals or permanent residents working for the ESO overseas have income from a second employment, business, or financial investments in the UK, they will be liable for UK tax on such income on the same basis as anyone else working abroad.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, raised a pertinent point about the potential impact for persons now covered by the order. I make clear that Her Majesty’s Government are not legally financially liable because the amendment order does not include a retrospective effect. In other words, it does not say that the Government will refund income tax payments. However, we will be sympathetic to the concerns of the organisation or the individuals affected if we are approached.
Baroness Goldie
The noble Lord poses a question that he knows I cannot possibly answer. I have not even given a commitment. I have merely, I hope, indicated a note of empathy in respect of the concern which he has raised.
The noble Lord was also concerned about whether this amendment order was the complete solution given the rather troubled history of where we have been and how we got there. Certainly, it is an important step forward in implementing the protocol in respect of officers with British nationality or UK permanent residence to the extent permitted by the Act of Parliament under which it is made. The Act does not permit us to confer by order the social security exemptions on any British nationals or UK permanent residents, other than the director-general. That is why I anticipated what the noble Lord might be interested in and obtained the specific information from the officials, which I was able to include in my speech. I hope that has reassured him.
I hope I have managed to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins. In conclusion, this Government remain committed to the European Organisation for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere and its ambitious programme to make scientific discoveries and look deeper into space than we have ever managed to do before. This will clearly be for the benefit not just of this generation but for many generations to come. I hope my comments have allayed any apprehensions that the noble Lord had.
Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
That the draft Orders and Regulations laid before the House on 8 March be approved.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017, the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. The instruments will help enhance the operation of electoral registration across Great Britain. Noble Lords will be aware that individual electoral registration—IER—was successfully introduced in 2014 and for the first time ever enabled people in Great Britain to apply online to register to vote. Nearly 24 million people have applied to register under IER, 18 million of them online.
Applications to register to vote peak in the run-up to elections and during the autumn canvass, when each household in the country receives registration forms. Noble Lord will be aware that this process, and indeed registration overall, is costly for electoral registration officers—EROs. While the Cabinet Office currently provides direct financial assistance for registration linked to the introduction of IER, the total costs of the annual canvass are high, at some £65 million per year. The current process is inefficient, costly and burdensome for local authorities.
What is more, a large proportion of these costs relate to activities required by law that simply confirm that people are correctly registered. What is needed is a more effective and efficient system that targets resources on reaching out to underregistered groups to add new names to the register, rather than simply confirming names already there. The Cabinet Office is therefore working with EROs across Great Britain to pilot alternative approaches to the current paper-based, inflexible and prescriptive annual canvass. Three of today’s instruments will enable such pilots this year. The fourth instrument will enhance the operation of IER in Scotland to allow cost savings for EROs throughout the year.
I turn, first, to the annual canvass pilots for 2017. Three of these instruments establish pilot schemes under Sections 7 and 9 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As noble Lords may already be aware, Section 9D(3) of the Act requires the annual canvass to be conducted in the manner prescribed in the Representation of the People (England and Wales) Regulations 2001 and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations 2001. This process requires EROs to send an annual canvass form—the household enquiry form, or HEF as it is known—to every property in their area. The HEF asks residents to set out whether there have been any changes in the composition of the household since the previous year’s canvass, and it enables EROs to identify whether any residents should be removed from the register or be invited to make an application. Response rates to the HEF are significantly lower under IER, as it is no longer a registration tool, yet, where no response is received, EROs are required to issue up to two further forms and to carry out at least one visit to the property.
These three orders disapply those requirements for 23 participating EROs in areas of England, Wales and Scotland. Instead, the orders require EROs in the specified areas to attempt to make contact with a person at each residential address in the area for which they act at least once between the date the order comes into force and 2 February 2018. The manner in which they do so, however, and whether they take further steps where no information is received at a particular address will be at the EROs’ discretion. This will enable EROs to test new and innovative approaches to canvassing—including using data, such as council tax data, the local land and property gazetteer, and internal local authority databases—to determine whether chasing responses to ERO inquiries is necessary. These approaches have been developed closely with the Electoral Commission, which is supportive of the pilots. The commission will be reporting on the schemes and will provide a copy of its evaluation to Ministers and the EROs by 29 June 2018. The order ceases to have effect on 6 July 2018.
The fundamental objective of the annual canvass—namely, the maintenance of a complete and accurate register through regular data collection—is and will continue to be a government priority. However, consultation with EROs and local authorities over an extended period has indicated that the annual canvass in its current form is not a sustainable way to achieve that aim. Many EROs, who are on the front line of electoral registration activity, have told the Cabinet Office that the canvass procedure is time-consuming and expensive. Electors will receive up to three letters and a visit from their local ERO, even if they are already registered, solely for the purposes of information gathering.
Last year, for example, huge numbers of citizens registered to vote in the run-up to the EU referendum in June. This year, many may register to vote in local and devolved elections in May, and perhaps even for a by-election as well, yet, when the annual canvass takes place between July and December, they will receive fresh inquiries in the form of the HEF about their registration status. The reality is that household churn is around 12% per annum—thus the majority of the canvass activity is redundant. Over half of households do not respond to the initial HEF, meaning that EROs are required to chase them up with the further two forms and a visit, despite the fact that 88% of households will be listed as “no change” on the electoral register.
This tremendously bureaucratic process is frustrating for administrators. Having to follow steps prescribed in statute is stifling their capacity to innovate and adopt new approaches to canvassing. Through knowing their local area or having access to local authority data, EROs may well be aware of the registration status of households in their area. However, the current system does not allow them to draw on their own expertise or on other information held by the local authority. This is not an example of “smart working”, and it does not allow citizens to “tell us once” of changes to their registration.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that the recent referendum was conducted using one of the largest electoral registers ever. With the advent of online registration, it is becoming increasingly apparent that electoral events can drive registration to new heights and that the current system of canvassing around six months in advance of a poll, through an inefficient cycle of paper HEFs and household visits, may not be the best approach for the modern world.
It is important to note that the canvass itself is purely an information-gathering process. The pilots will not alter the requirements for the registration process and for invitation to register forms to be sent to individuals. Therefore, what is being proposed—the impetus for which has come from EROs themselves—is to enable local authorities to test alternative methods for conducting the annual canvass that have the potential to be more cost-effective while still securing the same or higher levels of information on changes to the register compared with the current annual canvass process.
Operations along these lines were successfully carried out in 2016. Specifically, during the 2016 annual canvass process, the Cabinet Office ran initial pilots in three areas of England—Birmingham, Ryedale and South Lakeland. In order to broaden the evidence base, however, further pilots, including in Wales and Scotland, are needed to inform a wider change to the annual canvass across Great Britain. Early results from the pilots last year have been very promising, with provisional figures indicating that the costs of the alternative canvasses were substantially lower than those of the legislated canvass due to the reduction in printing, paper, postage and staffing costs. Ryedale, for example, estimated that the new methodology it employed resulted in an 89% saving in staff time and costs. The Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission are currently analysing the full cost data of the whole process and intend to report initial results in May.
In addition to the pilot areas from last year, the areas selected to participate in 2017 are Barrow-in-Furness, Bath and North East Somerset, Blaenau Gwent, Camden, Coventry, Derbyshire Dales, Dumfries and Galloway, East Devon, Glasgow, Hounslow, Luton, Newcastle, Salford, South Holland, South Norfolk, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse, Sunderland, Torfaen, Wakefield and Woking.
Although the initial results suggest that alternative approaches to the annual canvass can be at least as effective as the currently prescribed method, the Cabinet Office intends to ensure that applying this learning to local authorities across Great Britain, including Wales and Scotland, generates similar results. If successful, the pilots will demonstrate that the annual canvass does not need to be so prescriptive and that a number of alternative methods are just as effective and more cost-efficient, potentially saving at least £20 million from the cost of electoral registration each year.
The 2017 pilots will take place in local authority areas across England, Wales and Scotland. The areas were chosen using robust research methodology to ensure a spread of electoral register churn, population size, chosen pilot model and region. In each area, the EROs will be operating control groups and pilot groups so that the results of these approaches can be rigorously evaluated.
Four models of piloting activities will run with these EROs in the 2017 pilot scheme. Each model has been created based on proposals from EROs, and each participating ERO has chosen the model they wish to apply to their area based on their local knowledge and expertise. Each model reduces the number of paper communications sent to electors, using means such as telephone and email channels, and one model uses existing local data to determine where best to focus resources. Again, these ideas have all come from the experts on the front line and are designed to improve the citizen experience as well as ease administrative burdens on hard-pressed electoral teams. The elector will benefit from the local authority being able to redirect resources and target canvassing more effectively towards underregistered groups.
I will now give more detail on each pilot model in turn to offer some insight into the innovative approaches being taken to move us towards a more effective and targeted canvass process.
The first model, which is being piloted in areas such as Torfaen, Ryedale and Barrow-in-Furness, tests the use of a household notification letter, or HNL. Under this model, the ERO will send all households in the treatment group a HNL instead of a standard household enquiry form. The HNL lists the details of everyone registered to vote in that household and advises residents to take action only where the details held are no longer up to date. This model allows EROs to reduce the number of paper communications sent to electors and also reduces the number of expensive household visits required.
The second piloting model involves the use of email in areas including Hounslow and Woking. For this model, an electronic HEF will be sent to households by email, chased with a visit if necessary. Where no email is held, households receive a postal HEF followed by a visit. This model further tests the use of email communication between EROs and electors, following the uptake of email invitations to register in England and Wales. This also expects to reduce the number of overall communications with electors including, again, expensive household visits.
The third model uses a discernment step to identity different types of properties, in areas such as Glasgow and Birmingham, so that EROs can take the most appropriate approach. This discernment could involve local data matching using sources such as council tax, or assignment by ward based on the ERO’s expert knowledge. Depending on the assignment, some properties will receive a HNL, while others will be more actively canvassed where a change in household composition is suspected. Where possible, communication will be sent to these households by email before being chased with postal reminders and visits if necessary. This model allows EROs to use the existing data and knowledge they have of their areas to target resources better as well as use digital means to communicate with electors.
Finally, a fourth model tests the use of telephones in the canvass process. Areas participating in this model include Dumfries and Galloway as well as East Devon. Under this model, EROs will send initial postal HEFs but will then be able to chase non-responding households by telephone, rather than by additional canvass forms or household visits. Where no telephone number is held, households will receive two letters followed by a visit. This model allows EROs to test the use of telephone canvassing and should also reduce the number of household visits and postal communications.
The Government have consulted widely, including with the Electoral Commission, on the pilot proposals. The commission has been very supportive of these plans and has been involved from the early stages of their development. The Electoral Commission has also been consulted on these orders, on which it is content, following the Cabinet Office’s confirmation that Section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 remains applicable to participating local authorities during the pilot scheme so that participating authorities are still expected to publish their registers by 1 December 2017, unless exceptional circumstances apply, such as a local election, where they are required to publish a revised register by 1 February next year.
Consultation has also taken place with bodies such as the Association of Electoral Administrators, the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, and the Scottish Assessors Association. This is in addition to the work the Government have been doing with interested councils directly and who have helped shape the four pilot models. The Information Commissioner’s Office was also consulted during the development of these pilot orders and is content that they do not raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues.
Equality impact assessments have been completed to ensure that underregistered groups, as well as those groups protected by virtue of the Equality Act 2010, will not be negatively impacted by these pilot schemes. Privacy impact assessments have also been completed to ensure that no new negative privacy impacts under the Data Protection Act 1998 will arise.
While the purpose of these pilot schemes is to give EROs the space to innovate and test alternative and more effective approaches in relation to the annual canvass, I stress that the integrity of the register will be maintained throughout the pilot schemes. EROs have a duty, under the Representation of the People Act 1983, to maintain their registers and nothing in these orders change that.
I turn now to the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. These regulations take steps to allow Scottish EROs to benefit from the same cost optimisation measures as have been available to English and Welsh EROs since last year. This will be achieved by amending the registration application forms for Scotland to allow applicants to identify that they are the only person resident at the address aged 14 or over. It also provides discretion to EROs as to whether to canvass a property within 12 months of an indication of single occupancy. Allowing EROs to make this choice decreases the amount of resources spent processing applications and increases the efficiency and speed of the registration process.
Secondly, the regulations will modernise the system of registration by enabling Scottish EROs to send invitations to register and ITR reminders by electronic means if they wish to do so. This delivers a quicker and more efficient service to the elector, who expects electronic communication in this age, as well as enabling cost savings. The instrument will also allow an attester to an applicant’s identity to be registered in any local authority area in Scotland. At present, both the attester and the applicant must be registered in the same local authority. This provision will assist those applicants whose identity cannot be verified using the Department for Work and Pensions matching process, local data matching or by documentary evidence who have to provide an attestation to verify their identity. This change will result in more eligible applicants becoming registered to vote. In addition, the regulations make a minor amendment to correct an error in an existing regulation concerning the requirement to provide fresh signatures following rejection of a postal voting statement.
The measures were conceived to generate savings from the cost of the annual canvass process to counteract the fact that the introduction of IER has increased the cost and administrative burden on local authorities. These provisions also aim to reduce unnecessary ERO correspondence and contact. Preliminary estimations project that these regulations will reduce the overall cost of IER in Scotland by around £125,000 for the single-occupancy provision and around £400,000 for email ITRs per year. The Electoral Commission was consulted during the development of these measures and on the specifics of this order, and it is supportive of these regulations offering the same provisions to Scotland as already exist in England and Wales.
The Cabinet Office has worked very closely with Scottish Government officials to ensure that these measures can be in place for the 2017 annual canvass, and to ensure that Scottish EROs are able to participate in the aforementioned pilot schemes. The Minister for the Constitution and the Scottish Government’s Minister for Parliamentary Business agreed last year for these instruments to make provision in respect of both the parliamentary and local government registers in Scotland. This will be done before commencement of the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act 2016, which will devolve competence in relation to the local government register in Scotland. This was agreed in order to ensure that Scottish EROs could take advantage of these cost- optimisation measures in respect of both the parliamentary and local government registers this year, and that local authorities in Scotland are represented in the canvass pilot schemes.
With this in mind, the Government believe that the instruments allowing for annual canvass piloting schemes are a crucial step towards improving the annual canvass and wider registration process. I therefore commend them and hope noble Lords will also agree that the statutory instrument relating to cost-optimisation measures in Scotland helps move electors and electoral administrators towards an enhanced IER system for members of the public and for EROs as part of the continued successful implementation of IER across Great Britain. I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I was waiting to see whether anyone else would intervene. I will not detain the House very long. Will the Minister, either now or in writing—I promise I will not talk about Sheffield this afternoon—be kind enough to reflect on the juxtaposition of the existing Data Protection Act 1998 with the Digital Economy Bill in relation to data sharing and, crucially, with the general data protection regulation of 2016, which the Government indicated on 1 March they would be taking forward and putting on statute the necessary changes, prior to implementation, in May 2018?
I welcome very strongly the proposals for the pilot schemes. The discerning approach will be very important for getting to households that are difficult to reach, dealing with churn and ensuring that, particularly with the Glasgow and Birmingham proposition, there is a real understanding of the difficulty within inner cities. I am concerned that we do not get caught with what is otherwise a very sensible privacy change—a tightening of the regulations under the GDPR—taking into account, as the Minister indicated, that there will be a privacy impact assessment. Will he say a little more about that?
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, before I comment specifically on the statutory instruments before the House, I will raise one or two questions relating to the general principle of ensuring that our electoral rolls are as accurate and complete as possible. I see the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Rennard, in their seats. I think the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, in particular is likely to touch on the subject if he speaks soon after me. I am concerned, as I think we all have been concerned and successive Governments have been concerned, about the fact that the register is accurate for certain groups—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, touched on that in part in his brief comments—but large groups of the population are regularly missed in one form or another.
I mentioned this to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in advance, but I did not have a chance to mention it to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. Yesterday during Questions a Question came up relating to the 18 pilot projects identified around the country as a result of what one might describe as the Pickles review. I have been informed—I have not had the chance to check it, but I believe it to be correct—that in the case of both Burnley and Pendle the Labour and Liberal Democrat councillors on those councils have voted against participating in the schemes, despite the fact that in each case they are among the 18 authorities identified for review. I will say only this: I regret it enormously if that is the case, because being innovative and trying to find ways to deal with fraud and underregistration are key to the processes of our elections, whether they be local or national.
Specifically on the statutory instruments, I broadly welcome them for the same reason that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, identified. We should be innovative. Society is changing quite markedly. It is much more mobile than it was when the original legislation was introduced. We have very different forms of campaigning nowadays from those we had when I was somewhat younger. Therefore, we have to find ways of getting hold of potential voters in whichever way we can. I shall comment also on the Minister’s opening remarks, which concentrated rather too much for my comfort on savings. We were not given indications relating to the accuracy of the trials that have taken place so far. The Electoral Commission and other interested parties are conscious of not only the potential savings but the potential accuracy and gain achieved by any particular process within this trial.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Young, in his opening comments said that the results had been fairly positive from 2016. I recognise that it is a small step forward with a limited number of trials in local authorities. That is a good basis from which to work. Given where we are in the electoral cycle, and given that there are discussions with the local authorities that he identified, I shall ask for clarification just for confirmation that these projects will not interfere in any way with the local elections that are taking place. I assume that most of the preparatory work will take place later in the calendar year, but I would like that confirmation because a fair number of the local authorities to which he referred have elections—either in Scotland or Wales or in the county council elections this year.
I must admit that I am surprised and disappointed that the locations that he identified were the ones chosen. I think I understood him correctly to say that they would provide a range of local authorities to test the system. The Minister referred to model 1. Looking at the order to identify the local authorities involved, two of the authorities in model 1 are Welsh: Blaenau Gwent and Torfaen, which demographically are very similar. As far as I could see, there was no marked variation between those two local authorities: they are essentially valley mining communities. They touch on my other keen interest, rugby, in that they have produced many of the great Welsh rugby players and the great Welsh rugby teams—but they are very similar. If one was looking for Welsh authorities, I would have thought that one would not go for two Welsh valley authorities.
Equally, on the same list we have the authorities of South Holland, South Norfolk and Ryedale—which, again, are very similar in general make-up. We do not have one London borough in that group, but we have two metropolitan authorities. One could reasonably argue that the metropolitan authorities balance for a London authority, but it would have been better, rather than having two metropolitan authorities, Newcastle and Wakefield, if we had looked for slightly different mets across the country.
The second group, the email group, has a balanced combination of authorities: Bath, Coventry, the Derbyshire Dales, Hounslow—the first local authority in London—and Woking. The third category, described as the discernment model, has one London authority: Camden. I am sure that Camden will produce stellar results in its review. I declare a personal interest here: my niece is the Labour leader of that council, so I am sure that it will do its job very effectively indeed. Alongside that authority we have Salford, Sunderland and Birmingham—again, a combination of three mets, which I do not think shows a reasonable balance. That is combined with South Lakeland. There are no unitary authorities from any part of the country. That is not a particularly balanced grouping.
I have the same observation relating to the fourth grouping, the telephone model, where four local authorities are identified in England: East Devon, Luton, South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse. Three of those are district councils; most people would regard them as rural and fairly wealthy; and we have the rather odd position where South Oxfordshire and the Vale of White Horse—I again declare an interest as, being Lord Hayward, of Cumnor, I originate from one of those local authorities—are neighbouring authorities in Oxfordshire. You will not get much variation of information by picking that as a group. Therefore, if it is possible at this stage, I ask whether some of those local authorities could be switched round. It may be too late, but I make those observations on the different groupings.
I shall ask one final question relating to the use of telephones. More and more people do not have a landline. They operate totally on mobiles. It was not clear from the Minister’s opening comments whether the tests would include solely landlines or a combination of landlines and mobiles, or whether the authorities have access in one form or another to mobile numbers—I would be surprised if they do not in most cases. Those should be used, in the right circumstances and with the right qualifications—the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, referred to data protection—because that will help the process.
I have made a few overall comments. I hope I have raised specific questions that can be dealt with either today or at a later stage in a written reply. But, overall, I broadly welcome the process as long as the objective is to achieve greater rates of registration, as well as the saving to local authorities in the process.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the sentiments expressed in the Minister’s very thorough brief about modernisation, efficiency and cost saving are very worthy and have my support. But we should consider the issues very carefully because none of the sentiments outweigh the overarching principle of the requirement in a democracy to make sure that every citizen entitled to vote is enabled to do so by being on the electoral register.
During the passage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, I was among those who fought to preserve the principle of the annual canvass, and we ensured then that it was retained. After much deliberation, the canvass was seen—as the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has just said—as an essential part of ensuring both the completeness and the accuracy of the electoral register. But the principle was hotly contested during those debates. Certainly, there were some within the Government who simply argued that it should go as a cost-saving measure; while others of us argued that ensuring that people entitled to vote were registered to do so was part of the cost of democracy and essential to the principle of fair elections. We come now, four years later, to look again at the issue of the annual canvass and how it can best be operated.
People like me have accepted that there might be better and more cost-effective ways of canvassing to complete the register and ensure its accuracy. Those of us—and there are many of us in the House—with long experience of canvassing in elections know a lot, I suspect, about targeting canvass efforts. In some areas it may be worth knocking on doors several times, while in others it may perhaps be impractical to call upon households personally. During the discussions four years ago one Minister told me that he thought the annual canvass was now completely redundant. He had been taken out by his advisers to a gated community and shown how it was almost impossible to gain access to canvass. It was suggested to him that the principle of the annual canvass should therefore be dropped. But such gated communities represent less than 1% of all households in the UK. The vast majority of households are accessible, and canvassing them is often an essential part of the process of completing the electoral register.
What I think can be done, however, is to use more modern methods to try and register as many people as possible in advance of attempting to call personally on doorsteps. Concentrating canvassing efforts on particular households where there is a need to make personal contact, and perhaps on low-registration areas where, for example, there may be many homes in multiple occupation, may be a higher priority—but all of this is predicated on making every effort to get people registered in ways that do not require a personal visit. If we are to extend this principle and vary the methodology involved in the annual canvass, I would like to ask the Minister about a couple of issues relevant to registering more people in advance of the doorstep call.
First, as we have discussed in correspondence, there is the provision of national insurance numbers to 16 and 17 year-olds. The Minister has told me that Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs is willing, in principle, to supply to young people with their national insurance number information about how it can be used to register to vote. That clearly will save money and reduce the number of people who need to be called on personally. Since then, the Electoral Commission has said that there should be an automatic process of registration, so that when HMRC issues a national insurance number to a 16 or 17 year-old they are automatically included on the electoral register. That must fulfil the cost-saving principle that the Minister outlined in detail and would be a much better way of ensuring that 16 and 17 year-olds are included on the register. At that age they are already able to vote in Scottish Parliament elections, and it will ensure that they are on the register by the time they are 18 and can vote in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Secondly, I come again to the issue of student registration. It is particularly hard under the old-fashioned household canvass rules to canvass students in halls of residence and put them on the electoral register. The Explanatory Memorandum for the statutory instruments states:
“The purposes of these pilots are to gather evidence to establish whether alternative methods can be used to conduct the canvass that are just as efficient and more cost effective”.
We know that the traditional annual canvass method is not appropriate for students and we already know from pilots—which the Cabinet Office itself has referred to—that it is far cheaper and much more effective to offer students the opportunity to go on to the electoral register at the same time as they enrol for their course.
We know, for example from the Sheffield pilot that we debated, that students can be registered at a cost—according to Sheffield Council—of approximately 14p per student, compared to £5 per student using the traditional methodology which includes the annual canvass. In terms of completeness, which is a stated aim of government policy, the Sheffield model is registering students at a rate of about 76%, compared to institutions of a similar size registering students at a rate of only around 13%. The models may need to vary for different higher education students, but, if we are to change the principles of the annual canvass, we need to use all these methods to make sure that underregistered groups are more effectively represented on the electoral register.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, first, I make my usual declaration that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The four statutory instruments we are debating today are ones that I accept, as far as they go. I broadly welcome the process outlined by the Minister. Certainly, the entitlement to vote and the accuracy and completeness of the register are the most important things we are debating here. That underpins all this. I have some wider comments and one or two questions for the Minister but generally I welcome the orders and regulations and I am very happy that we are exploring new methods of getting people registered to vote.
On matters concerning elections and electoral registration, it is always desirable to get agreement among the interested parties on the way forward. I accept that that is not always possible but it is a desirable aim nevertheless. Changes should be implemented carefully, should be thought about, should seek to improve voters’ engagement in the electoral process and should command wide confidence. In that sense, pilots are a useful tool to see how certain measures will play out in practice, followed by proper evaluation and informed policy decisions. Can the Minister tell the House why the decision was made to extend these pilots for another year? I cannot believe that the Government have made this decision in isolation. But it is not clear from the papers why they have done so.
There is no mention of the political parties being consulted on the regulations. Will the Minister confirm that neither the Electoral Commission nor the Cabinet Office team that meets the political parties on a regular basis have brought these regulations anywhere near them? Of course, the Parliamentary Parties Panel is a statutory panel set up under PPERA. If that is the case, does the Minister agree that that is regrettable and should be rectified quickly? The political parties use the electoral register for their campaigning, they understand the registration process, and they have a legitimate voice that needs to be heard in any discussions on these matters.
I refer the Minister to page 3 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017; he mentioned it in his introduction. Referring to the annual canvass, paragraph 7.1 in the section headed “Policy background” says:
“In its current form under IER, it is proving to be an unsustainable cost burden for local authorities to administer”.
I thought that was an interesting comment. I must say, it is not the biggest issue that comes up when we discuss finance and budgets and unacceptable cost burdens at Lewisham Council. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, may have let the cat out of the bag by telling us that these issues were discussed in the coalition Government in 2013. Of course, members of that coalition wanted to bring forward these proposals then.
I had a look at what the Local Government Association was saying and I could not find any mention at all of the unacceptable cost burdens of the annual canvass—not a thing—in its campaigns, press releases or anything else. I then had a look at London Councils and again there was no mention in any of its campaigns or media releases about these unacceptable cost burdens and the problems being caused for local authorities. Both organisations are well known to Members of this House. They are expert at getting their views across to us when they have issues they want to raise with us. But I have had absolutely nothing—not a letter, not an email, not a text message, not a phone call—from these bodies that represent local government.
Of course, there are many issues that these two bodies are interested in: the housing crisis, the social care crisis, education funding, public health budgets, business rates, pavement parking, homelessness and the lack of funding for that, bus funding, and many other issues—the list goes on and on. Many of these issues are putting local authorities in a difficult situation and putting pressure on budgets, but the Government are not the slightest bit interested in dealing with them. I also had a look at SOLACE and the AEA. Again, they are silent on these issues and do not appear to be campaigning on them at the moment.
It really is a bit rich for the Government to hide behind the suggestion that there are all these concerns from elsewhere in local government. The Government do not have a good record here. They sped up IER, against the advice of the Electoral Commission. They reduced the transition period for IER by one year. They threw out the consensus on that point. They moved ahead with reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons by 50. They removed voters from the electoral roll, against the advice of the commission, and of course that helped them in their redistribution of parliamentary seats and limited the scope of electors to get involved in local inquiries. At the same time, we all know that they made a record number of appointments to your Lordships’ House. Their claims about cutting costs just do not hold water.
Democracy costs money. We should cherish it and pay for it. We need an efficient, well-run, properly resourced electoral registration service in every part of the United Kingdom. In comparison with other services, the costs involved are not huge and the Government should be seeing how they can use every avenue of the state to get and keep people registered to vote. They should be learning from other parts of the United Kingdom. How does the Electoral Management Board in Scotland work in getting people registered to vote, compared with what happens here in England and Wales?
Pilots are good to see how we can efficiently and expertly register people to vote. There is nothing presently in force that stops EROs making any innovation, and many EROs do an excellent job of innovating to get people registered to vote. We should be looking at the incentives to get people on the rolls. What are schools, colleges and universities doing? What can we learn from the schools issue in Northern Ireland? Many noble Lords from all sides of the House have raised that and so far the Government have not been interested at all in bringing it into play in England. We should look also at what we can learn from other parts of the world.
I worry that the real agenda is just to cut the need to send out a prepaid envelope and a form and to avoid knocking on the door, with very little else under that. I am happy that we have new procedures and new ideas. We have to be absolutely sure that we are not making it any harder to get people registered to vote. I am not confident that so far the Government have done that.
My noble friend Lord Blunkett raised some very important points. The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, spoke about the two local authorities. I do not know that case but if that is the situation, it is regrettable. All the councils that have been invited to be part of the pilot should be part of it when it takes place next year. He made a very important point about savings. I am happy to make savings but, again, the important point in all this is the accuracy and completeness of the register. That must be paramount for all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made some important points about automatic registration. Again, young people and students are a very important group and we must make sure that we get them registered. I know that many councils and EROs have worked closely with universities and colleges. We need to ensure that that happens as well.
I am happy to agree the orders and regulations before us today, although I worry about the Government’s real intention behind these matters.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and for their broad welcome for the initiatives that are in the orders before the House.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, I am grateful for his welcome for what we are doing, but there were some uncharacteristically partisan comments in his speech. On the size of the House of Lords, I just say, as somebody who was Leader of the House of Commons at the time, that if his great party had supported the programme Motion on the House of Lords Reform Bill, the House of Lords would be a lot smaller than it is now. His party bears some responsibility for the failure to get the numbers down to a more manageable level. I will put that on one side because I know the noble Lord did not mean to stimulate an aggressive partisan debate on these non-controversial orders.
I will try to respond to the issues that were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised the issue of privacy. Of course I confirm that the protection of personal data is important. As I think I said, the Cabinet Office carried out a privacy impact assessment which took into account privacy impact assessments commissioned from all the participating local authorities. The provisions before us do not have any significant further impact on an individual’s privacy than the current legislative requirements concerning registration. They simply support the EROs in carrying out their legal duty to take all the necessary steps to maintain registers of electors in their area. As I said, we have consulted the Information Commissioner’s Office on this order and it does not consider that the proposed measures raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. The noble Lord also raised some issues about the Digital Economy Bill and I would like to accept his generous offer to pursue those in writing.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
No, I am sorry. I meant the political parties panel in PPERA which is drawn from officials.
Lord Young of Cookham
I will make inquiries and deal with the important questions that the noble Lord has raised about the level of consultation, and of course he is entitled to a reply on that.
I think I have dealt with nearly all the issues that have been raised. If I have not, I will write. We have had direct advice from a range of those in local government—the chief executive of Trafford, the electoral registration officer for Grampian and others—about this initiative. I again thank noble Lords for the time they have spent scrutinising these instruments, which will enable EROs in England, Wales and Scotland to pilot innovative approaches to conducting the annual canvass and also allow EROs in Scotland to make use of email invitations to register and single occupancy provisions. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before the noble Lord sits down, the point I was trying to get across is that I am very happy that we have pilots. There is no issue about that. However, when we make changes—and stopping the annual canvass, stopping people knocking on doors and stopping letters going out are very big changes—we cannot assume that everybody is e-enabled. Each change has to be carried out very carefully; otherwise we make mistakes, things go wrong and people lose their right to vote. That cannot be the case. The heart of this is that the Government must take a long period and absolute care when they pilot changes. The decision to reduce the time for confirmation was a mistake. If we had taken a longer time, we might not have needed these measures now. That is the point I am trying to make.
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord. As I said, we are not stopping the annual canvass. The annual canvass remains. I will just end on this. The initiative for this has come not so much from the Government as from the EROs. They take their responsibilities very seriously and want to have the maximum number of people registered. They still retain all the powers they have at the moment, as well as the powers they have in the pilots, to continue to knock on doors and send all the forms. I personally have confidence that the EROs will use the powers they have, and which we are giving them today, not just to maintain the current accuracy of the register: I think we will end up with a better register if we go ahead with these pilots and extend the lessons that we have learned.
West Midlands Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 March be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the draft order which we are considering today, if approved and made, will bring to life the devolution deal which the Government agreed with the West Midlands on 17 November 2015.
The Government have already made significant progress in delivering their manifesto commitment to devolve far-reaching powers and budgets to large cities in England which choose to have directly elected mayors. This House has now debated and approved a number of orders establishing combined authority mayors and devolving powers, including Greater Manchester, the West of England, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and, more recently, the Tees Valley and the Liverpool City Region, for which the noble Lord, Lord Young, stood in my place.
I am very grateful to the House for the attention it has given to these matters. We are now nearing the end of the first stage of this devolution process, with one final order after those today which confers powers on those combined authorities with May elections to be considered—that is, Greater Manchester, which was at the forefront of the devolution process. We also have the draft Combined Authorities (Finance) Order, which we will turn to following this debate.
The order we are considering today will confer important new powers on to the West Midlands mayor and the combined authority as set out in the devolution deal, particularly on transport, housing and regeneration, air quality, smoke-free premises, places and vehicles, anti-social behaviour, and culture. The overall result is to create for the West Midlands arrangements which will materially contribute to the promotion of economic growth across the area, improve productivity, and facilitate investment and the development of the area’s infrastructure. Through this deal, the West Midlands combined authority will receive: first, a devolved transport budget to help provide a more modern, better-connected network, allowing the West Midlands to choose how to spend the money across the area; secondly, new housing and regeneration powers to provide a strategic local approach to tackling these issues in the West Midlands; and thirdly, control over an investment fund of £36.5 million a year for 30 years to boost growth and prosperity in the area.
The implementation of the devolution deal agreed between local leaders and the Government has already seen two orders made, having been approved by this House and the other place, in relation to the West Midlands. First, the West Midlands Combined Authority Order established the combined authority on 17 June 2016, with functions in relation to economic development, regeneration and transport. Secondly, the West Midlands Combined Authority (Election of Mayor) Order created the position of mayor for the West Midlands, with the first election to be held on 4 May for an initial three-year term. Second elections will be held on 7 May 2020, with elections subsequently taking place every four years.
Today’s draft order is to be made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016. As required by the 2016 Act, along with this order we have laid a report which provides details about the public authority functions we are devolving to the combined authority. The statutory origin of this order is in the governance review and scheme prepared by the combined authority, together with the seven constituent councils of Birmingham, Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Walsall and Wolverhampton, in accordance with the requirements of the 2009 Act.
The scheme sets out proposals for powers to be conferred on the combined authority, some to be exercised by the mayor, for funding and constitutional provisions to support the powers and functions conferred, and for the addition of a further five non-constituent members to the combined authority: North Warwickshire, Rugby, Shropshire, Stratford-on-Avon and Warwickshire. As provided for by the 2009 Act, the combined authority and the councils consulted on the proposals in their scheme. This was a public consultation which was entirely undertaken by the authorities concerned. They decided the approach, which was a matter for them.
I know noble Lords are interested in the consultation so will provide some further details. The local consultation undertaken by the combined authority ran for seven weeks from 4 June to 21 August 2016. In that time, 1,328 responses were received. Of these, 777—60%—agreed that the mayoral combined authority will promote more efficient and effective governance in the West Midlands. With regards to some of the specific functions covered in the deal and conferred by this order, 79% agreed with the transport proposals, 71% with the air quality proposals and 69% with the housing proposals. On all the questions asked, more people supported than opposed the proposals.
Following that consultation, as statute requires, the combined authority provided the Secretary of State with a summary of the responses to the consultation in September. Before laying this draft order before Parliament, the Secretary of State considered the statutory requirements in the 2009 Act. He is satisfied that these requirements are met. In short, he considers that conferring the functions on the combined authority would be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the statutory functions across the area of the West Midlands combined authority. He has also had regard to the impact on local government and communities. Further, as required by statute, the seven constituent councils and the combined authority have consented to the making of this order.
The detail of the draft order reflects the commitment in the deal that the mayor should take on responsibility for a devolved and consolidated transport budget and a key route network of local authority roads. This key route network of combined authority roads is identified in Schedule 1 to the draft order. It is clear that a lot of consideration and detail have gone into this network, and I congratulate the local area on the work that it has done in identifying this strategic network. The order provides that the mayor, with the assistance of the combined authority, will exercise the following powers over this network: powers to enter into agreements with highway authorities, Ministers and Highways England in relation to the maintenance of roads; powers to promote road safety and regulate traffic; powers to operate a permit scheme to control the carrying out of works on the combined authority roads; and powers to collect contributions from utility companies for diversionary works needed as a result of highways works carried out on the key route network.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I find it refreshing that councils want to join the combined authority, as opposed to wanting to opt out of it. It is good to see the broadly positive outcome of the consultation, with some quite strong figures. It will be helpful to have the extent of the responsibilities and powers that are defined in the order, because they are not up to the same as other combined authority orders, so it makes it much easier to pile up the differences between combined authorities. It is also good to see in the order the checks and balances in the powers of the constituent councils, the combined authority and the mayor. They are quite complex, particularly in view of the number of constituent councils, but I think they are quite workable.
I want to ask the Minister a very specific question about the powers of the mayor and the combined authority, given that they have compulsory purchase powers and, of course, that the combined authority takes over the powers of the Homes and Communities Agency. I just want to be absolutely certain on the record that there is no involvement by the mayor or the combined authority in the granting of planning permission in any part of the West Midlands Combined Authority.
The Minister referred to the independent remuneration panel. This panel relates to the mayor and the deputy mayor of the West Midlands. I think that we are creating too many independent remuneration panels. The time has come for there to be a single, national system for England in the remuneration of combined authority members, elected mayors and councillors. It should not be difficult to construct a system; most other organisations have national schemes. I no longer understand why everything has been localised in the way that it has or, indeed, why there has to be a separate independent remuneration panel for the mayor and deputy mayor of a combined authority.
I want to make two final, very brief points. In the paragraph about the appointment of a political adviser, which I understand applies to all combined authorities, can the Minister clarify the meaning of “within proportionate resource”? A political adviser can be paid “within proportionate resource”, but I do not understand what it is proportionate to. It could be proportionate to the remuneration of the mayor or of the deputy mayor; it could be proportionate to the remuneration of those serving on the combined authority; or it could relate to the budget of the office or of the mayor’s office. We need to be clear about what that phrase means because it is the kind of thing that might cause difficulty later.
My final point relates to political balance. There are 28 members on this combined authority, which I find a welcome number because it means that there is support for the concept of the combined authority. First, I want to be clearer about the political balance of those 28 members to ensure that all interests are involved. In other places—for example, in individual councils—questions of political balance on the appointment of committees are required to be considered. I am slightly concerned that one may find a predominance of only one political party, or maybe two, on a combined authority. How will political balance be ensured, given the number of members on the West Midlands Combined Authority? Secondly, with regard to the scrutiny function, which is subject to legislation that has already been passed by your Lordships’ House, I just want to hear from the Minister that political balance will be ensured on the terms that have already been agreed and that there will be no difference at all in the West Midlands, given the importance that scrutiny is going to have in what is a comparatively large combined authority.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not been involved in these matters before, but I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and, during our earlier reviews, I have become aware of the questions about the extent of public consultation and the extent to which that consultation has favoured the Government’s proposals. My noble friend referred to that in his opening remarks; I think he said that 1,328 people had responded. That is a decent number, but we are talking about several million people in the organisation that we are talking about, so it is not a significant number statistically. Nevertheless, I welcome that more than half that number were in favour.
I happen to have had a regret Motion on a completely different matter that preceded the discussion we had the other day, about the combined authorities of East Anglia and the north-east, and I noted some of the concerns expressed by other noble Lords at that time. When the scrutiny committee had the West Midlands authority brought before it, I decided to look at it with slightly more care. I entirely appreciate and support the original concept of the urban West Midlands. I know that there are tensions between the Black Country and Birmingham, and so on, but nevertheless there is some cohesion. But when I saw what had been tacked on, I got out my mobile phone and googled the distance from Nuneaton, which is on the eastern end of the area, to Montgomery, which is just over the border in Wales and just outside the western end, and the distance is 96 miles. I did the same from north to south, and the distance is 106 miles. This is a very big area indeed, and I wonder what an authority which runs from the Potteries to the Cotswolds and from the M1 to the Welsh border is going to be able to do to hold this thing together and give it a sense of cohesion.
I understand about the urban West Midlands and the mayor elections taking place there in May. But with this very limited consultation in the first place, which brings in an entirely different type of society—rural, quite lowly populated—I wonder whether we are creating a structure that is really going to deliver what the people in those outlying, tacked-on areas are going to appreciate as a worthwhile and efficient use of local authority and indeed central government funds.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, on the question of remuneration for the mayor, I ask the Minister whether the Government have a particular figure in mind. He will be aware that the election of a mayor in the West Midlands has caused a little controversy in the area about the size of the salary. Indeed, I understand that a recent meeting of leaders of various local authorities recommended a figure of around £40,000, which is, understandably, a bit less than one or two of them earn themselves. Can we have an idea from the Minister, before he sets up the remuneration committee, what a sensible figure would be? Does he agree that that figure ought at least to be in excess—perhaps considerably in excess—of the salary of existing local authority leaders, given the wide area, as outlined in the previous contribution, for which the mayor would be responsible? Can the Minister give us some assurance that whoever is elected will be seen to be independent of government, so that if it is necessary for the mayor to take a decision contradicting the views of government Ministers, he would not, regardless of party, be subject to the sort of treatment that has just been meted out to the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who, because of his temerity in disagreeing with the Government’s philosophy, was hurriedly dropped from a particular government position despite his distinguished record? The least the Minister can do is to reassure the House that whoever is elected will be seen to be independent of government.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Hodgson, both referred to the consultation process. I do not really want to make an observation on that, but consultations are wondrous things, are they not? They are often prayed in evidence. The figure that the Minister gave was, I think, that 777 people or thereabouts had agreed with the proposals. What that represents as a proportion of the West Midlands would barely be able to be determined on a quite sophisticated computer—it is a very, very small proportion of the population of the West Midlands. Having said that, I find myself impressed at the idea that as many as 777 people agreed with the proposal—when I for one find even these orders extraordinarily complex—and had weighed up these issues and thought that, on balance, it was a good system to introduce.
On the question of intelligibility—there are a lot of things that I am not keen on, including the point implied by my noble friend Lord Snape—let us get it down to punter level. I lived just outside the area, but for someone living in the West Midlands area who is faced with a problem involving housing, transport or jobs, is there a simple guide being proposed by the Government that tells them whether to go to their directly elected mayor—even though the people of Birmingham voted against a directly elected mayor, as we know well enough—or to one of the members of the combined authority or to one of the constituent boroughs? Any democratic system, in my book at any rate, needs to be as intelligible as possible, and I am not at all sure about this new structure. It took the Minister, who understands these things, 10 minutes of speed-reading to refer to just these orders. The punters need to know what they are buying.
That brings me to my last point: has anyone worked out the cost so far of reaching the stage that we are at now? I dread to think how much it cost to produce these documents before us—I imagine quite a bit of ministerial and Civil Service time, not to mention the time spent by the local authorities themselves, who have had to submit evidence and attend meetings. And of course there is the cost of these elections, when they take place in May. Some indication, along the lines of the request of my noble friend Lord Snape, would be helpful for us to know precisely what sort of figures we are dealing with.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I will briefly follow up on a couple of the points that have been made. I declare an interest in the sense that I live in the total area, as I live in Ludlow, in Shropshire. I will be amazed when the people of Shropshire wake up on 8 May and discover that they will be sending the combined authority what will be a few tens of thousands of pounds—they are not involved in the election of the mayor, because the mayor is only for the metropolitan county area, which is the old seven councils. I wish it well—do not get me wrong—but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, mentioned the variety of the area, and I think that we do need to exploit the assets of the area.
For example, there are 326 local authority areas in England, and their density of population varies from 9,000 people per square kilometre to well under 100 people per square kilometre—as it is in Shropshire. Of the 326, Shropshire lies at about 312; in other words, it is an incredibly sparse area. What that tells me is that it has land for development. We do not need to rip up the countryside to use the land for development, and therefore there is potential in this area—the motorway links are not brilliant, by the way.
I do not know what the local authorities will do about this. The bosses who run Shropshire are not very keen on factories coming into the area. I once raised the issue at a public meeting, as I think jobs and manufacturing are important. In the area of the old seven councils—where I lived and worked and I also represented the area, so I know what it is like—it is not easy to put a factory on a greenfield site. You cannot do that in the Black Country; you can use brownfield sites, but you are absolutely limited for modern, technological industrial undertakings and you cannot do it in the old way. I just want to put that on the record.
On consultation, I have not seen anything in the local papers about the effect of this. I remember that the issue of consultation was raised about three orders ago. I hope that we are not playing with fire, because the body is being set up and it will perform its functions from 8 May.
My final point is that, in the West Midlands, we miss figures of substance, if I can put it that way.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
I think that the noble Lord will find that, because Shropshire volunteered, it was not consulted at all. The consultation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was about the West Midlands area. I do not think that there was any consultation in Shropshire at all; it was a volunteering effort by the Shropshire leadership. So I do not think that the people of Ludlow, where the noble Lord and I both live, would ever have had a chance to say anything.
Lord Rooker
That is right; it has not been commented on. It has not been an issue that has figured at all, and that is why I think it will be a bit of a surprise on 8 May.
My final point is that I hope that the new structure will generate some figures of substance. We miss in the West Midlands people of the stature of the late Sir Adrian Cadbury and the late Denis Howell, who were Midlanders who got things done. That is the one thing that has been missing in the West Midlands compared to the north-east and north-west, where figures of substance have emerged in a leadership role, which has transformed the communities. So in some ways I hope that—although I have not seen any on the horizon at the moment—once this new structure is up and running, such people will come forward.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the order before us today and I welcome the combined authority. It is good news that the constituent councils have all agreed this, and of course there are also non-constituent members taking part in this new arrangement. I lived in Coventry for many years, so I can see the logic of, for example, Nuneaton and Bedworth being part of the combined authority, as that is very near there. However, I do not know the area of Shropshire as well as my noble friend Lord Rooker does.
The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots, has raised an important point, though, about the wider area. I will not get into this today, but I think that there is an issue about where are going with local government in England. No party has dealt with this, outside of London, and it is an issue that at some point someone needs to deal with. I am not sure that these patchwork arrangements are the solution.
It is good that the consultation was positive, although I take on board the point that the number of responses was still quite low. However, for some of the other orders that we have looked at, the consultation response was very negative. At least the consultation response on this order was supportive of it.
When the Minister responds, it would be useful if he could comment on the powers that the mayor will have under the order. Will the mayor have the power to dispose of public land at less than market value for use as social housing? In terms of the mayoral development corporation, can he confirm whether it will have that power as well? As he will know, we tried to get this issue resolved in the Neighbourhood Planning Bill in respect of London, but for all sorts of reasons, which I am not yet quite clear on, it never happened, despite it being suggested and everyone being in support of it.
Can the Minister also say something about powers? I am conscious that this combined authority has more powers than some authorities but fewer than others, such as Greater Manchester, which has powers over the police and the health service. How would this authority go about getting further powers? Were there powers that were asked for but were refused? I do not know, and it would be interesting to find out.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made a very important point about the remuneration panel. The idea of an England-wide panel is sensible, rather than having lots of different remuneration panels. That seems a good idea.
Having said that, I am content with the order. I shall finish my remarks by saying that I wish the authority well and, whoever is elected as mayor, I wish them well in this important role.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I shall try to pick up the points made. I thank noble Lords for the generally positive way in which they want to take things forward, although there are some understandable concerns. I shall try to address the points in the order in which they were made.
Turning first to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, I thank him very much for his comments on progress, on checks and balances and on the consultation response. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just said, the response was much more positive than has been the generality and was perhaps the most positive of all such consultations. Positive responses outweighed negative ones on every single question asked in the consultation, in most cases by a significant margin.
In that regard, I happily concur with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, about the intelligence of people in the West Midlands. In relation to the wider and very fair point that he made about an intelligible guide on how this will operate, in the department we are going to publish a plain English guide. I welcome that, because sometimes the language about how mayors and combined authorities will work is obscure and Byzantine. I hope that that guide will be helpful.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, rightly said that compulsory purchase powers are exercisable by the mayor. I can confirm, as he has raised the issue, that planning permission stays, as before, with the constituent councils. There is no change on that point.
I take the noble Lord’s point about the independent remuneration panels existing in isolation. Clearly, each authority is bespoke and they are different one from another, so one would expect the remuneration packages to be somewhat different. I shall take away the idea of having some way of cross-referencing the independent remuneration panels, so that we can both share experience and perhaps seek to keep costs down. That seems a sensible approach.
On the point that the noble Lord raised about the political adviser, within the mayoral office there is the capacity for a political adviser. That is paid for out of the mayoral budget, and we anticipate that the cost will be proportionate to that budget.
On my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point about the scrutiny committee—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who made this point—there must be political balance on the scrutiny committee. With regard to the combined authority, there is no statutory requirement, just as in any local authority election. The balance is the balance as represented in the elections and the process that follows from that. However, there is a legal requirement that carries across to scrutiny committees of combined authorities in the same way as for other authorities.
On my noble friend Lord Hodgson’s point about the extent of the authority, I think that it is important to distinguish the combined authority, with its seven constituent members, from the larger area that he cited as stretching from Nuneaton to just outside Montgomery and from north to south. That larger area includes non-constituent authorities, which do not have rights to vote and do not participate in the mayoral election. They are part of the broader engagement because of the strategic interest that often arises in relation to transport, housing and so on. They are not tacked on in any casual sense; they are important for strategic concerns.
The noble Lord, Lord Snape, echoed the point about remuneration, which I have already addressed. He talked about how the Government would work with mayors. I share his view that it is important that we work well with mayors. The experience of the Government working with the Mayor of London has been positive—we have engaged with Sadiq Khan on a regular basis on issues such as housing and last week’s atrocity—and it has been a positive exercise.
I pay tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Heseltine has done in my department. It was considerable. Of course, he was not elected in the same way as a mayor, as the noble Lord knew when he was making the point. However, I place on record the debt that we all owe to the work of my noble friend Lord Heseltine.
Brexit: Legislating for the United Kingdom’s Withdrawal from the European Union
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement about today’s publication of a White Paper on the great repeal Bill. Yesterday we took the historic step of notifying the European Council of the Government’s decision to invoke Article 50. The United Kingdom is leaving the EU. That notification marks the beginning of our two-year negotiation period with the EU and it reflects the result of last year’s instruction from the people of the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is our fierce determination to get the right deal for every single person. Now is the time to come together to ensure that the UK as a whole is prepared for the challenges and opportunities presented by our exit from the EU.
We have been clear that we want a smooth and orderly exit, and the great repeal Bill is integral to that approach. It will provide clarity and certainty for businesses, workers and consumers across the UK on the day we leave the EU. It will mean that as we exit the EU and seek a new, deep and special partnership with the EU, we will be doing so from a position where we have the same standards and rules. But it will also ensure we deliver on our promise to end the supremacy of EU law in the UK as we exit. Our laws will be made in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast, and interpreted not by judges in Luxembourg but by judges across the United Kingdom.
Some have been concerned that Parliament will not play enough of a role in shaping the future of the country once we have left the EU. Today’s White Paper shows just how wrong that is. This publication makes clear that there will be a series of Bills to debate and vote on, both before and after we leave, as well as many statutory instruments to consider.
Let me turn to the content of today’s White Paper. The paper we have published today sets out the three principal elements of this great repeal Bill. First, it will repeal the European Communities Act and return power to the United Kingdom. Secondly, the Bill will convert EU law into UK law wherever practical and appropriate, allowing businesses to continue operating knowing that the rules have not changed overnight, and providing fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change. Thirdly, the Bill will create the necessary powers to correct the laws that do not operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU.
I will address each of these elements in turn before coming to the important issue of the interaction of the Bill with the devolution settlements. Let me begin with the European Communities Act. Repealing the ECA on the day we leave the EU enables the return to this Parliament of the sovereignty we to some degree ceded in 1972, and ends the supremacy of EU law in this country. It is entirely necessary to deliver on the result of the referendum. But repealing the ECA alone is not enough. A simple repeal of the ECA would leave holes in our statute book. The EU regulations that apply directly in the UK would no longer have any effect and many of the domestic regulations we have made to implement our EU obligations would fall away. Therefore, to provide maximum possible legal certainty, the great repeal Bill will convert EU law into domestic law on the day we leave the EU. This means, for example, that the workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer rights that are enjoyed under EU law in the UK will continue to be available in UK law after we have left the EU. Once EU law has been converted into domestic law, Parliament will be able to pass legislation to amend, repeal or improve any piece of EU law it chooses, as will the devolved legislatures, where they have the power to do so.
However, further steps will be needed to provide a smooth and orderly exit. This is because a large number of laws, both existing domestic laws and those we convert into UK law, will not work properly if we leave the EU without taking further action. Some laws, for example, grant functions to an EU institution with which the UK might no longer have a relationship. To overcome this, the great repeal Bill will provide a power to correct the statute book where necessary to resolve the problems which will occur as a consequence of leaving the EU. This will be done using secondary legislation, the flexibility of which will help make sure we have put in place the necessary corrections before the day we leave the EU. I can confirm that this power will be time-limited, and Parliament will need to be satisfied that the procedures in the Bill for making and approving the secondary legislation are appropriate. Given the scale of the changes that will be necessary and the finite amount of time available to make them, there is a balance to be struck between the importance of scrutiny and correcting the statute book in time. As the Constitution Committee in the other place recently put it:
“The challenge that Parliament will face is in balancing the need for speed, and thus for Governmental discretion, with the need for proper parliamentary control of the content of the UK’s statute book”.
Parliament, of course, can, and does, regularly debate and vote on secondary legislation: we are not considering some form of government “executive orders”, but using a legislative process of long standing. I hope that today’s White Paper and this Statement can be the start of a discussion between Parliament and government about how best to achieve this balance. Similar corrections will be needed to the statute books of the three devolved Administrations, and so we propose that the Bill will also give Ministers in the devolved Administrations a power to amend devolved legislation to correct their law in line with the way that UK Ministers will be able to correct UK law.
Let me turn to the CJEU and its case law. I can confirm that the great repeal Bill will provide no future role for the CJEU in the interpretation of our laws, and the Bill will not oblige our courts to consider cases decided by the CJEU after we have left. However, for as long as EU-derived law remains on the UK statute book, it is essential that there is a common understanding of what that law means. The Government believe that this is best achieved by providing for continuity in how that law is interpreted before and after exit day. To maximise certainty, therefore, the Bill will provide that any question as to the meaning of EU law that has been converted into UK law will be determined in the UK courts by reference to the CJEU’s case law as it exists on the day we leave the EU. Any other starting point would be to change the law and create unnecessary uncertainty.
This approach maximises legal certainty at the point of departure. But our intention is not to fossilise the past decisions of the CJEU for ever. As such, we propose that the Bill will provide that historic CJEU case law be given the same status in our courts as decisions of our own Supreme Court. The Supreme Court does not frequently depart from its own decisions, but it does so from time to time, and we would expect the Supreme Court to take a similar, sparing approach to departing from CJEU case law. But we believe it is right that it should have the power to do so. Of course, Parliament will be free to change the law, and therefore overturn case law, where it decides it is right to do so.
Today’s White Paper also sets out the great repeal Bill’s approach to the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Let me explain our approach here. The Charter of Fundamental Rights applies to member states only when they act within the scope of EU law. This means that its relevance is removed by our withdrawal from the EU. The Government have been clear that in leaving the EU, the UK’s leading role in protecting and advancing human rights will not change. And the fact that the charter will fall away will not mean the protection of rights in the UK will suffer as a result. The Charter of Fundamental Rights was not designed to create new rights, but rather to catalogue rights already recognised as general principles in EU law. Where cases have been decided by reference to those rights, that case law will continue to be used to interpret the underlying rights which will be preserved.
I would now like to turn to devolution. The United Kingdom’s domestic constitutional arrangements have evolved since the UK joined the European Economic Community in 1973. The current devolution settlements were agreed after the UK joined, and reflect that context. In areas where the devolved Administrations and legislatures have competence, such as agriculture, the environment and some areas of transport, this competence is exercised within the constraints set by EU law. The existence of common EU frameworks has also provided a common UK framework in many areas, safeguarding the functioning of the UK internal market.
As powers return from the EU, we have an opportunity to determine the level best placed to take decisions on these issues, ensuring that power sits closer to the people of the United Kingdom than ever before. It is the expectation of the Government that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration, but we must also ensure that as we leave the EU no new barriers to living and doing business within our own union are created. In some areas, this will require common UK frameworks. Decisions will be required about where a common framework is needed and, if it is, how it might be established. The devolved Administrations also acknowledge the importance of common UK frameworks. We will work closely with the devolved Administrations to deliver an approach that works for the whole of the United Kingdom and reflects the needs and individual circumstances of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Let me conclude by stressing the importance of the great repeal Bill. It will help to ensure certainty and stability across the board. It is vital to ensuring a smooth and orderly exit. It will stand us in good stead for negotiations over our future relationship with the EU. And it will deliver greater control over our laws to this Parliament and, wherever appropriate, the devolved Administrations. These steps are crucial to implementing the result of the referendum in the national interest. I hope all sides will recognise that, and work with us to achieve these aims. I commend the Statement to the House”.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which introduces one of three broad areas of scrutiny facing this House over the coming 18 months. The other elements are the array of primary legislation—anywhere between seven and 15 Bills covering agriculture, customs, immigration and all their associated SIs. Alongside this will be our scrutiny of the Government’s negotiation with the EU 27, culminating in a vote in this House on the final deal.
Today’s foreshadowed Bill is, in one way, the easiest of those three tasks, as it takes existing EU law and incorporates it into domestic law. However, we have heard the Secretary of State for International Trade arguing:
“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market”.
Meanwhile, the Foreign Secretary wants to use the “opportunity” to axe needless regulations that have “accreted” since Britain joined the EU. How do those comments chime with the Prime Minister’s introduction to the White Paper—and, indeed, the Government’s long-standing promise—which states:
“The same rules and laws will apply on the day after exit as on the day before”?
Will the Minister confirm that it is the Prime Minister who is the boss and that, despite the words of others, there is no intention to follow their madcap ideas within the repeal Bill?
Despite its aim of simply converting existing rules into UK law, the Bill will be, in the words of our Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee,
“a wholly exceptional piece of primary legislation”,
with implications for,
“the fundamental issue of the balance between the Executive and Parliament”.
We are pleased that the Secretary of State confirmed that delegated powers introduced by the Bill will be subject to time limits, but a number of concerns remain. At paragraph 3.21, the Government believe that current statutory instrument procedures in this House are sufficient for the task. We have our doubts—so will the Minister give serious consideration to our recommendations? They are: that an explanatory memo be published alongside each statutory instrument; that there will be early consultation with outside stakeholders; that there will be provision of a comprehensive delegated powers memorandum for Parliament when the Bill appears; that there will be provision of draft regulations, so that scrutiny can commence before the Bill is enacted, in view of the sheer scale and complexity of the secondary legislation; and, given that delegated legislation is unamendable, that there will be consideration of a strengthened scrutiny procedure to help ensure that Parliament retains some control over significant statutory instruments, including some “triage” of the various proposals. Everyone in this Chamber knows that our committees do excellent work on this, but it is clear that some form of extra capacity will be needed if we are to scrutinise the vast array of statutory instruments that are to come.
Many EU regulations are monitored or enforced by the Commission, the Court of Justice or another EU body. The question, therefore, is how the Government will ensure that the new regulations, once domesticated into UK law, will still be monitored and enforced. There is little point in entrenching EU rights and protections if the Government do not also make sure that they are enforceable. As converting EU acquis into domestic law will have significant implications for the devolution settlements, which were all premised on our continued membership of the EU, can the Minister tell the House about their plans for dealing with repatriation in areas of devolved competence, including London? In particular, can he provide assurance that consultation will improve?
Just yesterday, the First Minister in Wales confirmed that he had not seen the Article 50 letter in advance and had not been invited to contribute to its drafting. He described that as,
“unacceptable … the culmination of a deeply frustrating process in which the devolved Administrations have been persistently treated with a lack of respect”.
Today, again, he said on the White Paper:
“We are disappointed we were not given opportunity to contribute to its production, despite assurances that we would be”.
Is this the level of co-operation that the Government think is satisfactory?
Although lacking in certain respects, today’s White Paper provides some clarity. Labour has insisted that our withdrawal from the EU must not lead to a reduction in workplace rights or environmental and consumer protections. These must be retained with no qualifications, limitations or sunset clauses. The White Paper, although I have not had time to read every detail, seems to accept this entirely, and even sets out some welcome examples. However, given the comments by the Foreign and International Trade Secretaries, and the former chairman of the Conservative Party, there are dangers ahead.
If we are to do our job properly, we will need the resources and structures to deal with the avalanche of secondary legislation and a way of ensuring that delegated powers are limited, used only when it is vital and not misused. The Minister knows that the House stands ready to do what is needed, but we will need rather more detail and assurance before we can be sure that the Bill is fit for purpose. The Government stress the importance of sovereignty. For us, this means parliamentary sovereignty, not an unacceptable power grab by the Government. We will be watching you.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. If the price of pointing out when the Government’s Brexit emperor lacks clothes is to be labelled “a well-known pessimist”, it is a price I willingly pay. The first and most obvious flash of nakedness is in the title of the Bill. It is not great and it repeals nothing. It is, in fact, the “Sneaky Copy/Paste Bill”. After all, we learned yesterday that Brexit does not in fact mean Brexit; it means a deep and special relationship—so of course we will still be complying with lots of EU law. This is, of course, welcome in avoiding the destructive, off-the-cliff, no-deal Brexit that the Prime Minister threatened just weeks ago—and, I noted, repeated in the White Paper, although I thought it had been abandoned.
The deeper our relationship with the EU, the more the flimsiness of the emperor’s red-lined garments becomes apparent. It seems that the Government cynically hope that, as long as they pull out of EU institutions, the fact that the UK will continue to comply with most EU law can be sold as “freedom” and “regained control”. But, instead of taking back control meaning an increase in parliamentary sovereignty, as leave voters were deceived into thinking, Brexit in fact represents a shameless power grab by the Executive on a scale to make Henry VIII blush—and there are considerable doubts on the ability of the Civil Service to cope.
The Statement says that the Bill will,
“create the necessary powers to correct the laws that do not operate appropriately once we have left the EU”.
Paragraph 1.21 of the White Paper promises that there will be no “major changes to policy”, just enough to ensure that,
“the law continues to function properly”.
We will have to be watchful, given the wiggle room that that appears to allow. This power to correct will be exercised by secondary legislation allegedly to provide flexibility and speed. So, although government Executive orders are apparently ruled out, true reassurance is in short supply.
I want to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, about the resources in this House. The Liberal Democrats will be insisting on full parliamentary scrutiny, transparency and due process, including the involvement of the devolved Administrations.
The Statement and the White Paper pledge to end the supremacy of EU law in the United Kingdom, such that the laws we obey will not be interpreted by judges in Luxembourg. However, as I have already had occasion to remind the House today—it bears repetition—the Article 50 letter admits that UK companies trading in the EU will have to abide by EU rules while the UK takes no part in the institutions that shape those laws. In other words, we will become a rule taker and not a rule maker.
Therefore, the claim of no future role for the CJEU in the interpretation of our laws is simply untrue. Unless we want to forfeit whatever single market access is achieved, the CJEU will continue to play a large part in our lives. That is true also of treaty rights. Indeed, a few lines down from the ringing assertion that we will be ending the role of EU law, we learn that UK courts will determine the converted law by reference to the CJEU’s case law.
The abolition of the application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights is shown also to be more apparent than real, because the Luxembourg court has taken account of it in many of its judgments. Again, this is admitted a few paragraphs later. Therefore, the assertion in paragraph 2.23 of the White Paper that the charter’s relevance is,
“removed by our withdrawal from the EU”,
is also simply incorrect. Can the Minister explain how our courts will keep up not just with historic but with new EU law and CJEU case law? There are obscure references to common frameworks, but this must surely mean EU-compliant ones.
Lastly, how will the Government reconcile their pledge not to repeal protective legislation with the pressure from right-wing Conservatives, backed recently by the Daily Telegraph, to promise a bonfire of EU red tape in their 2020 manifesto to put Britain on a radically different course? Is that what “correction” actually means? If so, when will the Government go back and tell the British people that they voted to diminish their rights, including rights over flight compensation, food labelling or roaming charges?
The Liberal Democrats will not support anything that weakens human rights or environmental, workplace and consumer protection, or which threatens freedoms to study and work in the EU, research funding or security co-operation. This reinforces the need, which my party demands, for the British people to have the final say on the Brexit deal and for that say to be before the repeal Bill is enacted.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayter and Lady Ludford, for their contributions. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for her overarching view that we have provided at least some clarity on the approach we are taking. I think we are providing a considerable amount of clarity.
In her first point, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, asked: is the Prime Minister the boss? To clarify, yes, the Prime Minister is the boss—I had better make that very clear.
Lord Bridges of Headley
On a more serious note, as for the points made by the noble Baronesses about changes that might be made in years hence to EU-derived law once it is in UK law, that is some time off for the very simple reason that we have to get this process through and done in the time that we have. Any changes to EU-derived-law, if they were to be made—I should say more correctly “proposed”—would obviously need to be passed by this Parliament, but that is not for now. As this paper makes very clear, the task before us is to provide for a smooth and orderly exit on day one.
I want to pick up on a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I totally understand the concerns about people’s rights, but we are making it absolutely clear that we do not intend to undermine or erode people’s rights as they are derived from the EU. Furthermore, the noble Baroness suggested that this is a power grab. This is not a power grab. We make very clear in the paper the balance that we are striving to achieve between the need to get appropriate scrutiny from Parliament while, at the same time, having a fully functioning statute book on the day that we leave the EU.
From paragraph 3.16 onwards, we set out a number of constraints that might be taken. As I said in the Statement, we are committed to a time limit. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made some very interesting suggestions about other constraints that are not in the White Paper as such. I draw the House’s attention to paragraph 3.17 on the scope of the power as it is currently considered and the potential that,
“we will consider the constraints placed on the delegated power in section 2 of the ECA to assess whether similar constraints may be suitable for the new power, for example preventing the power from being used to make retrospective provision or impose taxation”.
The noble Baroness made a number of other suggestions. She echoed the points made in the excellent report by this House’s Constitution Committee—and many thanks to those Members who contributed to it—on Explanatory Memorandums, which is a very interesting idea. She referred to consultation on drafts, which again is going to be very important as we move to implementing SIs that touch on sectors of the economy, a comprehensive delegated powers memorandum, which is worth mulling over, draft regulations, strengthened scrutiny procedure and finally triage. These are all thoughts that my door is open to have discussions on with any noble Lord who wishes to do so. I stress the point that is made in paragraph 3.23 of the White Paper:
“This White Paper is the beginning of a discussion between Government and Parliament as to the most pragmatic and effective approach to take in this area”.
The noble Baroness makes a very good point about the monitoring of EU regulations once they are converted into EU law and why those EU regulations are today enforced by EU regulators. I am glad she has raised this point. We are having extensive discussions with UK regulators on how this will work and furthermore, as she alluded to in her opening remarks, the need for consultation and discussion about that process and how we bring them over.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, moved on to the interpretation of case law. I simply say gently to the noble Baroness that we need to have the certainty of the interpretation of case law which underpins a number of significant legal and policy cases—I am thinking in particular of our VAT policy. A large number of CJEU case law precedents shape that policy. We need to have that certainty on day one, hence the approach that we are taking.
As regards the noble Baroness’s point on consultation with the devolved Assemblies, yes, we will need to consult. We are giving Ministers there a power to amend their legislation to ensure that it, too, is going to be fit for purpose on day one. We are having regular meetings and we will continue to do so.
I am very keen to continue to consult with all Members of this House about the measures contained in the White Paper as it is absolutely critical we get this right.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I realise that the bulk of this is mainly a conversion exercise, which is very sensible and I greatly welcome that, but when it comes to the powers to correct statutes and make and approve secondary legislation, as the Minister has described, can we assume that there will be some degree of filtration and even removal? Many of these vast numbers of regulations are not only unwanted—that may be a matter for opinion and debate in Parliament—but obsolete and come down to us from a pre-digital age and an era of centralisation which is long past. It would be a real waste of time, effort and space on the statute book merely to place them there when they are redundant.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend is making a good point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made about the potential for triage and flagging up to Parliament whether an SI is of a very technical nature or of a more substantial policy nature and therefore the level of scrutiny that is required. All I will say at this stage is that I am very keen that we get the balance right between bringing noble Lords and the other place with us as we make these changes, making sure that we get the scrutiny right with the level of speed that we need to proceed with. I am very interested in the point that my noble friend makes and we will certainly look at that.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Will the Minister clarify the welcome reference in the Statement to a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration? In respect of the Social Chapter, for example, will Wales be able to have that fully enforceable, even if it were to be amended at a UK level? Will he also confirm that any powers coming from Brussels to the UK applying in devolved areas will be able to be retained at, for example, a Wales level and will not need to be grabbed back by London? And will the European Convention of Human Rights still apply in the devolved areas?
Lord Bridges of Headley
On the second point, there is absolutely no plan for the Government to withdraw from the ECHR—I can assure the noble Lord of that. On the first point, there is again absolutely no intention to use this process in any shape or form to erode the decision-making powers that currently exist for any of the devolved Administrations. As regards how powers come back, that is clearly a matter, as the Statement makes clear, that we need to consult on very carefully to make sure that it works in all our interests.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the Government have got rid of the Orwellian title the “Great Repeal” Bill on the title page, although they seemed to revert like a ponticum rhododendron when they got inside. Would it not have been better to adopt the by-line of the Prince of Lampedusa’s famous remark in The Leopard when he gave the definition of revolution as:
“Everything was changed so that everything may stay the same”?
I think that is probably rather more the title, and the Daily Telegraph’s regulatory bonfire may be a bit short of dry kindling.
I have two questions. First, paragraphs 1.16 and 1.19 recognise that the provisions of this Bill will be operated in parallel with the Article 50 negotiations but there is no parliamentary process for approving the changes that may have been agreed in a deal with the European Union other than the binary choice when that deal is brought to Parliament. Are the Government really asking us to give them a blank cheque for all those changes they negotiate and to deny Parliament scrutiny of the details?
Secondly, paragraph 1.20 of the White Paper makes it even clearer than it was before that the Government are anticipating no process of parliamentary approval in the context of the UK exiting without a deal. Surely this lacuna has shown even more clearly than it was shown before that we have to have a provision for approving or disapproving a decision to exit without a deal?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, for fear of frustrating noble Lords, I will not repeat all the arguments regarding the noble Lord’s second point. I will simply say with regard to all these points that there will be ample opportunity, as I have said many times at this Dispatch Box, for your Lordships and the other place to scrutinise how the negotiations are proceeding. In addition, as we make it clear here and as we said before, there will be a vote in both Houses on the agreement at the end of the process, and were measures to come out of the withdrawal treaty that needed to be implemented, again, there would be a chance for Parliament to scrutinise those.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, the White Paper referred extensively to the report of the Constitution Committee but not to its recommendation that both Houses need a mechanism for deciding whether enhanced scrutiny is required for some of these instruments. Given that statutory instruments cannot be amended and may be wrong in part but not as a whole, and that this House is reluctant to vote them down if they have been passed in the other House, surely we need that kind of mechanism.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. I have read that excellent report, which makes a very useful contribution to the debate. I will not start committing one way now; indeed, it is not my role to start committing on the precise point the noble Lord made. However, I have had private conversations with some of your Lordships about this, whom I thank, and I am happy to meet the noble Lord to discuss this. However, I will not make a commitment on his point right here and now.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s foreword to the White Paper stresses the importance of trying to minimise uncertainty during the negotiations. Does my noble friend agree that among those suffering most from uncertainty are UK citizens living elsewhere in the European Union and those from elsewhere in the European Union living in the United Kingdom? When the Prime Minister approached this in Brussels she was told that she must wait until negotiations had begun and Article 50 had been implemented. Can my noble friend assure us that we will now press ahead with resolving the matter at the earliest possible moment? Should we not be absolutely clear that we must avoid a situation where nothing is agreed until everything is agreed? That would perpetuate the uncertainty for this group of people and many other groups of people for two years or perhaps many more.
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. As regards the substance of it, I draw attention to the second point in the “principles for our discussions”, set out in the letter that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister sent yesterday, which repeated our absolute aim to strike an early agreement about the rights of both EU citizens in this country and UK citizens right across Europe. It is absolutely our intention to do so, and it is obviously good news that we can now start that process. We have been heartened by the fact that in conversations with our European partners, they too largely share that overriding intent.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister should gain strength and succour—I am sure he will—from the fact that although he will be on his feet for hours on end in the complexities of this and other Bills, this Bill has the advantage that although the detail may be difficult, the objective could not possibly be simpler. It is to ensure that this Parliament—and we are all parliamentarians—makes, changes and amends the laws, which the people of this country expect this Parliament to perform. I know from all my experience as an MP that they expect Parliament to carry out that duty by being able to make the decisions on their behalf. Therefore, all of us who are keen parliamentarians and who value the priceless authority we have in either House, but principally in the Commons, should bear in mind, surely, that this is a wholly desirable piece of legislation.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am delighted that the noble Lord sees it that way. I certainly agree that although the challenge ahead is extremely complex, we need to proceed with some simple principles and as simple an approach as possible, while being mindful of the complexity and of the view, which I know some of your Lordships hold, that in the process of restoring sovereignty to Parliament we should not give the Government excessive powers. We need to get the balance absolutely right and that is what I am determined to do.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister has well in mind the problems with amending legislation of a subordinate nature in this House. I have experience of dealing with a much more modest situation, which arose when I was Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor’s status was transformed, and we realised that over 300 pieces of legislation had not been taken into account. I suggest that it is possible to include in whatever the Bill will be called—great or otherwise—a provision which enables a statutory instrument to be amended without affecting its validity. That will give much greater comfort to those in this House with regard to what is proposed.
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble and learned Lord makes an extremely interesting point. I am sure he will make other points and I very much look forward to having discussions with him about this and other issues in the months ahead.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I confess to an almost irresistible urge to return to full-time practice at the Bar because this is a legal minefield. When a relevant right of action arises between now and the date of our departure, is it not the case that any such proceedings which may follow fall to be determined by European Union law and are justiciable by the European Union Court of Justice, however long that might take?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am not sure I entirely get the noble Lord’s point, I am sorry to say. I have set out the position on case law. Until we leave the European Union obviously we continue to be bound by the ECJ. Forgive me if I am missing the noble Lord’s point. I am happy to meet him to discuss it.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
It is the turn of the noble Baroness opposite.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, I am pleased that the Government seem to be taking on board many of the recommendations we have made in tandem with the Constitution Committee, with which we are working closely. The most important from our point of view is the sunset clause—the time-limiting one—which deals, I think, with many of the worries people have about giving the Government extensive powers. May I take it a little further? There will be primary legislation dealing with other matters where we will wish to take a different approach and have a different policy. My guess is that there will be considerable delegated powers. I ask the Government not to take too much for granted. Our committee will have beady eyes on it all.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am delighted that the beady eye of my noble friend will continue to survey all that comes from government, and so it should. I thank very much my noble friend and the members of her committee for their work. As I said, we have confirmed that there will be a sunset clause in this piece of legislation. My noble friend is absolutely right about the other pieces of legislation that will follow. I will not say here and now the extent of any delegated powers they might have, but we are obviously very mindful of the need to ensure that those powers are proportionate.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s policy is to leave the single market, with potentially devastating consequences for the British economy. It is already causing the deepest anxiety in the City and among manufacturing industry particularly. I hope the Minister has read the recent report of the engineering manufacturers’ federation on the subject. The Government defend their policy. Their stated reason, or excuse, for it is that any other policy would be incompatible with their desire to restrict EU immigration. Now that the Secretary of State for Brexit has publicly acknowledged that in practice there will not be any meaningful reduction in EU immigration for some time, would it not be elementary common sense to re-examine this whole policy? The cost of leaving the single market remains the same, but the potential gain or return for which the Government said they were hoping is obviously much less than anticipated and possibly non-existent. Is it not common sense in those circumstances to review their policy, quite apart from the other issues such as the difficulty it would create for Ireland to create a new frontier across the island of Ireland, which could be avoided if we remain in the single market?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I respect the passion with which the noble Lord speaks on this matter; he does so with great eloquence. I have very little more to say to expand on what I have said at the Dispatch Box on this issue many times before. We view the need to leave the single market as reflecting the view and the instruction that the people delivered on 23 June last year. We have always said that we believe we need to take control over our borders. We also see that as an instruction and part of the need to leave the EU. As regards how we do so, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have both said on many occasions that we need to do so in a sensible way, mindful of and sensitive to the needs of the economy. I have little to add to that.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is well known for his engaging sense of perpetual optimism, so can he reassure the House that all the legislation in this vast Bill will be completed by the end of the next parliamentary Session, which presumably will start on 17 May or thereabouts? There will be more or less only a year to make sure that it all goes through. Will he also reassure us that, as the word “instruction” is rather an improper term to use in comparison with “indication”, “judgment” or other softer words, the final vote of the sovereign Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, will be the final decision on this matter?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, the people have said that they wish to leave the European Union and that is what we are doing. As regards the timetable for this Bill, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We obviously have a timetable that reflects the Article 50 process. We fully intend to see this Bill on the statute book as soon as possible so that we can start to use the powers and ensure that our statute book is fit for purpose on the day we leave the European Union.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
We have to hear from the noble Baroness on the Conservative Benches.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
I understand that my noble friend does not wish to proceed.
Lord Blackwell
In connection with the challenge set out in the White Paper of ensuring appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the EU legislation being translated into UK law, might my noble friend consider the precedent set some years ago by the tax law rewrite committee? As noble Lords may remember, this Joint Committee of both Houses was set up in similar circumstances with the simple purpose of replicating laws without changing them. It had the advantage that laws could be published in draft, others could look at them, and a Joint Committee of both Houses could scrutinise them and ensure, as the remit was set, that the laws were being translated without changing their meaning. That might be an effective way of dealing with the volume of legislation in this situation.
Lord Bridges of Headley
That is an extremely interesting point and I will look at that suggestion. Obviously we will look at what is practical and what will work best in consultation with appropriate committees of this House and the other place.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I have been encouraged by the Minister’s response to my noble friend on the Front Bench about his door always being open regarding the recommendations of the Constitution Committee, which have been marshalled around the House. He says—and the White Paper makes it clear—that the Government want to strike a balance between scrutiny and speed. I understand the constraints of speed but will he assure the House that, when it comes to finding that balance, they will have to lean towards scrutiny as far as this House and its role are concerned? In particular, will he look closely at the provision of draft regulations? One problem that has beset this House and its scrutiny processes in recent years has been our inability to comment on the impact of legislation because we have not had draft regulations for consideration. When so much of such a profound, not technical, nature will be dealt with through secondary legislation, we will need draft regulations to do that job properly.
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank the noble Baroness for that contribution, and I totally take heed of what she says. I think this comes back to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Howell about how to ensure, in some shape or form, that there is a reflection of the technical nature or otherwise of the SIs, making sure that the legislation is presented to Parliament in a timely manner. I hear what the noble Baroness says and I will certainly reflect on it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, following the contribution of my noble friend Lord Campbell, can the Minister confirm my reading of the White Paper: any obligations incurred under pre-exit European law, including obligations on the Government of this country, will be justiciable in our domestic courts following exit?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I make it clear that EU case law will be preserved as it stands on the day of exit, and it will be that which the UK courts will need to observe from then on.
Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Wales Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, the order puts in place the process that elected mayors and their combined authorities will follow for setting the mayoral budget and issuing precepts. For the six mayoral combined authorities with elections this May, these processes will apply in relation to 2018-19 and each subsequent year. This is applicable to all mayoral combined authorities, except for the West of England. In this case, reflecting local choice, there will be no mayoral precept, an outcome secured by provisions in the order establishing that combined authority. In addition, the order makes certain transitional finance provisions for Greater Manchester, reflecting that, from 8 May 2017, its mayor will have police and crime commissioner responsibilities, and be responsible for the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service.
This order establishes the final element in the funding framework for mayoral combined authorities. Under this framework, the activities of combined authorities and their mayors will be funded as follows. First, combined authorities and their mayors, as provided for in the devolution deals, will receive new, additional financial resources from government. In particular, noble Lords will recall that the Government are providing £30 million per year for 30 years of investment funding, known as “gain share”, to areas such as Greater Manchester, the West of England and the Liverpool City Region. In the case of the West Midlands, which we have considered in the previous debate ahead of the Statement, this investment funding is £36.5 million per year for 30 years. In the case of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough it is £20 million per year for 30 years and in the Tees Valley, reflecting the size of the area, it is £15 million per year for 30 years. Central government resources also include budgets for transport, and the mayors will have the powers to allocate this funding to the constituent councils, as we saw in the order that we previously considered today for the West Midlands.
Secondly, the primary legislation—the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—together with the orders we have made for individual combined authorities, provides that the constituent councils can make contributions to combined authorities and mayors. Importantly the orders also provide that, in the case of mayoral expenses, the mayor must agree contributions with the constituent councils in advance of incurring expenditure.
Thirdly, combined authorities can impose a levy on their constituent councils for transport costs. It is open to us also to make further secondary legislation to extend these levy powers for other functions of the combined authority. The constituent councils then build these levies into their own budgets.
Finally, mayoral functions—to the extent they are not met by other means—are to be met by a precept. This precept is determined each year through the mayoral budget process and is formally issued by the combined authority to the billing authorities in its area. The billing authorities then build this precept into their council taxes and the precept will be visible on council tax bills. As I said earlier, the mayor for the West of England does not set a precept. In this area, the costs of the mayor will be funded through contributions from the constituent councils.
If approved by Parliament, today’s order is to be made under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009—as amended by the Cities and Local Government Act 2016—and makes detailed provision about budgeting and precepting. If approved by Parliament, the order will come into effect the day after it is made. The specific provisions, which are designed to ensure an effective process including robust arrangements for scrutiny and challenge of the mayors’ proposals, are as follows. First, there is a requirement for combined authority mayors to submit by 1 February of a given year a draft budget to their combined authority for consideration. Secondly, the combined authority recommends any amendments to the draft budget before 8 February, and the mayor considers them and makes a further proposal if he should choose to do so. Thirdly, the constituent members of the combined authority may impose amendments to the mayor’s draft budget, if supported by a two-thirds majority—except in the case of the Tees Valley, where that majority is three-fifths. In the absence of this majority, the mayor’s proposals must be accepted by the combined authority.
Fourthly, the combined authority must set a mayoral budget if the mayor does not submit a draft for consideration by 1 February. Fifthly, the mayor is to fund mayoral functions through a precept, which will be subject to referendum principles that limit precept increases in the absence of a council tax referendum. Sixthly, the standard local government finance regime applies so that precepts must be issued by 1 March. Seventhly and lastly, to aid transparency the mayor is required to maintain a fund relating to the receipts and expenses of the mayor’s functions, excluding police and crime commissioner functions, for which Manchester city combined authority is responsible and for which there is a separate police fund.
The order also contains detailed provisions about transitional measures. The duty to issue a precept is disapplied in relation to the year in which the first mayor for the combined authority is elected. This is because for this year the mayor will not be in office in time for the precept to be set. Mayoral expenses in this first year will therefore be met by contributions from the constituent councils.
The final transitional provisions relate to Greater Manchester, where the mayor will be responsible for police and crime functions and the fire and rescue services. These provide that the precepts for 2017-18, which have been issued by the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner and the fire and rescue service, will from 8 May this year fund the mayor’s activities in respect of policing and fire and rescue functions.
In conclusion, the order will support the new combined authority mayors to fund their functions through a precept and a budget-setting process that allows for effective challenge and robust and transparent scrutiny by the combined authority. The draft order will complement the orders already approved by this House to implement the devolution deals agreed between local areas and the Government, paving the way for a more balanced and successful economy and improving housing supply across the country. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I shall make two brief points. First, the powers and the checks and balances proposed in the order seem appropriate, but I note the final paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum concerning monitoring and review, which says:
“Mayoral combined authorities will be required … to put in place an extensive programme of evaluation”.
I suggest to the Minister, not least because there are two different methods for creating the mayoral budget now—for most the precept, and for the West of England by agreement of the constituent councils—that evaluating how that works could well be something for independent review as opposed to being done by the combined authorities. I hope the Minister will pay some regard to that.
The other issue is that I did not quite understand what the Minister said about audit and, in particular, scrutiny. There is a very tight timetable between the beginning of February and the beginning of March. There is to be a budget proposed by the mayor, then to be agreed by the combined authority. The combined authority is of course scrutinising that mayoral budget, except that the combined authority itself is subject to scrutiny. My question is: at what point will the scrutiny arrangements that have already been approved by another order apply? Will there be a role for the scrutiny panel before 1 March, or will the scrutiny panel put forward its views at a date between 1 March and the date at which the constituent councils are setting their budgets, which need to come very early in March? There is a process issue about the role of scrutiny, because I think the Minister said that the combined authority has a scrutiny power over the mayoral budget, but the combined authority is actually itself subject to a formal statutory scrutiny arrangement.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my declaration of interests and put on record that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have no objections to the order before us and I am very happy to agree it. There does, however, need to be a wider debate at another time about where we are going with local government in England outside London. I will leave that for another day.
The section of the order with respect to mayors’ budgets is particularly welcome. I was pleased that the Minister made reference to the fact that there is a veto provision. All mayors will be mindful of that but, equally, it is set at the high bar of a two-thirds majority, or, in the case of Tees Valley Combined Authority, of a three-fifths majority. That is an important provision that mayors should be aware of.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, made important points regarding auditing and scrutiny. I welcome the Minister’s response to that. I assume I am correct that if local electors have objections to the council they can make these as normal, but could the Minister confirm that as well as he can in writing?
For the record, in the previous debate when asking about mayors and their function the point I made was about selling land below market value, not at market value. Will the Minister also respond to that point in writing?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Kennedy, for their contributions on the issue of local government finance. If I may first pick up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in relation to the previous debate, I will certainly take another look at that. As I indicated, I think the function will be balanced between the mayor and the combined authority. But there will of course be an overriding obligation to get best value and, if land is being sold below market value, I would anticipate that there was a danger of falling foul of that. I will cover that issue in a letter to the Minister—I mean the noble Lord; days of yore in the National Assembly for Wales are kicking in, so I apologise.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, once again for the generous welcome he has given to this piece of secondary legislation as well as for his attention to the different interests of the mayor and the combined authority and to the important checks and balances. He asked specifically about the budget process and about scrutiny. As I think he will know, the overview and scrutiny committees can require the mayor to appear before them at any time, including in the first year of the mayor’s term, before this more detailed process kicks in. In the first year, of course, it is too late for the precepting procedure, which applies later on. The budget scrutiny requirement refers to the scrutiny of the mayor’s budget by the combined authorities, though there is a specific requirement under the order, as the noble Lord appreciates, for a mayoral fund to be set up. I will perhaps enlarge on that in a letter because it is a fairly technical area.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, again for his pragmatic approach and for welcoming this particular measure. He raised similar points about scrutiny in addition to the point he raised on the last order. I will of course pick those up in a detailed letter.
As I said, this issue is central to the system of mayors, which I think we all support in principle. I accept that we have different concerns but it is obviously essential that going forward we have a system for how money is to be organised. I also accept that we have bespoke deals. For example, the West of England Combined Authority did not want precepting, while Tees Valley Combined Authority wanted decisions to be made with a 60% rather than a 66% majority because it has five constituent councils—I think that is the reason for that; they would each have 20% of the vote. Accepting that there are going to be slight differences, the general approach to scrutiny and budgets is set out in this order, which I think is non-controversial. As I said, any points that have been raised and that have not been covered in my response will be picked up in a letter, in addition to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in relation to the previous debate. I commend the order to the House.
Role of the Lord Speaker
(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Grocott
To ask the Leader of the House what plans she has to initiate a review of the role of the Lord Speaker.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, almost 11 years ago, in June 2006, the House of Lords took what was considered at the time to be a quite dramatic, almost revolutionary step. Despite considerable opposition, the House decided to elect its own presiding officer: the Lord Speaker. Prior to that, the person sitting on the Woolsack had been a senior member of the Cabinet, appointed by the Prime Minister. When you think about it, it is astonishing that a legislative assembly, the House of Lords, should have had so many of its Members preferring to have a member of the Government as its figurehead rather than someone who the Members themselves could elect—almost as odd, you might think, as having by-elections to elect hereditary Peers.
I mention this bit of history for two reasons. First, I want to remind everyone that yesterday’s revolutionary suggestion soon becomes today’s accepted practice. I do not know of any Member of this House today who is suggesting that we should replace the Lord Speaker with a senior member of the Cabinet. Secondly, the strong opposition at the time explains why the newly elected Speaker was given the bare minimum of powers, reflecting the views of so many Members that we were embarking on such a risky new venture. In fact, I kid you not, when one of the candidates in the first Speaker’s election was asked what he planned to do with the role, he replied, “As little as possible”.
In keeping with the caution of this Chamber, I am suggesting two small changes to the role of the Speaker which I believe would improve both the efficiency of the House and the intelligibility to the public of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The first relates to Question Time. In 2011 the then Leader’s Group on Working Practices produced its report. On Question Time it had this to say:
“The conduct of oral questions is the topic which, to judge by the responses to our invitation for views, concerns Members of the House more than any other … When the political character of question time is combined with the larger size of the House, the result is an increasingly fractious and at times aggressive atmosphere … many Members, from whom the House might wish to hear, and whose knowledge and experience would be particularly valuable … are discouraged from participating”.
The House voted on the proposal of the Leader’s Group to transfer Question Time responsibilities to the Lord Speaker, but the Motion was defeated. But since that vote six years ago, there have been significant changes. The House has grown even larger, in both size and daily attendance. This has made it even more difficult for people without loud voices to make themselves heard at Question Time. What is more, there has been increasing scrutiny of this House and the way in which we manage our affairs by the media and the public. Something that should be of concern to us all is the impression given to the public when they view Question Time. At times it appears to be a complete shambles, with people shouting at each other and no one in control. Anyone who observed Question Time this morning would find at least one example of that.
I believe there is a simple and cost-free solution to this problem: we should give control of Question Time to the Lord Speaker. In recommending this, I want to make one thing very clear. I am not criticising in any way the current Leader of the House, the Chief Whip—I never criticise Chief Whips—or any other Minister who might intervene at Question Time. I am saying simply that where they sit in the Chamber, on the Front Bench, is an absurd position from which to see the House and exercise control.
The House of Lords is unique in many ways but none more so for being the only legislative Chamber anywhere on the planet where the person responsible for maintaining order has their back to half the audience. I know, I have done myself it from time to time. You cannot see who is standing up behind you. You need wing mirrors. The people in the Gallery—the people we are here to serve—cannot see who is in control either. They look to the person in the chair, as they would at any other public event. But the Lord Speaker’s role in the chair is purely decorative—and he does that very well. The Companion to the Standing Orders insists on this. Paragraph 4.06 says:
“The role of assisting the House at question time rests with the Leader of the House, not the Lord Speaker”.
I hear the objectors say, “You are eroding the authority of the Leader”, to which the answer is that from the very start the establishment of our elected Lord Speaker has involved the transfer of responsibilities from members of the Cabinet to the Speaker. I will give a couple of examples. Until 2006 the power to determine whether or not a Private Notice Question should be allowed, believe it or not, was in the hands of the Leader of the House. Imagine that for a moment. The power to grant an Urgent Question, invariably requested by a Member of the Opposition and, to put it mildly, not often welcomed by the Government, until 2006 was determined by the Leader of the House as a senior member of the Government. That power was transferred to the Lord Speaker, and rightly so.
Another precedent involves the Lord Chancellor. Prior to 2006, the power to recall Parliament during a recess lay with the Lord Chancellor—like the Leader, a senior member of the Government. That power now rests with the Lord Speaker. Paragraph 1.55 of the Companion says:
“The Lord Speaker may, after consultation with the government, recall the House whenever it stands adjourned”.
So there are two examples—Private Notice Questions and the recall of the Lords—where power has been transferred from the Government to our elected Lord Speaker. In my book, that is entirely consistent with, and indeed an enhancement of, our valued tradition of being a self-regulating House.
I need to emphasise very strongly that I am in no way recommending a Speaker comparable to the Speaker in the House of Commons. I do not think anyone here, including former MPs like me, would want a Lord Speaker who, for example, had to rule every day on seemingly endless, usually bogus, points of order. There are a number of experts on that sitting around me this afternoon, and occasionally I would include myself. But paragraph 1.52 of the Companion states quite clearly:
“The House does not recognise points of order”.
That prohibition would remain. All I am suggesting is that the Lord Speaker should in future perform precisely the functions that the Leader does at present—no more and no less. I have no doubt whatever that this modest change would diminish the shouting match which often characterises Question Time. It would make proceedings more intelligible to the public and encourage and enable many more Members to participate who are reluctant to do so at present.
I suggest one other change to the Lord Speaker’s role, and today is a timely day to suggest it. I would like to see the Speaker take control of the House when Statements are made. At present, all that happens is that the Minister making the Statement simply stands up and reads it with no introduction. It is bizarre, but we are so used to it that we do not regard it as unusual. I think the Lord Speaker should announce the Statement and call the Minister. Otherwise, the matter is not that intelligible to the public. I have sat in this House many times when halfway through a debate or between two orders a Minister stands up and reads a Statement. It would be helpful if that were done by the Lord Speaker. All we have at present is a message on the annunciator to say that a Statement is due. It would also fall to the Lord Speaker to manage Statements in order to prevent mini-speeches—we had the odd example of that today—and to ensure that as many Members as possible are able to contribute in the 20 minutes that are allowed.
I believe the role of the Lord Speaker has grown over the years entirely to the benefit of the House. I also believe that the profile and leadership shown by the current Lord Speaker in speaking for the House on matters of public interest which are relevant to the House as a whole—both to the press and to the public—have been very much to our advantage. Enhancing his role at Question Time, in particular, and for Ministerial Statements would establishing him more effectively in the eyes of the public and the media as the person who can speak for the House of Lords.
My proposals today represent a small but significant extension to the responsibilities which were given to our first Lord Speaker 11 years ago. Nearly half our Members today—362 out of 804—were not Members then. It is high time that we reflected on our experience of having an elected presiding officer and consider the changes that I have suggested. They would make our proceedings fairer to Members and more comprehensible to the public. They would cost nothing and disadvantage no one. I commend them to the Leader, who will be responding, and to the House.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the extremely experienced and noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for tabling his QSD. I have agreed with much of his counsel in the past, and even today, but on this occasion, I think we should maintain the status quo and rely entirely on our excellent system of self-regulation.
I observed that when I was a junior Member of the Opposition Benches, I had no difficulty in getting my fair share of questions, even though I do not particularly have the gift of the gab. When I have guests attend Question Time, they often marvel to me how your Lordships know when to get up, as the Lord Speaker appears to have no role and very often my noble friend the Leader has no need to intervene. When she comes to respond, perhaps she can tell the House how often she has had to intervene. I also take this opportunity to say how well she performs her duties and to express our gratitude to her.
No doubt, many noble Lords will focus on Question Time, and I shall point out some of the advantages of the current arrangement that could be lost with any changes. I expect many noble Lords will make the point that the Leader has a better view of the House than the Lord Speaker. Although, unlike the Speaker in the Commons the Lord Speaker sits on his own, in the House of Lords, the Leader, the Government Chief Whip and the Clerk of the Parliaments work together as a team, especially at Question Time. Either the Chief Whip or the Leader will create a matrix to ensure that each Bench has its fair share of supplementaries. The Leader will need to be seen by the House as being scrupulously fair or she will risk losing the confidence of the House, and then be in danger of losing her job.
For ordinary legislative business, Statements and time-limited debates, the role of the Leader is usually delegated to a junior Government Whip, who seeks to express or suggest the sense of the House, in the same way as the Leader. Your Lordships will recall that I have performed this role, and I sought to do so as a servant of the House and not of the Government. I had no difficulty in helping the House manage Statements: it was quite easy. Once, when I got the sense of the House slightly wrong, I was able to say, “My Lords, this is a self-regulating House and a self-regulating Committee. If the Committee wants to hear more from the noble Lord, he should continue”. That is what self-regulation is about.
When noble Lords address the House, they generally do so looking very carefully at the Minister and the Government Front Bench in order to gauge their reaction. They do not look at the Lord Speaker. If a noble Lord is running out of his time, the Whip has a number of non-verbal techniques, which can be escalated, and these can easily be detected by the noble Lord speaking long before the Whip need rise to the Dispatch Box. In these circumstances, noble Lords know that they should drop their remaining points and conclude. Indeed, when I did have to go to the Dispatch Box to intervene on a noble Lord regarding time, I regarded it as a failure on my part. The beauty of this arrangement is that the Whip’s activity will not be seen on the video link, and no guests will be aware—they will not realise that the Government Whip is giving non-verbal directions to the speaker.
I have another reason for being very cautious about expanding the role of the Lord Speaker. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, was very careful to say that this would be only a very small change, but I fear that we are talking about a slippery slope—the noble Lord correctly anticipated that. With the sensible exception of money Bills, nothing on God’s earth can prevent a Peer tabling an amendment and having it debated to the extent that he or she desires and then if, necessary, calling a Division. In the Commons, amendments are grouped and selected by the Speaker, obviously,
“for the convenience of the House”.
We should be ever so careful about expanding the role of the Lord Speaker, lest we eventually find ourselves in the position of Back-Bench Members of the House of Commons, who are severely constrained.
My final point is this. I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, believes that he has a unique parliamentary style which will in time make it necessary to give the Lord Speaker increased powers. The noble Lord looks shocked at that, and I can assure him that this is not the case. When my noble friend Lord Trefgarne was a Minister, he had to enjoy the antics of Lord Hatch of Lusby, who had a similar style—I am getting gestures from the Opposition Benches, but I am not yet getting anything non-verbal from the Government Whip. When I arrived it was Lord Molloy. Now it is the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and I can assure him that the House has no difficulty in accommodating him or his predecessors, or in enjoying his contributions.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with one point made by the noble Earl: that the issue of creep would stop Back-Benchers. But that is not what my noble friend Lord Grocott was talking about. I want to support exactly what he said—no more, no less. I do not want this House to replicate the other place anyway. It is a very modest change. For two years, between July 2005 and July 2007, while the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, was the Leader of the House, I was delegated as Deputy Leader and, as such, on occasion I had to help the House out. Because I am a squirrel, I have here two years’ worth of Order Papers, where I meticulously kept a record of every Question. I was not waiting until trouble arose. I looked at every Question as it went through the House, so that I knew there was fairness in there. Because I am a squirrel, I put them all in a box and they are all there so that I have a record. We were meticulous in making sure that all sides got into the debate. One has to consider that some of our Members are a bit slower in getting up than others. I will not mention any names because that is not fair, but occasionally I was tipped off in advance that such a Peer would like to speak and therefore I could commend the House to listen to the Peer.
It is not easy to perform the role. When I sat there, I had the Labour Peers behind me and, if I remember rightly, the Cross-Benchers were to the immediate right; the configuration has changed slightly. You need your head on a swivel wire because you cannot hear who is shouting, and that is part of the problem.
It is not right that a Minister should be the person to choose the Member to question a Minister. There is a point of principle there. In fact, in performing the role, I was a bit rigid in being scrupulously fair on occasion. I recall one day when I cut off the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, just about to go into full flight. I can tell noble Lords that later that day I was on my knees at the side of her desk, begging forgiveness. When the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, became Leader, I was instructed to cease the role.
While I was in the role, I once checked on speakers at Question Time—I would like to think that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has already done this—and discovered that 50% of the supplementary questions were asked by 10% of the Members. This is because it is a bear pit with verbal bullies—pure bullies. They are on all sides of the House and of all genders. This is grossly unfair to the vast majority of the House. Some noble Lords have never asked a supplementary. They are here because they are world-class experts on a subject, but they cannot bring themselves to get involved in the bear pit. If the Lord Speaker had the role, all the noble Baroness would have to do is stand—not shout to try to be heard over everybody else—and hope to be called by the Lord Speaker. At least it would be a fairer system.
We should hear from the Members themselves who do not participate at Question Time. There is a job to be done there—to ask them why they do not. They are here in their hundreds but they never participate at Question Time. Bearing in mind that at the moment a sub-committee is looking at cutting down the size of this House, I would hate for it to come up with the idea, “This person never speaks at Question Time. Get them out”. The reason for that is the bullying tactics of the system. I am not accusing anybody and I have no criticism of anybody—the Leader, the Deputy Leader, the Chief Whip or anybody. The fact is that it is the system that is wrong. I found it really difficult when I became a Back-Bencher in 2008, because I had arrived here in 2001 as a Minister. I thought, “What the hell am I going to do? How do I get in at Question Time?”. I found it incredibly difficult to start to participate, and I am quite restrained these days because there is a serious problem.
It is a very modest technical challenge that does not alter anything for anybody but would give an impression of this House to the public that we are a bit more professional and look as though we know what we are doing. At present, at Question Time—I watch it on television occasionally—it looks as though we do not know what we are doing. That diminishes the House and we cannot defend it outside.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, as I have said only recently, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—it feels like only the other day but I see that it was last December. Uncharacteristically, I could not hear him as well as I usually can to begin with; it must have been some quirk of the microphones because I am sure that it cannot have been a quirk of the noble Lord.
It is also a pleasure to support the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. I usually do so from behind, but on this occasion I hope that I may be blazing a trail for him. Of course, I have no idea what he is planning to say, but I think we can have a fair idea. If I am right, I hope that my remarks will be supportive, but I in no sense wish to steal his thunder—I am merely the warm-up act for the pyrotechnics to come.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for tabling this QSD and securing this debate, because I have long held that the Lord Speaker’s role needs to be enhanced to give him or her the power to call speakers at Question Time and in response to Statements. A recommendation along these lines—originally emanating from the Leader’s Group on working practices of the House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, but recrafted by the Procedure Committee for formal presentation to the House—was debated by the House on 8 November 2011. The recommendation ran:
“that the role currently performed by the Leader of the House or Government front bench during oral questions and oral statements be transferred for a trial period to the Lord Speaker”.
It did not go as far as I have just suggested, because it continued:
“the role thus transferred includes the responsibility to arbitrate between groups within the House, but not any responsibility to arbitrate between individual members by name”.
However that may be, it was a good start and I was very much in favour of it—no doubt because it was a recommendation I had myself made to the Leader’s Group. I argued that the principle of self-regulation had not been working well at Question Time. The free-for-all, which was by no means an exceptional feature of Question Time, with Members unwilling to give way to one other, verged on the unseemly. It did not show the House in a good light and called for a greater degree of control than self-regulation appeared to exert.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in that debate, said that,
“our procedures work pretty well on the whole. However, the one area where they do not work well is at Question Time. All I would say is that a House that approaches matters with more dignity than the Commons becomes extremely undignified when we get to Question Time or questions on Statements, and I do not like that”.—[Official Report, 8/11/11; col. 142.]
I also said that I was not alone in thinking it inappropriate that identifying speakers should be the function of the Government Chief Whip. I might interpolate here that as I came into the Chamber this afternoon as the Statement was being discussed, with umpteen people jumping up to speak simultaneously, it was not so much a matter of dignity or unseemliness; the spectacle was simply one of confusion.
In an earlier debate on the Goodlad report on 27 June 2011, the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said that the role that was proposed to be given to the Lord Speaker was,
“not an enhanced role as such; the role currently fulfilled by the government Front Bench is being transferred to the Speaker. This does, I suppose, enhance the role of the Speaker, but it does not give any more powers—it is very important to note that”.—[Official Report, 27/6/11; col. 1573]
He concluded that, “This is long overdue”.
When the House came to consider the report of Procedure Committee—as opposed to the Goodlad report—in November 2011, there was disagreement as to who could see more of the House: the person on the Woolsack or the Government Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on that occasion as well as this afternoon assured the House—from experience—that it was the person on the Woolsack. The other day I spoke to a Minister sitting on the Front Bench. He was clear that he was handicapped by comparison with the Lord Speaker in not having eyes in the back of his head.
When the House debated the Procedure Committee’s report in November 2011, the proposal to transfer the function of advising the House on which group’s turn it was to speak next was defeated by 233 to 169. I was in the Lebanon at the time and thus unable to attend the debate—otherwise, I am sure that the result would have been different.
At all events, I am sure that it is time for a review of the role of the Lord Speaker. With a new office like this, it made sense to start low key, but the position has now been in being for 10 years and the House now has confidence in it. No one should worry about its going up a gear. Those who make a fetish of self-regulation may have some qualms, but I hope that they are willing to countenance an experiment in the interests of finding out pragmatically what works best.
I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will give serious consideration to instituting a review. You never know, but we might find, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, says, that what seems like a revolutionary innovation today becomes the orthodoxy of tomorrow.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Grocott for giving me the opportunity to articulate properly what I have been saying from a sedentary position for quite a long time now. Every time that I say it, colleagues outside say, “But we do not want to become a carbon copy of the House of Commons”, but, with respect, it is not just the Commons—or, indeed, every other legislature—which has a chair who conducts proceedings, calls speakers and keeps the meeting in order. It is not just legislatures; it is Rotary clubs, union branches, party branches and Women’s Institutes. I do not know if I have covered anything in which the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is involved, but I am sure that he has been in meeting after meeting where there is someone in the chair who carries out the function of moderator, presiding officer, chair, speaker or whatever it is.
Like my noble friend Lord Grocott, with whom I agree totally, I am not proposing a revolutionary change. I should actually like the Lord Speaker to call every questioner one after the other, moving from side to side, from party to party. Probably that would not be to my personal advantage, since I have a loud voice and rather a powerful manner. However, it would be fairer.
If we cannot do that, we should, at the very least, change who resolves disputes about who the next person to be called should be, at Question Time and at Statements. We saw such disputes today at Question Time and at the Statement. As the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, whom I have known a long time, both know, I really have the highest respect for them. My objection is not to them individually; it is that these decisions should be made not by a party-political appointee but by someone who is elected by the House.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, again with no disrespect to the Leader of the House, that the Leader of the House is not chosen by the House. She is chosen by the Prime Minister. So we could not get rid of her. We do not want to, but we could not. That is why we want that change.
No one has yet mentioned the Clerk. Again, with no disrespect to the Clerk of the House—we have the putative Clerk of the Parliaments here today and with no disrespect to him and to the current holder of that post—I do not know why the Clerk calls the four questioners on the Order Paper. Why does the Speaker not get up and name the person whose Question it is and call them to ask that Question? How did the Clerk get that role? Perhaps the Clerk will send me an email and let me know why it arose, but it does seem to be anomalous. I do not understand it. Nowhere else does the Clerk get up and call questioners. We should look at this.
There is also a role—I perhaps go a bit further than my noble friend on this—in relation to order in the House. When the Deputy Speaker, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for whom I have a lot of respect, called to order a Liberal Democrat speaking from the aisle, which apparently is out of order, it was very strange that she was able to do so from the Back Benches rather than from the Speaker’s Chair. It seemed very strange. It might be more appropriate for the Lord Speaker to call for order at that time.
Non-verbal messages may be used to indicate that a speaker’s time is up. Pointing at one’s watch is one such non-verbal message. However, it would be more dignified and appropriate for the Lord Speaker to indicate that someone’s time is up and bring the House to order. By the way, I am watching the clock to note when five minutes have passed.
I would go a little further than my noble friend Lord Grocott in that I would like to see points of order introduced in this Chamber, although I do not think that will happen in the immediate future. However, there are ways of raising points of order. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition can do it from time to time. I have found mischievous little ways of raising a point of order when we discuss the business of the House. However, it should not be just the Leader of the House and people like me, with mischievous intent, who can raise these things. There should be a proper procedure for doing that. As my noble friend Lord Grocott said, there is a danger that this could be abused, and I think it is something for the longer grass and longer consideration.
However, I hope that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will look at the other points that have been made. If she could set up just a small group—a Leader’s group—to look at those points, it would show that she understands there is concern about these issues, and that action will be taken on them.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, coming after the “Lord Foulkes show” is a bit like coming after the Lord Mayor’s show.
This was inevitably going to be a good-natured—indeed, humorous—debate, and I am glad that it is. However, few could compare it with the debate on the recently issued White Paper. That debate was rather fractious, people were shouting and some found it difficult to intervene. Indeed, two newish Members on this side of the House were unable to make their remarks. That is an example of what we are trying to deal with—good-natured, responsible, sensible and relaxed contributions in a main debate compared with rather fractious, somewhat aggressive and, frankly, rather disappointing contributions when noble Lords respond to a Statement. However, I am always delighted with the conduct of the Leader of the House and of the Chief Whip, even when he puts me right at the end of the speakers list, as he has done from time to time.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, I shall concentrate on Question Time and Statements, which I think are the nub of the issue. I noted that my noble friend Lord Attlee, in his interesting remarks, quickly ran out of arguments in relation to conduct at Question Time and Statements and had to pursue other elements of the discussion about what the power of the Lord Speaker might be. I take a very practical view of all these things. The fact is that the present arrangements do not work very well. Question Time and Statements descend too quickly into shouting matches. The words used by previous speakers—fractious, aggressive and so forth—are correct in that regard. We also have increasingly to look at the impression created on the public. I will never forget, some time ago, bringing an American friend of mine into the House to witness our proceedings from below the Bar when a previous Lord Speaker was on the Woolsack. There was a little bit of a shambles and my friend asked, “Why doesn’t that woman in the middle do something? She’s in the chair—why doesn’t she do something about it?”. I explained that she was not allowed to. He replied, “You elect her and she’s not allowed to do anything?”. The look of bafflement on his face when he said that was a treat, and rather disappointing.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, pointed out, it is unfair that many noble Lords are not able to intervene. The situation works against new Members in particular. He was once a new Back-Bencher and appreciates what it is like. The Whips have often told me that new Members find this place rather intimidating. If they have been highly successful in other walks of life, they do not like to lose their dignity here. They see that that can happen if they are trying to intervene and cannot do so. They are not used to that. They need to be led in a little more gently. If that were done, I suspect that we would get a better response. It is probably right that a lot of noble Lords do not partake in Question Time because they are simply intimidated by the atmosphere. Curious though older hands may consider that to be, I think that it is the case.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that it is self-regulation. It is not self-regulation. How can it be self-regulation when it is regulation by the Front Bench? That is not, by definition, self-regulation. It has to be regulation by the Lord Speaker, who is elected by the Back-Benchers and the entire House of Lords. That is self-regulation. As a former Member of the House of Commons, I find there is less self-regulation here than there was in the House of Commons. That is the truth of the matter, because we do not only get regulation by the Front Benches during Question Time; they also choose the order of speaking, as they have today. That does not happen in the House of Commons, so I think there is far too little self-regulation.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is worried about the “thin end of the wedge” argument, but the time it has taken to get nowhere on this issue means that we need not really worry about a further step beyond this: it will be decades before we ever get there, frankly, so it is not anything to worry about. I support the first resolution of the 2011 Leader’s Group, the so-called Goodlad report, which said that the Lord Speaker should take over the role of the Leader of the House during Question Time for a trial period of 12 months. I would add “during Statements as well”, as I think that makes sense. In my view it would improve self-regulation and fairness; there would be more order, less embarrassing chaos; and it would be more understandable to the outside world. To that end, I would like to see the Government promote a Motion in government time, with government support, by which we could test the opinion of the House today, rather than several years ago. We all know that the Leader of the House, my noble friend, is charming, modern minded and practical, and I am sure she will see the total sense in this.
Lord Haskel (Lab)
My Lords, I think that I am going to be the odd man out, because in reviewing the role of the Speaker, I think that we should think in much broader terms than just Question Time in the House. Yes, the Speaker has a crucial role inside the Chamber, but there is a much more crucial role outside the Chamber. It has always seemed to me that this is of greater importance because we are an unelected House: we must reach out to the public so that the public understand the work and the role of this House.
When you google the Lord Speaker, yes, he is there on the parliamentary website and Wikipedia, with plenty of information about him and what he does, so that the public can learn about him, his job and responsibilities, but it needs a lot more. Already 100 of us are involved in the Lord Speaker’s “Peers in Schools” outreach scheme. We must add to this by reaching out to other places—universities and colleges, businesses, trade organisations and charities. I have rarely met a Peer who is not involved in a charity and I have always felt that an outreach scheme could both help the charities and say something about us. The Lord Speaker could maintain a public schedule of this involvement: it would be easily done on a website.
Of course, we receive Speakers and other parliamentarians from overseas, and once a year we reach out with our Chamber event for non-Members, but I think that the Lord Speaker has a particular role in outreach. It is a role that I would like to see further emphasised, to clearly enunciate our mission statement and sense of purpose. We are here to challenge the Government, to challenge the elected Chamber, to challenge proposed legislation. This is what defines us and by reaching out in this way, I think that the public will understand far better what we do and why we do it than they did through the recent BBC programmes.
Turning to the role of the Speaker inside Parliament, I agree with my noble friend Lord Grocott that his task must be to take a lead in maintaining the House’s reputation; yes, at Question Time, but also in other areas. Where I think the Speaker could intervene at Question Time might be by giving a signal when a Question or an Answer has been going on for too long, often much to the irritation of the House.
There is a case for the Speaker leading the way on modernising the House. Take dress, for example. Clerks in the other place now no longer wear wigs. Should we follow suit? Are we going to dress down? I think that this is the kind of thing on which the Lord Speaker could take the lead.
Lord Haskel
He is lucky.
Thanks to several changes in recent years, the House now has a clearly established code of conduct, with powers to discipline or even expel Members who have broken the code. It is by being a champion for this code that the Lord Speaker plays an important role in maintaining the reputation of the House.
Over the years, we have taken small steps regarding behaviour, standards and procedure, sometimes initiated by the Lord Speaker. Question Time, obviously, is no exception. The role of the Lord Speaker in these matters does not necessarily need reform; what it needs is for the Speaker to be urged and encouraged in taking these small steps, judging when the House is ready for them.
The Speaker’s special role is to help maintain the correct balance between lawmaking and our civil rights and liberties. This is not easy. As times become more difficult, so the Speaker’s task becomes more difficult. At the same time, however, it becomes more necessary.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and I very much agree with him about the representational role of the Lord Speaker. I bet that the Lord Speaker is extremely glad he does not have the power to intervene today, but it would benefit us to reflect on how the office of Speaker in another place began. It began as the Members choosing somebody who would be their spokesman, originally to the sovereign. Some of them suffered for their pains, and indeed at least two parted company with their heads.
In the present Lord Speaker, this House has a figurehead. He had two admirable predecessors but he has taken the post a stage further. His recent comments on the BBC series and so on have been extraordinarily helpful, and he has shown himself to be a true servant of the House, which is the prime role of the Speaker.
I believe it was said when the office was first established that there should be quinquennial reviews. I am delighted that the Leader of the House is here to reply and that the shadow Leader is also here to help wind up the debate The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, in his spirited speech, recommended that the Leader of the House should set up a Leader’s Group to look at the role of the Speaker. That would be an extremely sensible move.
To those who have gone a little far I say: beware of what you wish for. I had the great good fortune of being 40 years in the other place, and sat under seven Speakers. One of the most outstanding is a Member of your Lordships’ House today: the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd. All seven Speakers gave of their best, and we had some interesting times. Of course, when you give the power to the Speaker to select who will take part, not only in Question Time but in debate, you give an enormous amount of power to an individual. I know Members of the other place who were wary of saying or doing certain things for fear of falling foul of the Speaker of the day. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for instituting this debate, but I am sure that he will have similar memories.
The best thing we can do is, first of all, to ask for the quinquennial review. Secondly, if we are to consider giving the Lord Speaker a real role in Question Time, we should go back to the resolution that was defeated and give him the role that is at the moment exercised by the Leader and the Chief Whip, both of whom do it with grace, dignity and scrupulous fairness. My view is that the Lord Speaker should do it in the same way, saying, for example, “It is now the turn of the Liberal Benches” or “It is now the turn of the Conservative Benches”. I think we want to be a little bit careful before we give to the Lord Speaker the absolute power of selecting who will take part.
One thing leads to another. I was very attracted before I came to this place by the knowledge that if you want to speak in a debate in this place and you put your name down, you know you will take part. There is no question of arbitrary selection. There is a little on the part of my noble friend the Chief Whip when he is deciding where you will be in the batting order; I accept that. Once or twice I have been quite high up; much more I have been rather low down, but that does not matter. The knowledge that you will be able to make a contribution is of enormous importance and I would be wary of giving the Lord Speaker the power to decide who will speak and who will not speak in a debate. So we have to take this thing gently and we have to take it sensibly forward.
On points of order, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, that they are an absolute abuse in the other place, but there ought to be in this place an opportunity for Members to raise matters of real concern. I believe that we perhaps ought to allow the Lord Speaker to decide not only on Private Notice Questions but on business questions, so that if there is a matter that is going to come before the House which is not for voting, at least the chairman of the appropriate committee can be called to the Box to explain what it is all about. I have in mind a proposal which I read recently. It says that the Services Committee is going to make some changes to our stationery. We are not necessarily going to have an opportunity to debate that but we ought to have the opportunity to ask questions.
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has given us a lot to think about. We have an excellent Lord Speaker but we should not place too many new responsibilities upon him. We should, however, look at those that I have mentioned.
Lord Snape (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who, if I may say so, would have made a distinguished Lord Speaker himself, had the House taken a different view late last year. I am grateful, too, to my noble friend Lord Grocott for the opportunity to debate this matter today. I agree very much with what he and my noble friend Lord Rooker said about some of the procedures in your Lordships’ House. I have been a Member of this House now for 13 years and I am still baffled by some of the procedures and still wonder why we tolerate a system which, as was said earlier, benefits those with the loudest voices, those with the most confidence and those who feel that their words should be heard on each and every occasion.
I have to choose my words carefully in these days of equality but I think the self-regulatory system that we have at present discriminates against women Members of your Lordships’ House. A prime example of that took place about an hour or so ago. I have never met or heard before the noble Baroness who was trying to intervene from the Conservative Benches but I thought it was pretty ungallant of some of her colleagues to talk over her in the way that they did, and eventually she gave up and left. I really do believe that if we had a presiding officer—if the Lord Speaker had the power to call individual Members of the House—it would be fairer on those Members on both sides who do not particularly wish to participate in what is a bit of a bear garden.
There are more than 800 of us now, as my noble friend Lord Grocott reminded us earlier, and getting in sometimes at Question Time is extremely difficult. Someone once said all politics is local. All the complaints about what goes on in your Lordships’ House are usually inclined to involve whoever is making that particular complaint. But it is not just getting in to speak that is a problem; part of the weakness in my view of self-regulation in this House is what is actually said. I have lost count of the number of Second Reading speeches I have heard about amendments to particular Bills in the 13 years that I have been here. There is no way of correcting or intervening on noble Lords who behave in a particular way, but many of us do—I have probably been guilty of it. The temptation is there. The fact that there is no presiding officer to intervene makes it even easier.
My noble friend mentioned in particular Question Time on the 14th of this month. A Question was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, about Great Western electrification. Without boring your Lordships about the ins and outs of the mistakes that have been made here and the hundreds of billions of pounds of public money that have been wasted on that project, I was rather anxious to hold the Minister to account. I did not manage to intervene on that Question, but no fewer than three noble Lords intervened, from both sides, asking questions which bore no relation to Great Western electrification. The word “railway” triggered off something in their minds, and off they went, one about the east coast, one about railways in Wales, and so on. Again, this is the sort of thing that happens with great regularity. I do not think that the House was particularly deprived by my non-participation on this occasion—
Lord Snape
I am prepared to concede that that might be the case if my noble friend says so. However, it illustrates one of the weaknesses of self-regulation in this place.
While I am on my feet and complaining, another matter which having a Lord Speaker with real power would help to combat is the reading of speeches. I have with me a copy of the Companion—noble Lords on both sides will be relieved to know that I do not propose to read very much of it in the five minutes available to me. In paragraph 4, on conduct in the House, the Companion specifically says:
“The House has resolved that the reading of speeches is ‘alien to the custom of this House, and injurious to the traditional conduct of its debates’”.
Again, all too often speeches are read into the record. I understand that in the House of Representatives in the United States, it is possible to have a speech written out, send it to the Congressional Record—their version of Hansard—and it appears the following day. Perhaps we should adopt that system rather than having to sit through noble Lords on both sides—we all do it—reading speeches, some of which give the impression that the noble Lords have never seen them before and that they are written by somebody else anyway. Again, if we had a presiding officer, not necessarily intervening on each and every occasion the rules of conduct are breached, it would help to bring about a more sensible way of conducting our affairs. Having said that, I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to the debate, act on the genuine concerns that have been expressed during the course of it, and we should and I hope we will—thanks to her—look again at our proceedings.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I find myself in the somewhat disconcerting position of broadly agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. This has never happened to me before on a constitutional issue, and I would not necessarily want your Lordships to feel that my remarks today could in any sense constitute a precedent.
The starting point should be one that a number of noble Lords have made: why are we the only deliberative assembly in the world that does things in this particular way? It therefore seems that, looking at this afresh, we should ask why we, uniquely, should behave in this way when the rest of the world has decided to do things somewhat differently.
Obviously, your Lordships’ House has considered this; it considered it at great length in 2011 and decided that it did not want to make any change. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, said, the size of the House has increased, and there are more people wanting to come in, and it is undoubtedly the case that more people watch proceedings in your Lordships’ House than ever before. The perception that they gain, as a number of noble Lords said, is that Question Time is unduly shambolic. I do not think that having a Lord Speaker exercising a role would stop it being contentious—but the perception would be significantly improved.
I have to accept that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, the Government Chief Whip, is an extremely benevolent, subtle dictator at Question Time. He does the job extremely well and extremely fairly, as does the noble Baroness the Leader. No Lord Speaker would do the job more fairly; I have no worries about that. But, having been a Whip on the Government Benches, I think that the role the Government Whips play is pretty difficult in practice.
This is not strictly related to today, but my role very often was to try to impose time limits on speeches. I felt that I was often seeking to reduce the time of Opposition Members. They felt that this was partisan and I felt very uncomfortable doing it. My free tip to the Whips is that the best way of getting people to realise that they have gone over time is not excessive gesticulation but just tapping one’s wristwatch with a pen. It is very effective non-verbal communication—but it is not a very impressive way of doing things.
I have great sympathy with this proposal. However, I have to accept that it is not the universal view of the House or indeed my own group—I slightly feel the breath of my noble friend Lord Beith down my neck as I speak. The qualms expressed today are largely born out of experience of the House of Commons that they do not want replicated here. In particular, the point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that if the Lord Speaker has the power to call individual Members, they might over time moderate their behaviour. I am not sure that it would quite work in that way in your Lordships’ House.
The proposal put to the House in 2011 was not for greater powers to go to the Speaker than currently obtain in the Government Front Bench but simply to transfer the existing powers. I would have thought that that was a pretty good way of avoiding the slippery slope. It is a very easy argument—and not always wrong—to say that if you make any change it is the start of a slippery slope. However, given that we are a self-regulating House and it is virtually impossible ever to change anything here, the idea that making one modest change is going to lead to an avalanche of changes for the Lord Speaker seems implausible. So I recommend that this narrow proposal should go back to the Procedure Committee, whence it came originally, for another look. I would not recommend the kind of review that the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, suggested, because if we went for that we would probably never get anywhere—the only change we will ever make is incremental.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, this has certainly been a very interesting debate. I also hope it will be a useful one for your Lordships’ House. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lord Grocott for giving us the opportunity to debate it today. However, this debate should not exist in a vacuum of what the Lord Speaker does. It seems from noble Lords’ comments that we are looking to ensure we have orderly, efficient business of the House, to which as many Members as possible can contribute. Management of that business needs to enable us to conduct our business as well as possible.
We need to be very clear about what has been suggested and what has not. No noble Lord—not even my noble friend Lord Foulkes—has suggested today that we replicate the House of Commons system and that the Lord Speaker should have the same powers or role in the Chamber as the Speaker in the other place. It is worth noting that we have had an elected Lord Speaker only since 2006. In the true gender equality that we see in this House, where the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House are female, the current Lord Speaker is the first male to occupy the position.
The three Lord Speakers who have been elected have all willingly taken up the position, yet anyone who has witnessed the drama of the election of the House of Commons Speaker will have seen them being dragged to the Speaker’s Chair—a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, although uncharacteristically inaccurately. In the past, Commons Speakers who have been seen as too partisan for the Government or the monarch have been beheaded, but it was not two who were beheaded; in fact, seven suffered that fate at the hands of the axe, and we would not want that to befall any Lord Speaker, or indeed any Commons Speaker, in the future.
I do not know why this week in particular things have felt so bad—I do not know whether other noble Lords have felt this too; perhaps it has been because we have known that this debate was coming up—but this week your Lordships’ House has at times felt extremely undignified, and I have some examples. We are supposed to be a self-regulating House but I do not know how often the noble Baroness has had to rise to her feet to intervene at Question Time. The fact is that that does not happen very often and it is normally because the House has been very bad tempered and ill behaved, and somebody has had to try to bring some order to the proceedings.
However, it seems to me that more often than not some of the self-regulation is rather bad tempered and sometimes quite rude. This week a noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches—I accept that her question was far too long, however important the issue—was told to shut up and sit down. I thought it was extremely offensive for any Member of your Lordships’ House to speak to another noble Lord in that way. When somebody speaks for too long or moves away from the Question and asks about another matter—to the disappointment of the noble Lords who wish to get in on that issue—it is rather undignified to have other noble Lords making a comment. A noble Lord who often sits where the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is sitting now shouts out “Reading!” or “Too long!”. That is undignified and does nothing for the good standing of your Lordships’ House.
On the subject of noble Lords who speak for too long, the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, earned her spurs and the great appreciation of this House when she was a Government Whip. She smiles because she recalls the occasion. A noble Lord on the Liberal Democrat Benches, who should perhaps remain nameless, tested the patience of the House by speaking for far too long. The noble Baroness, as a relatively new Whip, jumped up and told him that he had spoken for too long and that it was time to sit down. He replied, “I’ll just finish”, to which she responded, “No, you won’t. Sit down”—in a very polite way, I should add. That earned the appreciation of noble Lords because somebody took charge when the House itself did not want to intervene.
The point is that it is not just those with the loudest voices who manage to be heard first but those with the deepest voices. My noble friend Lord Snape referred to the fact that a lot of our female colleagues find it harder to intervene than our male colleagues. Often, just the tone of the voice can make things more difficult. Unless you are under a microphone—I have one in front of me here—it can be more difficult to get in at Questions. Also, if you are on the Front Bench, you cannot see who is behind you and you just carry on regardless. You can ignore the people behind you and pretend that you cannot hear them. Therefore, there is certainly room for change.
Another point is that the Lord Speaker can see who turns up late. Sometimes a Minister who is reading or repeating a Statement does not know who is in the House at the beginning of the Statement, and someone who has not heard most of it can get in with a question, thereby disadvantaging those who have sat through the whole Statement. The House as a whole may notice but the Lord Speaker is more likely to notice that than every Member who wishes to contribute to the debate. A favourite of mine, although it is probably inappropriate today, is those who make Second Reading speeches in Committee. Many of us who take part in deliberations on a Bill will have heard many Second Reading speeches by the time we get to Committee.
We need to look at the sensible, wise, incremental proposals put forward by my noble friend Lord Grocott. It is a question not of change for change’s sake but change for the good working and good reputation of your Lordships’ House. If the noble Baroness is minded to discuss this further, I would welcome the opportunity to do so, because I am sure we can come up with proposals to satisfy those who seek change as well as those who are concerned that any change might go too far or lead to even greater change. There are sensible, incremental changes that could be made to enhance the workings and reputation of this House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to answer this Question for Short Debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, for initiating it, and to all those who have contributed. I assure him that I do not take this as a personal insult. In fact, I am delighted several noble Lords have said some nice things about me today, so I thank him for that. I am also very pleased to see the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, in his place on the Woolsack.
As the role of Lord Speaker was established 11 years ago, I entirely understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, to have a debate on it and, as we have seen today, there are a range of views across the House. While I will reflect on the comments made and discuss them with the Lord Speaker, I am very happy to have discussions with the leaders of the other parties. I do not consider a formal review of the role to be a priority. For my part, I believe that our system of self-regulation continues to work well and sets us apart from the other place, as the noble Lord, Lord Newby, and my noble friend Lord Cormack highlighted. As is clear from the Companion to the Standing Orders, all sides of this House have a role to play in maintaining order.
The preservation of self-regulation was a key part of the House’s decision to establish the office of Lord Speaker in 2006. Successive Lord Speakers have played an important role in allowing self-regulation to continue to flourish, evolving with the needs of the House while maintaining throughout its distinctive character.
Nevertheless, the possibility of transferring the role played by the Leader during Question Time to the Lord Speaker, to which most noble Lords alluded and to which I will return shortly, has been discussed on several occasions since the role of the Lord Speaker was first established. A little over five years ago, in response to a proposal from the Leader’s Group on working practices, chaired by my noble friend Lord Goodlad, the House voted decisively against such a change when the question was put to it on 8 November 2011.
Notwithstanding today’s debate, since becoming Leader I have to say that this is not a subject that has been raised with me as a significant issue for the House—unlike, for instance, concerns around our size, which is a matter now being explored by the Lord Speaker’s committee.
I hope it goes without saying that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that the Lord Speaker and his hard-working team of deputies have an essential role to play in the Chamber. Their mastery of procedure, particularly when we consider legislation, is essential to the Chamber’s effective functioning. Beyond the House’s vital role in making and shaping laws, noble Lords across the House play an active role in holding the Government to account, particularly through debates and Questions.
I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that Question Time is one of the most valued—and valuable—parts of our day. It exemplifies our spirit of self-regulation, where we have to work together across the House to make the occasion effective. I assure noble Lords that the Front Bench takes its responsibilities in advising and guiding the will of the House on matters of order very seriously. I do not do it alone; I work very closely with the Chief Whip, the leaders and Chief Whips across all Benches to try and ensure that we manage things. In practice, guidance from the Front Bench is rarely required. In response to the question from my noble friend Lord Attlee, I have checked: as Leader I have been required to make only around a dozen such interventions since the beginning of this year.
During Question Time, the Front Bench also does its utmost to ensure that the distribution of Questions between all sides of the House is handled fairly, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Newby, for his comments in recognising this. For example, so far this year, 82% of Questions have been asked by noble Lords other than from the Conservative Party, which is only right because, after all, it is the House’s role to scrutinise the Government. I hope that the House recognises when I am acting in a political capacity and when I am trying to represent the interests of the whole House, which is what I try to do at Question Time.
Lord Snape
I will not detain the noble Baroness for longer than 10 seconds. We accept that impartiality plays a big part in her role. Will she accept that there is nothing she can do when two noble Lords from the same party wish to speak at the same time, and that only a Lord Speaker can resolve that dilemma?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I am coming on to, that is a role for party leaderships as well, but I will come back to that in a second.
I entirely agree that Questions is an occasion that could and should be enhanced by hearing from a broader range of voices across the House. One of our great strengths is the breadth of knowledge and expertise on our Benches, and Questions presents an excellent opportunity both to highlight that and—although difficult for those of us answering them—to hold the Government of the day to account. In order to achieve this, we rely on noble Lords to exercise restraint and self-discipline. We waste valuable time for Questions when noble Lords refuse to give way, but I also think we should expect noble Lords across the House to recognise this and take responsibility for it.
The noble Lords, Lord Grocott, Lord Rooker, Lord Low, Lord Foulkes, Lord Horam and Lord Snape, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, all referred to the atmosphere and behaviour we sometimes see at Question Time. Words such as “intimidating”, “fractious”, “undignified” and “unfair” were all used during various contributions. I gently suggest that it is for us as individuals to consider how we behave and to become more considerate of colleagues. If this is how we view Question Time, it is surely within our gift to help to change that. I am afraid I am not totally convinced that just having the Lord Speaker preside over this is the magic bullet. We are all beholden to look at our behaviour, but I also think there is a role for the party leaders—I include myself in this—to reflect on how we might try to encourage more Peers to take part and how we can more effectively look to encourage a wider range of voices to be heard.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
Will the noble Baroness accept that she is perhaps speaking to the converted? It may be that those who are not here act in the slightly grumpier and less courteous manner than noble Lords who are here today and are concerned about the issue.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I understand that but, as I said, we as Leaders have a role to think about how we might help to do this. As I have said, I am not completely convinced that just this move would change that, but I am very happy to have conversations about ways we can try to improve Question Time. I agree that it is an extremely important and valuable part of the work of the House.
As noble Lords will be aware, apart from overseeing proceedings in the Chamber, the Lord Speaker plays a key role in the Lords administration as the chairman of the House of Lords Commission. In this regard, we have seen recent reform with new governance arrangements agreed only last year on the back of the recommendations of a Leader’s Group established by my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. That group’s recommendations were accepted by the House last May and have led to a refreshed and streamlined domestic committee structure and the new role of Senior Deputy Speaker, ably filled by the noble Lord, Lord McFall. The Lord Speaker is at the apex of this new structure and his partnerships with the party leaders, the Convenor of the Cross Benches and the Clerk of the Parliaments are at the heart of the decisions that direct the way the House is run.
The Lord Speaker is also ultimately responsible for security on the Lords part of the Parliamentary Estate—a responsibility that will assume only greater importance following the tragic events of last week. In this respect, he has a heavy burden to bear on our behalf and he does so with admirable grace and common sense. As my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, recognised, he also has a very significant role representing the House on ceremonial occasions and as an ambassador at home and abroad. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, about the important role that the Lord Speaker has in our outreach work, including the excellent Peers in Schools initiative. The Lord Speaker also takes extremely seriously the reputation of this House. I entirely endorse the comments that we are very grateful to him for the way he has been leading us in this regard. I hope we will all continue to support him to do so, because this is an extremely important role and we are very lucky to have him as an advocate for us.
I thank everybody who has contributed to this important debate. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, I do not intend to initiate an official review of the role of the Lord Speaker. As I am sure noble Lords will understand, there are other priorities on which I believe we should be focused—to name just a few, the increased legislation this House will be scrutinising as a result of Brexit; plans for the restoration and renewal of the Palace; and, of course, the security reviews that are now under way as a result of last week’s terrible events.
Ultimately, of course, this is a matter for the House to decide, with the option to bring forward proposals to the Procedure Committee being available to each noble Lord. As I hope I have indicated, I will keep an open mind about the working practices and procedures of the House more generally, and I of course appreciate that there is always room for improvement, so I am grateful for the opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords. I look forward to further conversations on this.
Motion to Adjourn
The Earl of Courtown (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, I think I do have a role here: that the House do now adjourn.