House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
One person sleeping on the streets is one too many, which is why we committed ourselves to spending more than £550 million to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping in England. That includes supporting 84 projects through our £50 million homelessness prevention programme, an end-to-end approach to tackling homelessness and rough sleeping.
Mr Shuker
Since joining the House in 2010, I have seen with my own eyes the incredible increase in the number of people sleeping rough on our streets. I have seen it in my constituency and in places that I have visited around the country, and, indeed, I see it on the doorsteps of Westminster itself when we arrive and leave for votes. Can the Secretary of State tell me what changed in 2010?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman may know that the number of statutory homelessness acceptances is below its peak—less than half its peak in 2003—but of course there is much more to be done, especially, as he pointed out, when it comes to rough sleeping. I have seen it as well: I have seen it throughout the country, and I have seen it here at Westminster. As he may also know, I said a great deal about this issue at the Crisis 50th anniversary conference. I said, for instance:
“Ending rough sleeping is within our gift. It is something we can do. It is something we must do. And, working together, it is something we are going to do.”
Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Many people fear that the general election may result in a delay in the implementation of the Homelessness Reduction Bill. Will the Secretary of State tell us what progress has been made so far? Given that the Bill has cross- party support, can the work not continue during the election period?
Sajid Javid
Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on all the work that he did to present that Bill and to get it through Parliament. It has still to complete one final parliamentary stage—about which we are very confident—but we have already started work with local authorities to ensure that it comes into force straight away.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
In my home borough of Westminster—which includes Westminster station, where, as has been mentioned, we see rough sleepers—the level of rough sleeping has soared. The Westminster council area alone contains a third of all the rough sleepers in London. The council has just cut—indeed slashed—its rough sleeping budget. Does the Secretary of State believe that that will help or hinder efforts to reduce rough sleeping?
Sajid Javid
We are providing more funds for councils throughout the country, including Westminster council, to combat rough sleeping. For example, we have provided £100 million to deliver 2,000 independent living units, as well as a £20 million rough sleeping grant. However, as I said earlier, I want to do more, and the Government are determined to do more. A few weeks ago, I went to Finland to see what it has done for itself with the Housing First project. I think that we can learn lessons from others, and make sure that we do more at home.
Ben Howlett (Bath) (Con)
Since 2015 I have led a range of homelessness roundtables in Bath, bringing together charities such as the Genesis Trust, Developing Health & Independence and Julian House, all of which have received Government funding. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the integration of services is critical to solving this problem, and that residents of Bath should back my plan in order to help to solve it?
Sajid Javid
I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and I commend the work that he has done locally, which is very well known, in trying to bring those services together. I am pleased to be able to tell him that Swindon, Wiltshire, Bath and North Somerset councils will benefit from some £259,000 in rough sleeping grant to help promote integration.
John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)
The scale of rough sleeping and homelessness in Britain today shames us all. In a country as decent and well off as ours, it is not inevitable. However, the level has more than doubled since 2010 as a direct result of decisions made by Conservative Ministers.
There are very few simple rules in politics, but this is one: with a Labour Government homelessness falls, and under the Tories it goes up. On 8 June, people will ask themselves, “Do we really want more of the same?” Let me say to the Secretary of State that, with a new national mission, he need not go to Finland. Will he, before the election, commit his party to matching our Labour commitment and backing our Labour plans to end rough sleeping by the end of the next Parliament?
Sajid Javid
I know the right hon. Gentleman, and I know that he cares deeply about this issue, as do Conservative Members. He should not play party politics with it, because it is a very serious issue that unites everyone in the House. We all want to see an end to rough sleeping, but he knows as well as I do that its causes are complex. They are not just economic; there are mental health problems, and addiction problems. We do have lessons to learn from abroad, but I am sure that if the right hon. Gentleman works with us—if we work together—we can all unite in ending rough sleeping for good.
John Healey
This is precisely about politics: it is precisely about the political decisions made over the last seven years that have made the causes of homelessness so much worse. Rapidly rising homelessness is just the tip of the iceberg on seven years of failure on housing: rough sleeping doubled, home ownership down, house building falling, private renters ignored, housing benefits bills ballooning, and now the lowest level of new affordable homes to rent and buy for 24 years. No wonder Labour is ahead in the polls on housing. After seven years of failure, the Tories have no plan to fix the housing crisis. Is that not why people now desperately need a new deal on housing led by a new Labour Government?
Sajid Javid
I thought that if anyone was going to raise the opinion polls today, it would be a Conservative Member, but the right hon. Gentleman continues to surprise us all. I say to him again: let us work together on rough sleeping. It is very easy for Labour to make a commitment to end rough sleeping without having any plans, any initiative, or anything in hand to show what they would actually do about it. We have got the ideas, and we have new ideas, for example the Housing First concept which we are trialling already—right now—in Liverpool. The right hon. Gentleman has the opportunity to work with us if he really means it.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
We have doubled the level of small business rate relief to 100% and made it permanent. This means that around 600,000 small businesses will pay no business rates at all. At Budget, we also announced a £300 million discretionary fund so that councils can provide additional support to businesses facing increased bills.
Rachael Maskell
York’s economy is being damaged by sharp business rate increases due to the revaluations. While the exemption from paying the full business rates has risen from £12,000 to £15,000, business rate increases have rocketed far beyond that in York. This is totally unfair, and small businesses in the city, previously exempt, are now desperate. Some are facing a 600% increase in their rateable value, including The Slip Inn, and no one knows how the new relief funds will even be distributed—total chaos! Can the Secretary of State say why the business rate burden is falling harder on smaller businesses and if he will urgently review the exemption level?
Sajid Javid
Overall, businesses in the north have seen on average a fall through the revaluation process.
Sajid Javid
The hon. Lady talks about York. Since 2010 York has had a 74% fall in unemployment. That is because York has a Conservative-led council working with a Conservative Government. If the Labour party gets its anti-business agenda and hikes up taxes on businesses throughout the country, we know what the result will be.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State aware that many Labour-controlled councils are still pursuing anti-car policies? Will he remind them of recommendation 9 of the Mary Portas retail review, which stated that free and available but controlled parking should be made available to high street shoppers?
Sajid Javid
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point about anti-car policies coming from Labour councils. Where councils have worked with businesses and taken a pro-car policy, especially on parking, that has helped local businesses, and Labour can learn a lesson from that.
Dr Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)
Given the great concern expressed by small businesses up and down the country about their ability to pay the business rate rises, I am going to give the Secretary of State another chance. What reassurance can he give small business owners who are concerned about the impact of rate rises that they will not be paying higher rates over the next few years than online and large retailers such as Sports Direct?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the hon. Lady two things. First, I point her to the package my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget: £435 million of additional help for small businesses with rates, including the £300 million discretionary fund, for which there will be absolutely no delay because of the general election. It is going ahead exactly as planned. Indeed, the Government have already confirmed the final allocations for all local authorities, and local authorities are free to start using that scheme and helping local businesses.
Secondly, I point the hon. Lady to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in the Budget speech. He said that
“in the medium term…we have to find a better way of taxing the digital part of the economy—the part that does not use bricks and mortar”—[Official Report, 8 March 2017; Vol. 622, c. 812.],
and that we also need to look at the frequency of the revaluation process.
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)
Many small businesses in Bury will see a fall in their business rates as a result of the revaluation, but because of phasing it will be some years before they receive the full benefit. Will my right hon. Friend look again at what can be done to speed up the introduction so that they can feel the full benefit sooner?
Sajid Javid
We have also put in place the transitional relief scheme, which is worth more than £3 billion and will help businesses across the country, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That will certainly speed up the introduction.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
During the last Communities and Local Government questions, I asked the Secretary of State to engage with me and with councillors on Belfast City Council to determine how best we could grow business there through a city deal. He kindly agreed to do this, but sadly events have overtaken our arrangements. Given the commitment that he has made to spreading city deals throughout the devolved regions, will he assure us that he would like to see that theme continuing in the Department for Communities and Local Government?
Sajid Javid
I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman before Parliament is prorogued.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
In September 2016, we announced the extension of the local housing allowance exemption for supported housing until April 2019. We have recently consulted on a reformed funding model for supported housing. We are not doing this to save money; we want to get the right model to deliver improvements in quality and in value for money.
Lucy Allan
Telford has some excellent supported housing schemes, many of which I have visited, including Rose Manor in Ketley and Vicarage Grove in Dawley. However, supported housing costs can often be higher than the local housing allowance rate. How will the Government’s reforms address that concern?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Last September, we announced that we would devolve funding to local authorities so that providers could, when necessary, reflect the higher average costs of supported accommodation. This would give local authorities an enhanced role in commissioning supported housing in their area.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will be aware of the Select Committee inquiry into funding proposals for supported housing. Will he give me an assurance that he will reflect carefully on the overwhelming evidence that we have received, which shows that the local housing allowance rates are not an appropriate basis on which to devise a funding scheme for supported housing?
Sajid Javid
I can tell the Chair of the Select Committee that the Government hugely value the role that supported housing plays in helping vulnerable people. I take seriously what the Committee has to say, and I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), has given evidence to its inquiry. I will look at this matter carefully, because I want to ensure that the final model incentivises providers to continue to provide this important type of housing.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to the supported housing project and the extra moneys that have been devolved to local authorities for that purpose. However, the local housing allowance cap significantly favours London over the regions. For example, 99% of tenancies in my region will require a top-up from the fund, whereas only 3% of tenancies in London will do so. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to look again at this matter, to ensure that we have a system of supported housing that works for everyone?
Sajid Javid
I know that my hon. Friend takes a strong interest in these matters, including in his role as a member of the Select Committee. I have listened to him carefully, and others made a similar point during the consultation process. I can assure him that we will look at all the responses carefully and ensure that the final system works for everyone.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Select Committee inquiry has received evidence that the Government’s approach to supported housing is causing many providers to put new schemes on hold and resulting in some pulling out of providing supported housing altogether. When will the Secretary of State accept that his policy is damaging the provision of housing for our most vulnerable residents, and when will he commit to providing the funding and certainty that the sector needs if it is to provide the supported homes that we need?
Sajid Javid
It is important that we take a careful look at this policy, precisely because we all want to see a sustainable model that will result in providers providing enough of this type of home. That is exactly what this policy is designed to do, and when we come out with the final policy, that is what it will achieve.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
On 18 April, 20 leading members of the British Property Federation pledged to offer three-year tenancies in build-for-rent developments, and leading housing associations have made a similar pledge. We hope that will encourage a shift in the market towards more landlords offering longer tenancies.
Will Quince
Thousands of renters in Colchester and across the country will welcome that news, but does the Minister agree that landlords are only half the issue? In fact, getting mortgage lenders, 50% of which at the moment do not lend on more than a year’s assured shorthold tenancy, to change that policy will be the key to unlocking longer tenancies for the future.
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of security for people in the private rented sector, and he is also right to identify the issue of lending. Since the Government introduced their model tenancy agreement, which has appropriate break clauses, there is no longer any impediment to landlord customers submitting longer tenancies. The majority now permit tenancies of up to two to three years.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
If the Minister had visited Cambridge recently, he would have seen the manifestation of the housing crisis in the number of people sleeping on the streets, which so depresses residents and those people. When I recently visited Wintercomfort, one of the leading charities, it told me that landlords are increasingly unwilling to let to people on housing benefit because of insecure employment. Does he agree that cracking down on insecure employment would help us to tackle the housing crisis?
Gavin Barwell
I had the opportunity to visit Cambridge very recently, and I share the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis of the problem: we desperately need to build more homes in this country to give people more choice. He is also right about our employment market, but it is the policies of this Government that have driven record levels of employment, and it is the national living wage that is increasing people’s spending power.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Both landlords and tenants often mistakenly believe that a tenancy has to be six months or a year renewable, when of course there is no legal impediment to people having longer tenancies, and in some cases they do. One reason why longer tenancies do not happen is that landlords often find it difficult to recover possession if they need to occupy the house themselves or if the tenant fails to pay their rent. Will the Minister consider encouraging landlords to provide longer tenancies by making it easier for them to recover occupation?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that, when a tenant behaves antisocially or is in rent arrears, landlords can regain possession, but the fundamental pressure we face at the moment is in giving the increasing number of families in the private rented sector the security they need. Reforming our housing market, increasing supply and bringing in these new build-to-rent schemes that will offer longer tenancies is a key reform.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Labour councils like Newham, Redbridge, Greenwich and my own borough of Hammersmith and Fulham are doing a fantastic job of cracking down on rogue landlords. If the Minister actually cares about private tenants, why is he blocking borough-wide private sector licensing schemes? Is his party still the slum landlord’s friend?
Gavin Barwell
The suggestion that Conservative Members do not care about these issues is as ridiculous as it is insulting. The work of Labour councils to which the shadow Minister refers is often being funded by this Government. He is factually wrong to suggest that this Government are blocking borough-wide selective licensing, and I point out the many reforms that we are introducing—we are banning letting agent fees and insisting on client money protection—that were not in place when the shadow Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), was running this Department.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
We are committed to protecting and boosting the supply of supported housing, and since 2011 we have delivered 23,000 new supported homes in England. My hon. Friend will know that we recently consulted on a reformed funding model, and we are now keen to press on with that reform as soon as possible.
Heidi Allen
I will probe a little further on emergency short-term accommodation, such as women’s refuges. Does the Secretary of State agree that a totally separate funding stream is essential to honouring our ambition that no victim be turned away from accessing critical support services by 2020?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend highlights an important point. We have been working with the sector to develop options to ensure that providers of short-term accommodation continue to receive the appropriate funding. That might be through a different funding mechanism from the one we have today, but it is vital that supported housing receives the protection it deserves, and it will.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State knows that he has let down elderly people in this country. It is not just supported housing or funding but the fact that, in constituencies such as mine, we have a magic wand whereby suddenly student accommodation rises like daisies in the spring. But when it comes to accommodation for elderly people who desperately need it, because we have an ageing population, he has got nowhere in what he has achieved.
Sajid Javid
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman just missed what I said: since 2011, 23,000 units of specialised and general housing have been delivered for vulnerable people, and we have provided another £400 million for specialist homes throughout the country. That kind of action makes results, and he should welcome it.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In evidence to a joint Select Committee inquiry, David Orr of the National Housing Federation said that the local housing allowance was
“not a competent starting point”
for a funding model. Is the Secretary of State wedded to LHA as a starting point, or is he considering some other option?
Sajid Javid
We have just had a consultation on supported housing, which is now closed. We received a number of representations and we want to consider them carefully, but whatever the final model is, it will be designed to be sustainable for the long term and provide the supported housing we need.
Alison Thewliss
I look forward to hearing the Government’s response on that, and it would be useful to get a date on that issue. On the different types of supported accommodation being consulted on, does the Secretary of State recognise that placing an arbitrary limit on the length of time somebody is in short-term accommodation could have a detrimental effect on their life chances thereafter if they are forced to leave that supported accommodation too soon? Will he allow flexibility in the system, so that organisations such as Emmaus and Blue Triangle in my constituency can keep people for as long as they need to be there?
Sajid Javid
As part of the review and the response to the consultation, we are considering exactly the point the hon. Lady raises: the terms of access to short-term accommodation.
Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
In 2015-16, about 685,000 socially renting households were either in arrears or had been in the previous 12 months, which represents 25% of households in that sector.
Anna Turley
That seems a huge number: nearly a quarter of people in social housing in rent arrears. In one ward of my constituency, nearly half of our social housing tenants—46% of them—are in rent arrears. One single mum has seen her rent jump from £8 to £70 a week because of the benefit cap, and the bedroom tax is still wreaking devastation. Is this not a damning indictment of seven years of Tory assault on Britain’s struggling families?
Gavin Barwell
In 2011-12, the first year in which the data were collected, the figure was 23.5%, so the current figure is similar to what we inherited from the Labour Government. On the benefit cap, Conservative Members believe very clearly that it is completely wrong for out-of-work households to receive support far in excess of that which their working neighbours earn when they go out to work. Discretionary housing payments are in order and the level is actually falling—in 2013-14, we were talking about 30% of households—so the figure is moving in the right direction, and the hon. Lady is wrong to oppose the fundamental welfare reforms we need to make sure that the system is fair.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Those tenants in the social housing sector who do not keep up with their rent payments are, of course, in danger of becoming homeless. Will my hon. Friend pay tribute to councils such as Kettering Borough Council, of which I am a member, that make it an absolute priority to help people in those situations and stop them becoming homeless in the first place? In the first five months of this year, Kettering Borough Council has helped 78 households stay in their current accommodation.
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to pay tribute to the work that Kettering Borough Council has done, and I reassure my hon. Friend that the Ministry of Justice’s protocol for social landlords stresses the value of preventive measures in respect of rent arrears and advises landlords to deploy alternatives to eviction wherever possible.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
Has the Minister had discussions with his colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about universal credit and the impact it is having on many of my constituents who are not being paid for weeks and sometimes months on end and are therefore going into arrears? That is in addition to being hit by the bedroom tax and other benefit changes. Has he had these discussions, or will he do so, because what is going on in my constituency is a disgrace?
Gavin Barwell
We have had discussions with DWP colleagues, and I make two brief points to the hon. Gentleman. First, universal credit advances are available for new claims, and those should be taken up. Secondly, DWP research shows that after four months the proportion of universal credit claimants who were in arrears at the start of their claims had fallen by a third. So there is an initial problem, and the advance claims are there to cope with that, but over time the situation is improving.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
One in three people in Northern Ireland, and a lesser number on the UK mainland, are just a pay cheque away from homelessness. What steps have been taken to help those who are on the cusp of homelessness due to the benefits system to hold on to their tenancies?
Gavin Barwell
The Government have significantly increased the discretionary housing payments that are available to local authorities to assist those affected by welfare reform changes. The whole emphasis of the policy on which the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), is working is to try to shift the approach to emphasise prevention. That way, we will prevent people from becoming statutorily homeless in the first place, rather than just providing help at the point of crisis.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The Government are committed to reforming unfair parking practices. We have already taken steps to tackle rogue and unfair practices by private parking operators, including by banning wheel clamping and towing. The Department published a summary of the responses to its discussion paper on private parking in 2016, and I am considering the points that were raised.
Maria Caulfield
I thank the Minister for his response. In Lewes in my constituency, the discrepancy between parking on public and private land is causing huge problems and hefty fines for drivers. I am thinking particularly of the area in the town centre behind Laura Ashley, where if someone stops for two minutes they will receive a £60 penalty. Will the Minister bring forward the recommendations from the consultation to end such unfair practice?
Mr Jones
My hon. Friend is a strong campaigner for her constituents and raises an important point: people need clarity on where they can and cannot park. I recognise the anger felt by her constituents, and we will certainly look carefully at what she says, as we prepare our response to the consultation.
William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
So far, 2,000 pubs have been listed as assets of community value. That listing provides communities with the time to bid for a pub if it comes on to the market. We are supporting the process further, with £3.6 million, through the “More than a pub” programme.
William Wragg
The Northumberland Arms in Marple Bridge is a much-loved local pub, and members of the local community hope to reopen it using the community right-to-bid scheme. Will my hon. Friend the Minister lend every possible support to their effort and consider joining us for a celebratory pint when it reopens? Indeed, we could make it a double celebration, should the good people of Marple Bridge see fit to return me to the House.
Andrew Percy
It is unthinkable that the people of Hazel Grove will not return my hon. Friend to the House, given his work on their behalf these past two and a bit years. I would be delighted to join him, with the whole ministerial team, to celebrate the community pub he mentions—so long as he is buying the pints, of course.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
The Minister has failed to mention what my office has been told by the Department, which is that the Neighbourhood Planning Bill is set to fall, so the change to pub protection it contains will not be made. Will he assure the House that that is not the case? That wonderful decision was supported on both sides of the House, and we need to make sure that the change goes through.
Andrew Percy
My understanding is that we hope to complete the passage of that legislation before the Dissolution of Parliament. The change the hon. Gentleman refers to has been broadly welcomed by very many people, including, of course, the hon. Gentleman, who campaigned for it.
Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Since April 2010, we have delivered on average more than 50,800 affordable homes per years, 36,300 of which were affordable homes for rent. Under the previous Government, the annual average was only 42,900, of which only 28,700 were homes for rent.
Mr Hanson
I am expecting several Members of Parliament and Ministers to visit Delyn constituency in the next few weeks. Will the Minister come with me to Flint, where he will see a Labour council building council houses for rent? This social housing is supported by the Welsh Assembly, with more than 600 in one constituency alone. Why can he not match that in England?
Gavin Barwell
As I just said and contrary to what the shadow Housing Minister said, higher levels of affordable housing are being delivered under this Government than were delivered under the previous Labour Government. Nevertheless, if the right hon. Gentleman’s local council is delivering new council homes, I am glad to hear it. We want more homes of every kind. In Croydon, it was a Conservative council that started to build council housing again, after a Labour council had failed to do so.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the fact that almost 2,000 new houses are currently being built in Crawley’s Forge Wood neighbourhood? There is a complete mix of units, including council, social-rented and low-cost housing.
Gavin Barwell
I warmly welcome what my hon. Friend has to say and his support for building the homes that we so desperately need in this country. Contrary to what we often hear from the shadow Front-Bench team, there is a widespread consensus across the country that we desperately need to build more homes of every kind to tackle the housing crisis that has been building in this country for the past 30 or 40 years.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Gavin Barwell
The right-to-buy scheme has helped nearly 2 million hard-working people own their own home in this country. Since we reinvigorated the right-to-buy scheme in 2012, we have made it a condition that, for each home that is sold, we replace it with a new affordable home. That is the right policy as we help people who have the aspiration to buy their home, but we also make sure that the rented homes are replaced. That is what people will get from a Conservative Government.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
Luton’s housing waiting list is now three times higher than it was in the 1970s, when I was vice-chair of the council’s housing committee. The housing stock has halved in that time from compulsory sales. Is it not the truth that only a Labour Government led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) will save Britain’s housing situation and make sure that people in Luton can have a decent home?
Gavin Barwell
People can look back at the record of the last Labour Government—how many council homes were built between 1997 and 2010? What level of house building did we inherit from the Labour Government in 2010? The truth is that house building in this country has been increasing under this Government. Certainly, there is still further to go, but we are the party that is committed to building more homes for people to buy, more homes for people to rent privately and more affordable homes for people to rent. If we want a solution to the housing crisis, this is the party that is offering it.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
My Department regularly meets housing associations to discuss how we can help keep rents affordable and increase the supply of new homes. Our housing White Paper has been welcomed by the sector and we look forward to many more productive discussions in the coming years.
Stephen Hammond
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Indeed, the housing White Paper has been welcomed by housing associations. Does he agree that the future rent policy should not only guarantee affordability, but offer long-term certainty for housing associations, so that they do deliver the homes that we need?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is an excellent point. Housing associations currently account for roughly a third of total housing supply, and we do want a situation in which they can borrow even more against that future income to build even more homes. That is something that it is in the housing White Paper, and we intend to build on it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Adult social care funding is distributed according to the relative need of the different areas using a well-established formula. Most of the £4.5 billion funding for social care announced at the 2015 spending review and in the spring Budget takes into account councils’ ability to raise money through the social care precept.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
I thank the Minister for his response, but I am sorry to say that he is wrong. The formula is broken. South Tyneside Council is the third hardest hit council in the country with a low council tax base, demand for adult social care higher than average and hospital services under threat from this Government’s forced sustainability and transformation plans. Is it not true that this Government, who created the social care crisis, cannot solve it and our constituents are suffering as a result?
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady’s assessment is completely wrong. Councils will have access to £9.25 billion of extra funding over the next three years. On the money that is coming directly from the Government, it absolutely takes into account a local area’s ability to raise council tax, so areas such as that of the hon. Lady will receive more in funding from the Government than some other areas. She does not have any reason to talk about council tax because it doubled during the Labour Government. Since 2010, it has gone down by 9%.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister’s answer on the former point is absolutely right, but does he also accept that another variable, perhaps of greater practical concern, is the variation in the willingness of the health sector to work jointly with local authorities to maximise the integration of the funds? Local authorities are well used to joint working and democratic accountability, but I am afraid that there is not often the same history in clinical commissioning groups and other health institutions. What will he do about that in a future new Government?
Mr Jones
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, who has considerable knowledge in this area. He is absolutely right: we need to ensure that health and social care works far more collegiately and that harder work is done to ensure that services are integrated. We are determined to do that at a national level with this Department working with the Department of Health, and it is what we expect to see delivered at a local level for local people.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Mr Jones
The hon. Gentleman should look at the allocations for the £4.5 billion of social care funding coming to local authorities directly from the Government. That absolutely takes into account the fact that certain places can raise far more in council tax and from the social care precept than areas such as his own. That is reflected in the allocations, and I wish that he would recognise that.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Many care homes up and down the country are reliant on care workers from the EU; estimates suggest that there are about 100,000 workers. What meetings does the Secretary of State have with the care sector to reassure them that, when Britain leaves the EU, care homes will be adequately staffed with appropriately trained care workers?
Mr Jones
The hon. Lady makes a very important point and I can reassure her that my hon. Friend the Minister who is responsible for these matters in the Department of Health has met care providers, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and as have I. This is an extremely important situation and we must ensure that we have enough care workers to support the most vulnerable in our society.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
The northern powerhouse is central to our plans for an economy that works for all. During these past few months, we have published the northern powerhouse strategy, launched the second northern powerhouse investment portfolio, allocated more than £500 million of local growth investment, launched the £400 million northern powerhouse investment fund, committed tens of millions to cultural investment in the north and, of course, supported 17 enterprise zones across the north that are in turn providing employment for 9,000 people.
Jason McCartney
With regional growth fund money and local enterprise partnership funding helping local businesses in my Colne Valley constituency achieve record levels of employment, will the Minister ensure that the northern powerhouse investment fund builds on that success and that we power the powerhouse for many years to come?
Andrew Percy
Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work he does in promoting the local economy. In total, the Leeds city region, which includes his area, has received £694 million of Government funding for local growth funds and the new £400 million investment fund is there specifically to support small and medium-sized businesses across the north that want to grow and expand.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The north-east should be the powerhouse for our country’s manufacturing and exporting renaissance, with a workforce who take pride in making and building things. Why, then, do the so-called industrial strategy and the so-called northern powerhouse do so little to invest in the jobs and infrastructure that the north-east needs?
Andrew Percy
One of the reasons people in the north of England have lost their faith in the Labour party is that it never has anything positive to say about the north of England. All Labour does is talk down the north and talk down people. Look at what is actually happening in the north-east: £379 million of direct Government investment in the north-east and record employment levels. The hon. Lady might not want to talk up Newcastle, but I will, because it is leading this country’s economic recovery.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
On that note, Lancashire County Council has continually blocked an enterprise zone and business park in Morecambe and Lunesdale. Since the M6 link road opened up, we have been crying out for that. The Secretary of State himself has come down to see it. Would the Minister like to come during the election campaign and listen to the businesses that want that enterprise zone or business park?
Andrew Percy
I would be delighted to take up that invitation. I plan to visit many constituencies across the north during the election period, and I will of course visit my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Secretary of State has already visited. Enterprise zones have made a real difference to the economy of the north and, as I said, 9,000 jobs have been provided in them, so I will certainly visit.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
The Manchester Evening News reported at the weekend pressure from Conservative Back Benchers to scrap HS2 to fund the Brexit bill. Will the Minister confirm that HS2 to Manchester will go ahead, to time and to the budget that has been outlined?
Andrew Percy
There has been no change to the Government’s policy on HS2. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in addition, there is £13 billion of other investment. Over the next two years, particularly on the trans-Pennine line, there will be new rail, new carriages and new services—a whole new passenger experience. There will be over £2 billion of investment in that important transpennine route under the Government. The northern rail franchise will operate on an improvement basis, unlike the no-improvement basis when it was run by the Labour party.
Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)
Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
It is essential that local plans start with an honest assessment of housing need in the area. As we set out in our housing White Paper, we will introduce a standardised approach to assessing housing need to ensure that that is the case.
Stuart Andrew
The methodology used by Leeds City Council has brought about an excessive 70,000 housing target, which has threatened swathes of green-belt and greenfield sites in my constituency. If the alternative method proves my community’s suspicion that the target is excessive, will that override the current target and help to save these important green lungs in my constituency?
Gavin Barwell
The methodology will reveal the real level of housing need in Leeds. Local authorities across the country choose to build more homes than are needed because they have an ambition to grow. There is a legitimate debate to be had about that, but my hon. Friend’s constituents should have a clear understanding of what the relevant need is. I should add that the housing White Paper makes it clear that green-belt land should be released only in exceptional circumstances when all other options for meeting housing need have been explored.
Andrew Stephenson
Pendle has lots of brownfield sites, and many homes that have been granted planning permission have not yet been built because of the depressed property market, leading to low demand. How can we ensure that low demand in areas such as Pendle is better reflected in housing targets?
Gavin Barwell
That is exactly the purpose of the new methodology that we plan to introduce. The level of housing need for which we plan should reflect the real market demand for housing in an area.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
In the past year, we have received representations from park home residents as well as members of the all-party parliamentary group. Our call for evidence reviewing the legislation was published on 12 April, and addressed key concerns, including charges, site management and harassment.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Will the Minister remove the temptation that prompts those park owners who have neither the social nor managerial skills to make a success of it to maximise sales revenue commission by bullying residents to secure a higher turnover of residents?
Gavin Barwell
Bullying and harassment are not acceptable in any form, which is why we introduced the Mobile Homes Act 2013, which gives local authorities greater power. We shall obviously listen to the response to the call for evidence to see whether further action is required to stop the kind of behaviour that my right hon. Friend described.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
Our White Paper sets out measures to increase the use of modern methods of construction in house building. Those methods offer a huge opportunity, both to speed up the building of homes and to improve the quality of the build.
Steve Double
Cornwall council recently granted planning approval for a garden village at West Carclaze in St Austell. The vision for the development is to build the highest-quality sustainable homes with modern construction methods. Does the Minister agree that it is vital that the site developers are held to that vision, and what support can he give to ensure that that happens?
Gavin Barwell
My hon. Friend is an outstanding advocate for his community. I would be very happy to meet him to talk about how the Government can assist with the infrastructure required and the mix of housing as the proposed scheme goes through the planning process.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Rushden Lakes development in my constituency is being built using modern construction methods and is creating hundreds of jobs. An extension to it, approved unanimously by East Northamptonshire Council, was submitted to the Secretary of State for approval on 4 April. The council is concerned that the general election might mean that there is not enough time to approve the extension. What is the position on that?
Gavin Barwell
The Government are now in purdah, so further decisions cannot be taken. The new Government can obviously look at this issue straight away. It is to the credit of my hon. Friend and his council that their part of the country is determined to build the homes that we so desperately need.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
We are supporting our high streets to thrive as consumer habits change. We have introduced the biggest ever cut in business rates, worth £6.6 billion, and launched the high street pledge and digital high street pilot in Gloucestershire. We are also celebrating our high streets through the hugely successful Great British High Street awards, which Members on both sides of the House supported.
Karl MᶜCartney
Although Lincoln’s Sincil Street—a much treasured traditional shopping area just off our High Street—is full of first-class independent shops, they are all losing customers by the day due to large-scale regeneration works. I, and many others, believe that the valuation office should reduce business rates for the shops directly affected during this period, and that their landlord, the Lincolnshire Co-op, should discount their rent, especially as it has caused the shortfall. What does my right hon. Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—think the valuation office should do?
Andrew Percy
I am sure it is just a matter of time.
Businesses are fully entitled to make a case for a temporary reduction in their rateable value. As a fellow Lincolnshire MP, I know Sincil Street very well. I advise my hon. Friend’s businesses to contact the local valuation office to discuss whether the rateable values can be amended at all.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
As the Minister is well aware, there has been a significant increase in begging on Scunthorpe High Street over the past three years. The police, the local authorities and the courts between them do not seem to be able to roll up their sleeves and sort out the problem, despite trying hard in many different ways. What are the Government going to do to ensure that the right powers are in the right place to tackle the issue?
Andrew Percy
May I begin by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his marathon success yesterday? For such a young man, he did it in such an interesting time; he deserves full credit for it. He raises an issue that I am fully aware of in Scunthorpe, which is a town centre that is on its way back. I am happy to discuss with him further what we can do across Government to help to deal with the problem.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Traders in Cleethorpes High Street and elsewhere in the resort are concerned following a decision by North East Lincolnshire council, which is Labour controlled, to close a number of public toilets and refuse to repair others. That is having a very detrimental effect. I know that my hon. Friend, as the coastal communities Minister, would want to look favourably on future funding requests so that these amenities can be improved.
Andrew Percy
It is a delight to get a question from my other neighbour. Across northern Lincolnshire more generally, we have seen the council in north Lincolnshire actually open new public toilets. We recently allocated £20 million to northern powerhouse projects through the coastal communities fund. There will be a further round of bidding in October. If the local coastal community team wants to come forward with a proposal that includes that, we will, of course, look at it.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
Refuges provide vital support for victims of domestic abuse. Since 2014, we have invested more than £33 million in services, including refuges, to support victims of domestic abuse. We expect local areas to assess their need and provide services and support to meet that need.
Vicky Foxcroft
I have one refuge for women in my area. With 17% of specialist refuges in England lost since 2010, what are the Government doing to protect this vital lifeline for women and children?
Mr Jones
The Government take this issue extremely seriously. No person should be turned away from the support they need. We announced in February that 76 projects across the country will receive a share of £20 million to support victims of domestic abuse, creating 2,200 extra bed spaces and giving support to more than 19,000 victims. That includes additional funding to the hon. Lady’s area of Lewisham.
Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)
In the past few weeks, we have set out our plans to crack down on rogue landlords, we have launched 12 new enterprise zones, we have unveiled a £40 million cash boost for Britain’s coastal communities and we have listened to some of the concerns voiced about our business rates revaluation, responding with a £435 million package. However, contrary to previous promises, I can no longer expect to deliver 100% business rates retention by the end of this Parliament—simply because the end of this Parliament will now come round rather sooner than I had previously thought.
Sajid Javid
First, may I tell my hon. Friend that I enjoyed my visit to his beautiful and sunny constituency last week? The idea of this back-office hub, which I heard about from the local Conservative group, is a very good one. It highlights the fact that Conservative councils cost you less but deliver you more, so if local people want to see that, they should vote Conservative in the local elections throughout the country on 4 May.
Mr Stephen Hepburn (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question, seeing as his party is still on the manifesto from the last election, where it said there would not be one more penny for local government. That said, as the hon. Gentleman has heard, we are providing additional access to £9.25 billion—for example, for adult social care—during the next three years, and his area will certainly benefit from that.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Sajid Javid
First, I agree with my hon. Friend that Kettering is, indeed, a wonderful place. I do understand that unauthorised encampments can cause real distress for local communities. He will know that, since 2010, the Government have made a number of changes that are designed to help with illegal and unauthorised encampments, but I do agree that more can be done, and I would be more than happy to sit down with him and to listen to what ideas he has.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
I welcome the Select Committee’s work in this important area, and I will listen carefully to the final research it comes up with. The hon. Gentleman will know, first, that more funding is helpful, and the local government Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), referred to that earlier. However, there also need to be longer term changes that make the whole sector more sustainable, and that includes skills.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Gavin Barwell)
I am delighted to hear of the work my hon. Friend has been doing to promote neighbourhood planning in her constituency. She is a powerful champion for South East Cornwall. She is absolutely right that Cornwall County Council needs to work with these neighbourhood plans to help local communities deliver the visions they have set out.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. As I call the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), perhaps I may congratulate the hon. Lady, as she is one of several Members who magnificently ran the marathon yesterday. She may be feeling a tad tired today, but not too tired to stand up and ask her question. We are grateful to the hon. Lady.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
Sajid Javid
First, Mr Speaker, I join you in congratulating the hon. Lady on what she achieved yesterday, as well as all the people who raised so much money for so many good causes.
The issue that the hon. Lady raises is an important one. We are taking the Casey review very seriously. It shows the need for a new integration strategy to make sure that we do everything we can, working together across this House, including with people in Scotland and other parts of the UK, to make sure that we bring this nation together and reduce the number of people who face isolation.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
Gavin Barwell
I am happy to confirm that the written ministerial statement that is enlarged on in the White Paper is exactly designed to ensure that neighbourhood plans are not overruled when the local authority does not demonstrate that it has a five-year land supply. In addition, the White Paper contains proposals to help councils to demonstrate that they have a five-year land supply in order to uphold the plans that they have worked hard to produce.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Sajid Javid
We are investing record amounts in affordable housing. Since 2010, more than 310,000 units have been created throughout the country. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know what failure on affordable housing looks like, he need only look at the previous Labour Government, who saw a fall of 410,000 units in social housing for rent.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Gavin Barwell
Local authorities have a number of key roles: first, to produce a local plan that is based on an honest assessment of the level of need; and secondly, then to deliver that plan—the new housing delivery test is key in that regard. Thirdly, looking back when we did build enough homes in this country, local authorities played a crucial role in building themselves. We want to support local authorities in doing that, either through the housing revenue account or through the local housing company model that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) referred to.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the Secretary of State is aware of the damage being done to local communities by the cuts in local government spending. This has affected children’s centres, leading to their closure, and cut down on youth services. These services are at the very heart of our communities. What is the Minister going to do to put that right?
Sajid Javid
The hon. Gentleman will know that every council throughout the country has had to find efficiencies so that we can balance the books of our country and build a stronger economy. Some local authorities have done that well—mainly Conservative-led authorities—and Labour authorities have absolutely failed in it. So if people want to see more services being delivered for less, they should vote Conservative on 4 May.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend makes a very important point about how having the right infrastructure can help local people to accept more housing. He will know that local councils can already put obligations on developers to deliver certain infrastructure, and he will know about the community infrastructure levy, which can also help. I would like to highlight the new £2.3 billion housing infrastructure fund, which he can use locally in Corby. He should make an application to my Department to do that.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
Despite a very strong objection from Historic England, which, like me, is concerned about the impact on the 12th-century St John the Baptist church in Adel, disgracefully, Labour councillors voted for a controversial plan for 100 homes to be built opposite the church. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that the planning system does not allow local communities to have enough say against unwanted developments?
Gavin Barwell
Our planning system is built on a high level of community involvement at every stage. Local councils should work with communities in developing their local plan—an issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) in relation to Leeds City Council. Constituents also have the opportunity to make representations on planning applications and on appeals, but I am sorry that in this case it appears that the city council did not listen to their concerns.
Amanda Solloway (Derby North) (Con)
In Derby we are looking at alternative methods of helping those people who are sleeping rough, including an app that will direct funds to agencies such as the Padley Centre. Does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that such initiatives can help tackle the issues of rough sleeping?
Sajid Javid
Yes, I wholeheartedly I agree with my hon. Friend. It is our ambition—I know that she shares it—to end rough sleeping in our country, and those kinds of new ideas can make a real difference.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
Following last week’s successful and important meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on leasehold and commonhold reform about unfair and unreasonable abuses of leasehold, what are the Government’s plans to do something about them?
Sajid Javid
First, may I commend my hon. Friend on his work to highlight abuses? I know that he shares my concern about where houses are sold on leasehold. That is an unacceptable practice and we will do something about it.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
The leader of the Conservative group in Eastleigh has questioned the methodology behind the plan for an extra 10,000 homes, which could threaten 400-year-old ancient woodland. Without a local plan, and when ancient woodland is under threat, how can housing numbers be verified?
Gavin Barwell
I hope that the housing White Paper will help my hon. Friend, who is passionate about protecting ancient woodland in her constituency, in two regards. First, the new standard methodology will give a much clearer indication of the real level of housing need in her area. Secondly, we propose to increase the protections of ancient woodland, which is a precious resource that we have inherited from previous generations and that cannot be easily replaced. It is right that we strengthen the protection.
Peter Heaton-Jones (North Devon) (Con)
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), for the fantastic news that North Devon is to receive two coastal communities grants totalling more than £2 million: £500,000 for the museum in Barnstaple and £1.5 million for the new water sports centre in Ilfracombe, which he will kindly visit soon. Will he join me in congratulating those in the community who have helped to make this happen, and does he agree that North Devon gets this sort of recognition only when it has a Conservative MP and a Conservative Government?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I am obviously going to agree with my hon. Friend’s latter point. I also pay tribute to him for the work he has done in advocating both of those projects. The latest allocation of coastal community grants funded a whole host of projects across the south-west, proving that if they want that investment to continue, residents of the south-west will have to vote Conservative in the forthcoming general election.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State be Nottinghamshire’s Robin Hood to Labour’s King John and ensure that parts of Nottinghamshire, including my Bassetlaw constituents, are never forced against their will to join the Sheffield city mayoral region, and that the historical counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire will be safe under a Conservative Government?
Andrew Percy
It is of course a matter for the Sheffield city region to determine who it consults and what the proposals will be. We obviously have to apply the statutory test, so I am unable to say anything about that in detail, other than that it is really important that residents in Bassetlaw and Derbyshire make their views known as part of the consultation undertaken by the city region.
Mr Speaker
I am happy to take two further questions, if each of them consists of only one sentence.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Secretary of State for his strong expression of concern regarding unfair leasehold titles, which affect my Congleton constituency; will he confirm that he is addressing this issue for those who have already bought, and, for the future buyer, will he look at imposing requirements on the right-to-buy conditions so that such properties can be bought only under freehold or fair leasehold terms?
Sajid Javid
My hon. Friend has done a great deal of work in this area. She will know that it is a particular problem in the north-west, and I can confirm that we are looking at all the issues very carefully.
Mark Pawsey
Will the Secretary of State consider imposing a requirement on developers of large industrial sites to provide some units for smaller businesses, to meet the shortage that currently exists in my constituency?
Sajid Javid
I point my hon. Friend to some of the changes set out in our recent White Paper. They are designed to make sure that local plans take account of all needs, including the needs of businesses.
Air Quality Strategy
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the publication date of the Government’s air quality strategy.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government are committed to making sure that ours is the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. As part of that, I am deeply committed personally to the importance of ensuring that we have clean air. Since 2011, the Government have announced more than £2 billion to help bus operators to upgrade their fleets, to support the development and take-up of low-emission vehicles, to reduce pollution from vehicles such as refuse trucks and fire engines, and to promote the development of clean alternative fuels. In addition, in the autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis, and alternative fuels.
Our actions have enabled the UK to make significant progress on improving its air quality since 2010. We now have lower emissions of the five key pollutants: volatile organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, particulates, and nitrogen oxides. However, because of the failure of Euro vehicle emission standards to deliver expected improvements in air quality, the UK is among 17 European countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet meeting EU emissions targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts of some towns and cities.
We are taking strong action to remedy that. Since last November, my Department has worked jointly with the Department for Transport to update the Government’s national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide. We have updated the analytical base for the plan to reflect new evidence following the Volkswagen scandal and the failure of the EU’s regulatory regime to deliver expected improvements on emissions. The plan adapts to these new circumstances by setting out a framework for action.
Following long-standing precedent, we have entered the period of sensitivity that precedes elections. In accordance with the guidance covering both local and general elections, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office has told us that it would not be appropriate to launch the consultation and publish the air quality plan during this time. The Government have therefore applied to the High Court for a short extension of the deadline for publishing the national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide, in order to comply with pre-election propriety rules. The Government seek to publish a draft plan by 30 June and a final plan by 15 September. The application will be considered by the Court.
Sue Hayman
Nearly 40 million people in Britain live in areas with illegal levels of air pollution. Two thousand schools and nurseries are close to roads with damaging levels of fumes, and NHS experts estimate that poor air quality contributes to 40,000 premature deaths every year. The situation has gone from bad to worse on this Government’s watch, and has escalated into what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee calls a “public health emergency”. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is indeed a public health emergency?
Given the gravity of the situation and the fact that the Secretary of State has known about today’s High Court deadline for months, why did she choose to request a further delay to the publication of her air quality plan at 7 o’clock on Friday night? Will she clarify whether she had in fact already applied for an extension before the election was called? It is unacceptable for her to hide behind the election to delay publishing her plans. Cabinet Office rules are clear that purdah is not an excuse to delay acting on vital public health matters. Will she confirm that the plans are ready for publication? If she agrees that this is a public health emergency, why the delay?
Are not the Government doing everything that they can to avoid scrutiny because they are missing their own commitments, have no strategy and yet again want to kick this issue into the long grass? How can we trust the right hon. Lady’s Government to maintain air quality standards after we leave the EU when they have done everything possible to avoid scrutiny on existing standards and had to be dragged through the courts?
If the Government fail to publish their plan today, within the first 30 days of a Labour Administration, we will. Only a Labour Government will legislate for a new clean air Act setting out how to tackle the air pollution that damages the lives of millions, but this Conservative Government continue shamefully to shirk their legal responsibilities and are putting the health of millions at risk.
Andrea Leadsom
I think that all Members right across this House agree that air quality is a significant concern. I have already set out some of the strong actions that this Government have taken, in spending £2 billion since 2011, to try to improve the situation.
The hon. Lady is exactly right: we have our draft air quality plan for NO2 ready. She asked why we have a late extension, and I can absolutely explain that to her: in the course of developing our draft plan, it became clear that local authorities would have to play a central role in delivering the final air quality plan, so the Government initially sought to defer publication of the plan and the launch of the consultation on it until after the purdah period for local authority elections. Since that application was lodged, the Prime Minister has called a general election, and a further period of purdah commenced on 21 April. As the hon. Lady will know, Governments normally seek to avoid launching consultation exercises during purdah periods. It is absolutely vital that we get this done, and our intention is to publish the plan on 30 June. She says that a Labour Administration would publish such a plan within 30 days, but that would actually be later than the date on which this Government intend to publish it.
I want to make it very clear that we have now entered a period during which we are strongly advised not to publish consultations. We are therefore trying to put in place a very short extension, which we do not believe will make a difference to the implementation of our plans, while at the same time safeguarding our democracy.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
I urge the Secretary of State, along with all Ministers, to work on the air quality plan with the very greatest urgency after the general election, because we have waited a very long time for it. Many of the problems with diesel actually started under the previous Government, and we need to clean that up. A scrappage scheme—for not only our diesel cars, but buses, taxis and many other forms of public transport in our inner cities—is absolutely essential if we are to clean up air quality, especially in our inner cities.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. We have now been working on this specific plan for several years. We published a consultation for clean air zones in 2015. The fact that emissions from diesel vehicles have far exceeded what was expected has been extremely difficult. The EU regulatory regime did not show effectively what the real levels of emissions were, and this Government have pushed for improvements to the assessment. We have been planning the draft air quality plan for a consideration length of time, and we will publish it just as soon as we can.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) for securing this urgent question on the Government’s air quality strategy. I agree with her concerns entirely.
This is not a political issue. All our constituents need to breathe, and they want an air quality plan based on good scientific evidence to ensure that people no longer have to breathe toxic air in their communities. The Government have had a five-month window to address illegal air quality in relation to the strategy. Does the Secretary of State agree that hiding behind a general election cannot be an excuse for failing to address what is, as she has just mentioned, a vital health issue? She has said that it is “vital” to get this through, so why the delay?
Andrea Leadsom
I can only repeat that I absolutely agree with Members that this is a vital issue. We have spent the past five months looking very carefully at the real world, as well as laboratory tests, to find out actual emissions so that we have the right consultation. We do not expect any delay due to propriety rules to lead to a delay in implementation. We are seeking a very short delay to preserve our democracy, in accordance with guidance from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is growing concern about emissions that can damage health and lungs in particular? Will she make it a high priority to limit soot and smoke from public service vehicles, on which she has most influence?
Andrea Leadsom
My right hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this issue. The Government have invested a huge amount in retrofitting buses and taxis. Other measures include limiting medium combustion plants, which I was very proud to put in place when I was Energy Secretary, to try to reduce other emissions. My right hon. Friend is exactly right that we need to tackle a number of different emissions. This plan deals with nitrogen dioxide emissions and we will publish it as soon as we can.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Opposition Members will monitor carefully whether such pre-election sensitivity applies to the announcements or consultations that the Government welcome to the same extent as to ones that cause them embarrassment. Once the UK leaves the EU and the Commission is no longer able to levy fines on the UK Government for failing to act with due speed on the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year that are caused by toxic air, who does the Government expect will be levying fines and initiating cases against the Government for air quality breaches?
Andrea Leadsom
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very significant and serious issue, but I find his suggestion that the threat of EU fines is the only reason why the Government might be motivated to deal with it rather distasteful. We absolutely intend to deal with the issue to ensure that the air is cleaner for the people of our country and that we are the generation who leaves our environment in a better state than we found it.
Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just people but sensitive landscapes, such as the nationally designated area of outstanding natural beauty of the Chilterns, that should be protected? Such areas should also be positively recognised for their role in the battle against poor air quality, including by harnessing the potential of our trees and ancient woodland.
Andrea Leadsom
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who always speaks very strongly for the Chilterns. She is right to do so as it is a beautiful area. Air quality is of course vital not only for humans, but for our lovely landscapes. Preserving the contribution made by our trees, peat lands and so on is a very important priority.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Southampton is one of the 10 cities threatened with an infraction under the air quality regulations. It is also one of five cities, under the Government’s December plans, to introduce clean air zones, and Southampton’s local authority has been really assiduous in moving forward with its plans. While it has received grants, it has also put in a great deal of its own money. Is it the Secretary of State’s advice that the city council should now go easy on its plans because the Government cannot get their own together?
Andrea Leadsom
I was in full agreement with the hon. Gentleman until that last bit. Of course not. I was going to praise the work of Southampton City Council, which has received significant Government funding for its clean air programmes. It is doing a good job and should continue to do so. To be clear, as things stand, clean air zones can be implemented by any local authority. It should therefore be in the interests of all local authorities to do whatever they can to improve air quality for their local communities.
Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)
Should not the air quality plan be seen in the wider context of the environment and tax changes? Is it not the case that the Government are in a more difficult position than they would be otherwise because of the legacy of the wrong-headed tax changes made by Labour? As a result of the ridiculous tax changes made under Gordon Brown, we more than doubled the number of diesel cars and increased the number of diesel vans to 3 million.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is interesting that several of Gordon Brown’s and Tony Blair’s advisers have come out in recent months to say that they were wrong to encourage the uptake of diesel vehicles to the extent that they did. Even the shadow International Trade Secretary has admitted that
“there’s absolutely no question that the decision we took”—
on diesel—
“was the wrong decision.”
This Government, as ever, are trying to clean up the mess that was started by Labour.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Emissions from industry are a major contributory factor in poor air quality, but great strides could be made to improve air quality in areas such as Teesside if the Government backed carbon capture and storage. We have been promised a Tory policy on that since the Tories ditched the funding two years ago. When will we get it?
Andrea Leadsom
As a former Energy Minister, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have always been clear about the fact that carbon capture and storage will play a part in our future plans, but that has no impact on the NO2 plan that we are talking about today.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)
The Secretary of State has clearly set out the reasons for the delay, but in the intervening time, may I encourage her to strengthen our policies to encourage people to get out of their cars altogether? May I also urge her to read an article in this week’s edition of The BMJ that clearly sets out the growing evidence of the benefits of active commuting, particularly by bicycle? Will she encourage us to get Britain cycling?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The Government are a huge supporter of sustainable transport projects. We have invested £224 million in cycling since 2013, and £600 million in the delivery of transport projects across 77 local authorities through the local sustainable transport fund. As my hon. Friend says, we must do everything that we can to protect the quality of the air in our cities, and that includes changing the way in which people travel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Having already congratulated the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell), I am now delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on his successful completion of the marathon yesterday. Despite that, he has sprung to his feet very impressively.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State and other DEFRA Ministers will be well aware of the challenges facing Camelford, in my constituency, which was recently subjected to an air quality assessment, and which is in the very early stages of being granted a bypass. I hope that the Secretary of State will support me, and the local community, in our bid for a new bypass in Camelford.
Andrea Leadsom
I would love to be able to offer my hon. Friend a new bypass, but unfortunately that is outside my powers. I wish him luck with it, and I, too, congratulate him on his amazing achievement yesterday.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
If the present rate continues, there will be seven more dead people in Slough by the date on which the Secretary of State publishes the air quality plan. The whole point of purdah is that announcements should not be made unless they are significant in the context of urgent health issues. Is this not an urgent health issue? What will the Secretary of State say to the families of those seven people who will die before she even publishes?
Andrea Leadsom
As the right hon. Lady says, poor air quality is a public health issue. That is why we are taking urgent action, and we will ensure that a short delay in the timetable will not result in a delay in the implementation of the plan. By doing that, we will tackle this public health issue as quickly as possible without prejudicing our democratic process.
The need to safeguard public health is one example of a possible exceptional circumstance in which consultations could be published during purdah. However, that would generally apply only in the event of an unexpected public health emergency—such as, for example, contaminated food—which needed to be dealt with instantly, and this instance does not fall into that category.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Government confirm that their approach to this issue remains technology-neutral, and that, in the context of hydrogen specifically, they will do what is necessary to ensure that we do not fall behind, for instance, Germany and California when it comes to cleaning up this terrible problem?
Andrea Leadsom
I can confirm that we are technology-neutral, and as part of our industrial strategy we are consulting on how to become a world leader in ultra-low emission vehicles of all types. There is a very good story to tell there; there is more to be done, but we are making good progress.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Air quality standards are breached regularly in my constituency from Chiswick, to Brentford, Isleworth and through to Hounslow. Do my constituents not deserve better on this issue, especially as the Government want to push ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, which will only make the problem significantly worse?
Andrea Leadsom
I met the Mayor of London in my first week in office to discuss clean air, because the hon. Lady is right that it is a huge priority in all of our cities but particularly London, where there is rightly a huge focus on it. The Mayor is implementing the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) when he was the Mayor of London, and that continuity should continue to be a cross-party co-operation to solve what is a very serious issue for all of us.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the lack of contrition displayed on the Opposition Benches, given that Labour’s unquestioned adoption of policy in the early part of the last decade resulted in a massive increase in the number of diesel vehicles, making the air in places such as Westbury in my constituency considerably more toxic?
Andrea Leadsom
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of advisers and, indeed, serving Members on the Labour Benches now admit that their decision to promote diesel between 2000 and 2008 was not the right decision. The decision to promote diesel was a great shame, because we are now trying to deal with some of the consequences of that. It is important that we have cross-party co-operation to try to make sure that we tackle what is a very significant issue.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
As we all know, air pollution contributes to the premature deaths of tens of thousands of people, but do I take it from the Secretary of State’s previous answer that she thinks air pollution is only a public health issue and is not categorically a public health emergency?
Andrea Leadsom
Clean air is a top priority for this Government. We have been working on our new proposals for the last five months and are ready to go with them. We are now seeking a very short deferral to meet the propriety rules around purdah, but we do not expect that that will delay the implementation of our plans to deal with what is a very significant and urgent concern.
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)
I wore an air quality monitor as part of the Environmental Audit Committee inquiry into air emissions. It showed that the Mill Hill Broadway bus station had levels of pollution as high as Oxford Street’s, which is a huge concern for my constituents. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that some directly elected mayors will use this as an opportunity to introduce congestion charges on motorists who were told to buy diesel vehicles, not use that money for air quality, and in addition take money from DEFRA for addressing the same problem?
Andrea Leadsom
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that this Government are on the side of ordinary working families and businesses. She has said that we are very conscious of the fact that past Governments have encouraged people to buy diesel cars and that we need to take that into account when looking at what we do in the future.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
May I, in the nicest possible way, put the Secretary of State right on this? She has had to be dragged to the House to make this statement and has been putting off major decisions for the future on important issues right across her Department, but may I put the record straight just on the facts? My constituents will not understand when children are being poisoned now, when pregnant women are being poisoned now and when pedestrians and cyclists are being poisoned that she is making some obscure reference to purdah to stop us doing something about it. I remind her that it is two years since the Volkswagen scandal broke, and she has done nothing in those two years.
Andrea Leadsom
In truth, what this Government did was to lead the EU in sorting out the emissions calculations, to make sure that they were accurate. A few years ago, the EU’s wrong-headed emissions assessments relating to the VW cheating were just that: they were wrong. Subsequently, this Government have led the way in pressing for better calculations and assessments. We have been working extremely hard to get our plans ready, and this will be a very short deferral to comply with propriety rules. We will publish our plan as soon as possible after the general election, after which we do not believe there will be any delay in implementation. That will take place in the shortest possible time, because this is a very important issue.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
You will want to know, Mr Speaker, that on Friday, I launched the new double-decker fleet for the X3 bus service that runs from Salisbury to Bournemouth via God’s own towns of Ringwood and Fordingbridge. The fleet combines convenience and comfort with lower emissions than those from the lawnmower that I pushed round my garden on Saturday evening. If the Secretary of State wants to break the unrelieved tedium of the purdah of which she has spoken over the next few weeks, I recommend that she joins me in breathing deeply the fresh air of the Avon valley on the X3 service.
Mr Speaker
It is always of interest to learn about the right hon. Gentleman’s domestic activities and to discover that, to his great credit, despite the receipt of his knighthood, he remains truly a man of the people. I am only sorry that we do not have photographs of him pushing his lawnmower around, but I suspect that it is only a matter of time.
Andrea Leadsom
I hope that my right hon. Friend has an electric lawnmower to go with his electric buses. He will be aware that, in the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced £150 million to support low-emissions buses and taxis—including support for retrofitting buses and for boosting the UK retrofit industry—to ensure that wherever I go in the country, I will be able to breathe deeply and enjoy the non-fumes from new, low-emission vehicles. This is incredibly important and it is this Government who are taking action.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The Secretary of State might have met the Mayor of London, but it is he who is taking action on air quality while her Government sit on their hands. Does she agree with Sadiq Khan that this is the biggest environmental crisis of our time? If so, will the Government review one of their worst environmental decisions—to build a third runway at Heathrow?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman is exactly wrong to say that this Government have not taken action. I have given countless examples of how we are taking action. We have recently issued more than £3.5 million of grants to particular councils for particular projects. It is this Government who are taking action. As I have made clear, we have seen significant reductions in all five of the major pollutants in recent years. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point about the expansion of Heathrow, that will take place only provided that the air quality can be ensured—
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that pollution is a serious problem, but that for the Mayor of London to demonise the drivers of diesel cars and to use pollution concerns as a smokescreen for fleecing motorists through more taxes is not the answer, particularly as Transport for London figures show that diesel cars represent 10% of the problem? The Mayor should be dealing with 100% of the problem, not just 10%.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that all councils that have air quality problems will need to tackle them and to deal with 100% of the problem. As the Prime Minister has said, a number of people were encouraged to buy diesel cars by the last Labour Government, and we want to take those people’s needs into account so that we do not end up penalising them for decisions that they took in good faith.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The latest figures show that new cars are failing to filter out polluted air, and that the air inside them can be up to 10 times more toxic than the air on the footpath because the ventilation in the cars is not working correctly. The Secretary of State has given us a timescale for the consultation process and the comeback from it. Can she give us an idea of when the legislation will come to this House for endorsement?
Andrea Leadsom
The timetable we have set out to account for purdah is that we will publish our plans on 30 June, with a final plan by 15 September. Legislation will come into place as soon as possible afterwards, but we will be able to start straightaway on the work that needs to be done to come to comply with that plan.
Carol Monaghan
Good choice, Mr Speaker. Electric vehicles will reduce emissions in our city centres and improve urban air quality. Without support for renewables, however, any air quality plan simply shifts pollution from urban to rural areas because such electric vehicles need to be plugged into the grid to charge. Does the Secretary of State agree that support for renewables is key when we consider future electric vehicles and should be included in any air quality plan?
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that this Government have done more to support renewables than most others. We have a good track record on boosting renewable electricity generation, and we want and expect to see the majority of recharging taking place at home at night, after the peak in electricity demand. Home recharging should be supported by workplace recharging for commuters and fleets, with a targeted amount of public infrastructure where it will be most used, but I am sure she will also be delighted that in the 2016 autumn statement the Chancellor announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis and alternative fuels.
Patrick Grady
Unfortunately, Glasgow is still something of an air pollution hotspot. Byres Road in my constituency and Hope Street in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) are both particularly affected. There is a city action plan, and we hope if and when the Scottish National party takes control of the city next week, or the week after, it will bring a breath of fresh air. Does the Secretary of State welcome the action of local campaign groups such as Action Hillhead and the Glasgow University climate action society both in raising awareness and in encouraging people to take local action to improve air quality in their area?
Andrea Leadsom
I am always delighted to welcome the actions of local voluntary bodies to try to change the way people travel and to encourage the take-up of good, healthy cycling and all the rest. Why not walking where we can, too? Poor air quality is often the result of people needing to use their own vehicles, vans and so on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that air quality policy is a devolved matter, so our plan is a shared plan between all four nations of the United Kingdom. We will all be publishing that as soon as we can.
Points of Order
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware that I requested an urgent question following the discovery at my advice surgery last Friday that the Home Office hotline for MPs had been due to shut that day at 5 pm and not to reopen until after the general election. I later discovered that that was the practice for a number of Government hotlines, which are mechanisms that enable MPs—as you know, we are Members of Parliament until next Tuesday—to get justice for their constituents.
Following that request, my office got a telephone call from the Cabinet Office saying, “Please withdraw it. We don’t really want to answer this.” I did not accede to that request, and what seemed to happen thereafter is that a whole load of hotlines started reopening. I quite understand why you did not grant my request for an urgent question, Mr Speaker, because it seems that just asking you had a result. As a champion of the Back Bencher, will you use your best efforts to make sure that the original plan to cut off this service to Members of Parliament does not occur until after this Parliament is dissolved?
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. The Leader of the House is in his place and, notwithstanding the right hon. Lady’s excoriating remarks about the Government, it may be his wish to clarify the matter as he thinks fit. I can say only that I will always do my best for Back-Bench Members.
As the right hon. Lady has announced her intention to leave the House, perhaps I can wish her great good fortune, health and happiness in all she goes on to do. I am very conscious that she and I entered the House together 20 years ago, and we have come to know each other well over the past two decades. I say with feeling, best wishes and good luck.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if I were just to clarify that the understanding I have from the Cabinet Office is that there were some technical problems with one or two lines at the end of last week, but it was never, and certainly is not, the intention of the Government that these rules should be applied at this stage. They will of course come into force, as is normal, at the Dissolution of the House, when all Members cease to have the position of being a Member of Parliament.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, my office contacted UK Visas and Immigration only to be told that we are now in purdah and it would not talk to us, even about ongoing cases. Clearly, there is an inconsistency of advice going on, and I wonder whether the Leader of the House could respond.
Mr Lidington
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. The position is exactly as I set out in response to the point made by the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart).
Mr Speaker
I hope that will prove to be adequate in the coming days. I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for what he has just said, and I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan).
Business of the House (24, 25, 26 and 27 April)
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr David Lidington)
I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall have effect:
SITTINGS ON 24, 25, 26 AND 27 APRIL
(1) At today’s sitting and the sittings on Tuesday 25 April, Wednesday 26 April and Thursday 27 April—
(a) Standing Orders Nos. 83D to 83H and 83I(2), (3) and (6) (conclusion of proceedings etc) shall apply to proceedings to be taken in accordance with this Order, but with the omission of Standing Orders Nos. 83D(2)(c) and 83E(2)(c);
(b) no notice shall be required of any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown and any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown may be proceeded with, though opposed, after the moment of interruption and shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House;
(c) no Motion to alter the order in which proceedings on a Bill are taken, to recommit a Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown.
(2) (a) A Motion referred to in paragraph (1) (c) may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(3) (a) At today’s sitting and the sitting on Tuesday 25 April, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply, except to questions on Motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown to approve a statutory instrument.
(b) At the sittings on Wednesday 26 April and Thursday 27 April, Standing Order No.41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
MONDAY 24 APRIL
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(4) The Finance (No. 2) Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill
(5) Paragraphs (6) to (11) apply to proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill.
(6) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(7) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with paragraphs (8) to (11).
(8) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(9) When the Bill has been read a second time—
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the House shall immediately resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill.
(10) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(11) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
Other business
(12) At today’s sitting—
(a) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put (and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly);
(b) proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement (and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed).
TUESDAY 25 APRIL
Finance (No. 2) Bill
(13) Paragraph (14) applies to proceedings on the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
(14) At the sitting on Tuesday 25 April—
(a) the House shall resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Bill without considering any notice of an instruction to the Committee;
(b) proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) four hours after their commencement;
(c) any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) five hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House;
(d) if the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(15) Paragraph (14) shall have effect notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the intervals between stages of a Bill brought in upon Ways and Means Resolutions.
Other business
(16) At the sitting on Tuesday 25 April—
(a) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put (and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly);
(b) proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill or any other Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement (and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed).
WEDNESDAY 26 APRIL
(17) At the sitting on Wednesday 26 April—
(a) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put (and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly);
(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Digital Economy Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) three hours after their commencement;
(c) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to the Criminal Finances Billshall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) two hours after their commencement;
(d) subject to sub-paragraphs (b) and (c), proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement (and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed).
THURSDAY 27 APRIL
(18) On Thursday 27 April there shall be no sitting in Westminster Hall.
(19) At the sitting on Thursday 27 April—
(a) any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put (and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly);
(b) proceedings on any Lords Amendments or Lords Message in respect of any Bill shall be brought to a conclusion (unless already concluded) one hour after their commencement (and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed).
GENERAL
(20) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(21) In this Order, a reference to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes a reference to any of the following—
(a) proceedings on any Motion to alter the order in which proceedings on or in respect of a Bill are considered;
(b) proceedings on any Procedure Resolution, Money Resolution or Ways and Means Resolution in relation to proceedings on or in respect of a Bill;
(c) proceedings on any Motion under Standing Order No. 83M (Consent Motions for certified England only or England and Wales only provisions) or 83N (Reconsideration of bills so far as there is absence of consent), and a reference to a stage in proceedings on or in respect of a Bill includes any proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a) to (c) that are relevant to that stage.
(22) (a) The start of any emergency debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held at today’s sitting, at the sitting on Tuesday 25 April or at the sitting on Wednesday 26 April shall be postponed until the conclusion of the proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
(b) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 at the sitting on Thursday 27 April.
(23) (a) Any private business which has been deferred to a time appointed under Standing Order No. 20 (Time for taking private business) for consideration at today’s sitting or at the sitting on Tuesday 25 April, Wednesday 26 April or Thursday 27 April shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders or by any Order ofthe House, be postponed until the conclusion of proceedings at that sitting to which this Order applies.
(b) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business so far as necessary for the purpose of securing that the business may be considered for a period of three hours.
(24) (a) At today’s sitting and the sittings on Tuesday 25 April and Wednesday 26 April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until any Messages from the Lords have been received and any Committee to draw up Reasons has reported.
(b) At the sitting on Thursday 27 April, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House before a Message has been received from the Lords Commissioners.
(25) If today’s sitting continues after 11.30 a.m. on Tuesday 25 April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Tuesday 25 April were a reference to today’s sitting.
(26) If the sitting on Tuesday 25 April continues after 11.30 a.m. on Wednesday 26 April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Wednesday 26 April were a reference to the sitting on Tuesday 25 April.
(27) If the sitting on Wednesday 26 April continues after 9.30 a.m. on Thursday 27 April, this Order shall have effect as if any reference to the sitting on Thursday 27 April were a reference to the sitting on Wednesday 26 April.
(28) If today’s sitting, the sitting on Tuesday 25 April or the sitting on Wednesday 26 April continues as described in any of paragraphs (25) to (27), any business set down for consideration at the later sitting mentioned in that paragraph may be considered at the continued sitting, notwithstanding the practice of the House which forbids the bringing forward of an Order of the Day.
The purpose of the motion is simply to allow for the orderly conclusion of the business currently before the House before the House is prorogued. The provisions are being made for the convenience of the House, so that we can bring proceedings on our business to a swift and orderly conclusion.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion to the House and for the helpful explanatory note, which runs to three pages and is available in the Vote Office. May I also thank the staff for the expeditious way in which they are dealing with the future business, given the forthcoming general election?
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
I simply wish to thank the Leader of the House for bringing this motion to the House and say to him that he can rest assured that we will scrutinise everything in our normal fashion.
Question put and agreed to.
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill
Monday 24th April 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017 View all Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I move forward with this business, I would like to pay tribute to those in the Police Service of Northern Ireland and in other emergency services who spent yesterday keeping people safe from a significant bomb placed by dissident republican terrorists next to a primary school in north Belfast. I am sickened by this incident, which has caused outrage in the community and far beyond. It is clear that the consequences could have been utterly devastating. Potentially to put children, the wider community and police officers in danger shows a wanton disregard for life. This shows these terrorists for who and what they really are, and is a potent reminder that they have nothing to offer.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the attempts this morning by the BBC to try somehow to justify what the terrorists did at the weekend on the basis that there had been no political progress shows the kind of banal reporting we get from the BBC? It is not worthy of a publicly funded body.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman has made his point in his own way. All I will say is that this was an appalling incident for which there was no justification whatsoever. I think the whole House would wish to pay tribute to the PSNI and all those agencies that do such an incredible job in seeking to provide security for Northern Ireland, for the risks that they often put themselves under as a consequence of that work and for the incredible contribution that they make.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is not enough for political parties and individuals to say that they support the rule of law? Surely it is incumbent on us all to support the individual officers who come from right across the community to serve all of the community. We should all be giving them our wholehearted support.
James Brokenshire
The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful and important point about the incredible job that the PSNI does, the contribution that it makes and what that often means for its officers. I have a huge amount of respect for their professionalism and the personal dedication that they bring. I am sure the whole House would wish to underline that message of support for the incredible job that they do.
Moving on to the Bill, I have updated the House twice on the political situation in Northern Ireland in recent weeks: in my oral statement on 28 March and in my written ministerial statement last week. On both occasions, I set out that I would seek to bring forward legislation with two aims in mind: to provide the legal basis for an Executive to form, and to set a regional rate to enable that important source of revenue to be collected. As we approach the final week of this Parliament, now is the right time to deal with both those matters, in order to provide greater certainty for the people of Northern Ireland and to provide the opportunity for the parties to come together to secure the resumption of devolved government.
The background leading up to the introduction of the Bill will be familiar to many in the House. The collapse of the previous Executive in January placed a duty on me to set a date for a further election. I did so in January, and the election itself was held on 2 March. Since then, the UK Government have been engaged in talks with the political parties and, as appropriate, the Irish Government, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach. The talks have had one clear purpose: to re-establish an inclusive, devolved Administration in line with the 1998 Belfast agreement and its successors. Progress was made on several fronts during that phase on the formation of an Executive, including the budget and programme for government.
There was progress on legacy, too. Constructive discussions took place with all the parties on the detail of the legacy institutions set out in the Stormont House agreement and on the need to reform legacy inquests. Although no one will underestimate the challenge of addressing the legacy of the past, the proposals are now sufficiently developed that the next step should be to publish them for consultation. That way, we can listen to the views of victims and survivors and all those who will be most affected by the proposed new institutions.
Despite the progress that was made, there remains a defined number of outstanding issues on which there is a lack of agreement between the parties, and it was clear that a period of reflection was necessary to give the impetus for the discussions to conclude positively. It was with that in mind that the talks were paused over Easter. Since then, meetings have continued between the parties. The restoration of devolved government remains achievable, and it remains the absolute priority. It will, though, require more time and more focused engagement by the parties on the critical issues that remain, building on the discussions over the past seven weeks. The Bill would provide the space, and the opportunity, for the parties to do just that. We will remove the current legal barriers so that the Assembly can meet and an Executive can be formed at any point from Royal Assent to 29 June—three weeks after the general election.
We recognise that there will be focus on the general election, which is why the Bill provides parties with the scope and space to continue discussions to resolve their outstanding issues, while providing a period of reflection for the new Government if a deal still does not prove possible. That said, it remains highly desirable for the parties to continue to work to make progress quickly for the reasons that I have set out, and this Bill does not preclude the formation of an Executive sooner if the parties wish that to happen. That is an important point. In passing this Bill, we make it clear that the responsibility now lies with the parties to come together and make progress, and as I have indicated, I strongly believe that that can still happen. We have removed the legal barrier to progress, enabling an Executive to form without the need for a further Assembly election. If the parties have the will to make progress between now and the end of June, the platform is in place for them to do just that. In the meantime, we should not lose sight of the benefits that an agreement would have for the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will be the hope of those voters who gave the parties a mandate on 2 March.
I pay tribute to the Opposition for their constructive and positive engagement in the process leading up to the introduction of this Bill. I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) who may be making his final appearance at the Dispatch Box as shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Despite our broader political differences, I thank him for the overall support that he and his party have given me since I became Secretary of State in July. Northern Ireland undoubtedly benefits from the broadly bipartisan approach that we take in this House and, whatever the result of the general election, I hope that that will always continue. I wish him all the very, very best for the future. I know that his presence will be missed by many across this House who will wish him well in whatever new opportunities and new challenges he takes forward.
Moving to the substance of the Bill, clause 1 would remove the present legal barrier to an Executive being able to form to implement any deal that has been reached. It would retrospectively reset the 14-day clock in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which expired on 27 March, with a 108-day period, removing the present duty on me to set a date for an election, with it arising again at 4 pm on 29 June if an Executive have not been formed by that point. This will provide the space for an Executive to form, and makes it clear that the responsibility for progress lies with the parties—indeed that duty to form an Executive and appoint Ministers in that process. As necessary, it would provide a period for further talks in the new Parliament, allowing all sides to take stock and move forward if a deal is not already in place. It would also mean that, if a deal is not struck, there is a period for the new Government properly to consider the way forward. That is important. In the absence of a deal, significant decisions will need to be made in the new Parliament to provide political stability in Northern Ireland. However, it will be for the parties to seize the opportunity, whether in the coming weeks or soon after, to deliver the Executive that they have so clear a mandate to secure.
I have mentioned the two acute issues of financial uncertainty caused by the lack of an Executive. The first is the absence of a 2017-18 regional rate, which represents more than 5% of the total revenue available to the Northern Ireland Executive. Normally, this would have been set by the Department of Finance earlier this year, via an affirmative rates order in the Assembly. That would have enabled bills to be issued in 10 instalments, giving certainty to ratepayers and allowing various payment reliefs to be applied. However, time has nearly run out for that course. If no rate is set in the next few days, there will be fewer bills in higher instalments, and the longer it takes to set a rate, the worse that situation will become. The only outcome would be bad debt, lost revenue, uncertainty and hardship.
Although we are clear that this is a devolved matter, we are also clear that only the UK Government can take action to secure the interests of individuals, businesses and indeed the Executive. Clause 2 would address the issue by setting a 2017-18 regional rate in Northern Ireland. It does so by setting “pence per pound” rates for both domestic and non-domestic properties. These rates represent a 1.6% inflationary increase, the same approach as was taken by the Executive in setting a rate the year before. As we make clear in subsections (4) and (5), it would not cut across the continuing right of the Executive to set a rate by order in the usual way, so this would be the most limited step available to us, taken at a point beyond which we cannot delay.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The Secretary of State is outlining very well the business that this House may have to do and the business that he has to do today. But does he accept that we would not be in this place were it not for the arrogance of Sinn Féin, who walked away from the Executive and left Northern Ireland in the predicament we are in today?
James Brokenshire
What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that in the recent election a clear mandate was set for the resumption of an inclusive devolved Government in Northern Ireland, and the focus needs to lie on that, on getting the Executive back into position and on dealing with the differences between the parties in Northern Ireland. We should all feel a responsibility for seeing an Executive back in position, working to serve the best interests and needs of the people of Northern Ireland. Ultimately, that is where our absolute and resolute attention should lie.
For completeness, although it is not covered in the Bill, I should say that the second financial matter is the lack of a 2017-18 budget. Its absence has meant that since the beginning of this month civil servants alone have been in charge of allocating cash, which is clearly not an acceptable solution for the longer term. Before Easter, therefore, I made it clear that I would provide further assurance in that regard if an Executive were not in place, consistent with the UK Government’s ultimate responsibility for political stability in Northern Ireland, so I wish to take this opportunity to provide further clarity to people, businesses and public services in Northern Ireland.
We very much hope, as I have said, that we will see an Executive up and running as soon as possible, but if that does not prove possible, I want to put on record that this Government would be prepared, as a last resort, to pass an Appropriation Act in the next session to provide legislative authority for the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments. That is not a step that any Government would take lightly, but this House must not forget the duties we must uphold for the people of Northern Ireland.
Sammy Wilson
The Secretary of State has identified a very important issue—the lack of a budget—but does he accept that even with the assurances he has given to the House today there are still tens of thousands of people in the voluntary and community sector who depend on money from Government Departments of which they cannot be assured at this stage, that their jobs are therefore in jeopardy and that they face uncertainty? The longer he leaves this decision, the more he leaves people in that sector of the economy in a vulnerable position.
James Brokenshire
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the voluntary and community sector in Northern Ireland. I have very much had that sector at the front of my mind in publishing my written ministerial statement and in saying what I have this afternoon, knowing that some people have been put on protected notice and about the impact of uncertainty on whether payments will be continued beyond the current window. I know the civil service and Departments have already given assurances on funding for three months, but what further assurance can be given? By providing comfort to permanent secretaries through my written ministerial statement, I am advised that Departments will be able to extend current letters of comfort to give greater support and flexibility for the voluntary and community sector.
The broader point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about the need for greater certainty and for a budget to be put in place is absolutely right. This is not a situation that can continue for much longer, which is why I have said what I have about the preparedness of this Government, if re-elected, to make steps to seek an Appropriation Bill should that prove necessary. As I have indicated, I earnestly hope that that will not prove necessary and that an Executive can and will be formed to make those decisions. In no way does the statement that I have made today cut across an Executive’s ability to take up position and set a budget in due course.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
Flexibility is a key point in running the budget. Civil servants run their departments well with their budget, but those little bits of flexibility matter when we as politicians are asked to help people. How does the Secretary of State envisage that working if we do not have a functioning Assembly? Will there be some mechanism so that people on the ground who have lost money or cannot do something are listened to?
James Brokenshire
The clearest way is for an Executive to be formed. That is the most direct way for assurances to be given and direction to be provided. The lack of political direction at the moment underpins the need for an Executive and political decision making in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. As I have indicated to the House this afternoon, the UK Government are prepared to take action should that be necessary. Our sense of responsibility as the UK Government is to provide the necessary political stability and assurance for the people of Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
To be absolutely clear, is the Secretary of State stating to the House from the Dispatch Box that the choice is clear: it is devolution or direct rule? By putting in place the points that he has made about appropriations, the ground is being laid for direct rule if that is required.
James Brokenshire
I do not want in any way to prejudge the outcome of the coming weeks. I earnestly hope, believe and want to see devolved government re-established in Northern Ireland. That is profoundly in the best interests of Northern Ireland, so that there is local decision making. There should be a strong message across the House of wanting to put that in position at the earliest opportunity. I have been careful in what I have said in laying out the position on the budget, and I have given assurances to allow flexibility for the Northern Ireland civil service to use residual emergency powers to deal with the pressures that it is experiencing and to ensure that public services continue to be run.
I have published a written ministerial statement that sets out indicative departmental allocations which reflect the budget priorities and decisions of the last Executive. They provide a basis for allocations in the absence of an Executive. It is important to make the point that those numbers are not UK Government numbers, but reflect the advice of the head of the Northern Ireland civil service and his assessment of a position that takes account of the priorities of the political parties before the Dissolution of the Assembly, as well as further allocations that he considers are required. They are intended to give clarity to Northern Ireland Departments about the basis on which they may wish to plan and prepare for more detailed decisions, and to discharge their responsibilities in the meantime.
We should, however, make it clear that those totals would not constrain the freedom of an incoming Executive to amend spending allocations, nor would it prevent the UK Government from reflecting on the final allocations in the light of circumstances at the appropriate time. I underline the position set out in the Bill. If agreement is not reached by 29 June, the electoral duty would essentially return to the Secretary of State, who would call an election in a reasonable period. Any incoming Government would need to reflect carefully on the stability of Northern Ireland and, as I have said, the need to deal with certain financial issues. We need to be resolutely focused on the need to get an Executive into position. That is precisely what the Bill allows for.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but has he seen the slightest indication from Sinn Féin, in the detailed and long negotiations that he has no doubt had so far, that they might consider being part of an Executive?
James Brokenshire
Yes, I have. That is why I believe that agreement is possible. The discussions that have taken place over recent weeks have shown where the space for agreement and compromise may lie. It is important that the Bill provides that space and opportunity for the parties to be able to find resolution of the outstanding issues and get back into devolved government, which is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for.
To go back to the budget, that budget does not allocate the resource and capital funding provided in the Chancellor’s March Budget. This funding was not allocated before the dissolution of the last Executive, and it is right that funding is available for parties to allocate to further priorities as they deem appropriate. Further detail on the spending plans will need to be provided through the Appropriation Act. My hope and belief is that the Act will be taken through the Northern Ireland Assembly, but that obviously relies on the Executive being formed. As I have indicated, that is where the focus should lie. If not, as I have said, we would be prepared to legislate to provide certainty, in line with our ultimate responsibility for political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
Will the Secretary of State clarify whether, in his mind, such legislation in that context would amount to direct rule in the sense that we have always know it, or would it be some form of downloadable legislative cover for administrative governance when it comes to further budget setting?
James Brokenshire
Again, I would not want to prejudge what the situation might be. That will be for an incoming Government. My point remains that that does not need to be the outcome. The outcome we want is for an Executive to be formed and a devolved Government to be in place, making decisions in Northern Ireland for the people of Northern Ireland. That is why I make these point about what the Bill provides and how it gives the space to allow that to happen. That must be the focus of us all in the time ahead.
By passing this Bill, we can provide the scope and space for a deal to be done by the parties. I will be working intensively with the parties to secure that outcome in the weeks ahead. Northern Ireland needs the restoration of an inclusive devolved Government working in Northern Ireland’s best interests. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for. It is what will deliver the public services that people rely upon, and it is what businesses, community groups and individuals across Northern Ireland want. The Bill will secure a framework within which that can be delivered. I commend it to the House.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I thank my comrade, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), for being here.
I totally agree with the Secretary of State’s opening words about what happened yesterday in Northern Ireland. This is clearly not where we need to be, and that is the main reason why we need to get resolution, and to get the Executive back up and running again. I also thank him for the kind words he said about me and the role that I have tried to play in this House. I congratulate him on the work that he has done and shared with me over difficult times to try to find a way forward.
I never wanted this debate to take place or to participate in it. The reality is that this is combined political failure on the part of all politicians right across these islands. The failure to constantly shape the crucial progress of confidence and trust has led to the sad situation facing us today. Not many years ago, the world looked on with a mixture of amazement and admiration when people and politicians put to one side centuries of animosity and hatred to build a new future for the people they served. Today we risk losing that vision.
As this Bill comes before the House, I am mindful of the issues that have caused the current impasse. Northern Ireland has seen drastic changes over the past few decades and difficult challenges have been overcome. The current challenges should not, by any means, be insurmountable—these are clearly less serious matters than those that faced us in 1998 or 2007—but the repercussions of failure are equally serious and dangerous. With good will on all sides, agreement could be reached, but people will have to compromise.
There are a number of areas that I wish to highlight. The first, which is one of the sticking points that has been raised, is equalities. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned the intransigence of Sinn Féin, and none of us is surprised that it is acting in an intransigent manner. What has surprised me about the position in which we find ourselves is the strength of feelings about the break-up of the Executive right across the nationalist community—it is not just one political party that has real concerns.
One of these serious concerns is about the failure to move on equality legislation. The Democratic Unionist party is proudly a party of Unionism, yet it seeks to limit the equality rights of people in Northern Ireland—access to abortion, and the rights of members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community. Those rights are seen in every other part of the United Kingdom, so why does it oppose their extension throughout our United Kingdom? Why should two people who love each other not be able to show that in a formal marriage ceremony in Northern Ireland as they can in Great Britain? Why should a woman in Northern Ireland not have the right to choose what she does with her own body? Surely those ideas of equality and fairness are as core to those people’s identities as they are to the identity of myself and every other person living on these islands.
Another sticking point—again, we are hoping to see progress on this—is the Irish language. This is another example of how rights that are enjoyed by people across Great Britain are not available in Northern Ireland. In Wales and Scotland, legislation provides protections for the respective indigenous languages. Even in Cornwall there is a council-backed Cornish language strategy. Why do some in the Unionist community want to deprive many in Northern Ireland of the same advantages?
Sammy Wilson
Before the shadow spokesman pontificates on these issues, he should at least try to get his facts right. In Northern Ireland, £171 million has already been spent on giving those in the Irish language community the ability to have their own schools—some schools have opened with fewer than 14 children—to have street names written in the Irish language and to have departmental letter headings in the Irish language, as well as to address a whole range of other issues. If the hon. Gentleman is going to pontificate about the promotion of the Irish language, he should at least get his facts right.
Mr Anderson
I am more than happy to leave it to others to pontificate—they have had much more practice of that than me. The point I am making is that there is a difference in the protections in Northern Ireland, and protection is what the nationalist community has asked for. There is not the same legislative basis as in Wales and Scotland, and that is one thing that politicians in Northern Ireland could put right tomorrow. They could have put it right in the last 10 years, and they could have put it right after the talks broke down in January, but they have so far chosen not to.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
The shadow Secretary of State is going through a list of Sinn Féin demands, but I just wish he would come and talk to DUP Members from time to time, because we have issues. One of those is the armed forces covenant, which is implemented in full in every part of the United Kingdom except for Northern Ireland. Will he now join us in demanding that Sinn Féin honours the obligation to fully implement the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland?
Mr Anderson
The right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect, says that I am promoting what Sinn Féin is saying. I have been very clear about the issues that have led to the impasse—they are not just Sinn Féin issues. I am raising these issues for this House, and for the people outside in the rest of Great Britain who might not have the inside knowledge that he has, to try to identify where the problems are and to point out that people can negotiate their way out of things if they want to.
On talking to the right hon. Gentleman’s party, I met his leader last week to discuss these very issues. I am very pleased that she is prepared to have discussions across the board. We are trying, as we always have, to work in a non-partisan way.
On the armed forces covenant, I am pleased that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), is in the Chamber. We worked together on the covenant. We agreed a report that called on all parties to do the right thing by the people who have served our country, so I do not need to take any lectures from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the armed forces covenant.
I welcome the discussions that the parties have been having. I believe that we can reach an agreement that is not only beneficial to the Irish language community, but—this point has been raised with me by the right hon. Gentleman’s leader in Northern Ireland—that gets more support and respect for the needs and heritage of the Ulster Scots community. I believe that that could be negotiated if people were serious about trying to find a way forward. I understand why some of the parties in Northern Ireland are against legislating on this: it is seen as a side deal that was done by Tony Blair many years ago. That might have been right or wrong at the time, but things have moved on. This is another relatively small step in the right direction that could be made today to try to resolve the outstanding issues.
Ian Paisley
Does the hon. Gentleman honestly believe in his heart that any of the things that he has read out today have led to the breakdown of the Assembly? If so, he is really saying that he does not believe in devolution, and that no region of the United Kingdom should have its differences recognised, which devolution allows for, because everything should just be the same across the United Kingdom.
Mr Anderson
As somebody who has been a passionate supporter of devolution for many years, I do not accept that criticism.
We have a situation that is at breaking point, and we need to find a way forward. Before I came to this House, I spent all my life in negotiating situations and conflict resolution as a trade union representative. It should be possible to resolve the situation, but that will not happen as long as people are saying that they are not prepared to move on this, that or the other. I am talking about people on both sides, as I shall set out later in my speech. Unless people are prepared to move, the reality is that this House will probably have to take back direct control in Northern Ireland, which would be in nobody’s interests. It would not be in the interests of devolution or of people governing themselves.
I want to move on to the legacy situation. Clearly one of the biggest issues facing all of us—this has been the case for many years—is how we deal with Northern Ireland’s tragic past. The truth is that we have all collectively failed the victims of the troubles, and their ongoing suffering is only compounded by our lack of action. Regardless of the background, or whether they served in uniform, we are depriving them and their families of the truth and the closure that many of them want. The truth, regardless of how hard it is, must be heard.
During my many visits to Northern Ireland, I have heard details of many cases from families who lost loved ones, but one in particular has stayed with me: the case of Samuel Devenney. When I met his family last year, I was informed by them of the details surrounding his death in 1969. I would like the House to bear in mind that date—it is almost 50 years ago. That family have never had access to all the relevant files, which are now held by the Metropolitan police. They were due to be released into the national archives but, yet again, they have been reclassified and are being retained by the police service until at least 2022. That cannot be anything other than a travesty.
I ask Members to think about 1969—it was a very different world. I was a 15-year-old boy starting work as a coalminer. England had won the world cup a few years earlier. We had not joined the Common Market—[Interruption.] I thought that would get a cheer. We were two years away from decimalisation—perhaps that will be the subject of the next campaign. The Beatles were still friends, Brian Jones was still in the Rolling Stones, and Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison were still alive and making great music—[Interruption.] Yes, Labour was indeed in office, and doing great things.
At that time, however, on 19 April 1969, Mr Devenney died at the hands of Royal Ulster Constabulary officers, who were never prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. Mr Devenney was seen as one of the first victims of the troubles and still today his family are pleading for justice. This is just one of the many cases in Northern Ireland. The lack of progress made by countless Governments—Labour and Conservative—shows a dereliction of duty from us here in Westminster. I am not making a special case for Mr Devenney, other than to point out how long his family have gone without closure. That is completely and utterly unacceptable.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech about, it seems, every sin that has ever been committed by every person in Northern Ireland. As this Parliament comes to a close and there is a clear financial imperative for the Northern Ireland Government to be able to continue throughout our election period, when the Secretary of State and the UK Government will be somewhat constrained, and certainly during the Northern Ireland Assembly’s Dissolution, does the hon. Gentleman accept that it would be more helpful if he made a positive contribution about how he can assist the Secretary of State, who has made a statesmanlike speech about bringing people together, rather than a divisive one, which is more in keeping with the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s party than his own spirit?
Mr Anderson
Perhaps my accent means that the hon. Gentleman is not getting what I am saying. I am talking about the realities on the ground. It is right and proper that this House hears what the obstacles are. The Secretary of State and I have talked about them ad infinitum over the past few months. We have tried to play our part in resolving them and to say to the people over there that although there are issues, they are not huge. This is not about people being let out of jail, as they were 20 years ago, on-the-runs or people being pardoned. They are relatively small issues, but they are genuine. If we cannot resolve the issues of equality and legacy, what are we here for?
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Northern Ireland Government, but I remind him that the Assembly is not even sitting. I am very clear that we will, without doubt, offer support. I have also had discussions with the head of the civil service and I am determined that it will be allowed to have the powers that it will need to carry on supporting public services in Northern Ireland. I am a huge supporter of that, which is one of the reasons why I am involved in this work.
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Given that we are trying to achieve consensus and talk about the issues seriously, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt wish to balance the examples he cites from one side with an acknowledgement that there are still many families in Northern Ireland who have never had a proper inquiry into—or, indeed, an explanation from Sinn Féin or the IRA about—what happened to their loved ones. It is only fair that he should reflect on that and perhaps say something about it.
Mr Anderson
If I had not been so generous in accepting interventions—I have been happy to do so—I would have come on to that point. I did point out that I raised that gentleman’s case only because of how long ago it happened. We, as genuine, reasonable human beings—forget our status as politicians and our party affiliations—should be able to resolve matters and say that it is not right that, 48 years after something happened, families have not had the chance to see a report on the reason behind it.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sorry that I was not here for the start of the debate, but I was here in time to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about Mr Devenney and the Royal Ulster Constabulary. My late husband was very proud indeed of the extraordinary men and women who served with extraordinary courage and made an extraordinary sacrifice—302 RUC officers were murdered. Would the hon. Gentleman like to put on the record his thanks, gratitude and admiration for the RUC and the service it gave during the troubles in Northern Ireland?
Mr Anderson
I will do that, as I fully intended to do in my speech. I think the hon. Lady will confirm that although we might have a different view on the future of Ireland, we have worked together and we recognise the great role that those people have played. As much as anything, raising legacy issues is about getting the truth out for people who might have been unjustly castigated for years for something that was not their fault. Without clarity, truth and honesty, we will never get there.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), may I help the hon. Gentleman with an example? My cousin Samuel Donaldson was murdered by the Provisional IRA on 12 August 1970, along with his colleague Constable Roy Miller. They were the first two RUC officers to be murdered by the Provisional IRA in what has become known as the troubles, and no one has ever been brought to justice for their killings. IRA-Sinn Féin have refused to co-operate in providing the information that would enable those responsible to be brought to justice. I call on the shadow Secretary of State to join us in calling for Sinn Féin to step up to the plate and to own up, come clean and give information to families who have been waiting for decades for truth and justice.
Mr Anderson
I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman, and I believe that that is part and parcel of the demands that we in this House should make. Such co-operation is part of Sinn Féin’s responsibility as democratically elected politicians, and they should be doing that in every way they can; they must never, ever run away from it. I want to make it clear that to me, all victims are equal. Anyone who was injured or killed as a result of the troubles in Northern Ireland—whether they were a civilian, a paramilitary or one of the selfless individuals in the armed forces or the RUC who sought to protect the people of Northern Ireland—deserves the truth. I call on all parties to do all they can to make that truth known.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
The shadow Secretary of State mentions the contribution of our armed forces in Northern Ireland. As a former soldier, I wonder whether he will confirm that he believes, as I do, that the British Army should not be subject to further investigation over its actions during the troubles. Will he also confirm that the loyalties of the Labour party, under its current leadership, lie firmly with the British Army, not with the IRA?
Mr Anderson
I am sorry, but I cannot agree that people in uniform who acted incorrectly should not be brought to book. What signal would we be sending out if we let that happen—that it is all right to act out of order? We expect the highest standards from our great people in uniform. In response to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the leadership of the Labour party, it is clear that the party is committed to our armed forces and not to any terrorist organisation.
Sammy Wilson
Would the shadow Secretary of State accept, however—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey) was trying to make—that not every incident in which the police or the armed forces were involved that included a killing should be treated as though it were a murder? This inequality causes the anger that we have seen in so many families. There is no doubt that every killing by terrorists was a murder—it was illegal—but many of the incidents in which soldiers and policemen were involved were in protection of life and property. Therefore, they should not be treated by the authorities, as they are at present, as though they involved something illegal.
Mr Anderson
The hon. Gentleman and I have worked together on these issues, and he knows my view that it is obvious that the vast majority of the things done by our forces were not murder. But the process of investigation has fallen apart, and we need to put it back together again so that we can get to the bottom of things. If there are some cases that could be construed as murder—this is quite clear in the agreements that people have signed to try to make the process work—we have to get to the root of them and get them aired out in public. That is all we are saying. I agree with him that the vast majority of things that were done by the forces were in no sense murder. In the interests of all the parties in Northern Ireland, and of the Government, we must get the legacy stuff properly resolved, and that must be properly resourced.
We in Labour accept that there may well be some genuine issues on the national security front, but I say respectfully to the Government that national security must never, ever be used as a cover-up for wrongdoing by Governments and other agents of the state. I include in that my former colleagues in Labour Governments as well as the Secretary of State’s colleagues in former Conservative Governments.
Ian Paisley
Before the hon. Gentleman moves off the legacy issue, may I challenge him, because he has spent some time detailing a legacy case, to detail any other case that involves listing a Unionist grievance? That would balance the books in the way that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire) suggested. Does the hon. Gentleman know of any Unionist grievances?
Mr Anderson
I do, but I am not prepared to detail such cases today, because I prepared that one, and as I said at the beginning—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to speak, I will tell him exactly why. I used that case because it was so long ago. He probably was not listening—he usually listens, but perhaps he was not doing so—but I made it very clear that I make no differentiation between victims. Whoever they were, however they died or however they were injured, they all deserve the right to have a system in place that enables a trial to be won. That is what the politicians in Northern Ireland are failing to do: they have failed to have a system that works properly. We have to build genuine openness, as well as confidence and trust, because if we do not, people will never be able to move this country forward.
Another issue that I want to raise—I am moving on from the legacy issue—is the abuse of the petition of concern, about which discussions with the political parties have taken place during the past few months. That process was put in place in the original agreements to allow a space for remedying issues, including the abuse of power, raised by one community against another. It was to make sure that that such things could not happen in the institutions, but it is now being used as a veto over progress. This was not the intention, and we must try to get back to the original intention.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that particular point, but a year ago—I do not know whether he was at this meeting—I made that very point to the then First Minister, Peter Robinson, and the late Martin McGuinness, and they both defended the petition of concern process and said that it worked well for each side. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but that is what we tend to come up against.
Mr Anderson
I have no doubt that people who may want to use the process for the purpose I have described—as a veto, rather than as a genuine way of resolving problems —would say that. Of course they would. However, I am relating to the House the things I am being told as part and parcel of my trying, in my little way, to say that we should find a way to get the Executive up and running again. That is what this is all about; it is not about scoring points, or making points about what happened 40 years ago. I am relating the issues that people are telling me are the reasons why they cannot sit down with each other, and I am saying that any reasonable human being should be trying to find a way through this.
Another issue that I want to address—the renewable heat incentive—is again one on which a reasonable position could be reached. We were all told it was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The Government should work with the parties there, saying that we should get the inquiry going, and when its report comes out, we will work to make sure that any funding shortfall is not laid directly at the feet of the people of Northern Ireland, unless that is done in a way that can be managed over a period of time. That is very important if we are not to end up losing funding for vital public services while this matter is cleared up.
We need the parties to begin to trust each other and to move away from entrenched positions. I say clearly to Sinn Féin from the Opposition Dispatch Box that it should drop its demand for the leader of the DUP to stand aside while the inquiry is going on. It should seek assurances from her—I believe she has given such assurances—that she will co-operate fully with the inquiry, accept its outcomes and will not hinder its progress in any way. That would be a huge step in the direction of rebuilding the trust and confidence that have allowed sworn enemies to govern in Northern Ireland during previous years.
I hope that Members will take what I have said today in the spirit in which it is meant. I have laid before the House the issues that people are telling me are the reasons why the system has fallen apart. Some may be cynical and say that those are not the reasons—we will no doubt hear that over the next few hours—but I am reporting back to the House what I am being told about what we should do to move forward.
I am sad to be in the situation of having a general election. Sadly, the Government’s failure to recognise the impact of that on reaching a resolution in Northern Ireland is symptomatic of the approach they have taken during the past seven years. The lack of direct, meaningful engagement by both the present and the previous Prime Ministers has done nothing but show the people of Northern Ireland that they are little more than an afterthought in this Government’s mind. It is no way to act in a situation that is still one of conflict resolution. The “job done” attitude just does not work.
I welcome the Bill, because it provides more time for the parties to engage in discussions about the formation of an Executive. With a general election looming, it is apparent that the Government did not think of the effect it would have on Northern Ireland. Thankfully, the Bill does not represent direct rule, which it may well have done, so I am pleased that that is out of the way, in the short term at least. It sets a regional rate, which is necessary to fund vital public services in Northern Ireland, and fills the gap in the short term.
I call on all parties to do what the Secretary of State said: when the Bill receives Royal Assent, hopefully on Thursday, they should sit down on Friday and start working it out, and look at the reality of what they are saying they cannot resolve. I suggest that every one of the points I have laid out today can be resolved if people want to do so. If they do not, we will be back here—well, I won’t be, but others will—in a few weeks’ time with things possibly in even worse shape. Sadly, I believe that what we saw yesterday in Northern Ireland may well be repeated, as a way of people saying, “We’ve tried for 20 years to work together. It isn’t working and it’s never going to work. The only way is to go back to where we were.” None of us should want that and none of us who has any say in this should let anything get in the way of stopping it happening.
Ian Paisley
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Secretary of State indicated in his speech that he was going to list a number of grievances and a number of issues in relation to legacy. Can you confirm for us what time we have left for this debate? The shadow Secretary believed he was running out of time, but he has sufficient time to make those lists available to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I can answer part of it. I would expect the Second Reading debate to last until 8.16 pm, so there is plenty of time. As to the content of the valedictory speech made by the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) from the Dispatch Box, that is not a matter for me but entirely a matter for the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that if he has something further to add to what he has already said, he will find an opportunity in the next three hours to say it. Later today, after Second Reading, we will hopefully have the Third Reading debate, when I would expect to hear more speeches from both sides of the House.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
I join the Secretary of State in his condemnation of the actions taken yesterday, which were another attempt to kill innocent men, women and children. That is totally unacceptable in any part of the world. For it to continue in the United Kingdom is abhorrent to all right-thinking people. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the work he has done over the past few weeks, which to him probably seems like months. He has done his utmost to bring the parties in Northern Ireland together to get the institutions up and running again. I thank him for keeping in touch with me, as Chairman of the Select Committee. That has been very useful, so I thank him. I wish him well in his future discussions.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) for his performance over many, many years in this House. He has worked here for many years and I was very sorry to hear that he will not be seeking re-election to Parliament. He was a long-standing, very active and extremely good member of the Select Committee for many years before he took up his present position. I can confirm that he is a tough negotiator, but he is a fair man and it was a great pleasure to work with him. I wish him well for the future.
It is unfortunate that we have to be here yet again to discuss these matters and it is unfortunate that the rates have to be set from this place. It is not entirely democratic and it is not in any way satisfactory that, following an election with a high turnout of voters, we end up taking decisions here in this place that should rightly be taken in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it is worse than that, because that is just a microcosm of a bigger situation. I know that many individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland see the breaking down of the institutions as a distraction from what they want to do. Only last week, I had a meeting with representatives of a business that wants to expand and bring potentially hundreds of jobs to Northern Ireland. They do not know where they are. They do not know what the position is. They do not know how the planning process will work, because it is a large application. They really do regret the present situation. It is not one in which any of us want to find ourselves, but here we are again.
I am glad that the Secretary of State outlined the options. He did not actually use the words “direct rule”, but that is obviously what we will be sliding towards if no agreement can be secured and we cannot get the institutions up and running in Northern Ireland. I do not want that to happen. What I do want to happen is, for instance, the addressing of the concerns that that company raised with me last week. I want the company to be able to create those jobs in Northern Ireland without the distraction of election upon election upon election, and the making of decisions in a piecemeal way. That is not what people of that kind want.
I was in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks ago on a social visit, speaking to friends there. They are Catholics, which is an important factor because of what I am about to say. They said to me, “For goodness’ sake, Laurence, get on with it and bring back direct rule, because that is only way we will see any decisions made.” They do not particularly want direct rule—most people probably do not want it—but if it comes to a choice between chaos and direct rule, people will go for direct rule. They will have to.
It is unfortunate that we have reached such a position, but let me say to those who are likely to bring about that situation—and they are not, I believe, those who are in the Chamber today, but those who refuse to take their seats in the Chamber—that it would be rather paradoxical and strange that the one party that says that it does not want rule from this place should be the party that will bring it about. How odd will that be?
If those people are listening, let me inform them of what direct rule really means. I was a shadow Minister when we had direct rule in previous Parliaments, and it does not mean that everything is decided in the Chamber. It does not work like that. There are Committees upstairs with 20 or so members—hand-picked by the Whips: let us be honest about that. Very few of those members would be from Northern Ireland, because of the mathematics involved. Important matters are decided in those Committees. That is the reality of direct rule. I would ask those who are getting in the way of the institutions’ being set up again, “Is that how you want Northern Ireland to be governed?”
Sammy Wilson
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that members of Sinn Féin have form on this issue, and that—this may have some resonance in the current circumstances—when they want to dodge hard decisions, they are quite happy, despite their “Brits out” rhetoric, to hand powers back to Westminster so that it can make those hard decisions, as they did in the case of welfare reform about a year and a half ago?
Mr Robertson
That is a very good point. I genuinely do not know what their logic is. As I have said, theirs is the party that shouts the loudest about its opposition to British rule, as they call it, yet theirs seems to me to be the party that will shortly bring it about. As I have also said, I do not want us to go down that road, and there is still time to avoid it.
That takes me to my next point, which is about power-sharing. I think that those on all sides, if they sign up to power-sharing, must accept what that means. It means working with people whom you do not necessarily like. It means working with people with whom you do not necessarily want to work. It means compromising on certain policies. You do not always get the exact policy that you want. Come to think of it, I suppose that every political party is like that. We all have discussions within political parties; we all have disagreements on policy within political parties. We all have to work within political parties with people with whom, perhaps, we do not want to work. That is the reality of politics. In fact, that is the reality of many jobs. People who work in companies have to work with people whom they do not like. They have to work on policies which are set by management and with which they may not agree. That is the nature of work. If people are not prepared to accept compromises—if they are going to run away every time there is a difference of opinion, and take the ball home, and bring the institutions down—the system simply will not work. I think that all parties—I am not talking about just one party—must accept that.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
I am not here to represent Sinn Féin, and I do not think I will ever want to be, but is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that all of us should have turned a blind eye to the crisis over the renewable heat initiative and done nothing? To my mind, he ignores the fact that this crisis was triggered by a serious issue of confidence that needs to be dealt with and resolved. Other things have piled in, and we can throw abuse—[Interruption]—and there is a lot of it coming from the Democratic Unionist party Bench behind me, but that serves no purpose. If we are going to go forward, we need to restore devolution in Northern Ireland, and if we are going to do that, we have to behave in a sane, sensible and mature fashion and recognise the facts.
Mr Robertson
It is a pleasure to work with the hon. Gentleman on the Select Committee as well, and he brings a great deal of calm and common sense to it. I fully understand what he says, and I am not saying that that should be brushed under the carpet, but I do not see why an inquiry could not have been carried out with the then First Minister still in place. To risk bringing all the institutions down is—on any issue, to be honest—not worth it. I think this is a big issue; it is worth half a billion pounds over 20 years, but I do not think it is a big enough issue to bring the institutions down.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I commend the hon. Gentleman on all he has done as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Does he agree that at times we see double standards operating in Northern Ireland? In the constituency of Belfast South, we had a most brutal murder in a pub of a young man by members of the IRA, and as a result my party and others questioned Sinn Féin’s fitness for government and confidence in that fitness, yet the SDLP did nothing, absolutely nothing, to challenge Sinn Féin on that issue and its fitness for government. Are there not double standards operating here? Is one murder not worth more than the RHI scandal?
Mr Robertson
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and it goes back to the point I was trying to make earlier: we either accept that we have to work with people we do not like and do not want to work with, or we do not, and if we do not accept that, there is no power sharing. It is as simple as that.
I am afraid it is a very good point that parties on both sides have had to work with people they do not want to work with. There are accusations about certain Members of the Assembly, and if they were in this place and we had to work very closely with them, maybe we would not like that either, but it has had to happen for the sake of devolution and the institutions.
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw our attention to some of the terrible crimes that have been committed. The shadow Minister has been questioned on the issue of citing crimes from across the board; I know that he very much condemns crimes wherever they come from.
The Select Committee is concluding its report into Libyan-sponsored IRA activity, and I was rereading the proposed document this morning. I will not go into the details as the Committee has not considered it, but in that draft report are many examples of IRA violence—of the way the IRA has torn lives apart. Rereading some of those things this morning in the car as I came down to Westminster served as a reminder of what has gone on in Northern Ireland and how unacceptable it was.
I do not want to get into the issue of the prosecution of the soldiers at this point as that strays from the central part of our debate, but of course one side in the conflict always referred to it as “the war.” They did so because that excused the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children. So one side had a “war” and the other side was expected to go by the book—or the yellow card, to be precise. That is a very unfair way of looking at this whole situation and the whole legacy issue.
Ian Paisley
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way—and I do count him as a friend for the support that he has given to Northern Ireland over many years. Does he accept that the Bill before the House will tip the scales in favour of direct rule? Tonight, people in Ulster will be watching their televisions and learning that it will be this House that is setting their rates. For the past 10 years, that has been done in the Northern Ireland Assembly. If that balance is tipped, each piece of legislation that comes forward will make it harder and harder to get back to devolution.
Mr Robertson
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the problem. Yes, this is a slippery slope, but in some ways the Bill offers an opportunity for people to get together and re-form the Executive. It would allow that to happen. However, my hon. Friend is right. Indeed, it would probably not be the whole of this House that decided the rates; that would be done by the Secretary of State. With respect to him, that is the only way he could do this. This goes back to what I said about direct rule earlier. Hon. Members will not get a say on the details, whereas if these decisions were being taken in Northern Ireland, there would be much more involvement by local people. That would be far better.
I really hope that the Secretary of State will somehow be able to get the parties together in Northern Ireland so that we can avoid having Committees upstairs here running Northern Ireland, which would be most unsatisfactory. Whether he succeeds or not, we really need to look at the Belfast agreement and the legislation to see whether they need updating. I do not wish to undermine the principles of power sharing in any way, but we need to make an attempt to make it work. At the moment, it is not working. If it were, we would not be sitting here now and we would not have been in crisis 18 months ago. I do not want everything to be set up again, only to find that we are in crisis again after six or 12 months.
The shadow Secretary of State mentioned the petition of concern issue earlier. I, too, raised that matter, and I was told at the time that the parties were happy with the situation. That, and an awful lot of other issues, need to be looked at. We need to modernise and update the arrangements so that they can deal with the situation that we find ourselves in now, rather than the one that we were in 20 years ago. Without doubt, a lot of progress has been made in Northern Ireland. We cannot deny that, and we should not want to, but we have to get the political process right as well. If we do not, people will completely lose faith in it, and that would be in nobody’s interests.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
First, I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s comments about the terrible discovery that was made yesterday. I commend all the emergency services and the police for the tremendous efforts made on behalf of their community. I also echo his words about the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), who is stepping down not only from this position but that of shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. His efforts in both remits have been much appreciated.
The Scottish National party will support the passage of the Bill. The decisions involved would be better made on the other side of the Irish sea, but we are where we are and it is important to set rateable values so that the administration of public services can continue. There are Brexit difficulties coming down the road, especially around border issues, and it is right that we do all we can to minimise the turbulence, but those decisions should properly be made in Stormont. There is a real need to get the political Administration in Stormont back up and running, and I am sure that the electorate who are being asked to go back to the polls for a snap general election so soon after the snap Stormont election will be urging a resolution to the negotiations and a resumption of administration duties. Getting an Administration up and running so that decisions can be taken there rather than here would be the best option all round, and that should be our main aim. As I have said, the SNP will support the Bill.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I begin by echoing the previous comments, particularly those of the Secretary of State, on the vile and cowardly bomb left outside Holy Cross Boys Primary School in the Ardoyne. I commend all those in the security forces who handled the incident and who handle similar incidents 24 hours a day, seven days a week, every week of the year. We all owe them a great debt of thanks for the manner in which they continue to police Northern Ireland. I also pay tribute to their predecessors who created the conditions, in intensely difficult circumstances and under quite extraordinary provocation, that enabled the peace process to take place.
On that basis, I wholly commend the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has shown remarkable forbearance and patience, who has been abused and criticised quite unfairly in recent weeks and who has let himself in for a further extension through to 29 June, which is a wholly sensible measure. As he rightly said, there is not a single Member of this House, at least not that I know of, who would like to see direct rule return. The shadow Secretary of State, sadly in his valedictory performance—we will miss him in the next Parliament—rightly concurred that no one here wants direct rule to come back. There is a slightly daft narrative that some crazy Brits really want to reimpose direct rule, but absolutely not.
The institutions were set up and the Belfast agreement was passed after the most extraordinary period of negotiation, man-years of effort and bipartisan agreement in this House when members of Conservative Administrations made intensely difficult decisions that were supported by the Labour Opposition. In turn, when Labour came to power and we were in opposition, we supported the Labour Government. I had the honour to be shadow Secretary of State when the last major element, the devolution of policing and justice, went through, and we backed Labour all the way. There was a similar process in Dublin, where both main parties consistently supported the process, and of course none of this could have happened without the extraordinary support of both parties in the United States of America.
There is exasperation that we have now come to this point. There has been such progress, and I would like to speak up for those hard-working people on the ground in Northern Ireland. I still go to Northern Ireland, and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and I appeared on “Spotlight” about three weeks ago. A lady in the audience asked me a good question, “What is going to happen about our budget? Who is going to pay our bills?” That was exactly the right question because she, along with many others, probably voted on 2 March to elect local politicians to make these decisions. None of us wants to make these decisions for those local politicians. It is completely exasperating.
I go to see the most wonderful, world-class businesses, which are trying to attract investment to Northern Ireland. They are travelling on behalf of Northern Ireland, representing hard-working, brilliantly skilful Northern Ireland people, and what is the international message?
Tom Elliott (Fermanagh and South Tyrone) (UUP)
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that maybe a longer-term strategy is now re-emerging from Sinn Féin to make Northern Ireland unstable so that the people of Northern Ireland start to question its ability to govern itself? Maybe it is a tactic of Sinn Féin’s .
Mr Paterson
I do not like to comment on the motives of any political party. I would just like to say that, as someone who has been involved in Northern Ireland—I had three years as shadow Secretary of State and two years as the real Secretary of State—there is such good will among the populace across all parts of the community. I do not like talking about communities; I like talking about the whole community. They long for this to work, and there is real good will, but now there is utter frustration.
I am particularly exasperated because my great project, with representatives of four local parties—the fifth local party was also supportive—was to give Northern Ireland politicians the ability to set corporation tax, because we know that the Republic of Ireland’s determination, in the face of intense criticism from other major member states of the EU, to hold on to its right to set corporation tax has been the key to its success. The then Finance Minister in Dublin described it as the cornerstone of that success. As part of what was called the Azores agreement, it was vital for there to be a democratically elected institution in a devolved area to make that decision.
The current situation is exasperating for me, having got this measure through—having got complete unity among Northern Ireland parties and the support of almost all Northern Ireland business—and knowing the tremendous good it has done. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is sitting there and I have visited his constituency. Just over the border, in Letterkenny, an extraordinary amount of investment is being made because of the corporation tax rate there, yet so much of that could have gone to Londonderry if the rate had been set in Northern Ireland. This measure was one of the great achievements of the last coalition Government, and I pay full tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), who took it through during her time as Secretary of State. The powers are there, if only local politicians would grab the opportunity and establish an Executive.
Sadly, I must support this Bill; I totally endorse the comments of the Secretary of State and shadow Secretary of State that we would like to see an Executive set up. We had a successful election—that passed off—there are newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly and they should be working with the institutions to set up a new Executive. Sadly, it is necessary to set a regional rate, but I hope we have to do it only temporarily. It is sensible for the Secretary of State to set a lengthier target of 29 June, and I wish him well on that, but if the elected local politicians still do not come to their senses by then I ask him to consider introducing legislation here on the issue of the cost of Stormont. Crudely, it costs about £1 million a month in salaries and expenses for MLAs. I know full well that the Northern Ireland public—
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The right hon. Gentleman is about to move on to a subject he takes great interest in. When he was shadow Secretary of State, he promised to people—he went around Northern Ireland and he told this House—that when a Conservative Administration came into power he would deal with the cost of Sinn Féin MPs who are elected to this place, do not do any work and do what he is now going to go on to claim the MLAs are doing at Stormont. He did nothing about that. Will he now agree that if the Government are going to take steps at Stormont, they will need to take steps at Westminster as well to address the same problem that exists in relation to people who are elected to this House and who, voluntarily, do not do their job? For us on the Democratic Unionist party Benches, this will be a critical issue.
Mr Paterson
The right hon. Gentleman knows my position on this issue, but I was Secretary of State in a coalition Government and we now have a robust Conservative Government—
Mr Paterson
I know Members do not like this, but I should say that there are very few tools left in the Secretary of State’s box and one is to put financial pressure on the political parties. [Interruption.] This may hurt the right hon. Gentleman’s party and it may hurt his competitors, but I have not heard anything from the other side as to why this should not be done. I have not heard a single member of the public in Northern Ireland criticise this. The Belfast Telegraph polled a significant number of people and a very large majority supported the idea. We still have time—even if this Bill goes through today, we will still have until 29 June; we will have had four months, or a third of a year. I do not think this approach is unfair, and I think it has huge support across Northern Ireland among the general public. I do not think it is unfair to say that if elected Members cannot get their act together after four months, they should cease to receive public money in salary and their staff should cease to receive public money in their salaries and costs.
Mr Paterson
I am a simple Back Bencher, but the right hon. Gentleman knows very well that I believe strongly that, in the words of Lady Boothroyd, as she now is, there is no such thing as “associate membership” of this House. She was exactly right on that. Those elected to this House should take their seats if they are to receive public money, but that does not get away from the point I am making, which is germane to this point about 29 June. I repeat it again: should elected Members not get their act together and form an Executive, the Government should consider taking powers to stop them getting salaries and expenses from the public purse, because that will put pressure on them and that is what the people of Northern Ireland will be looking for. In the light of that, I will support the Bill tonight. I regret very much, as does the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, that we have come to this point, but it is a sensible measure to buy us more time.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I echo the words of the Secretary of State and other Members by congratulating the security forces on stopping the murder of policemen by the bomb that was placed outside a primary school in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).
I am disappointed with the Labour party spokesman, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), although perhaps I should not be. Like the BBC this morning, he almost tried to associate that bomb with the fact that there is a political impasse at Stormont. I am glad that the police and the principal of the primary school rejected that idea—they are far more perceptive than some of the BBC reporters. They fully understood that the people who plant these bombs do not care whether Stormont is working—if Stormont is working, it is an excuse; if it is not working, it is an excuse. Those people are determined to bring terror to the streets of Northern Ireland simply to get their own way, which they cannot get through the ballot box. We have to nail this lie that there is somehow justification in planting bombs because of what is happening in politics—there is no justification.
Mr Anderson
I just say very clearly to the hon. Gentleman—I will call him my hon. Friend—that he has not got what I said right in any way. I said nothing like that. The first thing I did in my speech was to condemn the act, but I did say at the end of it that the failure to get a political resolution will give some people another excuse to go back to the bad old days. That is not at all to say that I condone what went on in any way—not a chance.
Sammy Wilson
And of course the point that I am making is that these people do not need an excuse, because they are committed to changing Northern Ireland’s status through violence. Whether Stormont is working at full tilt or not working, that is sufficient reason for them to continue what they are doing.
I welcome the comments that were made about the incident by Sinn Féin’s North Belfast spokesman this morning. He talked about how vile it was that a school should be used as a basis for an attack on the security forces, but let us not forget that Sinn Féin and Kelly’s comrades used schools as a means of attacking members of the security forces in the past. Indeed, they walked into classrooms and shot part-time members of the security forces. They blew up buses that were taking children to school. They killed the drivers of buses who were taking children to school. Although we welcome the fact that there now appears to be a change of heart on the part of Sinn Féin, it does us well to remember that the tactics used by the dissidents are no different from those that were used by Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA for more than 30 years in Northern Ireland.
We support the Bill—it is a necessary piece of legislation. When the Secretary of State spoke to it, he could have gone further by making it clear to Sinn Féin—I will address this further later on—that it has created the current situation and is responsible for the stalemate we face. He should have made it clear that the alternative to progress is direct rule. That possibility ought to have been spelled out in this House.
The Northern Ireland Office has made not offending Sinn Féin into an art form. The Secretary of State should pay less heed to the Northern Ireland Office and more to the political reality on the ground. I simply say to him that had he acted more quickly at the beginning of the crisis, we could have avoided this situation in Northern Ireland. Despite the pleas in this House from Democratic Unionists, the Labour party, the Scottish nationalists and some of his own Back Benchers, he did not initiate the investigation that could have taken the sting out of Sinn Féin’s accusation about the renewable heat incentive. Time and again, he said at the Dispatch Box that because there was no agreement between the political parties, he could not initiate an investigation. Cynically, as soon as Sinn Féin had got what it wanted—mainly to bring down the Executive—the first person to announce the inquiry was no less than Máirtín Ó Muilleoir, the Sinn Féin Finance Minister. The Secretary of State should have initiated an investigation.
The Labour spokesman talked about the need to get away from this particular part of the impasse, but Arlene Foster never refused to take part in a public inquiry. She never refused to give her account to or to be questioned at a public inquiry. The problem was that there was not an inquiry. Had the Secretary of State been prepared to grasp that nettle, we could have avoided a situation in which Sinn Féin was able to use the excuse that until it had clarity on the issue, it could not possibly work with Arlene Foster. The lesson for the Secretary of State to learn from what happened is this: despite the threats that might come from Sinn Féin, sometimes it is important not to listen to the wets in the Northern Ireland Office, but to act on political instincts.
Mark Durkan
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Government here should have acted more quickly as the RHI scandal emerged, but he is painting a complete fiction by trying to say that the DUP wanted a public inquiry—it entirely opposed a public inquiry. It was on the same page as Sinn Féin in opposing a public inquiry. It said that an inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly would be sufficient, and it was on that cue that the Secretary of State ensured that he and Treasury colleagues stayed out of the issue.
Sammy Wilson
I do not want to bore the House with the details of what happened last December, but the First Minister made it quite clear at that stage that she believed that she had nothing to hide. She was prepared to face an inquiry of whatever status was required to get to the truth, and that is still her position. In fact, she is co-operating on this.
The Bill is also necessary because of the way in which the finances in Northern Ireland have been left. Again, there are lessons to be learned from this. I suspect that the Secretary of State will have to come back at the end of June with another Bill to implement the budget in Northern Ireland. It will not be a satisfactory budget, because it will probably be based on last year’s distribution of finances to ensure that 100% of the budget is spent, and no new priorities will be set. As the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), stated, one of the central planks of the Executive’s economic policy cannot to be contained in that budget, because it will not be possible for this House, while we remain in the EU, to legislate for the reduction of corporation tax and, of course, to allocate funds for that. That will be a missed opportunity for many firms and prospective investors in Northern Ireland.
Let us look at why we have no budget, because this gives an indication of where Sinn Féin is and the prospects for an agreement. We do not have a budget in Northern Ireland not because the Executive could not agree one, and not because it was rejected by the coalition partners, but because there was never a budget brought forward to the Executive. Why was that the case? I think that Sinn Féin could not face the reality of having to introduce a budget in which hard decisions needed to be made. Of course, that was true about the restructuring of the health service. There was a report on restructuring the health service that set out how money could be saved and how some of the problems it faces could be addressed, but Sinn Féin did not act on it. Why? Because that involved hard decisions. When it came to welfare reform more than a year and a half ago, Sinn Féin did not act either. It was quite happy for that to be dealt with by the Government here.
There is a question that must be asked by those of us who are involved politically in Northern Ireland: is Sinn Féin serious about getting out of the impasse, or is it quite content? Those in Sinn Féin will never answer this, but are they quite content for the process to roll on and on, to have direct rule, and to have difficult decisions about the budget, the allocation of resources, Brexit and all the other things that concern them decided here? They can then blame the big bad Brits, but keep their hands clean and maintain the myth in the Irish Republic, perpetuated by the bearded guru, Gerry Adams, that somehow they have an economic policy that can avoid any austerity measures. The one thing they do not want is to have to introduce austerity measures or cuts in Northern Ireland while they are promising people in the Irish Republic that they have some kind of economic magic wand they could wave if they were only in coalition down there.
This is the question that the Secretary of State has to ask. It is the question that we as a party have to ask, too, as well as the other parties in Northern Ireland. What concessions does Sinn Féin really want, or might direct rule suit its purposes until the election takes place in the Republic? Why did those in Sinn Féin not bring forward a budget? Why did they not make hard decisions when they could in the Northern Ireland Assembly? They consistently—this has always been their position—run away from these decisions. If that is the case, we will have an impasse after the election on 8 June.
The difficulty in the talks is that we have seen the reason why Sinn Féin cannot or will not go into government change almost weekly. First of all it was the RHI, but RHI is hardly mentioned now. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was right—was the RHI such a big scandal that it should have resulted in a constitutional crisis? At the risk of causing some anger among Government Members, let us look at the RHI throughout the United Kingdom, and at Drax power station, where a coal mine down the road was closed while wood pellets were brought from halfway around the world. There is no cap on the subsidy—it started at £400 million, it is now £600 million, and by 2020 it will be £1 billion. Did any Minister resign? Did the Government fall? No, yet a £25 million overspend that has now been corrected in Northern Ireland caused a constitutional crisis.
Mr Laurence Robertson
The hon. Gentleman makes the point very well. I put it to him that there is no issue that this House could face that would persuade us to disband the whole Parliament, is there? That is the point.
Sammy Wilson
This is a point that was made time and time again. Of course, Sinn Féin was ably assisted by the BBC, which, for 70 consecutive days, I think, kept the issue in the news bulletins. Of course, now it has been dropped and we hardly ever hear it mentioned.
There are other issues that have come to the fore, such as the Irish language Act and the denial of rights of Irish language speakers. Of course, I wish the hon. Member for Blaydon well when he leaves this House, but we saw the face of the Labour party in this House this afternoon and we heard the voice of Sinn Féin. When Labour’s spokesman gave his speech at the Dispatch Box, we heard the same kind of excuses, we heard that people were being denied their right to speak the Irish language. They are not being denied their right to speak the Irish language. We fund the Irish language through the Assembly to the tune of £171 million. We allow Irish language schools to be opened and fund those schools when there are as few as 14 pupils in them while at the same time closing schools in the state sector with 50 or 100 pupils in them. Yet we are told that we somehow or other do not give proper treatment to those who wish to speak the Irish language. Councils are free, if they wish, after following the requirements of the legislation, to put Irish street names up on streets across their areas, yet we have this myth perpetuated that the Irish language and the refusal to accept an Irish language Act are the big impasse in the talks.
We heart parroted again today—surprisingly, I even saw the Under-Secretary of State nodding his head—ideas about people being denied their rights on gay marriage and denied certain abortion rights. I simply say to the Minister that the whole point of devolution is that people in the regions of the United Kingdom have the opportunity to make the laws that they believe best reflect the views in their society. I would say the same to the Labour spokesman. If you want uniformity, do not devolve the issue. If you are allowing differences in different parts of the United Kingdom, respect devolution and respect the views of the parties elected to those Assemblies, who, by the way, stand on their manifestos, who do not hide their view. We have never hidden our views on these issues in our manifestos; people vote for us on the basis of our manifestos and we then have a duty to reflect that in the decisions that are made.
It is not about rights, of course, because, despite all the rhetoric from Sinn Féin about equality, respect, rights and so on, we have seen that when it comes to the rights of those who served in the security forces, there is no willingness to show respect. When it comes to the views of the people we represent on many of these issues, there is no respect there. In fact, there is a recommendation that we should somehow abandon the promises we made to those people. I say to the Minister and the shadow Minister, do not be taken in by the idea that that is the cause of the impasse in the talks.
We have been told that the issue is Brexit. I find that very strange coming from Sinn Féin, because the one party that will not shape the Brexit talks, the negotiations or the outcome of Brexit decisions in this House is Sinn Féin, because its Members do not attend. Yet they want a broad coalition against Brexit. The Social Democratic and Labour party does not like to say that it wants to get involved with a sectarian pact with Sinn Féin, so it is trying to portray it as a liberal, progressive pact against Brexit, which also includes the Alliance party, which seems a bit reluctant, and the Greens. Let us not be in any doubt: any pact on any seats that involves Sinn Féin and the SDLP is a sectarian pact—it is not about changing Brexit—
Sammy Wilson
Indeed. We have been told that Brexit is another reason why we cannot progress, because the Government have been disrespectful of the vote in Northern Ireland against leaving the EU. The Government have not been disrespectful—if anything, they have worked well with the Administration in trying to address the unique issues that Northern Ireland faces, just as they work with the City of London, the motor car industry and other industries on issues that affect them. Of course, different parts of the country and different sectors of the economy face different issues, but there should be a method of fitting that in. The one sure way that we will not fit it in is if we do not have devolution.
The Secretary of State is right about the regional rate—a decision needs to be made. It is an important part of Government finance in Northern Ireland, and we need certainty. Councils have not sent out rate bills, because the regional rate has not been established—it is a source of income for them too. It is therefore important that a quick decision is made. However, as I said in an intervention, the Secretary of State must not allow the delay on budgetary issues to continue because there is uncertainty in Departments, which can have only 95% of the budget allocated, which has a knock-on effect. No one knows—even with the 90-day notice for voluntary and community groups, suppliers and so on—what the full budget will be, so the precautionary principle sets in, and those notices are given out. We will have to move quickly on that.
May I make a point on behalf of my party? There is no reason, even before the general election campaign begins, why devolution should not be up and running. People were elected to the Assembly and they have a mandate to serve in the Assembly. The way to sort out these issues is to debate them in the Assembly. However, one party in particular has made a list of demands. First, it said that it wanted RHI sorted out. When that did not happen, it said that it could not serve with Arlene Foster. Then it said that legacy issues had not been dealt with by the Government. I hope that some of its interpretation of those issues, especially on the unequal way in which terrorists have been treated in relation to incidents involving the security forces, are never accepted by the Government. Then we were told there were lots of new issues about equality and respect.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just that Sinn Féin have listed a series of unreasonable demands? They have said that many of those demands are fundamental prerequisites even before the institutions are established again, rather than trying, as he has suggested, to resolve them in the institutions. They want the institution up and running on their unreasonable terms even before they enter the place.
Sammy Wilson
That is exactly the point I was making. These issues can be resolved in the Assembly. If we want to decide what position to adopt on Brexit, who better to do it than Ministers in the Assembly introducing the issues that affect their Departments and reflecting the difficulties that we face? If we want to sort out issues around culture and so on, we should do so in debates in the Assembly, then the relevant Ministers could introduce legislation that could be properly debated. If we want to deal with legacy issues, there is a role for the Assembly in doing so. These things can be dealt with in the Assembly—that is the place to deal with them, rather than saying that unless we get these things sorted out on the terms required by one party we will not have devolution.
This is where I take issue with the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for North Shropshire, who spoke about punishing Assembly Members. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North pointed out, if we are going to punish people for not doing their job, we should punish Sinn Féin, who have milked this place dry for the past 10 years, getting millions of pounds from it, but not doing their work. Secondly, we should recognise that it is not the intransigence of Assembly Members generally that has led to this position. Thirdly—and he should know this as a public representative—there are many ways in which public representatives do their job. Of course they have a role in the body to which they are elected, but they also have a role in relation to their constituents. The Assembly Members in my party who were elected have worked tirelessly at constituency level as well as taking part in the talks and preparing material for the talks. As for the notion that somehow or other they are lying around at home watching daytime television and getting paid for it, he should know better, and so should many of the people who have commented on it.
If we want to understand the situation, we ought to ask whether people think we are intransigent because we are on a jolly, it is great and we do not want the Assembly up and running. I do not know any colleagues who do not want to be back in Stormont tomorrow doing their job. I therefore believe that the Secretary of State can push the thing along by spelling out to Sinn Féin that the consequence of not getting the Assembly up and running is that decisions will be made here in Parliament.
I do not want to see that happen. I do not want direct rule, and I do not believe that it will be good for Northern Ireland or for the House to have to do that. The Secretary of State should begin to address the issue and, rather than using the generic term, “the parties”, should begin to point the finger. He knows how difficult Sinn Féin have been. In fact, they took umbrage at him, and did not even want him to chair talks because of his comments about the security forces. That is the kind of arrogance that we have had from them, and until that arrogant bubble is burst we will not make any progress in Northern Ireland.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. We have plenty of time for the debate, but if hon. Members take much more than about 15 minutes each we will run out of time. I have a theory, merely put together after spending many hours, days and weeks in the Chair observing the House, that most things that have to be said can usually be said in 15 minutes. I make no criticism of anyone who has taken longer; I merely make a plea that that is a reasonable amount of time to take. I call Sir Jeffrey Donaldson.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join my colleagues in welcoming the opportunity to take part in the debate. I commend the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues for their conduct in the negotiations. At times, they have been disrespected by at least one of the parties, Sinn Féin, which has said some quite nasty things about them, but it is not easy to chair negotiations, particularly when some participants are acting unreasonably. I therefore want to place on record our gratitude to the Government for the role that they have played in trying to bring things together. And we do want things to come together. Let me be clear about that from this party’s perspective. Considering where we have come from in Northern Ireland, it is quite a remarkable thing for the leading Unionist party in Northern Ireland to say that it has no preconditions for going into government with Sinn Féin. Turn the clock back a few years and imagine that the leading Unionist party would be saying, “We’re prepared to go into government today with Sinn Féin without preconditions.” Yet it is Sinn Féin who refuse to form a Government.
I am told that “ourselves alone” is the literal Irish translation for “Sinn Féin”—the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) is probably better qualified than me on that—and I am afraid that Sinn Féin are living up to their name on this issue because, as far as I can see, all the other parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly are prepared to see a Government formed, except Sinn Féin. The Government must be and need to be aware of that.
As a supporter of the peace process, I am now left with a very serious doubt in my mind about whether Sinn Féin really want to be in government at all. I am also left with a serious doubt in my mind about the workability of the mandatory coalition model as a basis for government when it gives Sinn Féin a veto over the formation of a Government, as it does. In truth, that is where we are. The government of Northern Ireland is being vetoed. The formation of a Government is being vetoed by one party that is refusing to go into government. Because of the nature of the architecture and the framework for government in Northern Ireland, it has that veto, can exercise it and is doing so at present.
Lady Hermon
If my memory serves me correctly, the written statement published by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland last week indicated that there had actually been some progress among the parties in the talks, and that those talks had not been a complete waste of time. It would be very helpful for the people of Northern Ireland—and, indeed, this House—to understand where progress among the parties has been made, and to narrow down the stumbling blocks that are being cast up by Sinn Féin.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
In truth, although some progress has been made in homing in on the issues, it would be wrong to say that we have reached agreement on any of them. What are those issues? Well, they include the legacy of our troubled past, and the quest for justice and truth by the innocent victims. We have come a long way in developing proposals, which I understand the Secretary of State is willing to publish for consultation in the coming weeks. We very much welcome that. A failure to form a Government in Northern Ireland should not prevent the Government in this place from proceeding with legislation to establish new legacy bodies.
I say to the Secretary of State that, although Sinn Féin may have a veto over the formation of a Government, it would be the ultimate irony if we allowed the party representing the organisation that murdered more people in the troubles than anyone else to veto the legacy bodies and institutions that are to be established to investigate those murders. It is just absurd that we would even consider handing Sinn Féin a veto over the investigation of murders that were committed by the Provisional IRA. We need that historical investigations unit up and running to investigate those murders in order to level the playing field. As the Secretary of State knows, because I have said this to him and Minister many times, there is not currently a level playing field. At the moment, we have legacy inquests, the Kenova inquiry, the examination of the events known as Bloody Sunday, and a completely disproportionate focus on what the Army and police did in Northern Ireland.
I echo the comments made earlier that the killings committed by the Army and the police were for the most part lawful, and were about protecting life and the community. Of course, when someone has done something wrong in the past, the law has investigated, but it is entirely wrong that we have a legacy investigation branch of the PSNI that is devoting so much of its resource towards investigating the police and the Army, and little towards investigating the 90% of murders committed by the paramilitary terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland. That is not a sustainable position. After the election, I trust that the next Government will take forward this legislation and establish those legacy bodies.
I also say to the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) that another issue on which we are waiting to get agreement is the armed forces covenant, which I referred to earlier in an intervention. Sinn Féin talk big on respect and equality, and this is an issue about respect and equality. It is about ensuring that the men and women who have served our country in the armed forces are not disadvantaged by virtue of their service. That is the very basis of the armed forces covenant. It is also about the wider community across the nation showing respect for the men and women who serve. Equality and respect is what we are talking about in relation to the armed forces covenant. We need Sinn Féin to step up to the mark, and all the political parties in Northern Ireland to agree to the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Sammy Wilson
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the number of people affected by that is far more significant than the number in some other minority groups that Sinn Féin are demanding equality and respect for?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I intervened on the shadow Secretary of State to make that very point. While he was busy listing all the groups that he says he has met, who are demanding rights and equality, the one group he missed out were the 150,000 men and women in Northern Ireland who have served in our armed forces. That number is far greater, by far, than the number of people who speak the Irish language or any other minority group that the shadow Secretary of State bothered to mention. Add to that the fact that the armed forces covenant also covers the families of those 150,000 people, and the figure comes to half a million people. That is not my figure; it comes from Northern Ireland Office statistics.
Half a million people out of a population of 1.8 million would benefit from the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland. It would be nice to hear the shadow Secretary of State and his colleagues say, for once, “Yes, this is something that we would want included.” I sincerely hope that the outcome of the negotiations will be that all parties, if they are genuine about respect and equality, sign up to the full implementation of the armed forces covenant in Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Sinn Féin are so committed to the Irish language that Carál Ní Chuilín, the party’s previous Minister in the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure in Northern Ireland, cut Foras na Gaeilge’s budget by £700,000 for the past three financial years? Sinn Féin claim that we do not show respect to the Irish language, but they could not even find enough areas to spend the money on.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
My hon. Friend’s contribution stands on its own feet. I endorse what he said.
Danny Kinahan
Will the right hon. Gentleman give us his feelings about the discussions on the military covenant? I joined him on various occasions, and the party that we have all been talking about today that does not take part at least turned up once, but all they wanted was equality. To try to equalise their terrorists with our soldiers is an absolute disgrace.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On this issue, our two parties are at one, and we spoke with one voice in the working groups dealing with the armed forces covenant, because we believe passionately that this issue must be addressed in the context of Stormont’s responsibilities towards a large group in our community—and I mean our community in its totality, because the armed forces draw from all sections of the community in Northern Ireland, and always have done, and that is something we are grateful for.
I want to echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about Brexit. I find it quite remarkable that some of the parties talk about the need for a special status for Northern Ireland when it comes to Brexit. Yet, Sinn Féin refuses to form a Government, which is the one vehicle that can help to develop a consensus around how we deal with Brexit. Let me say to the Secretary of State that if we arrive at a situation where there is direct rule and we have no Government functioning in Northern Ireland, it will be unacceptable for this Government to pander to those voices demanding special status in the absence of a political consensus around this issue in Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to hand Sinn Féin a veto over forming a Government and then to say that parties would be excluded from the decision-making process around Brexit.
The Social Democratic and Labour party, the Alliance party, the Green party and Sinn Féin can gang up on the DUP all they want on this issue, but if we return to direct rule and there is no Government in Northern Ireland, we are not going to stand by and allow some kind of special status to be created against the interests and wishes of the Unionist community. There has to be a cross-community consensus on this issue—nothing else will work in the absence of devolution. If Sinn Féin, the SDLP, the Green party and the Alliance party want special status for Northern Ireland, there is only one way that that will be delivered, and that is by having a devolved Government, so that we can build a consensus on this issue. In the absence of a devolved Government, Sinn Féin can forget it; they can protest, dress up as funny little customs men and go around the border pretending that we are going to have a hard border, but that will not wash with Brussels. The only way to deliver for Northern Ireland is either for us to have our own Government or for my colleagues and me to be the voice for Northern Ireland in this Chamber, and I fully expect a strong DUP team to be returned after the general election to speak for Northern Ireland in this House.
I say again to the Secretary of State and his colleagues that part of this is about the budget. When the Secretary of State or the Minister winds up, will he tell us whether the budget will continue to include funding for the mitigation measures that were put in place in relation to welfare reform in Northern Ireland? A lot of vulnerable people in Northern Ireland would like to know the answer to that question, and it is important, because we need to expose Sinn Féin on this issue. This House is making provision for the funding of public services in Northern Ireland, so it is important to know whether the mitigation measures in relation to welfare reform will be included and for how long.
Finally, the current crisis proves that mandatory coalition—handing a veto to one side of the community—is a fundamentally flawed way of democratising government. The DUP wants—this has long been an objective of my party—to move towards a system of voluntary coalition in Northern Ireland. We should move towards a situation where the parties come together after an election, negotiate and agree a programme for government. Those parties that want to be part of the Government can voluntarily go into government, and those that do not can go into opposition. What we cannot sustain is a situation where those parties that do not want to go into government have a veto over everybody else in forming a Government. That is not democracy; it is the very antithesis of democracy.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for taking yet another intervention, and I was tempted to make one because he was at the St Andrews agreement. He will recall that the Belfast agreement suggested—this was approved in the referendum in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland—that the First and Deputy First Ministers would be jointly elected, but that was changed, unfortunately, after the St Andrews agreement. One proposal is that we go back to that and bring the parties together, putting the two names on the same ticket so that the Members of the Legislative Assembly have to vote for them. Is that an option the DUP would consider?
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
We will certainly look at options, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that that proposal does not solve the problem. If we are going to look at solving the problem, we have to be more fundamental about it—a sticking plaster will not do. That is why my colleagues and I believe that, in time, we will have to look again at the whole model of devolution and at the basis of mandatory coalition and whether it will work. It is certainly not working for Northern Ireland at the moment; it is delivering a veto that is preventing the formation of a Government at a time when we have huge decisions to take about our future, not least on Brexit. The people of Northern Ireland are being denied a voice because one single party, representing less than 30% of the vote, refuses to go into government. Surely that is an unsustainable position. While the Bill is welcome, it is merely a first step—a bandage. It will not fix the problem, and we do need to fix the problem.
Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)
In following the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I should say that I was struck by the number of times he condemned Sinn Féin for using a veto—that from the DUP, the most veto-holic of all the parties, not least in relation to the abuse of the petition of concern, which other hon. Members referred to earlier.
Let me join others in referring to the grave attack at the weekend—the attempt to murder police officers and to use the precincts of a school to create disruption in a community and set up a situation where, yet again, officers of the PSNI, who serve and represent our whole community, would be under threat. However, I cannot join the attack by the hon. Member for East Antrim on the BBC for somehow making an untoward reference to that incident. He seemed to omit the fact that, in a debate I was part of on the BBC yesterday, his own colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), referred to the attack in the context of the political vacuum that exists and that could continue to exist. That linkage was made by one of his own parliamentary colleagues, so for him to turn round and use it as an excuse to have yet another go at the BBC just seems bizarre and out of place.
Ian Paisley
In his opening comments, the hon. Gentleman said there was abuse of the petition of concern. Does he agree that the biggest abuse came when the SDLP and Sinn Féin joined together to stop Gerry Kelly from being suspended from the Assembly for five days in line with the recommendations of the Commissioner for Standards?
Mark Durkan
No. The biggest abuse of the petition of concern comes whenever it is used to prevent motions in the Assembly—even non-binding motions and valid and credible motions of censure—from having any standing whatever. If people are going to use the petition of concern in relation to motions of censure in one way, they should recognise that others are going to say, “If you are going to veto things in one way, you are creating the rules, and you are going to have to live by them.”
As on so many things, we need to return to what was originally provided for in the Good Friday agreement. The petition of concern was not included in the agreement as a veto; it was provided as a trigger mechanism for an additional form of proofing by a special committee in relation to concerns about rights or equality—that is all it was provided for. Unfortunately, the legislation did not properly reflect that, and it left things up to the Standing Orders in the Assembly, but those Standing Orders have never been right. Sinn Féin and the DUP have always been happy to leave the petition of concern as a dead-end veto under the Standing Orders of the Assembly. That was never in the agreement, as people will see if they care to look at the relevant paragraphs. Let us return to the petition of concern as an additional proofing mechanism for rights and equality, not as a prevention mechanism against the advancement of rights and equality in areas such as equal marriage.
The hon. Member for East Antrim excoriated the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) and told him that devolution is the opportunity to best make the laws that reflect the views of society. I absolutely agree with that. I am quite happy for the Assembly to make the laws that apply to abortion and to equal marriage. The Assembly is showing a clear wish and a clear intent there, and there have been clear indications of where the support of the people of Northern Ireland lies—it is similar to that in the south, as shown by referendum. The problem is that the DUP is vetoing and stopping the devolved Assembly having that legislative power. The DUP is criticising Sinn Féin for not allowing the government function to be created in circumstances where the DUP itself is regularly using a veto to prevent the legislative function of the Assembly. It is a “Whose veto trumps whose?” situation.
Sammy Wilson
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who argued for power sharing and safeguards within a power-sharing Executive and Assembly, is now happy with majority rule. I am sure that will go down dead well with his constituents.
Mark Durkan
I am entirely happy with operating the Good Friday agreement as the people voted for it—people of Ireland north and south. A petition of concern would mean that a mechanism could be checked and proofed. If there were not concerns in relation to rights and equality, it could proceed in the normal way through the Assembly; if there were, it would require cross-community support. I make no apology for my part in negotiating and drafting the Good Friday agreement and in helping to establish the institutions. I regret the fact that we have departed from the Good Friday agreement in so many ways.
The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) referred to the appointment of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Like her, I listened to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) saying that we need to change things and get to a different way, and that there should not be a situation where one party can veto. Let us remember that the St Andrews agreement limited the appointment of the offices of First Minister and Deputy First Minister to two parties and two parties only. It specified that the biggest party of one designation would appoint the First Minister, and then the biggest party of another designation would appoint the Deputy First Minister. There was to be no role for the Assembly any more in electing and having a free choice in the joint election of First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as the Good Friday agreement provided. If the right hon. Gentleman is in any way serious about what he is saying, then next time we are tabling amendments in respect of changing how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister are appointed, he should join us in supporting those amendments, not oppose them. I checked with the Clerks as to whether the Bill’s reference to ministerial appointments would have allowed me to table such an amendment. I was advised that the narrow terms of the Bill would not have allowed me again to table the amendment that I have tabled in the past.
Given the way in which acronyms are used in this place, no doubt this Bill, which we might call the ministerial appointments and regional rates Bill, will be referred to as the MARR Bill. However, there is nothing memorable about it. It is purely ephemeral in the sense of making exigent provisions in relation to the striking of a regional rate so that rates bills can be issued and councils can get their take of the district rate. I regret that it has been necessary to bring the Bill forward in this House, but I support it in terms of allowing the revenue to come in to support public services, both those run by councils and those provided by regional government departments.
The Bill is also ephemeral in the sense of resetting the meter on the appointment of Ministers. I note that the Secretary of State has chosen a timeline that would broadly equate to what the timeline under the current legislation would be if there was an Assembly election on the same day as the general election. Therefore, those who have argued for an election on the same day can have no objection to that timeline. As we heard from other hon. Members, there is another coincidence in relation to the timeline with regard to the budgetary pressures and the fact that the civil service is now having to assign a percentage of the budget in the absence of an elected Government in the Assembly. All sorts of groups and budget holders, including in the community and voluntary sector, but not only there, have been given the indication that their funding is guaranteed, as was, for the first 13 weeks of the financial year. Those 13 weeks will bring us to within a calendar week of the same deadline that we have. That should concentrate minds—I hope that it does—about what the consequences of an absence of the institutions would be.
Tom Elliott
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if there is no progress within the timescale set in the Bill, the Secretary of State needs to bring forward further legislation to resolve the budgetary issues, because we cannot keep going through the financial crisis that departments are currently in?
Mark Durkan
We have to use the timeline that is created here and now. We also have to use such good will as any of us were able to detect in the talks in Stormont Castle over the past number of weeks.
I personally would not come to the conclusion that one party is determined to prevent the formation of a Government altogether. I wish I had more evidence that I could point to so as to support my hunch that Sinn Féin would want to see the formation of a Government. It would be better if Sinn Féin would say more in public that gave people reason to believe that. In the debate I took part in on the BBC yesterday, I was struck by the fact that Chris Hazzard of Sinn Féin said that Sinn Féin would have a powerful position in relation to Brexit because of having four MEPs and because Dublin was going to have a decisive role as a member state. He put no premium whatsoever on the institutions of the agreement. At no point did he say, “The important thing that will help us to offset some of the challenges and threats of Brexit is having our own devolved Government who are part of using and activating the strand 2 structures that are the best way of doing things on an all-Ireland basis, with relevant sectors being treated as an Ireland market, and that being reflected and respected with regard to EU construction programmes and potential funding, as Michel Barnier has indicated.” There was none of that whatsoever from Sinn Féin. I can therefore see why people are worried about what it is saying about Brexit and asking, “Where are the institutions of the Good Friday agreement?”
Strand 1 of the Good Friday agreement would be pretty central to making those institutions work because, as we know from what happened before, strand 2 cannot be activated—we cannot have a North South Ministerial Council—unless we have northern Ministers in a northern Executive. It is therefore imperative that we get our institutions up and running. A failure to do so means that we are sentenced to the hard Brexit that people are complaining about and worried about, but also a hard Brexit in the absence of any devolved mitigation—any north-south axis that can be used, including by the Irish Government. Strand 2 provides that the views of the North South Ministerial Council will be reflected and represented in various EU meetings, so it gives the Irish Government a potentially powerful role. However, whenever Chris Hazzard referred to the Irish Government’s role yesterday, none of that related to the fact that they would be reflecting the views of the North South Ministerial Council in EU meetings. We need to get the institutions up and running, although I recognise that there are issues in the way.
I do not accept the rewriting of recent history by the hon. Member for East Antrim in relation to the renewable heat incentive. When questions were put to Treasury Ministers and to NIO Ministers about a Westminster and Whitehall interest in RHI, the DUP was seething at any such suggestion by me, by my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), or by the two Ulster Unionist party Members. The DUP was completely opposed to a public inquiry. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley made it very clear on TV on several occasions that consideration by the Public Accounts Committee in the Assembly was sufficient and there was no need for any other inquiry. It had Sinn Féin on board with that position for quite a while, and then things fell apart between them.
Like the hon. Member for East Antrim, I ask why the Northern Ireland Executive did not produce a draft budget. Why are we in this position at all, with no hint or sign of what the devolved budget would have been? Let us remember that back on 21 November the DUP and Sinn Féin issued a joint article, stating:
“This is what delivery looks like. No gimmicks. No grandstanding.”
And that was when there was no sign of a draft budget. The DUP was quite happy to say that it was good government not to have a draft budget at that stage. We are now at a point when we should have long had the revised budget. That is what the joint article by Arlene Foster and Martin McGuinness said and it was accompanied by a lovely photograph: back in November, Sinn Féin and the DUP gave us the Mills & Boon version of lovely government. Then the wheels started to come off after the pressure created by the RHI issues in December.
What was the root cause of the arrogance that manifested itself in the RHI scandal? It was the fact that the DUP felt that it was not accountable to the Assembly and that it had been appointed entirely according to its own mandate. We heard Arlene Foster say that she had a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland. The DUP’s mandate in last year’s Assembly election was no greater than that which the Labour party got in Great Britain, and yet we were told by Arlene Foster that her mandate from the people of Northern Ireland meant that she could ignore the mandate received by everybody else in the Assembly. Given that she was not appointed by the Assembly, contrary to the provisions of the Good Friday agreement, she had no sense of accountability to it, which is why the DUP made it clear that it would veto any motion passed by the Assembly on the RHI. Of course, that is what it did, and in so doing it not only ignored the proper authority and its debt of accountability to the Assembly at large, but broke the ethic of mutuality and jointery in the offices of the First and Deputy First Ministers. That made it very difficult, if not impossible, for Martin McGuiness to continue as though there were no other strains present.
Those are not the only challenges that we need to resolve. Other hon. Members have touched on legacy issues, but unfortunately, given Madam Deputy Speaker’s advice on time, I will not be able to go fully into them. The hon. Member for Blaydon has referred to the Sammy Devenney case, which happened in my constituency. Conservative Members have also raised concerns about former officers being pursued and questioned about previous cases. However, although those cases have been presented here as examples of people being pursued for prosecution, they have actually come about as a result of new inquests about controversial deaths that have shown that some of those who were killed were not terrorists or gunmen as had previously been reported, and that therefore their killing was wrongful. It is entirely legitimate that legacy issues should be pursued and questions asked. Officers gave various accounts—and Ministers in turn, down the years, have in this House given false accounts—of those deaths and incidents. It is entirely proper that those cases should be well pursued.
Although there has been a measure of agreement among Sinn Féin, the DUP and the British Government—notwithstanding disagreements on questions of national security—on limited approaches by the historical investigations unit, the Social Democratic and Labour party wants more architecture on legacy issues, not least with regard to thematic approaches. The HIU is able only to produce individual reports on individual cases, and not to join the dots, show the patterns or draw on the wider lessons. It is also confined to looking at killings, but the troubles have many other dimensions and legacies of victimhood that are not just in relation to killings. People have many questions about the pattern, motives and character of the violence carried out by paramilitaries as well as, possibly, by the security forces, and they want those questions to be examined and tested. I think that that would give a more equal assessment of the past.
We considered those proposals in the Haass talks. Richard Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan had particular ideas about a strong approach to thematics, which would have reflected the interest right across the community. It would not only have addressed issues of state breaches and allegations against state forces; it would have been very wide, open, thorough and responsive. We need to return to those sorts of arrangements in respect of the past.
We need to make progress on the Irish language Act, but let us be clear that part of the problem is that people are selling riddles, because in the St Andrews agreement there was a pledge from the British Government that they would legislate for a language Act, whereas the only commitment on the part of the parties was for a language strategy. Ambiguities and contradictions were built into it and some of us sought clarity at the time. Sinn Féin was spinning it that there would be an Irish language Act in the Assembly, but we pointed out our honest interpretation of the literal language. Of course, we were decried simply for pointing out the truth.
Whatever the problems in relation to the Irish language Act and the RHI issue, we need to remember that Brexit is the biggest issue facing us all. What helped bring about the discolouration in the politics around our institutions? The fact is that it was Brexit, which has made a much bigger difference to the political atmosphere in Northern Ireland than certain Members care to admit.
Mr Gregory Campbell
The hon. Gentleman says that Brexit is the fundamental issue. Given his position on Brexit, does he take any comfort from the fact that the British and Irish Governments and the EU have ruled out a hard border? Does he accept that there will not be one?
Mark Durkan
I accept that those bodies have given that indication, but they have not said how it will be done. The Prime Minister has been careful to say that she wants the border to be as frictionless and seamless as possible and that there would be
“no return to the hard borders of the past”,
but there has been no full commitment that there will be no possible borders of the future. Sector after sector in Northern Ireland worries about such borders, and the best way to prevent them is to properly use the machinery of the Good Friday agreement, which allows for areas of co-operation and joint implementation. It also allows us to take concerted action on a north-south basis and say that different sectors want to be treated as an island market. Given the EU’s historical position, that should be fully respected and reflected. If the British Government are serious about wanting to continue to honour the Good Friday agreement in the context of Brexit, they should allow that to happen.
That is what special status would look like. We do not have to negotiate a new special status for Northern Ireland. We have to have the full optimisation of the Good Friday agreement in the context of any Brexit, so that we can have the strongest regional say in our own interest and a strong north-south axis. We also need to use the east-west structures of the agreement, not least the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, which can deal with all of the non-devolved issues that the two Governments have in common, as well as allow devolved Ministers to be part of those meetings, particularly when they touch on devolved matters. I believe that that would be a much more attractive facility for devolved Ministers than even the Joint Ministerial Committee on European Negotiation, because the common experience of all the devolved Administrations is that they find it pretty confusing and belittling.
Using the structures and mechanisms of the Good Friday agreement would give us the best answer to Brexit, but we will not do that unless we use the additional time given by this Bill to make sure that we form an Executive in the Assembly that was elected on 2 March.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I did not expect to get called at this point, Madam Deputy Speaker; I usually get called at the end of debates. The good book says that
“the last shall be first, and the first last”,
but today I am somewhere in the middle. It is always a pleasure to speak in this House.
I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on presenting the interim measures in the Bill. This is not where we want to be, but we are committed to the Northern Ireland Assembly and the democratic process. The Bill gives us all an opportunity to make a contribution. A number of valuable speeches have been made, some of which raised questions in my mind, which I will speak about later.
Until recently, we had a functioning Executive that was more than fit to handle the issue of rates and to make Northern Ireland’s economy prosperous. In the short time that I have, I want to talk about the positive things that the Northern Ireland Assembly has achieved. The statistics are quite incredible. Unemployment numbers in Northern Ireland dropped to 39,320 in 2016. In my constituency, the percentage of people who claim for unemployment dropped from 5.3% to approximately 3.5%. The Democratic Unionist party has achieved that by being in government in Northern Ireland, making things work and getting the business done. That is what we do—we get the business done.
We have supported the creation of more than 40,000 new jobs, smashing the target of 25,000. We have instigated £2.9 billion of investment, which is almost three times the target of £1 billion. Such positive things are made possible by a good Assembly in which all parties are committed to working together, without one party stopping the whole process. We have had £585 million of research and development investment—almost double the target of £300 million—and 72% of new jobs supported by the “Rebuilding our Economy” programme have paid above the Northern Ireland public sector median salary. That gives some indication of what can happen when the Northern Ireland Assembly works. It has delivered at the highest level, and the figures have been way beyond many people’s expectations.
We took control of air passenger duty on long-haul flights leaving Northern Ireland and reduced the charge to zero. That power was taken off us by Europe, but we will now divest ourselves of Europe and wipe the dust off our coats in that regard. If we have a working Assembly, we will have a chance to reinstate that measure and put ourselves back in the market for long-haul flights.
Northern Ireland received more than 1 million more visitors than previously over the past three years. We have achieved year-on-year growth in tourism spending, which reached £752 million in 2014 and has increased in each successive year. The number of cruise ships docking in Northern Ireland has increased year on year. Some 80 vessels and an estimated 145,000 guests came to Northern Ireland in 2016, and the figures for this year show that there has been even more growth in the sector. That is what happens when we have a working Assembly to which all parties are committed, but one party—Sinn Féin—is not, and that has to be addressed.
On business taxes, the DUP has continued the policy of industrial de-rating, which has saved local businesses tens of millions of pounds, protecting jobs and encouraging investment. We have protected the small business rates relief scheme, which has benefited many small businesses across Northern Ireland by approximately £18 million per year. Small and medium-sized businesses across Northern Ireland have benefited directly from that action by the DUP. We delivered a Northern Ireland-wide rating revaluation that reduced rates bills for many businesses. Since 2012, 525 new businesses have benefited from the introduction of empty premises rate relief. When the Assembly was operational, it brought success to the people of Northern Ireland. The DUP remains committed to that, and we are looking forward to other parties making their contribution.
For years, business organisations have campaigned for the devolution of corporation tax and for the setting of a lower rate. Those powers have been described as potential game-changers for our economy. Other parties had second thoughts and were not sure what to do, so they gave up on it, but the DUP persisted and secured them. A date has been set in 2018 for the rate to be lowered to 12.5%, but there is now a question mark over that, because Sinn Féin’s intransigence has made the Assembly unworkable. If the Assembly was back up and running, we could deliver on that, and thereby deliver more jobs and a stronger economy across Northern Ireland. The cut in corporation tax will build on the strength of our workforce and the comparative cost base that makes Northern Ireland an attractive investment opportunity.
When the Executive was up and running, it delivered, and it should continue to do so. This does not read like a non-functioning, defunct Executive; it reads like an Executive in which one party was working hard to deliver for the people of the Province, but which was unfortunately brought down by another party that aspired to be in control to push a political point. Members have spoken eloquently today about the political aspirations that Sinn Féin has pushed hard to achieve. The Assembly was brought down by a party that does not send representatives to this House to fight for Northern Ireland—Sinn Féin representatives never sit on these green Benches and never take part in the decisions made for the people of Northern Ireland who elected them—but that will ask people to vote for it in a Westminster election, even though it will return nobody here to work for them. That is hard to believe. Sinn Féin Members refuse to take their seats in this place to fix what they have broken.
Members of my party and I will stand in the forthcoming election as people who work hard on the ground for our constituents. We work hard in this place, as the statistics show, for our constituencies, people and country. We are left in a position in which the Secretary of State has to step in. I am thankful for his willingness to do so, but that is not what we want or what the people of Northern Ireland deserve, and it must change.
Just a few weeks ago, the hon. Members for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Tom Elliott)—he has just left the Chamber—and I had a very constructive meeting with the chief executive of the Education Authority, at which we pressed for funds for outdoor centres. The chief executive indicated that even before the setting of the budget, the EA was £73 million short this year on its education spend. If it is short to that extent when the Assembly is not functioning, what will happen if the situation continues?
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend recognise that even if the Secretary of State took powers to handle all the budgetary issues, the pattern of spending would be as established in previous years of the Assembly—no new initiatives could be implemented, because the power would be simply to disburse the funds on the basis on which they had previously been distributed—even though the priorities might now be different? Taking over budgetary powers will not resolve the issues that my hon. Friend is talking about.
Jim Shannon
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Taking those powers will not address the issues, and we cannot address the issues because we do not have a working Assembly—if we did, we could at least make some decisions. We need the Finance Minister to bring forward a budget, as others have indicated, and we need all parties to be committed to the Executive. It is very frustrating to be in this position.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) referred to the case that the shadow Secretary of State raised. I look on the shadow Secretary of State as a friend—I wish him well in his retirement—so I was disappointed by the fact that he did not give any examples of similar cases from among the Unionist community. He could have mentioned Bloody Friday, when the IRA bombed people and blew them to bits. He could have mentioned Darkley, where the Irish National Liberation Army attacked and murdered people who were worshipping their God. He could have mentioned La Mon, where the IRA murdered innocent people who were on a night out. He could have mentioned the Abercorn restaurant, where people were murdered while they were having a meal. The Unionist community wants to know where the inquiries are.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend accept that we see this pattern from the Labour party, especially under Jeremy Corbyn—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman means the leader of the Labour party, or the right hon. Member for Islington North.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend accept that this is a pattern established by the Labour party under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who has refused even to acknowledge, let alone read, letters sent by Colin Parry, whose son was killed at Warrington?
Jim Shannon
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am happy to give way to the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Anderson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—I also look on him as a friend. May I make it very clear that I raised that case specifically to make a point about how long it has taken to resolve? I wanted to say to people in Northern Ireland and in this House that we have had 48 years to put the legacy thing right. I fully agree that the other cases that the hon. Gentleman has just spoken about could have been mentioned. It is unreasonable for victims’ families to have to wait for any length of time, but it is particularly unreasonable for them to have to wait for 48 years—that was why I raised that particular case.
Jim Shannon
My cousins and our family have been waiting 46 years for such a matter to be addressed. The families of the four UDR men about whom we recently had a debate in the House—Members on these Benches took the time to attend and offer their support—have been waiting some 27 years for justice for those people. We are looking for justice, we want to see it coming, and we want to hear people saying that throughout the Chamber—[Interruption.] I am quite happy to respect everyone else, and if there is a case to be answered, let us answer it, but to be honest, if there is a case involving our side, I want to hear people talking a wee bit more about it. I want to hear about inquiries for Unionist people who have endured some 35 years of terrorism—[Interruption]—and, yes, ethnic cleansing. Down by the border, people were murdered. Why? Because they were Protestants and Unionists. Why did others do that? Because they wanted to get the land. That is an example of what has happened, but we never hear about it from certain elements in this House. We are going to talk about it tonight, because it is a fact that has to be heard.
Ian Paisley
As my hon. Friend has heard, we have been chastised for representing certain traditional values. I have a letter from a parish priest in my constituency thanking me for the work our party does—
Ian Paisley
No, I will not name him, but I will show you the letter, Alasdair. If the hon. Gentleman wants to see it, I am happy to share it with him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. I have a couple of things to say. Interventions are getting extremely long. Members are also referring to each other directly—we do not do that; we speak through the Chair. The whole tone of the debate until now has been very good, and I really do not want that to disappear. I understand the passions and the tensions, and I understand the importance of these matters, but the tone of the debate should be maintained as it has been so far. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will move on to my last few comments.
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing the Bill and for the positive contribution that he and the Under-Secretary have made to the talks process. They have tried hard to move the talks forward, and they have our support for the Bill. We fully support these interim measures in the hope that our Executive will be able to function soon, and that we can achieve more of all the things I have mentioned, such as reducing unemployment, creating jobs and prosperity, and focusing on what matters for the young people of today and those of a different age.
I hope that those who seek to stand in the way of democracy will realise what we have been dealing with for years. We do not enjoy sitting beside unrepentant terrorists, but we must do so as they have a mandate, and the country must function as a democracy. We accept that and we understand the process. They may not look forward to sitting beside us, but we have a mandate as the largest party in the Northern Ireland, and that is the definition of democracy. I say to Sinn Féin, “If you cannot work with us, resign your seats and allow those who look to the good of Northern Ireland—Unionists and nationalists, and all those thousands who designate themselves as neither—to do the job so that we do not have to come to this Chamber again with more interim measures, which indicate a failure for democracy and a worse failure for the people of Northern Ireland.” Let us be positive. Let us hope that this is only interim legislation and that by the end of June the parties will have come together. I ask Sinn Féin to make such a contribution and to step away from the high bar it has set so that we can have negotiations—with those from both traditions, and those who want a way forward—that will actually lead somewhere for the people of Northern Ireland.
Danny Kinahan (South Antrim) (UUP)
May I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on his positive contribution to this debate? It was really what we needed, because the debate was getting a little bleak at times.
I thank the Secretary of State for all the work he has put in on Northern Ireland, including going out and meeting people throughout the community and really listening to them. I want to echo his sentiments about the bomb outside the primary school, which is quite disgraceful. That sort of thing should never have been happening, and we thought we had moved away from it all. It really emphasises how brittle the situation is in Northern Ireland, and how it falls on all of us everywhere to try to find the right way forward.
I also thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) for all that he has done, including coming to speak to our party conference. I may not agree with everything he has said today—he stirred up the debate, which got quite lively—but we did talk about some of the issues that really needed to be discussed today. That includes the fact that one party is not in the House. It takes all the money and fees, but does not represent its people. It paints itself to the rest of the world as the cuddly bear of Northern Ireland politics, when it is in fact a very different kind of bear altogether.
We very much welcome the Bill and its provisions, and the breathing space that it has provided up to 8 June. It will allow us to put in place what Northern Ireland wants to meet its needs. Key decisions on the public finances were needed, and we know that when such things are put on ice, the most vulnerable always pay the price.
However, there are still great difficulties with the budgets. Schools I have talked to say that they are already working on budgets that are not based on plans for the future; they are just using guesswork. In one constituency case, the Gaelic Athletic Association, which was borrowing the pitches of local integrated schools, can no longer use them because the cuts mean that schools cannot provide a caretaker to look after the pitches, so people cannot now train for their games. In other cases, a mass of capital expenditure is needed in education. I note that the budget that has been presented has a 2.5% cut for education, and a slight rise for health.
There are a lot of problems ahead, and we need flexibility. As I said in my earlier intervention, we also need a mechanism so that when people approach politicians while the Stormont Government are in limbo, such information can be fed to heads of Departments and action can be taken. We need a little bit of such flexibility. I note that what is being put in place does not entirely have a statutory footing, so I hope that it will not lead us into a world where it cannot be challenged in the courts.
The issue of corporation tax was raised earlier. We would like to hear what the intentions are for it. The change was meant to come in during 2018. Will the Secretary of State confirm that that would still be the case if Stormont was not in place?
Several Members have mentioned that we now have 90 MLAs who are working away, with their offices looking after the people on the ground, but we need decisions to be made. We should be focusing on health, education and welfare, but we are instead being dragged into discussing the Irish language and other matters on which we are finding it difficult to get everyone to agree.
As others have done, I want to emphasise the legacy issues. We have to find a way forward. I note that the Secretary of State is looking at bringing in a consultation, and I welcome such an outcome, but we must at no time forget the victims. They must always be well looked after, and not just in Northern Ireland, because there is a mass of victims over here who are not properly looked after either. The Secretary of State knows that I am keen for us always to look after the servicemen, and to make sure that there is no equality with the terrorists, but at the same time we must find a way forward on the legacy issues. There has to be a solution, but it will need all of us to sit down, and pressure must be put on Sinn Féin for that to happen.
Because of Brexit, getting the Assembly up and working will be key. Whether or not those involved were remainers—I was a remainer, but the people have spoken and we must listen to them—we need their involvement. During visits to various areas, such as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee visit to Dublin, and in speaking to others, I have found that Unionism does not have a voice, either because of the limits of strand 2, or because we have not got a Government of our own. We must have a way to ensure that all types of Unionism—not just the DUP, but the UUP and others—are listened to throughout the Brexit negotiations.
We need to have 18 MPs back here in the Chamber, not just 14. We need to make sure that everyone is represented. If we look into it, we find that 250,000 people in Northern Ireland are not represented. That will be key in the Brexit negotiations, and we need to make sure that our farmers in every constituency are listened to, just as much as we need to look after our universities, our businesses, and the community and voluntary sector. Our environment keeps being left out all the way through, and we must make sure that it is very much part of the Brexit negotiations.
I was fascinated to hear Members suggest that mandatory coalition may not be the right way forward. When I have spoken to the Secretary of State, I have many times said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again, so it is great to hear others changing their minds or looking at something different. We need to find another way of all working together. That may be a voluntary coalition, but if so, we must make sure that we look after the minorities, so that is not without its difficulties. We could even have a minority Government if the two major parties cannot agree, but we all need to sit down and find a way forward. I know that every single person sitting here wants solutions and can work together. One party that is not here does not make it easy, but that does not mean that the other parties here are not at fault too. With a little humility, and a little consideration of the RHI issue and a realisation that it was a certain party’s fault, we could all work that much better together.
I long to see Northern Ireland working. I do not want to see devolved government failing. If it is not working and we have to have direct rule, it has to be for as short a time as possible and as effective as possible, but it also has to be done by listening to all of us in Northern Ireland. I thank the Secretary of State for what he has put in place today. I hope we can get there and I look forward to seeing Northern Ireland really thrive in the future.
Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)
Like many in Northern Ireland, I am saddened that we have come to this impasse which has created the issues we are trying to solve. There are so many problems that need to be faced, but we will not face them or solve them by trading insults or abuse. I will attempt to be as positive as possible and I will avoid that well known pastime in Northern Ireland called whataboutery.
I pay tribute to the shadow Secretary of State the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) for his outstanding public service over many years, both in this House and in the years before he arrived here. Thank you, David. I know that all in this House will wish him well and those of us who have worked with him will miss him: his kindness, his tolerance and his caring approach.
I would first like to touch on what I consider to be an absurd and relatively insulting suggestion by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) that the SDLP did nothing about the killing of Robert McCartney in a bar in Belfast in 2005. His point is neither accurate nor well made. No one can criticise me on how outspoken I was about the murder of Robert McCartney. Sinn Féin, in the immediate aftermath, were still trying to pretend that it was the result of some sort of knife crime when I unequivocally pointed the finger at IRA involvement in that murder.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I would like to correct him. I may have got the location wrong in terms of where the murder was carried out, but I was talking about the tit-for-tat double murder of Jock Davison and Kevin McGuigan that occurred during a period when Sinn Féin were in government. One of those murders was carried out in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I was simply making the point that I did not hear the hon. Gentleman, on that occasion when there were multiple murders involved, calling into question Sinn Féin’s fitness for government or his confidence in the Government in those circumstances. I think that that is a fair point to make.
Dr McDonnell
The record will show that the right hon. Gentleman referred to a murder in a bar and the only murder in a bar was that of Robert McCartney. I was active politically in criticising both the murder of Jock Davison and the murder of Kevin McGuigan.
Mark Durkan
I remind my hon. Friend that when it came to the Stormont House talks, it was the SDLP who submitted the papers on a whole community approach to tackling paramilitarism, it was the SDLP who put in a whole enforcement approach to tackling paramilitarism, and, in fact, it was the SDLP who wanted paramilitarism and criminality on the agenda of those all-party talks. It was the DUP who helped to veto that originally. [Interruption.]
Dr McDonnell
We risk getting into whataboutery. In fact, we are probably deeply into whataboutery. I just want to put on the record that at the time I was very critical, publicly and aggressively, of the murder of Robert—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. We are in danger of ranging far outside the Second Reading of the Bill and getting bogged down into specifics about individual parties. I understand why and where that is coming from, but if we could keep more closely to the Bill, that would be fantastic.
Dr McDonnell
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but allegations were made and I felt that I had to refute them. I will leave it at that and perhaps sort it out with the right hon. Gentleman privately. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] We can sort it out over a cup of tea.
Dr McDonnell
I am not a violent man, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Moving on, we are in this situation because of a failure to face a new reality. Some may not agree with me, but the difficulties and the fiasco around the renewable heat incentive triggered a sequence of events that spun out of control. People out there want answers and they feel that they deserve them. Many of those who want answers are not nationalists. I have met many Unionists who are horrified by the events relating to the RHI. I will leave it at that. Clouds of confusion or poking each other in the eye only make things worse.
I say to the Secretary of State that it is vital that no stone is left unturned until devolution is restored in Northern Ireland. We have massive problems that must be faced. Northern Ireland is suffering from a total lack of confidence in its institutions. There are many issues facing us, but four jump out. The first is Brexit. Northern Ireland voted against it and to my mind it will be very difficult for Northern Ireland. The issue is multi-layered, but I will take just one example. I am being inundated by community groups and community workers from peace building groups from various marginalised communities who are heavily dependent on European peace funds to carry out their work. Those groups are currently facing collapse through lack of funding. They are not from any particular tribe or side of the political divide.
The second issue is our economy. The delay in the reduction in corporation tax was mentioned earlier. Aside from corporation tax, there was meant to be a prosperity dividend following the peace process. It never came. To my mind, peace will not be fully sustained unless our economy gets a boost and real jobs are created. Currently, we have no budget. This has serious consequences, in particular for our schools and our health service.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) mentioned many of the problems in education. I will not repeat them, but I will make one point. We have very serious problems with underachievement, despite some very powerful successes at some schools. I urge the Secretary of State to work with me, the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) to do what we can to solve the crisis in underachievement in education in marginalised areas. It is frightening. I would be glad if, in conjunction with my colleagues from neighbouring constituencies, the Secretary of State or the Minister could find the time to visit some of those schools, because it is despair-plus-plus for the people who try to teach in and run them. These are the people who are really suffering now, more than any others, as a result of the present difficulties. We need to deal with the problem of education despair and disadvantage in these areas. If we do not deal with it, we will create an underclass of people with no stake in society and they will be disruptive to society in the years ahead. That is the narrow self-interest. The broad interest is that we have a duty to ensure that all children of the nation are treated equally.
Our health service is stumbling towards despair. Primary care struggles to cope when hospital waiting lists, in particular surgical waiting lists, are in great difficulty. I will not go into detail on that.
I want to make an honest point about the attacks on the Irish language and I hope it will be taken as such. I was tempted to make this speech “as Gaeilge”, but I felt that not too many people would understand me so out of courtesy I decided not to. I am talking about attacks on the Irish language, and the immature abuse that is heaped on those who wish to speak Gaelic. It is not a crime to speak Welsh in Wales, and it is not an offence to speak Gaelic in Scotland. I remind the House that 100 years ago the revival of the Irish language in my county, the proud county of Antrim, was led by Unionists, not by nationalists. It would be disastrous to hand the ownership of the Irish language exclusively to Sinn Féin. I will never agree to that, whatever form it might take. The Irish language is the possession of no political party or grouping; it is the right and the property of all, culturally and in all other dimensions.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) requested support for victims of the IRA. I could not agree more. Many of my friends were murdered by the IRA, and I am very willing to put on record my support for any campaign for justice, honesty, openness and answers for all victims and survivors, regardless of who they are or what their political aspiration might be. That includes every single victim.
A general point has been made about the legacy issues, and other Members have spoken about the details. I merely say that we must find a solution, and beg the Secretary of State to press on, because otherwise instability and discontent will be fuelled.
In the remaining few minutes or seconds of my speech, let me wish the Secretary of State every success in his efforts to ensure that devolution is re-established, because it is the best deal for Northern Ireland. I genuinely hope that the extension to 108 days will allow space for the restoring of the institutions. I also hope that striking a temporary regional rate will help to restore a degree of financial stability. As for the allocation of the billions of pounds that the Brexit people promised us on the back of a leave vote—as Members may recall, they promised us £350-odd million a week for the health service—I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that some of the money that is released is spent on the creation of a prosperity process that will deal with educational underachievement and strengthen the health service so that it is able to cope with the demand in Northern Ireland.
Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
It gives me great pleasure to speak in the debate, and to follow the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell). I welcome the Bill, as far as it goes. It is necessary, but unfortunate. There is now a new deadline, but as it is the same deadline that was imposed for the first set of talks, it is, in fact, not really a deadline. Let me say to the Secretary of State, with great respect, that he may find that a hard rather than a soft deadline would produce more dividends by making it clear to some people during the talks process that it is time for them to make their minds up and decide whether or not they really want devolution.
Whatever our differences are on these Benches—there are three Northern Ireland Benches here, and things can get heated at times, especially when Members talk about historical events—the one thing that binds us together is the fact that we are here to represent not just the people who voted for us, but all the people in our constituencies. We all take our seats, and we all speak up and stand up for Northern Ireland. Whatever differences there may be between us, that is something that we have in common.
In recent days, eulogies have been delivered about the former Deputy First Minister, who passed away. Some people said that he had gone down a certain path because he had no choice, but other people who grew up in places like Londonderry and west Belfast at the same time—people like John Hume and John Cushnahan, in west Belfast—did not take up an Armalite or a bomb. It could be said that they came from the same background, but, although they chose a different path from my colleagues and me in terms of their politics and outlook, it was a democratic path. They deserve praise and honour for that, but it is sometimes easily forgotten.
We have, of course, been here before. Not so long ago, we had to pass emergency legislation to sort out the issue of welfare reform in Northern Ireland. That was another crisis that led to intensive talks and agreements. It was another crisis that was brought about because some Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, for whatever reason—we will not go into the details tonight—did not want to make the decision to implement welfare changes that were an inevitable result of changes agreed to here at Westminster. We opposed those changes, but we accepted that a budget had been set and we had to get on with the reality of the situation that had presented itself to us. We brought in mitigations, but, sadly, some of them may be at risk if we do not get devolution up and running.
Sinn Féin, however, appeared willing—in fact, was willing—to allow this Parliament, whose authority, legitimacy and validity it questions, queries and lambasts all the time, to do the heavy lifting and implement the hard decisions that were necessary. Indeed, I understand that Westminster still has the legal authority until the end of this year, because the sunset clause has not yet kicked in. There has not been a word about that from Sinn Féin. The sovereign Westminster Parliament has full control in that regard, yet we are told that in no circumstances must there be a return to direct rule. There has already been a partial return to direct rule in respect of welfare reform, and Sinn Féin agreed to it. That is the reality.
Let me make our position very clear. We want devolution to be restored in Northern Ireland. Those of us who sit in Westminster might have more influence if matters were to be decided here, but it would be far less influence than the influence that Members of the Legislative Assembly—members of all parties—would have in Stormont in deciding on the affairs of Northern Ireland. That is what we want to see.
Lady Hermon
The right hon. Gentleman has made a valuable point. We are heading towards a general election campaign, and harsh words will be said by one party about another, because that is what happens during general election campaigns. Will he take this opportunity to reassure the people of Northern Ireland that even during the campaign, there will be low-level discussions—perhaps not even low-level discussions—between his party and Sinn Féin in an attempt to get positive talks up and going immediately after 8 June?
Mr Dodds
We have made it clear that we are happy to continue contacts during the election campaign, and I am sure that there will be such contacts, at official and other levels. We have no difficulty in trying to reach out and secure agreement on the issues that are outstanding.
We want to make it very plain today that we do not stand in the way of the restoration of devolution, and nor, I understand, do some other parties to the process. We will form an Executive tomorrow, on Monday, on Tuesday, or on any day on which the Secretary of State cares to call the Assembly together. We will go into government, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) said, people should not take that for granted. People should not just say, “That is okay.” Given what we have come through, as a community and as political representatives, representing people who have been on the receiving end of IRA bombs, bullets and all the rest of it, we are making a massive statement. However, we are prepared to do that, and willing to do that, for some of the reasons given by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell). He mentioned education and the levels of underachievement in places like north, east and south Belfast in particular, but also in many other parts of the Province. This is a critical issue, and steps to address it were being taken in the Assembly by the Minister of Education—and not just our Minister, but previous Ministers as well.
I wish that that work could continue across government in Northern Ireland, because it is better that local Ministers who have an understanding of, and a feel for, these issues and know what will and will not work drive these policies, listening to people on the ground. That applies, too, to the health service and all its needs and the big decisions that need to be taken. On the voluntary and community sector, again we share common ground on the fact that people need certainty about budgets and do not know what is going to happen. Recently, Arlene Foster and I met representatives of the business community; right across the board, their consistent message was that they wanted devolution up and running, and we agree, so we will work to achieve that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) outlined in his speech some of the achievements of devolution. They are sometimes easy to forget given the general view that “Devolution never did anything for us; local Government in Northern Ireland never achieved anything.” Leaving aside the big prize of peace and stability, we must reiterate the benefits of devolution; it is important that they get repeated over and again.
One thing that is slightly reassuring is that, while in the run-up to January everybody said, “Get rid of Stormont; it’s a waste of time and nobody wants it,” and nobody was speaking out in favour of it, since it has been down, everybody has been coming out and saying, “Make sure you get Stormont up and running; it will be a disaster if it fell.” I just wish some of those people would speak up a bit more loudly at the time when difficult decisions are being taken by the Executive and the Assembly, because it is easy to join the general throng and say “Everything’s terrible” when tough decisions have to be made. With regard to what Sinn Féin is now saying, I read an article by Declan Kearney recently, in which he berated the Conservative Government; he said that since 2010 there has been a change in attitude from British Governments. He blamed the DUP, with no blame whatsoever attaching to his party, of course. There is a rewriting of the past going on: not just a rewriting of the last 30 years of the troubles, but a rewriting of the last seven or eight months. The House needs to be reminded that before January, when the late Martin McGuinness resigned and collapsed the Assembly, even though the RHI issues were being addressed and could be addressed and there was no reason for the Assembly to be collapsed, we had had a joint letter signed by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister on Brexit. It was a very helpful and positive letter. There was no issue then about special status or how this was a matter that would destroy Northern Ireland’s Government. We had also had a draft programme for government agreed that was out for consultation, and, indeed, it had received a great deal of positive reaction from most people across the community. We had also had a joint article penned by the late Deputy First Minister and First Minister in the Belfast Telegraph, setting out a very positive vision for Northern Ireland. There were regular and very good meetings happening between Sinn Féin and the Government and the DUP and others in relation to legacy issues, and all of that was being worked through, too. But now we are told that this was all a total disaster and that government could not possibly continue in Northern Ireland because of Brexit, because of the legacy issues, and because of the Irish language issues. Yet Sinn Féin went into government in mid-2016 with a draft programme for government that did not mention the Irish language; no such demand was made then, but suddenly it has become a demand.
Then Sinn Féin said, “It’s about respect.” Some people have talked about the use of insulting language, and I have to remind the House of some of the things said by Sinn Féin members. Gerry Adams referred to Unionist b******s—I will not use the expletive. He said that equality was a means of breaking Unionists; how insulting and awful is that sort of language? We did not walk out of the Government, however, and nor did we when the Secretary of State was recently disparaged and insulted by Gerry Adams in the talks process, or when the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was referred to in insulting language on the radio, again by Gerry Adams. We did not walk out, either, when Martina Anderson stood up in the European Parliament and told people in the most insulting, revolting, vile language where to put the border. Indeed, I see that Mary Lou McDonald, deputy leader of Sinn Féin, was running around today in a T-shirt glorying in that vile language; what does that say to Unionists? What, indeed, does it say to honest, decent people who took a principled position to leave the EU? This is insulting to many of us. And as to when Michelle O’Neill left the talks and travelled down to Coalisland to stand there and eulogise IRA murderers, how insulting is that to the rest of us?
What I am saying is that there are issues that cut across both communities. On the way forward, yes, we can have another election. We are having an election on 8 June, so there will have been plenty of elections since last May when we had the first Assembly election, and we can have another Assembly election, so that accounts for another three months, but where do we go after that—to direct rule? If that is what Sinn Féin is really aiming for, I do not understand, for the reasons I have outlined, why it would want to go down that path. I welcome the fact that the Government have made it very clear that there will be no joint sovereignty; that is, in fact, against the terms of the Belfast agreement—the very agreement that Sinn Féin says it is committed to. The Government have made it clear that there will be no border poll, again because of the reasons set out in the Belfast agreement. They have made it very clear that the stability of Northern Ireland and its future is a matter for the British Government, and so it is. The only way forward is to have devolution.
A Member on the Conservative Benches said in this debate that people have had to make intensely difficult decisions. He referred to the Conservative party and the Labour party, and I want to add my personal best wishes to the shadow Northern Ireland spokesman, who is leaving the House at this election. We may disagree on many issues, but I wish him personally very well for the future. The Member on the Conservative Benches said that, despite the differences between Conservative and Labour, intensely difficult decisions were made by both of them during the political and peace process. He also referred to the parties in the south and the parties in the United States, but may I add that the parties in Northern Ireland had to make intensely and personally difficult decisions, too? We represent constituents who have been murdered and butchered by terrorists, and there are Members here who represent constituents murdered and butchered by loyalists. We represent and have family members who were murdered. Some of us saw close colleagues done to death in front of us. Some of us were personally attacked and assassination attempts were made on us. People had their offices bombed and letter bombs sent. We have been through years of this; we have made intensely difficult decisions, and despite all of that we are committed to devolution.
Some people say that we want to throw it all up in the air; we have come too far for that, but we need a partner to work alongside us in government. I have no doubt about the commitment of parties like the SDLP, the Ulster Unionists and the Alliance to working for the best for Northern Ireland, but I begin to worry about Sinn Féin when it continually threatens the institutions every time there is a difficult problem. We need a partner that wants to work in government and that recognises the parameters within which we operate, which are that we are a devolved government that is part of the United Kingdom, but there are north-south and east-west arrangements and we all play our full part in that, and there is guaranteed power sharing and people’s rights are protected, and that we will leave the EU as part of Brexit, but there will be special arrangements, recognising the special circumstances of Northern Ireland across a number of areas. Because we share a land frontier, there has to be a different arrangement, of course.
So that is what we are seeking, and I hope that we can achieve it in the coming days. However, we cannot achieve it on our own. The Secretary of State will recognise that we have tried to reach out in the recent talks at Stormont, and we will continue to try to resolve these difficult issues. He is a player in all this as well, because Sinn Féin have criticised him, just as it criticises us, for not moving on the legacy issues. He knows the kind of criticism that we have to take. However, we want to find a way through all that. We are totally committed to doing that, after 8 June, and we will continue to do whatever needs to be done during the election period. I welcome the Bill and I hope that it will go through without any opposition tonight.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House, as it is the second time he has spoken. I am sure that he will be given it.
Mr Anderson
With the leave of the House, I want to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has been at the dentist all day—no doubt preparing for his photoshoots. I want to thank everyone who has said kind words about me, particularly those who did not mean them.
I will not take long, but I want to mention one thing that has stayed with me during all my time in this House. In the winter of 2007, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee was doing an investigation into community restorative justice. I was sitting in a minibus behind Sir Patrick Cormack. To his left sat a mountain of a man named Maguire. It was a dark, cold night, and we got off the bus at a community centre where that man was going to speak to some young people. Patrick said to me, “David, that’s the hardest thing I’ve had to do in my life.” I said, “What’s that, Patrick?” He replied, “That man just told me that he had committed two murders on behalf of the IRA. Now he is going in there to tell young people not to follow his path.” Patrick talked about losing colleagues, including Ian Gow and Ross McWhirter, and my heart went out to him, but he then said that we had to put those things to one side and act as parliamentarians. That is exactly what we are asking people to do today. People have asked questions about the blockages that are making it impossible to move forward, and they may well be right, but the Secretary of State and I both know that that is the hand we have been dealt and that we have to try to move things forward.
I reiterate that I do not believe any of these issues to be unresolvable. On equalities, I do not believe that asking the Unionist parties to move and to bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom it is too big an ask. Indeed, I have been led to believe that a majority vote in Stormont in November 2015 agreed that that should happen, but the process was then blocked by a petition of concern. On the Irish language, we are asking for what the other parts of the UK have—namely, for the proposal to be put on a statutory footing. At the same time, we must recognise the real issues around the heritage of the Ulster Scots and put forward work to develop those areas.
On the renewable heat incentive, I reiterate that Sinn Féin should stop making its unreasonable demand that the leader of the DUP should step aside. That would be a huge step in the right direction. On legacy, despite all the criticisms, we need a system that will protect all victims, that treats them all equally and that, as far as possible, brings justice and closure to them and their families. I do not believe that any of those are unreasonable requests. We should call the bluff of those who are trying to block this process and get them back to doing the jobs that they volunteered to do in the first place.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Kris Hopkins)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend—I will call him my hon. Friend—the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), and I am pleased that we have the full support of Her Majesty’s Opposition today. I have had the pleasure of knowing him since 2010, when we served together on the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and on the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly. There are many issues that we do not agree on, and our politics may be somewhat different, but he is a good and kind man. I want to echo a couple of the points that he has just made. On women’s rights, he was right to say that we should stand up and challenge the situation. He also suggested that I should respect the fact that LGBT issues were a devolved matter, and I do. As an individual, however, I look forward to attending Belfast Pride between 28 July and 6 August, where I shall stand alongside the best part of 50,000 people from Northern Ireland. They have a significant voice that needs to be represented and recognised. I pay tribute to those on the Opposition Front Bench for their support, and for the bipartisan spirit in which we are able to take these steps to deliver political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland. This is especially important given the forthcoming general election.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State covered the substance of the measures proposed in this short Bill. It first proposes to give the space for an Executive to form, providing the framework for success in the final phase of the talks before us. It also takes the modest steps needed to set a regional rate, to provide certainty for ratepayers and a future Executive alike. Rather than covering that ground again, I should like to respond to some of the specific points that have been raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) was among the many who condemned the terrorist attack and attempted murder involving the placing of a bomb outside a school. Many depraved acts have taken place in Northern Ireland over many years, but to place a bomb outside a school is probably one of the most despicable I can think of. I am sure that the community around that school will be appalled that young people were put in danger by those psychopaths, and I am sure that every part of our community will stand up and condemn this act. My hon. Friend also mentioned the fact that it was unfortunate that the rates were going to be set here, and rightly said that those decisions should be made in Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the impact on businesses of the uncertainty that sits over Northern Ireland at the moment. He said that he did not want direct rule, and warned of the consequences of its introduction. I reiterate that we do not want direct rule either.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) made a very succinct speech—perhaps others who have made contributions today could learn a lesson from her—and I thank her for her support. She rightly said that the political Administration in Northern Ireland should be taking the decisions, and we agree with her on that. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) has given his apologies; unfortunately he has had to go. He paid tribute to the brave police officers in Northern Ireland, and I completely agree with that sentiment. We should never forget them. He said that not a single Member of the House wanted direct rule, and I can tell him that no one on this side wants it. We want local politicians who have been given a mandate to take responsibility and to deliver an Assembly and an Executive who can make decisions on behalf of the hard-working people he talked about. He rightly said that good will existed among the people of Northern Ireland to try to make this work, and that it just required the elected politicians to take responsibility. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) condemned the attempted murder of the police officers outside the school, and I welcome his support for our police. He has long had a reputation of speaking up for them. I also welcome his support for the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) supports the Bill, and I put on record my gratitude for his support on issues of legacy, too. He has secured several debates in recent months that have given us opportunities to discuss this important issue, to get a balanced view and to make sure that the issue of proportionality is put out there—there is a recognition that 90% of the people killed in the troubles were killed by terrorists. He asked specifically about welfare, and the function of the Bill is to make sure that moneys can be sent through to the civil service in Northern Ireland. As part of the agreement, regulations are already in place for the civil service to make decisions. The agreement has been actioned in full, so the resource is there. It will be for the permanent secretary and the team to make choices about that money.
The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) regrets the necessity for the Bill—again, that sentiment came out several times—but he does support it, which I appreciate. He wants to get the institutions up and running.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made a positive contribution, which is good to see because many negative elements have been raised this afternoon. There was a degree of “statto” in there being so many positive statistics that he wanted to give us. It is important to reiterate that devolved government has been in place and that services have been delivered as a consequence, and we need to keep demonstrating that this is about local people delivering for their communities.
The hon. Member for South Antrim (Danny Kinahan) made a measured contribution in welcoming the Bill, which I appreciate. He mentioned the issues of corporation tax and asked whether it will be incorporated. It is a devolved matter but, as we have said for some time, the Executive are required to demonstrate their competence on moneys. There is a fundamental bit missing, because we need an Executive in order to demonstrate that in the first place. I agree that we want to see corporation tax delivered, too, but we need an Assembly in place to be able to move forward. I put on record again his support for finding solutions to the issues of legacy that affect all communities in Northern Ireland.
The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) is a good friend of mine, and he spoke with much warmth about his friend, the hon. Member for Blaydon. It is positive to hear that cups of tea will be consumed between the hon. Member for Belfast South and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley, which is the kind of politics we need to promote in Northern Ireland—a good chinwag over a cup of tea.
The hon. Member for Belfast South made an important point about the Welsh language. Gaelic is spoken in Scotland, and nobody should be ashamed of the treasured Irish language, which is a massive cornerstone of a culture across Ireland that I know many people in Northern Ireland treasure, too.
The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) welcomes the Bill and laid out clearly the merits of a democratic path. He reiterated his commitment to devolution, which we appreciate.
Lady Hermon
I am grateful to the Minister for kindly and enthusiastically giving way. There appears to be one key issue that he, to my disappointment, has not yet addressed. The issue was raised by a couple of people who contributed valuably this afternoon, and it is about Sinn Féin’s allowances in this place when they sit as absentee MPs. Are this Government prepared to take a hard-line, hard-headed and proper approach towards Sinn Féin, which does not take its seats but is still able to take advantage of a huge amount of public funding from this House for administrative and secretarial assistance? I say that with great passion, because I sit here as an independent. I do not have a party. I receive no allowances in support of additional secretarial or administrative assistance, and I am hugely resentful that the absentee MPs who claim to represent constituencies in Northern Ireland are able to be paid thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money.
Kris Hopkins
I could give a diplomatic answer to a lot of that. My first ever point of order asked why Sinn Féin gets paid when it does not come here, so I will not contradict myself on that issue. The hon. Lady knows my view on this and, in talking about the future of the Assembly, it is about making sure that we create the right political space in which all parties can find agreement and come together to offer leadership for Northern Ireland. I could engage in that partisan debate. My comments are already on the record, and I will not contradict myself.
I sincerely hope that a deal can be reached, regardless of the broader context of the talks. We will all work towards that outcome, but it will be the parties that need to take up the mantle and deliver inclusive, stable government for the people of Northern Ireland. If they do not, it will be for this or any future Government to continue doing what is required to ensure that Northern Ireland has the political stability it needs.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I know his background as a former serving member of the armed forces. I would not want him to underestimate the importance of the armed forces covenant as an issue in these negotiations. It leaves me a little concerned when I hear the Opposition spokesman and now the Minister refer to issues in the negotiations and make no reference to the armed forces covenant. I would not want him to conclude his remarks without making reference to the importance of that issue and its full implementation in Northern Ireland. That is important to getting agreement.
Kris Hopkins
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I appreciate that this is about putting stuff on the record. I have a service record, and I have spoken to many councils during my time in Northern Ireland about the delivery of this issue. I will never shy away from making sure that our armed services and veterans have the best possible services. It is important that we constantly challenge people who are responsible for delivering that, and I assure the House that, so long as I hold my position, this issue will always be at the forefront of my mind.
The Bill will provide the framework for success, and we hope it will be the catalyst for the resumption of devolved government. With that in mind, I would be grateful if we proceeded with support across the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Committee of the whole House (Order, this day).
Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill
Monday 24th April 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017 View all Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to today’s proceedings, which have provided valuable and important exchanges on the Bill. They have made very clear the unequivocal support of this Government and this House for devolved government in Northern Ireland. I extend my thanks to Her Majesty’s Opposition, to the Scottish National party and to all others for their support for the Bill, and for agreeing to its faster than usual passage through this House.
As we have heard, this Bill is short and modest in scope, but it provides the framework within which the parties may come together, reach agreement and, yes, form an Executive. If an agreement can be reached, it will give the parties the platform to convene the Assembly, appoint Ministers and get on with the resumption of devolved government. That is what the people of Northern Ireland voted for on 2 March, and it must remain the focus. This Bill will also provide the flexibility for an incoming Government to act in the best interests of Northern Ireland and the space for the parties to conclude a deal. I am very appreciative of the support of the House for this approach.
I was grateful, too, for the support there was for the Government taking the exceptional step of having this Parliament set a regional rate for Northern Ireland for this year. Although very much a step we had hoped to avoid, that is an essential move for securing greater financial certainty for individuals and businesses in Northern Ireland. It stands alongside the remarks I made on Second Reading about the budget situation in making it clear that this Government will always uphold their responsibilities on political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland.
In conclusion, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members for their support for the passage of this Bill. I thank my officials for the support they have provided. I am also grateful for the support of the Northern Ireland civil service and of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins). The Bill provides the scope and space for a deal to be done, which is what businesses, community groups and individuals across Northern Ireland want to see. I am sure I speak for the whole of this House when I express my sincere hope that all sides use the opportunity this Bill provides to secure the resumption of devolved government in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity, and so I ask right hon. and hon. Members to support this Bill on its Third Reading.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
I take great pleasure in saying the last words I will say in this House: I have nothing more to say.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Bill has not been amended and I have already indicated that in the current circumstances we will support it, but I just want to wish all the parties the very best in the negotiations. I devoutly hope that an agreement can be reached soon and that the institutions can be restored as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 3 to 5 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Corporation Tax
That the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 (S.I., 2017, No. 364), dated 13 March 2017, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13 March, be approved.
Dangerous Drugs
That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 14 March, be approved.
Immigration
That the draft Immigration Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments) (Biometrics and Legal Aid) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 13 March, be approved.—(Andrew Griffiths.)
Question agreed to.
Primates as Pets
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be here to see off another day, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I wish to thank Dr Alison Cronin, the director of Monkey World, the international primate rescue centre in my constituency, which assists Governments around the world to stop the smuggling, abuse and neglect of primates. Her time and input into this debate have been invaluable.
It seems barely credible in this age of enlightened animal welfare provisions and animal rights, but it is still entirely legal for someone to walk into a pet shop and buy any one of 66 species of monkey as easily as they can buy a goldfish in a plastic bag. These monkeys—all types of marmoset, tamarin and squirrel monkey—are snatched away from their families as infants and sold in birdcages for well over £1,000 each. There are no licensing demands or special regulations for their care. The pages of Loot, for example, are full of advertisements for these animals. A brief search of the internet shows that it is awash with monkeys for sale, supplements for their diet and advice on looking after them. According to Dr Cronin, at least half these advertisements are scams. Many demand large amounts of money up front for vet checks and transportation, all too often for non-existent monkeys.
Although not all breeders are unscrupulous, the public and the primates need to be protected. It is a fact that most buyers are well meaning, wanting only an entertaining and lovable pet that can be fed on scraps from the table, but the truth is that almost no domestic owner is equipped to look after primates properly. When, months after buying one of these tiny creatures, they call for help because their monkey is lying on the floor of the cage crying, it is far too late. Most south American monkeys—all 66 species for sale come from there—are extremely sensitive to a lack of vitamin D, and the lack of sunlight in a British birdcage deprives them of this crucial nutrient, as we might expect. Without it, they can, almost overnight, develop rickets. Although, with the right treatment in expert hands, rickets can be reversed, the agonising skeletal damage is permanent. Even without rickets, a marmoset frequently becomes aggressive and/or withdrawn, as its unnatural confinement takes hold, with it starved of its natural habitat and unable to mix socially with other monkeys.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to listen to anything the hon. Gentleman has to say. He and I agree on many things, the first of which is that we need to be out of Europe. However, in this instance, does he think that we should follow the lead of the 15 European countries that have banned keeping primates as pets, because they have shown the way? I think that he and I agree on that, too.
Richard Drax
It is always a pleasure to be in the same place as the hon. Gentleman, as we are in this debate. I will come on to address that point and a possible solution, which the Minister has heard before, having kindly agreed to me myself and Dr Cronin.
As I was saying, there is no doubt that these monkeys are suffering. Let us compare the circumstances in a cage in someone’s kitchen with what happens in the wild, where marmosets pair-bond for life and bring up extended, exuberant families, and every monkey participates in caring for the younger ones. They are never alone and they live for 15 years. Tragically, barely weaned infants are handed over by unscrupulous breeders who rely partly for their profits on the fact that marmosets almost always bear twins, after a gestation period of about four months. The males are sold on, while the females are kept for breeding. They may survive physically, but their captivity is nothing short of torture. Remember, these are primates: they share more than 90% of their DNA with their human cousins—us. That proportion rises to approximately 98.6% for chimps and bonobos, which are our closest relatives on the evolutionary tree, according to the Smithsonian Institution. Such treatment of chimps and bonobos would be considered immoral; indeed, there are laws to protect them.
Almost exactly a year ago, Dr Cronin and I, along with the former Genesis front man Peter Gabriel, delivered a petition bearing 110,000 signatures to Downing Street. The UK primate pet trade petition asked the Government to change the law so that all monkeys would be guaranteed a standard of care, as is already mandatory in zoos and wildlife parks. The Minister kindly said that he would put forward a law for a regulatory system that would ensure appropriate care. Since then, regrettably, we have heard nothing. That is understandable, given all the recent political upheavals—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has been extremely busy—but according to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs code of practice working group, the number of primates kept as pets in the UK is thought to be between 1,200 and 5,000.
Dr Cronin says she has seen an “exponential explosion” in the British monkey pet trade, with ever-growing numbers of monkeys needing rescuing. In the past 30 years, Monkey World in Dorset has rescued 106 pet-trade monkeys. Of those, 53 have been rescued since 2012, in an accelerating catastrophe caused mainly, Dr Cronin suspects, by social media. Many rescued primates come from decent, well-meaning but inexperienced owners who were duped into thinking they had bought pets that were easy to look after. In a recent police raid, Dr Cronin was asked to rescue a tiny infant marmoset that was freezing to death in a bird cage in a darkened city flat. She says that that is proof that the Animal Welfare Act 2006 is simply not working.
The 2006 Act was passed to cover the care and welfare of all animals—domestic and wild. Under it, DEFRA published a code of practice for the welfare of privately kept non-human primates in 2010, which explained, among other things, that it was inappropriate to keep these animals alone in domestic settings for the purposes of companionship or personal interest. In March 2016, DEFRA announced that it planned to review the code of practice and would make recommendations for any changes to the code within a year. However, the Commons Library has been unable to find any information on the result of the review or any plans or proposals. Dr Cronin says that although the Animal Welfare Act can be enforced, it does not enforce the conditions in which primates should be kept. Instead, it is most often used to prosecute cruelty or neglect cases after the fact.
Five different laws cover the care of any one monkey in this country. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 has the strongest laws governing species-specific care, and applies to any parks that are open to the public. Under that Act, some 200 Government inspectors on a constant inspection regime apply extremely rigorous standards covering animal welfare, health and hygiene, safety, ethics and other areas.
Under British law, primates are divided into two classifications. Non-dangerous primates, which can be bought and sold without any form of checking or regulation, make up the 66 species that I mentioned earlier. The rest are classified as dangerous, as specified under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, which focuses on protecting owners, not the animals, and fails to acknowledge any duty of care for them. Interestingly, smaller monkeys were declassified on the basis of the size and shape of their canine teeth.
Thirdly, the pet shop licence laws of 1951 and 1983 cover pet shops that sell primates. Fourthly, the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 and its 2012 regulations cover circus animals, while fifthly the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 covers animals in laboratories. Dr Cronin believes it is not logical that the same monkey could be subject to all the above laws to a greater or lesser degree, particularly as none seems to work properly. For example, she says that Monkey World’s most chronic problem is with the legal trade in primates as pets in the United Kingdom.
How do we solve this problem? The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Veterinary Association and the Born Free Foundation all advocate an outright ban on the ownership and trading of primates. However, Dr Cronin believes that such a move is neither realistic nor necessary. She suggests that we need a practical solution to ensure that these small primates are kept appropriately—I agree with her. Marmosets, tamarins and squirrel monkeys need to be registered under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. Alternatively, a register of primates that are kept as pets could be implemented, like the one for dangerous dogs, as suggested by the Minister himself at a meeting with Dr Cronin and me last June.
Additionally, the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, policed by local authorities, could be imposed on licensed private owners, pet shops, breeders and dealers. If required, the existing large national team of professional zoo inspectors could then be used to assess applications. Extending this existing standard of care to the pet trade would prevent the sale of individual monkeys over the counter, or on the internet, to those who simply do not understand what they are taking on. It seems to me and Dr Cronin, as well as many others, that the best solution is to require private owners to meet the standards imposed on zoos and game parks. Were those standards applied, I am sure we would all agree that no domestic user could possibly meet them, so keeping a monkey in one’s home, garage or anywhere else would be impossible. I humbly ask the Minister to please consider changing the existing laws, as he suggested last year, to make sure that all primates sold in Britain are properly protected, as they surely deserve to be.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) on securing this debate on the welfare of primates. He has championed this issue for several years, and Monkey World is located in his constituency. The issue has been the subject of a number of private Members’ Bills over the years, most recently the one promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Mrs Murray). I recall meeting my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset and his constituent, Dr Alison Cronin, the director of Monkey World, last June to discuss this very topic. I was pleased to have the opportunity to visit Wild Futures in Cornwall; staff there have similar concerns and have also raised this issue with me.
I wish to begin by discussing primates’ welfare needs. I listened to the examples my hon. Friend gave of primates being kept in inadequate conditions, and of the medical conditions that they can develop as a result of that treatment. This is obviously completely unacceptable, and it is also unacceptable in law: under the existing law, the Animal Welfare Act 2006, anyone who keeps an animal must ensure that its welfare needs are provided. That is in addition to not causing it any unnecessary suffering—one of the key developments or evolutions in the 2006 Act, compared with the legislation that had gone before it. This applies to anyone keeping a mouse, a dog or a primate. Failure to provide for an animal’s welfare is a breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006.
The Government understand that primates have special requirements, and that is demonstrated in the statutory code of practice for the welfare of privately kept non-human primates to which my hon. Friend referred. This states:
“Primates should not be considered as pets in the accepted sense of the word. They are not a species that can be treated as part of the family in the way that a cat or dog might be.”
In addition, in section 1.1, the code goes on to state:
“All gregariously social primate species should display social affiliative behaviours, including physical behaviours and vocal and visual displays appropriate to the species. These include, but are not limited to, social grooming, food sharing, communal resting and interactive play as appropriate to the species. Primates should be housed in stable groups of sufficient size and composition to allow the full expression of these behaviours.”
It goes on to state:
“Social interaction with companions of the same species not only provides essential stimulation and learning opportunities, but it also provides a source of comfort, reassurance and enjoyment. Removing a primate from its family or social group may have adverse psychological, emotional and physical welfare implications”.
Section 2 of the code goes on to describe in some depth the environment in which primates should be kept. It states:
“In planning a suitable environment, keepers should provide…A suitable location…An appropriate amount of space…An appropriate enclosure with sufficient three-dimensional content, including climbing structures to facilitate species-specific behaviour…The correct temperature, humidity, ventilation, noise levels and lighting…Appropriate feeding and sleeping sites…A means of, and location for, visual welfare assessment…A method of safe capture, handling and isolation of the animals…Security to prevent animal escape and unwanted entry by unauthorised people.”
It states that enclosure design and materials used should also ensure:
“A good hygiene regime to avoid disease transmission…A safe environment for the animals…A good regime of environmental enrichment…A wide range of appropriate behaviours.”
Anyone keeping a primate in solitary conditions or in a small cage or feeding it an inappropriate diet would already be breaking the law and could face up to six months’ imprisonment. That is a fundamental point of the Animal Welfare Act and one reason why animal welfare and veterinary organisations widely regard the Act as being such a success.
Primates are long-lived, intelligent, and socially complex animals. They engage in imaginative problem-solving, form intricate social relationships, and display complex patterns of behaviour. Being social is a striking feature of primates, and perhaps the most important in terms of meeting their needs. With few exceptions, they live in complex societies that can comprise tens of individual animals. In relation to their total life history, primates have long infant and juvenile phases, with social independence occurring long after nutritional weaning. This period is crucial for learning about the physical and social environment, parenting, survival, and reproduction. All primate species are long-lived, and need to be managed in old age.
Richard Drax
I am listening very intently to my hon. Friend. Is he saying that the law is already sufficient to deal with this problem? If that is the case, why are more and more monkeys being kept in these conditions, and why is Dr Cronin having to rescue more and more of them as the years go by?
George Eustice
I was going to come on to deal with that point. There is an issue here around educating people about this code, raising the prominence of the code and ensuring that local authorities understand what is required to be enforced. I was going to touch on that later.
It is important for anyone thinking of buying an animal to understand what is involved and the associated costs of looking after that animal. In the case of a primate, it is even more important because very few people in the country possess the necessary skills to look after such animals.
I want to turn to the point about irresponsible owners. DEFRA receives many representations from people and organisations about problems associated with the welfare of animals—exotic or domesticated. Most of those problems can be traced back to a common denominator, which is irresponsible ownership. Some animals can also be dangerous to people and to our native wildlife if not kept or controlled appropriately. They can also carry diseases transmissible to humans.
Let me turn now to the key issue of advertising. My hon. Friend mentioned the way that primates are often advertised for sale online. The Pet Advertising Advisory Group, which is a collection of welfare and veterinary organisations, has managed to set minimum standards for six online advertising providers, which are: The Hut Group; FridayAds; Epupz; Pets4Homes; Gumtree; and Vivastreet. The standards of all those subscribing to the code, which include the largest classified sites dealing with pet sales, include a complete ban on the advertising of primates. This is an encouraging development and we would like to see other online providers adopt PAAG’s minimum standards.
I met my hon. Friend and others to discuss laws around this issue of keeping primates. Although my noble friend Lord Gardiner has taken responsibility for this issue since last July, I can tell my hon. Friend that, as the Minister for companion animals and animal welfare, one thing that I was keen to deliver was a review of animal licensing establishments. In February, DEFRA published its Next Steps document, which sets out how we will change the law in relation to licensed animal establishments. I believe that that will add additional barriers and safeguards when it comes to the sale of primates.
As regards the selling of pet animals, vendors will have to provide information to any prospective buyer, and that applies to traditional pet shops or sales online. That will do a great deal as it will require in law that the existing code is publicised and given to any prospective buyer. In addition, vendors will also have to comply with statutory conditions setting minimum welfare standards in line with the Animal Welfare Act 2006. This is an extra layer of protection for all animals being sold from licensed premises. It also creates further barriers to any trade in primates as it raises the prominence of that code. It means that nobody would be able to sell a primate unless they had been licensed by a local authority, and a local authority would not be able to license any such seller unless that seller complied fully with the code.
It is important to note that, in the case of granting licences, a local authority is able to list the types of species that can be sold and indeed to preclude people from selling certain species. It is therefore possible, and indeed highly likely, that local authorities will take an incredibly tough line on anybody selling primates. The likelihood is that it would only be a tiny number of specialist skilled collectors who understand what they are doing who would be licensed to do such a thing.
I concede that there is more work to do to raise the quality of inspections and the consistency of enforcement, so we will also improve the quality of local authority inspections by providing officers with guidance and, wherever necessary, additional expertise, so that we can strengthen the consistency of enforcement.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976. The species covered by the Act were last reviewed between 2005 and 2006, with the schedule of animals considered to be dangerous being amended in 2007. Certain animals, including a number of species of smaller primates, such as marmosets, were removed from the schedule, as they were considered to be no more dangerous than domestic cats or dogs. At the time of the review, there were no records of serious incidents involving the primates removed from the list. It is important to recognise that the Act does what it says on the tin and regulates the control and keeping of animals deemed to be wild and dangerous. It is not in itself about animal welfare.
I want finally to deal with the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, and I commend my hon. Friend’s constituent, Dr Cronin, for her proportionate approach in coming up with a pragmatic, middle-way solution that goes beyond outright bans to strengthening the licensing. As I have said, I believe that the small changes that we have made to the profile of the primates code within the law through the Pet Animals Act 1951 and other legislation go a long way to strengthening the prominence of that code. The Zoo Licensing Act sets standards for zoos and requires all zoos to have a licence, although there are exemptions from some or all of the provisions of the Act for small collections in specific circumstances. The standards required go much wider than requiring minimum welfare standards for the animals. For example, the standards also set out how zoos should meet conservation and education requirements, and also how public safety should be secured. Clearly for individual owners or other keepers of primates these requirements might not be appropriate. We would therefore not expect to apply the standards to individual owners in full.
We consider that the standards set out in the primate code of practice provide primates with the same level of welfare protection as those in zoos. In both cases, the Animal Welfare Act 2006 applies and we would expect it to be used in cases of cruelty or poor welfare.
In conclusion, there is considerable debate about how many primates are kept in private ownership in this country. There are some estimates that it could be under 1,000, and the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has raised sceptical concerns about some of the figures that are bandied around. As my hon. Friend pointed out, estimates tend to range between 1,200 and 5,000, but the really important thing is not so much the numbers but the standard of welfare. That is the overriding factor. As I say, there are already laws in this area and we are looking to update and improve them where necessary and when we can. We should continue to explore with stakeholders how to reach more owners and potential owners to make them better understand the importance of primate welfare.
Once again, I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate, and his constituent, Dr Cronin, for the approach she has taken. I appreciate that he will be disappointed that I have not gone as far as he or she would like in adopting the type of licensing regime that he proposes, but I hope that he will continue to work with us as we strengthen the prominence and profile of the primates code in the Animal Welfare Act so that we can tackle some of the problems that he has highlighted this evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The order, which was laid before the House on 20 March, will, if approved and made, provide new powers for the Mayor to designate areas as mayoral development areas, to set the local transport plan and policies and to make grants to local authorities. It will transfer the functions, property, rights and liabilities of the waste disposal authority to the combined authority, abolish the waste disposal authority and confer new information-sharing powers on the combined authority. It will also provide for a number of constitutional and funding arrangements.
Of course, councils in Greater Manchester have worked closely together for the past three decades, but since 2011 the combined authority has enabled Greater Manchester councils to work together formally on the interconnected issues of transport, economic development and regeneration. In November 2014, the Government and Greater Manchester agreed a groundbreaking devolution deal, which has subsequently been followed by three others. Manchester is much further ahead than other areas on the devolution journey.
In March 2015, we legislated by order for Greater Manchester to have an interim Mayor. In March 2016, we legislated to establish the position of elected Mayor for Greater Manchester; the Mayor will also undertake the police and crime commissioner functions. In December 2016, we legislated to confer on Greater Manchester significant new powers, some of which were to be exercised by the Mayor and others by the combined authority corporately. Those included new housing and planning powers, devolved transport powers and new powers on education and skills, aligned with those of the local authorities.
On 24 March, following parliamentary approval, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service made two orders that, first, transfer the functions of the Greater Manchester fire and rescue authority to the Mayor, transfer the assets and liabilities of that service to the combined authority and, in turn, abolish the fire and rescue authority; and, secondly, set out the detailed operation of the police and crime commissioner function when it transfers to the Mayor on 8 May, and transfer the assets and liabilities of the police and crime commissioner to the combined authority.
I will deal with this afternoon’s order as quickly as I can. If approved and made, it will enable the Mayor to designate areas as mayoral development areas and will require the Mayor to prepare local transport policies and plans, subject to agreement from seven of the 10 combined authority members. It will enable the Mayor to pay grants to local authorities—those are, of course, designed to support the Mayor’s decisions in relation to use of the consolidated transport budget—and provide that any use of the “earn back” infrastructure fund is agreed by the Mayor.
The order will transfer the functions, assets and liabilities of the waste disposal authority. The Wigan local authority area is outside the waste disposal contract and will remain outside the waste disposal authority, at its own request. The order provides the combined authority with the same powers to share information as the constituent authorities have; provides for constitutional and funding changes, including in relation to the political balance of committees, the chair of the overview and scrutiny committees, and allowances—
The Chair
Order. I greatly apologise for interrupting you, Mr Percy, but I wish the Government Whip would resume his seat.
Andrew Percy
There is such excitement, among Conservative Members anyway.
As I was saying, the order also provides the necessary powers for the allowances for the Mayor and other members of the combined authority.
The origin of the order is in the governance review and the scheme that was prepared by Greater Manchester in accordance with the requirement in legislation. In 2016, Greater Manchester published two schemes that set out its proposals for powers that could be conferred to Greater Manchester in 2016, as provided by the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
That first consultation ran from March through to May of last year and the second from July through to August. The combined authority provided the summaries and the Secretary of State considered those, as per the statutory requirements. In conferring those functions, the Secretary of State has concluded that they would indeed be likely to lead to an improvement in the exercise of the aforementioned statutory functions.
In considering it appropriate to confer local authority powers on the combined authority and make constitutional changes, the Secretary of State has, of course, had regard to the impact on local government and communities. Importantly, from a local democracy point of view, all 10 of the constituent councils on the combined authority have consented to the making of the order.
You will be pleased to hear in conclusion, Mr Hanson, that the Government are making good progress on implementing the devolution deal to Greater Manchester. The draft order we are considering this afternoon is a fairly significant milestone, contributing to greater prosperity in Greater Manchester and opening the door for what we want to see, which is a more balanced economy and continuing economic success for Greater Manchester, which is already playing such an important part in driving forward the northern powerhouse agenda and the economic development of this country. On that basis, I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Jim McMahon
Thank you, Mr Hanson. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I put on record a declaration of interest. My father is a truck driver who used to work for the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority until its transfer to Viridor under the private finance initiative contracted there. Unlike me, he has a proper job, as I think he would say.
I am pleased to see the order, which I see as a tidying-up exercise in many ways. I have always felt that the myriad outside bodies that were the legacy of the joint committees that were established in Greater Manchester did have room for efficiencies to be made, particularly with back-office facilities around HR, finance, payroll, comms and press, marketing and such areas. That will provide a capacity to support the Mayor in their functions.
It would good to get some clarification—today or in writing—on the transfer of assets and liabilities for the waste disposal contract to the Greater Manchester combined authority. At the moment, the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority is made up of nine of the 10 local authorities within Greater Manchester, with Wigan outside that agreement. There would have been room for Wigan to opt into that quite recently, particularly when the private finance initiative contract was being negotiated in 2009, but Wigan local authority members decided, for their own reasons, that it was not for them.
If any assets or liabilities are being transferred to the Greater Manchester combined authority, which is owned by the 10 local authorities in effect, any assets in particular cannot be divided by 10, when the value has been created by the nine local authorities. I accept that is quite a technical point but it is quite important in tracking where those assets and liabilities will ultimately go.
On paper, talking about waste disposal sounds like a very dry subject. It is, but it also involves a great deal of public money. When the PFI contract was agreed in 2009, at £3.8 billion that was the largest PFI in the whole of Europe. We are now only eight years into that contract, so a significant amount of money is being transferred.
There is a link to the order that we will consider later today at 6pm, which relates to the precepting responsibilities, but this order is primarily about the levying responsibilities across transport and waste, which, as I said before, makes complete sense.
I will address my final comments to the mayoral development areas. I again support that principle. The ability of local areas to determine for themselves where their development priorities are is absolutely in the spirit of the type of devolution that we have been pushing for.
From a Greater Manchester perspective, when the call went out from Government I know a request was made for a number of the town centres and business parks to be designated as enterprise zones to enhance development in those areas. Unfortunately, under the criteria the Government were not able to allow for that. It struck me at the time that while it might not be a national priority for those areas to be designated as some kind of development zone, our town centres in Greater Manchester absolutely need a focused energy and determination from some authority to ensure that development can be kick-started. Instinctively, it feels like that the combined authority level is the right one at which to do that.
Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the Mayor will be given powers in the way that enterprise zones have tax reliefs and tax incentives in place when they are approved by Government. Will the Mayor have the same type of powers to give tax relief and business rate incentives within mayoral development zones in those areas? If that is not provided for in this statutory instrument, will that be brought forward in the future?
Andrew Percy
I welcome the shadow Minister’s support for what he called tidying-up functions. It is important we get this order through, otherwise we will have a Mayor elected on 4 May who will take office without the appropriate functions and powers to be able to operate.
The waste disposal contract will transfer over on 1 April 2018. The reason for that date is that it is what the Greater Manchester Combined Authority requested. My understanding is that it wishes to form a waste committee comprised of the members of the nine constituent councils. Residents should see no change to how waste is collected or the service they receive. It is simply that the legal entity has been absorbed by the combined authority. As part of undertaking the governance review I referred to, the combined authority has an opportunity to review the functions and integration of public services. It has concluded that doing it this way allows it to make some savings as part of the contract without it having any detrimental impact on or making any difference to how the service is provided to local residents.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on the mayoral development corporation, its nature and what could be part of that. It is for the new Mayor to come forward with a proposal to Government to put a mayoral development corporation into being. We are keen to see it happen, but it will require further statutory instruments in this place. I am more than happy to write to him with the full details of how that would operate.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the two functions. Manchester is so much further down the devolution route than anywhere else in the country, and that is testament to the local leadership and the history of working together. The impressive economic development we have seen in Manchester in the past few years—and decades, it could be argued—is a consequence of that close working between partners and local authorities. That is precisely why the Government are so enthusiastic about emulating that in other parts of the north and more generally through the rest of England. I again commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Specified Agreement on Driving Disqualifications Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. This draft statutory instrument is being made to reintroduce an agreement to allow for the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. I am sure that colleagues recall the previous arrangement under the 1998 European convention on driving disqualifications, which ceased to apply in the UK on 1 December 2014 when the UK exercised its right to opt out of various EU police and criminal justice matters under the Lisbon treaty.
I am sure that we all know that the UK has one of the best road safety records in the world, and this co-operation among the Administrations in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland will improve it further. This measure is particularly important for the people of Northern Ireland, which shares a 310-mile border with the Republic that about 15,000 people cross daily at 300 crossing points. Last year, traffic accidents caused 68 people needlessly to lose their lives in Northern Ireland. If a British or Northern Irish driver receives an instant disqualification from driving while travelling in the Republic—for drink-driving or causing a serious injury to another road user, for example—that disqualification can follow the individual back home. The same is true for Irish drivers disqualified here in Britain or in Northern Ireland.
The treaty that our Governments have negotiated is almost identical to the now defunct European convention on driving disqualifications, but there is one important difference. There was a loophole in that convention’s wording that allowed some drivers to escape a ban following them home by falsely claiming normal residence in the country where the offence occurred. We have amended the wording to close that loophole, thus ensuring that those unscrupulous individuals who seek to escape punishment can no longer do so.
The mutual recognition process is straightforward. When a British or Northern Irish court determines that a driver is to be disqualified and that driver is normally resident in Ireland—the driver can hold any driving licence; it can be an Irish or EU licence or another licence—the driver will be able to appeal the decision. If the appeal is either heard and rejected or not filed, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency will write to the Road Safety Authority in Ireland and inform it that a driver resident in Ireland has been disqualified. The case will then be referred to the Irish courts, and the judges there will decide whether to uphold the ban. The same will be true of British and Northern Irish drivers disqualified in Ireland.
These measures should not be considered a double punishment; drivers will have a right of appeal against the initial ban and against the ban applying in the country of normal residence, but a driver who commits an offence serious enough to merit instant disqualification needs to be taken off the road for the appropriate duration in both the UK and Ireland. If an Irish court imposes additional punishments, such as forcing a driver to resit their driving test or take an extended driving test, we in Great Britain and Northern Ireland will similarly impose such additional punishments and requirements.
I point out to colleagues that any driving disqualification arising from totting up of penalty points is not covered by these measures, because penalty points are not assessed in the same way in Ireland. Although Northern Ireland and Ireland are engaged in bilateral discussions through the North South Ministerial Council about mutual recognition of penalty points, that is still work in progress.
This agreement between the UK and Ireland about mutual recognition of disqualifications will not be affected by our decision to leave the EU. As the Prime Minister herself stated only earlier this year following a meeting with the Taoiseach, the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life for the people of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That is why the Taoiseach and the Prime Minister have both been clear that there will be no return to the borders of the past. Maintaining the common travel area and excellent economic links will be important for both countries in the talks ahead.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I shall be mercifully brief. Labour fully supports the regulations. It is of course entirely sensible that there should be mutual recognition of driving disqualification between the Governments of the UK and the Republic of Ireland. The agreement will mean that a driving disqualification imposed in the Republic on a UK resident or the holder of a UK driving licence will be recognised and given effect in the UK. Accordingly, a person disqualified in the Republic will not be able to hop across the border to the north and drive there.
The legal basis for such an agreement was in place between January 2010 and December 2014, until the UK opted out of the European convention on driving disqualifications of 17 June 1998, following the Lisbon treaty; so it is somewhat disconcerting that there has been a legislative black hole for more than two years. No doubt, however, the Minister will explain the length of the gap and expand upon why it has taken the Government from December 2014 to May 2017 to re-establish the legal basis for the mutual agreement with the Irish Government.
Without an acceptable explanation or justification observers would be perfectly entitled to wonder at the Government’s sense of priority and urgency, or lack thereof, which sadly characterises their approach to road safety issues. It is worrying that for more than two years there have been no provisions in place to stop dangerous drivers who have committed road offences in the Republic of Ireland driving in the UK, or vice versa. The regulations are a much-needed measure and will undoubtedly make our roads safer. It is just terribly disappointing that the Government did not seek to correct the position before. It is imperative that every opportunity, legislative or otherwise, should be taken to make our roads the safest they can possibly be.
The Government have failed in their manifesto commitment to reduce road casualties year on year, and have scrapped the road safety targets that were introduced under Labour. I cannot see why Ministers have persistently refused to bring those back, especially when we support international targets at United Nations and European level. The targets focus minds and attention, and a Labour Government would certainly bring them back. As I have said, Labour fully supports the regulations, which will make a small but highly important contribution to making our roads a safer place for all users, against what has been a worrying backward trend in recent years.
Andrew Jones
There were a couple of questions there, to which I should like to reply. It has taken a little while to make the arrangements, but the Irish constitution forbids the making of agreements of this nature by memorandum of understanding or a similar more formal instrument. Treaties are therefore required, and it takes time for them to be agreed, signed, ratified and deposited. That, simply, has been the case in this instance; it is not a question of a failure of priority.
I thank the Opposition for their support for the measure. It will make our roads safer, which is something we are all working towards. I do not think that the introduction of targets is critical in doing that. I do not need a target to tell me that road safety is important. We do not need a target to work on producing a road safety statement, which we published in December 2015, or to increase the penalties for mobile phone use while driving, or to seek to tackle the 50 least safe roads on our network with funding from the autumn statement. We are doing an enormous amount on road safety. Targets could be fine in other parts of the world; I have no problem with that. However, they are not needed here, where we are on top of the agenda and doing good work.
I hope that I have answered the questions satisfactorily. I am pleased that the measures have cross-party support, and look forward to their being implemented soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017
Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017
Draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017
Draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Skidmore)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017, the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017 and the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.
Chris Skidmore
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
The instruments will together enhance the operation of electoral registration across Great Britain. Three of the instruments will enable piloting on the annual canvass in selected areas this year, while the fourth will enhance the operation of individual electoral registration in Scotland, to allow cost savings for electoral registration officers throughout the year. I will turn to an explanation of that separate measure after describing the pilot-related instruments.
Some Members will be aware that individual electoral registration was successfully introduced in 2014. For the first time ever, it 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 those online. It is clear that citizens want to register quickly and easily, and we are striving to build on the successes of IER and move away from an old-fashioned, paper-based bureaucratic system towards one that is modern and flexible, meeting what we all expect from electoral registration.
A key component of the electoral registration system is the annual canvass that takes place each autumn, when every household in the country receives registration forms. 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 and is time-consuming and expensive.
The process requires electoral registration officers to send an annual canvass form—the household enquiry form—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 last year’s canvass, so that EROs can identify whether any residents should be removed from the register or invited to make an application. Response rates to the HEF are significantly lower under IER, as it is no longer a registration tool, and yet where no response is received, EROs are still required to issue up to two further forms and to carry out at least one visit to the property. Electors will therefore receive up to three letters and a visit from their local ERO team, even if they are already registered, solely for the purposes of information gathering.
The reality is that household churn across the country is only about 12% per annum, thus the majority of canvass activity is redundant. Over half of households do not even respond to the initial HEF, meaning that EROs are required to chase them, despite the fact that 88% of households will be a “no change” on the electoral register.
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 extremely high, at some £65 million per year. The process is therefore costly to EROs but also very frustrating for them. From 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. The system currently in place by law, however, does not allow them to draw on their own expertise or other information held by the local authority. It does not allow citizens to tell us once of changes to their registration. It does not enable EROs to focus their resources in the most targeted and effective way.
What is needed is a more effective and efficient system that targets resources on reaching out to under-registered groups to add new names to the register, rather than confirming names that are already on the register. To ensure that ours is a democracy that truly works for everyone, the Cabinet Office is working with EROs across Great Britain to pilot alternative approaches to the current paper-based, inflexible and prescriptive annual canvass.
Three initial pilots were conducted successfully by the Cabinet Office during the 2016 annual canvass process in three areas of England: Birmingham, Ryedale and South Lakeland. The early results from the pilots last year were very promising, with provisional figures indicating that the cost of the alternative canvasses was substantially lower than that of the legislated canvass, due to the reduction in printing, paper, postage and staffing costs. For example, Ryedale estimated that the new methodology it employed resulted in an 89% saving in staff time and costs. Postage was reduced by 50,000 envelopes and simple household notification letters were issued, making the process for administrators and citizens much more straightforward.
Last year, I visited the electoral services team in Birmingham, which reduced its canvassing costs by £160,000 compared with the year before. Birmingham had already been using data to target its canvassing resource at areas of high churn—an innovative approach that is data-driven and efficient. The Cabinet Office and the Electoral Commission are analysing the full cost data for the whole process.
The pilots are making a difference and building on the successes of IER. They are moving us closer to a system that is modern and flexible, as we would expect in the 21st century. Resources will be better allocated, less paper will be used and administrative time will be saved. We have learned from the 2016 pilots and refined the processes further, potentially leading to improved savings. The three pilots last year alone led to an estimated reduction in canvassing costs of well over £200,000. That is why we are working with local authorities to trial further changes this year. We have an even greater ambition to test more approaches and alternative ways of canvassing that are just as effective as and more cost-efficient than the current process. By including Wales and Scotland, we are able to inform change to the annual canvass that works across the whole of Great Britain.
The three orders establish further pilot schemes under sections 7 and 9 of the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013. As some Committee members may be aware, section 9D(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which was inserted by the 2013 Act, requires an 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. The orders we are discussing disapply that requirement for the 23 participating EROs in areas of England, Wales and Scotland.
The orders instead 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 relevant order comes into force and 2 February 2018. The manner in which they do so, however, and whether they take further steps if no information is received at a particular address will be at the ERO’s discretion. That 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. Such approaches have been developed by working closely with the Electoral Commission, which is supportive of the pilots.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend say whether EROs will be directed to make extra efforts where buildings or residences have a very high turnover of residents? I am thinking in particular of houses in multiple occupation, student halls of residence and old people’s homes. Although it may be okay to send one letter to 88% of houses, a small number of houses have a disproportionately high turnover of residents. What steps will EROs be asked to take in that regard?
Chris Skidmore
My hon. Friend makes a very good point, which strikes at the heart of why the reforms are needed. We are not introducing measures that prescribe in law that every household should be treated equally, even though we know that 88% of households have no change. The resources that are freed up by these reforms will allow EROs to target individuals where there is a greater difficulty with under-registered groups.
Let me give some examples of innovative activity that has been trialled. In Grampian in Scotland, electoral registration officer Ian Milton has been developing a system by working with a tenancy deposit scheme company, which notifies him when tenants have left a property. That enables him to know that the building has been left vacant and that he needs to send electoral registration materials to the property.
In Sheffield, the Cabinet Office part-funded a pilot to the tune of £10,000, which enabled a data-sharing agreement to be developed between the University of Sheffield and the Sheffield ERO. It has seen student registration rise from 13% to 76% at the University of Sheffield. EROs know their local area well and there are new ways in which they can target the people they know are removed from the register or change addresses frequently. EROs can use their resources more effectively to increase the size of our register nationally.
On the ongoing pilot schemes that we hope to take forward into 2017, the extra 23 areas in addition to Birmingham, South Lakeland and Ryedale were chosen using robust research methodology to ensure a spread of electoral register churn, population size, the pilot model chosen by EROs and region. In each area, the EROs will operate control groups and pilot groups so that the results of the approaches can be evaluated rigorously. Four models of piloting activities will run with the EROs in the 2017 pilot scheme, based on proposals from EROs themselves. Each participating ERO has chosen the model that they would like to apply in their area, based on their local knowledge and expertise.
Each innovative model reduces the number of paper communications sent to electors, utilising means such as telephone and email channels, and one model uses existing local data to determine where best to focus resources. Those ideas have all come from experts on the frontline 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, as I have discussed, and target canvassing more effectively towards under-registered groups.
If successful, the pilots will demonstrate that the annual canvass process does not need to be so prescriptive and that a number of alternative methods to the annual canvass exist, which are just as effective and more cost-efficient, potentially saving at least £20 million nationally from the cost of electoral registration each year.
Although the Cabinet Office provides support for local authorities to offset the cost of the annual canvass—last year it was £26 million—the pilots will provide evidence for wide-ranging changes to free up local authority resources. 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 individuals themselves to be invited to register to vote.
The Government have consulted widely, including with the Electoral Commission, on the pilot proposals. The commission has been very supportive of the plans and has been involved from the start in the early stages of the pilots’ development. The Electoral Commission has also been consulted on the orders, about which it is content, following Cabinet Office confirmation that section 13 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 remains applicable to participating local authorities during the pilot.
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. That is in addition to the work that the Government have been doing with interested councils directly, which has helped shape the four pilot models. The Information Commissioner’s Office was consulted during the development of the pilots and is content that the pilot orders do not raise any new or significant data protection or privacy issues. We have a privacy impact assessment also, which is set out on the Table. Equality impact assessments have been completed to ensure that under-registered groups, as well as groups protected by virtue of the Equality Act 2010, will not be negatively impacted by the pilots. Privacy impact assessments have also been completed to ensure that no new negative privacy impacts under the Data Protection Act 1998 will arise.
Although the purpose of the pilots is to give EROs the space to innovate and test alternative, more effective approaches in relation to the annual canvass, I want to underline that the integrity of the register will always and absolutely be maintained throughout the pilots. EROs have a duty under the Representation of the People Act 1983 to maintain their registers, and nothing in the orders will change that.
The draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017 will allow Scottish EROs to benefit from the same cost optimisation measures that have been available to English and Welsh EROs since last year. That 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. They also provide discretion to EROs on whether to canvass a property within 12 months of an indication of single occupancy. Allowing EROs to make that choice decreases the amount of resources spent on 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, replicating what has been in place in England and Wales since 2016. That will deliver a quicker and more efficient service to electors, who expect electronic communications when registering in this age, as well as enabling cost savings.
The regulations will allow an attestor to an applicant’s identity to be registered in any local authority area in Scotland; at present, both the attestor and the applicant must be registered in the same local authority. That will assist those applicants whose identity cannot be verified using the usual matching process and who have to provide an attestation to verify their identity, and will result in more eligible applicants becoming registered to vote, as has happened in England and Wales. The provisions also aim to reduce unnecessary ERO correspondence and contact.
Preliminary estimations project that the 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. In addition, the regulations make a minor amendment to correct an error in the existing regulation concerning the requirement to provide fresh signatures following the rejection of a postal voting statement.
The Electoral Commission was consulted during the development of the measures and on the specifics of the regulations, and is supportive of the regulations offering the same provision to Scotland as already exists in England and Wales.
The Cabinet Office and I have worked closely with Scottish Government officials to ensure that the measures can be in place for the 2017 annual canvass and that Scottish EROs are able to participate in the aforementioned pilots. Last November, I met the Scottish Government’s Minister for Parliamentary Business, Joe FitzPatrick, and we mutually agreed for the instruments to make provision in respect of both the parliamentary and local government registers in Scotland. That will be done before the commencement of the relevant provisions of the Scotland Act 2016, which will devolve competence in relation to the local government register in Scotland. That was agreed in order to ensure that Scottish EROs take advantage of these cost-optimisation measures in respect of both parliamentary and local government registers this year, and that local authorities in Scotland are represented in the canvass pilots.
With that in mind, the Government believe that the instruments, which allow for full annual canvass piloting, are a crucial step towards improving the annual canvass and the wider registration process. I therefore commend them to the Committee. I also hope that the Committee agrees that the instrument relating to cost-optimisation measures in Scotland will help to move electors and electoral administrators forward towards an enhanced IER system for both members of the public and EROs, as part of the continued successful implementation of IER across Great Britain.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Welcome to the Chair, Sir David. I know that you are always firm but fair in these Committees. I hope that you are firm with the Government and fair with us; I can hope, at least. I know that many Government Members are preparing for involuntary early retirement in a few weeks’ time, given that we are expecting a surge for our party, so they will probably not want to be detained for too long here. You will bring me back to attention very quickly, Sir David, so I had better move on from those minor points.
The Minister made a reasonably convincing case for the instruments before the Committee today, but let me set out a few general points about how we see the Government’s attitude and behaviour in relation to this matter, and then I will ask some questions. We feel that the Government’s general approach to electoral processes gives the impression of regularly tinkering, rather than forming a firm solution to resolve the issue of electoral registration in the current century. There is an impression that they often make rushed decisions that then have to be changed after being implemented, and that the approach to those changes is bureaucratic and slightly over-centralised. An important value behind local government having EROs under its control is that we have a devolved system of administration, rather than a centralised democratic machinery. That is one of the great assets of the British political system.
My feeling, both from what the Minister said and the explanatory note, which I have no doubt all Members have read diligently, is that the measures are driven primarily by financial reasons, rather than the enhancement of democracy. I say that because threaded through almost every paragraph of the Minister’s comments were expressions about the savings that will be achieved by the pilots. The explanatory memorandum clearly tells us all that, in its current form under IER, the annual canvass
“is proving to be an unsustainable cost burden for local authorities to administer.”
There are two ways of approaching unsustainable costs: trying to find ways of saving money—we are definitely in favour of efficiency and cost-effectiveness—and ensuring that local authorities are properly funded, which the Government, lamentably, have failed to do. I will come back in a moment to general cost savings and the severe pressures on EROs.
By the way, if the Minister wants to say that this is not a cost-saving exercise or part of an austerity agenda—a kind of bargain basement democracy that some might call a Poundland approach to politics—perhaps he will indicate that he is happy for any savings achieved to be ring-fenced in local authorities for the further enhancement of democratic processes. Otherwise, some people might arrive at the conclusion—perhaps fairly—that this is about saving money, rather than enhancing democracy.
The Minister has not really explained why it was necessary to introduce the draft orders in the dying days of this Parliament. The orders will come into force on 30 June, but that is an arbitrary date. I will come to the date shortly, because it seems to me that it conflicts with other obligations on EROs to avoid making changes in the run-up to elections. Of course, all EROs face at least one election in the next six weeks, and most face two. An explanation must be given for why the draft orders could not wait until the next Parliament. Perhaps the Minister will reflect on that in his response.
I would like to raise several points on which I hope we will get clarification that helps us to decide how to approach the draft orders. More than 600,000 people were knocked off the electoral register as a result of the IER scheme. We know that quite a lot came back on because they wanted to vote for Brexit, but that was not a product of the IER scheme; it was a product of people’s political imperative to vote in the referendum. Is not the need for the pilot schemes due to the fact that IER is failing to register the whole population and producing the unsustainable cost pressures that I have referred to?
I talked a few moments ago about the pressure on local government, which is central to this matter unless we have a centralised electoral registration system. Perhaps the Minister will indicate that he does not intend to introduce such a system. Billions of pounds have been slashed from local government budgets since 2010. We accept that everyone has to tighten their belts, but there will be a £5.8 billion funding gap in local government by 2020. Is it not the case that EROs and councils as a whole are consequently under huge cost pressures? Is that the real reason why the draft orders were introduced?
The Association of Electoral Administrators has said that its members are increasingly overstretched. In fact, it recently published a document titled “Pushed to the absolute limit”. There will soon be two elections in most areas, and now we will run pilots. I struggle to understand why we are adding to the burden on EROs. The Minister needs to explain why he brought forward the draft orders today, beyond the need to make a few million pounds of savings.
The Minister said that there was wide consultation about the pilot schemes. He indicated that he spoke to the Electoral Commission and various other august bodies, but, as far as I can see, he does not seem to have consulted the wider public and civil society. Many citizens, in organisations and elsewhere in civil society, know how precious our democracy is and are really concerned. I do not think that he consulted any of those people. It may be that he thinks he should not consult political parties, which have an interest in these matters, but I do not think political parties were consulted. Were any third sector organisations or political parties consulted about the pilots? It would be interesting to know.
Something else that appears to be missing is local political oversight of the pilots. As far as I can see, it is intended that reports will be made straight back to the Cabinet Office. There have been some pilots that were administered by the Cabinet Office, but I cannot find where the results were reported, other than in the few sentences of explanation that the Minister just gave to the Committee. Will he commit himself to reporting the pilot results to the House, so that we can all look at what they have produced? We will want to use two measures, will we not? First, does it enhance our democracy? Secondly, is it cost-effective? Clearly, in these difficult times, every single pound and penny counts. Will the local authorities’ elected members have a role in monitoring the pilots?
The other day in the House, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs reported on the referendum and it also referred to elections. It said—and this has been a matter of debate—that our electoral processes are to some extent exposed to risk from cyber-attacks, either by foreign powers or individuals with particular talents. Will part of the pilots be about making sure that the system is secure, so that it cannot be subjected to the kinds of cyber-attacks that we have read about and that horrify us, because we believe in an independent and secure electoral system to protect our precious democracy?
Finally, in the past few days 350,000 people have registered to vote, including a huge number of under-25s. I am sure that every one of us welcomes that interest in democracy and all those people coming on to the register. We want more to come on, as well. Has the Minister taken that surge in registration into account, and does he share my concern, which is felt widely around the country, that there are still hundreds of thousands and possibly millions of people not registered to vote and therefore not capable of taking part in our democracy?
We obviously welcome any cost savings or efficiencies that can be achieved, but we want reassurance that those will not imperil the democratic processes that are so important to us. We know the risks that arise when there is a breakdown of trust and confidence in the electoral machinery. In our country that machinery has always worked well, neutrally and independently of party politics.
Perhaps the Minister will have to write to us about some of the matters I have raised, but I shall be interested to hear what he has to say.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
We shall not offer any opposition to the orders and regulations, particularly as they affect Scotland. I note that they have been discussed with Scottish Ministers and the Scottish Assessors Association.
It is tempting to say that when we moved from household to individual electoral registration, many people predicted some of the problems that are now being addressed by the regulations. The extra work burdens and costs generated by the process should not be a surprise to anyone. Tempted as I am to say that there is an element of “I told you so” in this, I note, as has already been noted, that the end of the Parliament is nigh and it seems hardly the time or place to engage in that wider debate. I simply wish those engaged in the pilot schemes well. I wish them success in their endeavours and hope that some corrective mechanisms will be brought forward.
I appreciate that we are talking about a specific area, so I do not want to widen the debate into a general one about electoral registration. However, the Minister referred to the importance of third party agencies in collecting information about the potential electorate. I hope that when the Cabinet Office considers the results of the pilot schemes, it looks again at the notion of automatic electoral enrolment, so that when a citizen interfaces or reacts with one part of the apparatus of the state or the Government, whether that is to pay a tax, claim a benefit or drive a car, the information that is collected is used to ensure that the processes are there to give them the right to vote.
I will not engage in that debate now, but I hope that the pilots that we are about to undertake and the information generated from them might provide some illumination in the months to come for those of us who may or may not be taking part.
Chris Skidmore
I thank the Committee for the time it has taken this afternoon to scrutinise the instruments, which will enable EROs in England, Wales and Scotland to pilot new and innovative approaches to conducting the annual canvass, and allow EROs in Scotland to make use of email invitations to register and single occupancy provisions.
Important points have been made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, and I will conclude by responding to them. The hon. Member for Hemsworth raised the issue of funding. The Government are committed to ensuring that we have a democracy that works for everyone. In order to achieve that, we must have a democracy that is funded. The introduction of individual electoral registration—one of the greatest reforms to the registration process of the 21st century—cost £143 million. We are also funding local authorities to the tune of £26 million a year to implement IER.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the measures were simply to make savings or to foster democratic engagement. For me, those two go hand in hand. As we make savings from the pilots and the reforms, the costs that are released from the canvass procedures can be used to target individuals who belong to under-registered groups. That is a commitment that I made as a Minister when I introduced “A democracy that works for everyone”; I said that “every voice matters”.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth spoke about engaging civil society organisations as part of the process. I have toured the country speaking to many organisations, from UpRising in Birmingham to Bite the Ballot and the National Union of Students, right across every region in the country. We now have an early general election, but I was planning to publish a democratic engagement strategy, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East knows from the question he asked me in Cabinet Office oral questions last month.
I remain committed to ensuring that the Government strategy demonstrates how every section of society that is under-registered will be given the right to vote. I published a policy paper in March about the anonymous registration of women who are survivors of domestic violence. We will provide them with a mechanism to have an equal right to have their say at the ballot box. The hon. Member for Hemsworth may call that “tinkering” but I call it fundamental change. Therefore, I see savings and democratic engagement as two sides of the same coin.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned the timing on 30 June. It is important, if not critical, that local authorities that are registered for the pilots are given the opportunity to participate through measures passed in this Parliament. That will give them the planning period they need to begin canvass activity in July and August, as happens in most local authorities. He made valid points about whether it was a burden for local authorities to take part in the pilots. We have contacted all the participating EROs in recent days and all have stated that they are happy to participate. Indeed, they are keen and able to deliver. As I said in my opening remarks, we have 26 pilots taking place in areas that have been assessed for their capabilities, but there were 71 applications from local authorities. There is demand out there and this must be locally driven.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of having devolved machinery. He will know that under the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016, when the commencement orders on the electoral machinery come in, we will be devolving significant issues around elections and democracy to the devolved Administrations, within the local government framework. When it comes to further devolution, we are keen to ensure that local authorities are given this opportunity. On local authority scrutiny, electoral registration officers are independent of local authorities and must retain that independence if they are to have an effective role in our democracy.
On the wider issues that the hon. Gentleman raised about registration and the introduction of individual electoral registration, despite predictions that people were going to crash off the electoral register, it is clear now that it has risen from 46.5 million in 2015 to 47.35 million in the figures released a couple of weeks ago by the Electoral Commission. It is important that we have a complete register, as was stated in the Conservative party’s manifesto in 2015, and Parliament has talked about ensuring that we complete the register. However, we must also have an accurate register. Crucially, the Electoral Commission stated in its report released last summer that the accuracy of the electoral register has increased from 86% to 91%.
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Hemsworth about the need to have a clear and secure system for our democracy. There is ongoing work on the issue of cyber-security and attacks. He mentioned the outing of the gov.uk website in May last year. I have taken measures to ensure that I am confident about this general election and future ones. We now have at least double the capacity that we did when the website outed in May last year, and when it comes to monitoring this general election, all measures will be put in place to ensure that that cannot and does not happen again.
The hon. Member for Hemsworth mentioned the issue of trust and confidence. He is absolutely right that in our democracy, we want to ensure that there are as many people on the register as possible, that as many people as possible get the opportunity to vote and that we target our resources at under-registered groups. However, that will be worthless unless we have the processes in place to ensure that the people on the register are who they say they are and are able to vote in that capacity.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned auto-enrolment. We have had this discussion on the Floor of the House. The Government remain committed to individual electoral registration and will not be going down the path of auto-enrolment, but that is not to say that innovative measures cannot be taken forward. For example, when it comes to student registration and tenancy deposit schemes, which I have discussed, we can target effectively individuals who we know have failed to register and thereby maintain the accuracy of the register.
The proposals have support within the electoral community. The Electoral Commission stated on 14 July 2016 that it
“welcomed the Government’s commitment to conduct pilots in streamlining the annual canvass process”.
The Scottish Assessors Association and Electoral Management Board for Scotland stated on 7 December 2016 that they welcomed the fact that alternative means of carrying out the annual canvass were being piloted in Dumfries and Galloway and Glasgow, along with other registration areas in England and Wales. We would not take the piloting measures forward if we did not have the consent and commitment of the electoral community.
I end by saying that it has been an honour to serve on this Committee in my final engagement before the end of this parliamentary Session as the Minister for democratic engagement. It falls to me to state, for the benefit of the House, our mutual respect, regardless of party politics, for those individuals who work behind the scenes tirelessly preparing for elections. A general election has been called. We have local and mayoral elections in some places on 4 May. When it comes to democracy, as Members of Parliament we are very much actors on a stage, and it is the people behind the scenes who ensure that our democracy is the best it can be and one of the best in the world. I pay tribute to the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators and the SAA for all the work they do behind the scenes to implement the law and ensure that our elections are the best in the world and as accurate as possible. As Members of Parliament, we depend entirely upon them and are in their debt.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England) (Amendment) Order 2017.
DRAFT ELECTORAL REGISTRATION PILOT SCHEME (ENGLAND AND WALES) ORDER 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (England and Wales) Order 2017.—(Chris Skidmore.)
DRAFT ELECTORAL REGISTRATION PILOT SCHEME (SCOTLAND) ORDER 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme (Scotland) Order 2017.—(Chris Skidmore.)
DRAFT REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2017
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2017.—(Chris Skidmore.)
Draft Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Andrew Percy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Combined Authorities (Finance) Order 2017.
The draft order was laid before the House on 13 March 2017. If approved, it will put 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, the processes will apply in relation to the 2018-19 year and each subsequent year. The precepting arrangement applies to all mayoral combined authorities except, of course, the West of England, which has determined that it does not wish to set a mayoral precept.
In addition, the order makes certain transitional financial provisions relating to Greater Manchester to reflect that from May 2017, its Mayor will also have responsibility as the police and crime commissioner and for the Greater Manchester fire and rescue service.
Making the order will be a further milestone—nay, a keystone—to fulfilling our manifesto commitment to implement devolution deals and devolve far-reaching powers across England. The order establishes the final element in the funding framework for mayoral combined authorities. Under the 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, Government have committed up to £5 billion in investment funding, known as Gain Share, for Cambridge and Peterborough, Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, Tees Valley, West Midlands and the West of England.
Secondly, primary legislation—the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, as amended by the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016—along with the orders already made for individual combined authorities, provides that the constituent councils can make contributions to their combined authorities and Mayors. That is important because those orders also provide that in the case of mayoral expenses, the Mayor must agree contributions with the constituent councils in advance of incurring that expenditure.
Thirdly, combined authorities can levy on their constituent councils for transport costs. Finally, mayoral functions, to the extent that they are not met by other means, are to be met by a precept. The precept is determined each year through the mayoral budget-setting process and is formally issued by the combined authority to the billing authorities for the area.
If approved by Parliament, the order will come into effect the day after it is made. The provisions will ensure an effective process, integrated into wider local government budgeting timetables and including robust arrangements for scrutiny and challenge of the Mayor’s spending proposals. We have discussed that at length during debate on previous orders. The provisions are as follows: a requirement for combined authority Mayors to submit by 1 February a draft budget; a requirement for the combined authority to recommend any amendments to the draft budget before 8 February; a power for the constituent members of the combined authority ultimately to impose amendments to the Mayor’s draft budget if supported by a two-thirds majority, except in the Tees Valley where the majority must be three fifths. In the absence of such a majority, the Mayor’s proposals must be accepted by the combined authority.
Furthermore, the combined authority must set a mayoral budget on the Mayor’s behalf if the Mayor fails to submit a draft for consideration by 1 February. The Mayor must fund mayoral functions through a precept, which will be subject to the same referendum principles as council tax, which we all know well. The standard local government finance regime applies so that precepts must be issued by 1 March. To aid transparency, the Mayor is required to maintain a fund in relation to the receipts and expenses of the Mayor’s functions, excluding police and crime commissioner functions, for which there is a separate police fund.
The order also includes detailed provisions about transitional measures. The duty to issue a precept is disapplied for the year in which the first Mayor for the combined authority is elected, because for that year, the Mayor will not take office in time for the precept to be set. Mayoral expenses in the first year must be met by contributions from relevant combined authority and constituent councils.
The other key transitional provisions relate to Greater Manchester, where the Mayor will be responsible for police and crime functions and the fire and rescue service. They provide that from 8 May, the precepts for 2017-18 issued by the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner and the fire and rescue service will fund the Mayor’s activities in respect of policing and fire and rescue.
In conclusion, the draft order will support the new combined authority Mayors in funding their functions through the precept and the budget-setting proposals that I have outlined. It will complement the orders already approved by the House to implement the exciting devolution deals that we have negotiated throughout the country. I commend it to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Buck.
Back in December 2014, there was a young bright-eyed council leader who called for a mayoral precept. I do not know what happened to him, but I think his power has gone down. The local paper badged it as a “mayoral tax”—almost a tax bombshell—and the argument about the efficiency of a single precept and about transparency and good governance that enabled people to see what the Mayor’s function cost them was lost. I am therefore pleased that the Government have adopted the idea in a way that the local paper did not at the time. I hope that the local paper has changed its position, because to hold decision makers to account, taxpayers have to see in a transparent way how much the decision makers’ function costs. It is important that in establishing the mayoral function we ensure transparency of its cost.
I particularly welcome the separation of the police and crime commissioner element of the budget, which will appear as a separate component on council tax bills. The fire and rescue precept should be treated with the same separation-of-powers approach because it has a very discrete function provided by the Mayor, but at the moment it is to be provided from the general fund. For the sake of efficiency, we will agree to the draft order rather than delaying it over a minor detail, but in future it would make sense to do one of two things. The first would be to extend to the fire and rescue element the treatment that the police element currently receives, so that the public see the cost separated on their council tax bills. The second alternative, which may be more progressive—it is certainly the direction of travel in a number of areas in which blue light services are being brought together—would be to have a single blue light emergency services precept that is separated from the general component of the mayoral precept. If we did that, the public would see where their money was going, which would hopefully make it easier for them to hold decision makers to account.
I still struggle with the referendum requirement. I struggle to see why a Mayor in a conurbation such as Greater Manchester with 2.5 million people, who had secured the mandate of a sizable number of the population to increase council tax by an amount to fund their manifesto commitments, should have to go to the Government to sign off that increase above a certain threshold. I am not sure that that is in the spirit of devolution or localism. We ought to go some way further towards more freedom and flexibility. I understand the nervousness about council tax increases, which are always politically charged, but for whoever is elected, with that power and responsibility also comes the onus to make the case to the public about where the money has gone and whether such an increase in the council tax precept was right or wrong. That is good for democracy and it is good for local people’s ability to hold decision makers to account.
I will not go on any longer. I recognise that the draft order is essentially a cleaning-up exercise; it is about bringing together existing precepts and making clearer the relationship to the directly elected Mayor who will take office. However, the offer to discuss has been made a number of times, because there are good and bad ideas on both sides of the devolution debate, from Members on the Government and Opposition Benches. Some of this is just common sense. If there were a forum in which we could work together in the spirit of local government and devolution to really iron out some of the creases, as far as I am concerned it would be an open door. I will leave that offer on the table.
Andrew Percy
I place on the record my thanks to my officials, since this is the last of the devolution orders of which we have had a huge slew over the past few weeks and months, as the shadow Minister and the Whips know only too well. I thank my officials for all their support and guidance throughout the whole process. The draft order before us is the last one, which makes good on our commitments.
On blue light services, yes, the fire and rescue precept will be collected in the way that the shadow Minister highlighted, but it will also be shown separately on the bill so that taxpayers know exactly what the fire and rescue service is precepting on them.
On the referendum and the principles for precept rises, the authorities have to go not to the Government for permission, but to the people.
Jim McMahon
Will the Minister concede that the threshold for triggering a referendum is set by the Government, not the public?
Andrew Percy
It is set by Parliament, actually, which is elected by the people.
The hon. Gentleman talked about accountability. Throughout the debates we have had on these various orders I have made the point repeatedly that we require an elected Mayor at the top so somebody can be held to account for the precepting decision. If it were done through any other structure—a combined authority chair or whatever—there would not be that direct link or accountability.
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I will be delighted to meet him to discuss the future of devolution if our constituents do us the honour of returning us here on 8 June. Of course, it is perfectly possible that he could be in my shoes on 9 June, and I could be going to him to express my support for him in his new role as the Minister with responsibility for devolution. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jane Ellison)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Major Sporting Events (Income Tax Exemption) Regulations 2017.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. The regulations will help us to complete one aspect of the preparations for one of the world’s most prestigious sporting events: the UEFA Champions League final. In just under a couple of months’ time, over 180 million people in over 200 nations will be turning their eyes to Cardiff and the National Stadium of Wales—and, dare I say it, tearing themselves away from the general election coverage—to hopefully watch some excellent football. For the first time ever, Wales is playing host to the match that decides European club football’s champions, and if we think of the 1999 rugby world cup or the Ryder cup in Newport back in 2010, we can be sure that Wales will put on a great show.
In readiness for that, I am here to present the regulations that mean that we can provide the usual income tax exemption for non-UK residents who are making this match happen. Providing such a tax emption is a usual condition of world-class events such as this, supported by successive Governments. We provided an exemption for the fantastic Olympics that we hosted here in London in 2012, and there are other examples, such as Glasgow’s Commonwealth games and the athletics world championships coming up in London this August.
The regulations will enable us to provide a similar exemption for the Champions League final on 3 June. We have made that exemption before previous Champions League finals in England and should do the same thing now, as Wales takes on the role of host. The regulations exempt from UK tax any income arising to non-resident players and officials of the visiting clubs and to individuals designated by UEFA in connection with the final. The exemption runs from 1 to 5 June, allowing two days either side of the event for the exemption to cover any duties performed in connection with the final.
The draft regulations make use of the powers in the Finance Act 2014 to allow tax exemptions for international sporting events to be provided by means of secondary legislation. This will be the second occasion on which the powers have been used. The UEFA final qualifies for the same tax exemption on the same basis as the previous occasion, which was the world athletics championships. It is a top-flight sporting event that moves location, and providing such an exemption is a necessary precondition of hosting the event.
The tax preparations that the regulations put in place may be regarded as one of the less exciting aspects of the much anticipated Champions League final, but they are a necessary one. As the UK has established an outstanding reputation for hosting world-class sporting events, we will continue to take steps to support all four nations in doing so. In that spirit, I hope that colleagues will join me in welcoming the regulations and wishing Cardiff well as it finalises all its other preparations to make this a great show for a truly global Britain. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. As the Minister has explained, the regulations provide for an exemption from income tax on income earned in the UK in connection with the Champions League final this year.
The idea of exempting earnings from major sporting events from income tax for non-UK residents is not new; indeed, it goes back to 2006 and 2010, when the Labour Government introduced certain special provisions to exempt non-residents who are coming to the UK to take part in sporting events—in particular, the 2012 Olympics and the 2011 Champions League final. Exemptions of that kind have historically been made through primary legislation, in Finance Bills, but the Government announced in the 2014 Budget that they would legislate to enable income and corporation tax relief to be given in relation to major sporting events via secondary legislation. Provision to that effect was made in section 48 of the Finance Act 2014, and these draft regulations are the first set of exemptions made by virtue of the powers granted in that Act.
Labour obviously join the Government in being delighted that the Football Association of Wales was awarded the right to host the Champions League final at the National Stadium of Wales. The Minister will be aware that the Opposition broadly support the principle of providing tax exemptions for certain sporting events, so we will not oppose the regulations today, but I have a couple of questions.
We continue to express concern about the uncertainty regarding the Government’s approach to selecting such events and seek assurances regarding the prevention of tax avoidance. During the passage of the Finance Act 2014, we moved an amendment to require the publication of a formal review of those decisions every five years. In particular, we questioned what other sporting events the Government envisaged becoming eligible for tax exemptions for non-resident competitors and whether the Government planned to extend the number and range of eligible events. We continue to seek clarity in that regard.
The Minister will also be aware that we have previously raised concerns about gender equality issues, including that the UEFA women’s Champions League final, held at Stamford Bridge in London on 23 May 2013, was not given the same tax exemption as the 2013 men’s Champions League final held at Wembley. Will the Minister confirm that women’s events are being treated equally and, in particular, clarify whether the regulations apply to the 2017 UEFA women’s Champions League final, which is also to be played at the National Stadium of Wales, on 1 June, two days before the men’s final? Will she also confirm what equality impact assessment analysis has been carried out? As I said, we will not oppose the regulations, but we will be grateful for clarity on those issues.
Finally, I join the Minister in looking forward to a fantastic event for Cardiff and in wishing the four teams left in the Champions League the best. If I am allowed to express a preference, I particularly wish Monaco the best; they were fantastic when they played my team, Manchester City, in the last 16. I would like to see them go on and win it, but I wish the best of luck to all the teams and to Cardiff in hosting this great event.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
We in the Scottish National party support the motion, so I will not detain the Committee unduly. I have only one further question to those that the hon. Gentleman has asked. Given the partially devolved nature of income tax in Scotland, if a future event such as the Champions League final were held in Scotland, would this secondary legislation approach require a legislative consent motion at Holyrood?
Jane Ellison
If I am unable to answer colleagues’ questions today, I will obviously get in touch with them after the debate to clarify. The criteria for granting tax exemptions has been set out on a number of occasions, but I am happy to repeat them. They are that the events should be world class and internationally mobile and where a tax exemption by the host country is a requirement of a bid to host the event. For those who are concerned, it is worth noting that the cost of these exemptions to the Exchequer is negligible and in any case is likely to be offset by the benefits of hosting such high-profile events—something that I am sure comes into the minds of those bidding to host them.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman raised gender equality. It is certainly not the case that the Government give tax emptions only for all-male events. If the organisers of an all-female event approached the Government, basically the same policy criteria would apply when deciding whether a tax emption was appropriate. The majority of events that have been granted exemptions, such as the Olympics and the forthcoming world athletics championships, actually feature male and female competitors. With regard to the specific event that he named, I understand that an exemption was not requested. However, the criteria would have been applied equally. I accept that, in the world of sport, the decision might sometimes come out differently depending on the nature of the event, but it is dictated not by the gender of the participants in the sport but by nature of the occasion.
Jeff Smith
When the Minister says the exemption was not requested, was that for the 2017 women’s Champions League final?
Jane Ellison
I believe that is the case, yes. We do all the normal assessments with regard to impact. As I said, the policy is effectively gender-neutral in that regard, because the criteria are linked not to gender but to other things.
I will look for inspiration with regard to the more technical question I was asked, but if I cannot find any, I might have to drop the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North a line to clarify the need for a legislative consent motion. If it is all right, Mr Gray, I will come back to him subsequent to the debate.
The Chair
It is quite all right if the Minister wishes to do that, although of course technically speaking it is beyond the scope of this statutory instrument anyhow, as we are simply discussing the UEFA Champions League final in Wales. None the less, that is a matter between the Minister and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
School Funding in Tonbridge and Malling
Walk-in Services at the Merlyn Vaz Health and Social Care Centre, Leicester
Traffic enforcement measures along the A52
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
GCSE English Literature Exams
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating to GCSE English Literature exams.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, for the last Petitions Committee debate of this Parliament. I must confess that when I saw the petition, I had mixed feelings. English is my subject: it was what I was most interested in at school, I read English at university and my first job was teaching English. Being of my generation, my head is stuffed full of quotations from Shakespeare to Keats to D. H. Lawrence. My colleagues know that my party piece around this time of year is reciting the opening of the general prologue to “The Canterbury Tales” in middle English, but I will not inflict that on people here.
That knowledge of literature has hugely enriched my life, and I hope that it has enriched my students’ lives too; when they get back in touch with me after I have been in the papers, they say so. But—this is a big “but”— as the great cultural commentator Raymond Williams said, we are all prone to value the kind of education that we received over and above any other kind, but what we choose to teach, and how we choose to teach it, is a selection from what is available. He talked about
“what is thought of as an education being in fact a particular selection, a set of emphases and omissions”.
When we consider examinations, the question is what children should learn and how they should learn in order to be fitted for the world in which they will grow up, which will be very different from the one in which we grew up. In my experience, that question is seldom asked by Governments. We are normally subject to the whims of various Secretaries of State; some, perhaps, have had more than others. For instance, we heard about the need to teach “our island story”; then an English baccalaureate certificate was proposed and later abandoned. It is no wonder that teachers often find themselves in a whirlwind. No sooner have they got used to one set of instructions than they must get used to another. In all this, the fundamental questions about what we need to teach our children for the future are not dealt with.
Before I go on, I must say clearly that I think that the study of literature is enormously important for an understanding of oneself and society. Think of Chaucer’s pilgrims, chattering away down the centuries. Their jobs might not exist anymore, but the people can still be met, with all their strengths and weaknesses, in any street in any town. Nor do I believe that much literature is intrinsically too difficult for our children. I have taught Shakespeare to 11-year-olds. I got teenage boys to read Jane Austen by pointing out that her brothers read the books aloud to the officers of Nelson’s Navy, not notable for being a set of wimps. If Shakespeare’s groundlings could follow his plays, I see no reason why our children cannot—provided, of course, that it is a good juicy murder; there is nothing more boring than having to explain 500-year-old jokes to a class.
Although the choice of text is always one for teachers, it makes my blood boil when I hear people say that some things are too difficult for working-class children, because I was one myself. I say that because when people criticise the exam system, they are often accused of wanting to dumb things down. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. It is true that the Government have changed the GCSE English literature syllabus so that it is now a linear subject with exams at the end of the course. A new grading system will be introduced this year, and coursework has been abandoned. That is consistent with this Government’s approach to examinations in most subjects.
I grew up with that system, and I was fortunate enough to be good at it, because I was blessed with a good memory, but I am not sure that I agree entirely with Ofqual when it says:
“We do not believe there are any skills in the draft content for English literature that could not be validly assessed by written exam, set and marked by the exam board.”
I might agree that the skills in the syllabus can be tested by an examination at the end, but whether those are the right skills is a different question. There is a place for a more extended and in-depth response to texts, especially those dealing with complex subjects and emotions.
That is where open-book exams can be important. The Government have abandoned the idea of coursework, although it might have been better to change the guidance and the time limits, but I believe that open-book exams can ask far more stretching and difficult questions of our children. The Government rightly said:
“Students should not be misled into believing that they will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied.”
That has always been the case, as any teacher knows, but the Government also said:
“Students will not need to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart.”
Moreover, the former chief regulator said in a blog post:
“Assessment is about learning and understanding, not memory.”
I would be convinced by that if not for one thing: in literature, the exact words are important. A great writer chooses words with precision. An approximation of what they said might not have the same force or convey the same sentiments.
The Minister might, like me, be old enough to remember the Morecambe and Wise sketch in which Shakespeare is writing rubbish and the milkman keeps coming in and helping him. Shakespeare writes, “It’s very cold, I said to Yorkie,” and the milkman suggests, “How about, ‘Now is the winter of our discontent’?” [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell- Buck) is laughing because she is definitely not old enough to remember it.
The Minister will also remember George Orwell’s strictures on people who use “petite” when they mean “little” and then say that it means “dainty”, or his way of curing people of using the construction “not un-”:
“A not unblack dog was chasing a not unsmall rabbit across a not ungreen field.”
Words matter. Words, like facts, are stubborn things. One must remember a great deal to be able to answer some of the questions in our GCSE exams properly.
The Government, and certainly Ofqual, might argue that extended and more difficult questions can be asked about the unseen texts in the exam. However, strangely, Ofqual prohibits people from having a whole text in front of them, saying:
“We do not expect an awarding organisation to provide a whole text as Stimulus Materials for an assessment for a GCSE Qualification in English Literature.”
I might believe that Ofqual understood what it was talking about if it did not switch from singular to plural in the same sentence and put totally unnecessary capital letters on “stimulus materials”.
I must admit that I am a bit of a sceptic about unseen texts in exams. I used to tell my students, “This is a completely useless exercise, but we will now learn to outwit the examiners,” and they did. We do not actually read literature like that. We do not read extracts; we read plays, novels or poems. It is Leavisite literary critical theory taken to its ultimate. It is a prime example of doing things because we have always done them like that.
The answer to the central question of whether open-book exams are better than exams without the text is that, as always, it depends what we want to test. Whatever Ofqual says, an exam that students take without the text in front of them depends to a large extent on memory. It is impossible to comment properly on a text, for instance to show how an author deals with characterisation, without being able to remember large parts of it. It is impossible to compare two poems without being able to remember large parts of them. Remembering, in itself, does not get a student good marks, but it is an essential prerequisite to answering many of the questions, as a number of the teachers who responded to our consultation pointed out. One said:
“Students must remember lines off by heart, as they are required to analyse them… It is a minimum requirement for the modern text question, as there is no extract.”
As a test of memory, that is not bad, but is that all we want to test? Many people would argue that open-book exams, on the other hand, allow more searching questions to be asked of students. They allow students to do more analysis and evaluation and to synthesise knowledge rather than repeat it. In other words, open-book exams are higher up Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives, which teachers know about because they learn about it in training. It is also true that the skills required in an open-book exam are more like those that we use in real life—it is very seldom that we have to produce a piece of work in a rigid time limit, without recourse to any resources. It all depends on the examination being designed properly.
Open-book examinations have disadvantages, too. For instance, it is much more difficult to ensure that students have a clean text in front of them, without notes. There is also an argument that they may deter students from getting fully involved in the literature that they have to study, because they rely on having the book in front of them. It is often said that having the book makes the exams easier, although I am afraid that I disagree. I did open-book exams at university for some of my subjects—the Chaucer and Shakespeare unseen papers, which in those days were six hours long—and we had to know the texts very well to know where to look for quotations in the first place. I confess that I have not found a lot of evidence—it may exist, but other pressures have arisen—but the research that I have been able to find, from Washington University in St Louis, found that both sorts of tests enhanced retention of information.
The other issue that we ought to think about carefully is that our children are growing up in an age of information overload. They probably need to learn much more than we did about how to access information, assess its value, organise it and apply it. That may be done in other examinations, but it could also be part of our English literature examination. As I said at the beginning, my head is stuffed full of quotations, and I believe that to really engage with a piece of literature, a reader has to memorise some of it and make sure that they have internalised it. However, I also think that open-book exams can ask more testing questions. They can achieve what the Government say they want, which is to ensure that the brightest pupils can show what they are capable of.
There is a case for both kinds of examination, and the Government should think seriously about making at least some English literature exams open-book in future, but the real issue is that for a long time we have not thought seriously about what our children should learn and how they should learn it. I know that the Minister has a genuine interest in providing the best possible education for young people in this country; he and I may sometimes disagree about methods, but I do not doubt his commitment. Since this Parliament is coming to its end, little can be done at the moment, but I hope that in future he will apply his mind to what exactly we want to test through different types of examination. There is no getting away from the fact that being good at English literature requires some feats of memory, but that is not all we should try to test. I hope that we will think about that, and about what the petition asks for, in future.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Main. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), the Chair of the Petitions Committee, who was on top form this afternoon, as always, for introducing this debate. I also thank all those, including my own constituents, who signed the petition.
Although sadly it is too late to change things for this year’s entrants, it is not too late for the next Government—whoever they may be—to change their mind for future pupils. The new structure of the GCSE English literature closed-book exams poses numerous serious issues for students and teachers. It is not simply about the subject being made more difficult than it needs to be; it is about the very reason our schools teach English literature in the first place.
English literature enlightens us. A popular quote says:
“Life depends on science but the arts make it worth living”.
English literature is not an exact science. It makes no sense to test it in a way that basically amounts to a glorified memory test. Studying literature is a way of understanding our world and learning skills to engage in it by learning to express ourselves and by learning critical thinking, research and writing skills and independent thought. It teaches us to build arguments, analyse, probe and read between the lines. It also teaches us eloquence, which my hon. Friend displayed finely this afternoon, as I hope the Minister noticed.
I have noticed that many of us in this place often do not memorise our speeches. We carefully craft our arguments in prose, and if we need to check the validity of a piece of information, we have a whole host of organisations on hand, inside and outside Parliament, to equip us with briefings and facts. We are not expected to memorise every word we say in here. If it is not expected of MPs, why are we placing that burden of expectation on pupils in our schools? Why do we want students to remember up to 250 quotes? What purpose does that serve, other than displaying a student’s ability to learn parrot-fashion?
Closed-book examinations for GCSE English literature encourage the business of learning by rote, not meaningful learning. That is not the best way of assessing learning outcomes or the acquisition of skills for any child. Can the Minister explain how remembering quotes is the best way of showcasing a student’s true ability in a small window of time? It is simply not. It is a test not of content but of exam technique, which of course privileges those who can afford private tutors and the like. It is also worth saying that many universities do not examine their literature students in that way, because they know that rote learning is not a sign of intelligence or original thought. It is robust analysis and understanding that count and that undergraduates are rightly tested on, so why on earth do we expect our children to learn lines?
Just as we have seen the Government take our education policy back to the 1950s with the forced reintroduction of grammar schools, so we see them applying a very old-fashioned and traditionalist mentality to GCSE literature examinations. Such a mentality distorts the emphasis of teaching towards drumming quotes into students, rather than analysis and context—what a quote means and why it may be significant. Additionally, under exam pressure even the most capable students may not be able to recall the details of a critical quote. It is absurd that that may prevent them from achieving top marks, or that they may devote all their revision time to learning quotes rather than practising arguments, essay technique and narrative. In this age of technology, we need to be purposefully teaching students and pupils how to access, organise and apply information, and not simply to memorise it.
There is an abundance of thought out there, and thousands of teachers are saying, that this way of testing does not achieve anything positive. One teacher has said:
“I teach students who are capable, intelligent, articulate people with excellent appreciation and critical faculties—in short, brilliant literature students—but who don’t have great memories. I myself can’t quote from films or songs that I’ve heard 100 times. These students will gain average-poor grades despite their deep knowledge of, appreciation of and critical analysis of these texts, simply because they cannot remember the precise wording from the text. Either we’re testing memory or skill and in a literature exam, I believe that a critical appreciation is more important than an ability to memorise quotations.”
Surely the Minister cannot go on ignoring teachers when they tell him that this way of examining pupils is not fit for purpose. Why will he not listen to teachers or industry experts who say that closed-book exams place a premium on accurate and extensive recall, with students’ knowledge dominated by that ability, whereas open-book exams place the emphasis on higher-level learning, whereby students can focus on analysing, evaluating and synthesising knowledge? If the Government are determined not to listen to those who are tasked with teaching the new GCSEs, in the same way that they will not listen to other experts on divisive policies such as grammar schools, who will they listen to?
GCSE examinations are a very stressful time in any young person’s life. At a time when students are more stressed than ever before, and when teachers and school leaders are struggling to respond to years of chaotic chopping and changing in the curriculum, the Government should be asking serious questions about the impact of any changes to assessment.
Poor mental health in teenagers is a growing issue, and child and adolescent mental health services are hugely overstretched as a result of this Government’s neglect. Has the Minister assessed the likely impact of the changes on the wellbeing and achievement of students? The requirement to learn 15 poems, two plays and one novel could be a stretch for even the most able students, never mind those who already struggle academically. A memory test of this sort is not fair for any student, but it appears that the Government have failed to acknowledge the difficulties it could cause for those pupils with special educational needs. We in this House know that frequently the texts pupils are expected to read contain, as one teacher put it,
“complex and often ambiguous language”.
The expectation that those with SEN will understand these texts well enough to analyse them in the first instance, and then to memorise quotes, is simply unfair.
In an open letter to the then Education Secretary, one teacher said that the reformed English literature GCSE will discriminate against pupils with dyslexia and special needs, because of the Government’s “breathtaking ignorance” of these conditions. Even if rest breaks and access arrangements such as extra time can be put in place to level the playing field, I hope—as that teacher hoped—that the Minister can see that no amount of extra time will correct a memory deficit. I would like him to tell us in his response to this debate what provisions, other than extra time, his Government have put in place to ensure that the exam is fair for pupils with SEN.
Once again, this move shows a Government who have no progressive ideas for education or any understanding of the curriculum, regarding what works and what does not work for children; a Government wedded to the educational ideas of the 1950s of segregation and divisiveness, rather than inclusivity; and a Government interested in teaching children how to pass exams and grammar school entry tests, rather than in creating a level playing field, so that all children, regardless of background or disability, can reach their full potential. We should instil in our children a lifelong love of learning and not reduce a magnificent subject such as English literature to forcing kids to learn quotes by rote.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, teachers, students and many others are urging the Government to look at this issue again and to realise the problems they are creating for huge numbers of our children and their English literature education. I will leave the Minister with one final question: closed-book exams—“To be, or not to be, that is the question”.
The Minister for School Standards (Mr Nick Gibb)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I think it is the first time I have done so, but I hope that it will not be the last such occasion for either of us.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck)—I assume she learned by heart the quote she just gave. I congratulate the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones), who is the Chair of the Petitions Committee, on opening this debate and on doing so articulately, with fluency and a strong use of language. Perhaps that is the consequence of her immersion in the great canon of English literature. I share her ire about some people saying that some literature is too difficult for children from poorer backgrounds.
The hon. Lady cited Morecambe and Wise, and their wonderful and hilarious use of language. Who can forget Ernie Wise’s catchphrase about
“The plays what I wrote”?
We remember them fondly.
I am aware of the comments that have been made and the concerns that have been raised about the new English literature GCSE, notably the claim that exam boards will not provide pupils with any extracts from the novels, poems and plays that they have studied, as well as the expectation that pupils will have to memorise large amounts of text. I reassure the hon. Lady and all hon. Members that that is not the case. Pupils do not have to reproduce word for word what they have read to pass the GCSE. The examination is not about testing a pupil’s ability to recall specific portions of the texts they have read; it is a test of how they understand and can interpret the literature they have studied.
It is also not the case that pupils have to memorise “250+ quotes”, as reported in the petition. I am not clear where that figure has come from, but neither the Department for Education’s GCSE subject content nor Ofqual’s regulations contain any requirement that suggest it will be necessary to learn such a high number of quotes, or indeed any specific number. Ofqual does not prohibit access to texts during an exam and exam boards may give pupils extracts from works, such as an extract from a novel, a scene from a play or a poem. Such extracts form part of the exam materials. What is not allowed is for pupils to have copies of the full play, novel or set of poems to take into the exam with them.
Before I go on to explain the assessment approaches of the new English literature GCSE, I will say why English literature is so important, although the hon. Lady has already said it. We want all pupils to develop a love of literature by reading widely for enjoyment. Reading is the cornerstone of education. Ensuring that all pupils, whatever their background, are taught to read correctly, and that they develop a love of literature, is key to social mobility.
It is important that pupils have access to qualifications that establish expectations matching those in the highest-performing countries in the world. The reforms to the English literature GCSE are part of a wider drive to restore rigour and confidence in our public exam system. International tests indicated that the increase in the proportion of pupils achieving top GCSE grades had overstated actual performance. That is why we overhauled a curriculum that was denying pupils the core academic knowledge, and why we reformed the examination system, breathing confidence back into our national qualifications.
Previously, English literature GCSE pupils were examined on four texts at most, and some on only three texts—two texts and poetry anthologies. There was no requirement for pupils to be asked questions on texts that they had not previously studied—what are called “unseen texts”. The remaining texts were covered through controlled assessment, which is a form of coursework. Ofqual decided that new English literature GCSEs would be assessed entirely by exam because that is a fairer and more reliable method.
The subject content for the new English literature GCSE was published in 2013, and the rules about open texts were announced by Ofqual in 2014. Teaching of the new GCSE began in September 2015, which is why we will see the first exams in the new subject this summer. The new English literature GCSE requires pupils to study a range of high-quality, challenging and substantial texts, including at least one Shakespeare play, one 19th-century novel, a selection of poetry since 1789, including representative Romantic poetry, and fiction or drama from the British Isles since 1914. The specification for poetry and a novel from the 1800s is new, and we believe that it adds more depth and rigour to the qualification.
There is also a requirement for pupils to study no fewer than 15 poems by at least five poets, and a minimum of 300 lines of poetry. That element is designed to reward pupils who have gained a deep understanding of literature and have read widely enough throughout the course—it is not about memorising poems word for word. It is interesting to note that the views of the English subject community are mixed, with many not agreeing with the views expressed in the petition. For example, a 2015 blog by the English and Media Centre’s co-director, Barbara Bleiman, put memorisation and learning by heart into context. Focusing on poetry, she wrote:
“It doesn’t seem to us to be unreasonable, in a Literature exam, to ask pupils to choose one poem to talk about that isn’t there in front of them, nor does it necessitate rote learning or wholesale memorisation. Being able to recollect some details from their chosen poem...and give a few examples, using quotation or not, doesn’t require learning by heart or massive taxing of the memory.”
The introduction of closed-book examinations triggered the debate. What that means in practice is that pupils are not provided with copies of the novels, plays or poems they have studied during the course. The expectation is that pupils read widely and deeply during their studies to prepare them to answer questions in the exam about the books and poems they have studied. That means that they will be able critically to compare and contrast a range of literature using relevant quotes and text references to demonstrate the depth of their understanding. Additionally, pupils need to answer questions about unseen texts—texts they have not studied and are unlikely to have read before. These unseen texts might, but do not have to be, by authors whose works pupils have studied as set books. Pupils may have to compare an unseen text with one of the texts they have studied.
We do not expect exam boards to give pupils, or allow them access to, copies of the whole texts they have studied during their exams. Boards can, however, provide relevant extracts, and they are already including examples of such extracts in their sample assessment materials. Pupils will therefore be familiar with the types of extract they will be given. It is important that pupils are not misled into believing that they will get good marks simply by memorising and writing out the poems or texts they have studied. They will not be marked on their ability to learn and remember the exact words of poems or texts by heart. They may gain extra marks through the intelligent use of quotations, but the requirement is about illustrating pupils’ interpretation and understanding of the text, and hence demonstrating their understanding of the question. Quotations can be part of that. Each exam board will have guidance for its examiners for each specification that covers expectations of the mark scheme, the aim of which is to ensure standardisation when examiners are marking. It may include guidance on how examiners should approach textual references and quotes.
To gain good marks, pupils will need to show that they are familiar with the texts they have studied and, in some questions, that their understanding is sufficiently developed to compare them either with each other or with unseen texts that have been given to them in the exam. Pupils will need to write about a poem they have studied that is not given to them in the exam, but that will not require them to reproduce the text in full. Rather, it will require pupils to recollect aspects about the poem, such as themes, issues and the way in which language is used to create particular effects, so as to compare it with one provided in the exam.
In the past, pupils have been able to take either annotated or clean copies of the studied texts into the exam, but that risks undermining the requirement for them to have studied in detail the whole text as part of their course. That requirement is important, and it is particularly relevant in poetry. If pupils know they will be given access to the whole text of a poem as part of their exam, they may feel they do not need to study the whole poem, or the whole array or anthology of poems, as they can do the reading during the exam. In addition, if pupils had the text available to them, it would shape the expectations of the exam. For example, if they can refer to the text, exam questions and their mark schemes would expect a much more detailed and extensive use of quotes and references. As it is, questions and mark schemes for the new qualifications are written in the knowledge that pupils will not have access to the text, and the expectations are moderated accordingly. The same relates to questions in which extracts are provided. For example, if an extract from a novel or a Shakespeare play is provided, clear and detailed references and quotes may be expected, and papers marked accordingly.
The e-petition notes that pupils
“are expected to remember…themes and context that are incorporated within these texts”.
That is true, but it is not clear that providing a copy of the text would represent an advantage to a pupil. If a pupil is not already aware of, or able to recall, broad issues such as the themes and context of the texts they have studied, having a copy of the text with no notes or annotations will not help them. Indeed, Ofqual has pointed out that pupils might in fact be disadvantaged if they were provided with the text. A comparatively short exam does not give time for pupils who are unfamiliar with, or who have forgotten, the themes or structure of the text to use the text in the exam to demonstrate the understanding expected. Additionally, even if pupils have a good understanding of the text prior to the assessment, there is a risk that they might spend significant portions of the exam searching for quotes or references in the mistaken belief that that will secure them high marks. Again, unless the text is provided, the mark schemes for the reformed qualifications do not expect extensive quotes from memory.
Finally, the practice of pupils taking copies of texts into the exam creates practical problems for exam boards and centres. The majority of text editions come with an introduction, notes and a glossary. These annotated texts are immensely helpful in the classroom and would be the most obvious choice for an English department budget. However, such texts would not be appropriate in the exam room, and centres would need to purchase an extra set of texts free of textual additions. Not only is it difficult and, in some cases, impossible to source text-only editions, it would also be a major expense.
The hon. Member for South Shields raised the important issue of children with special educational needs. Students with disabilities are entitled to reasonable adjustments and schools will be in touch with the exam boards to request them. She asked for examples. Typical adjustments are the use of extra time, scribes and readers and, depending on the disability, different fonts, coloured paper, enlarged papers and so on can also be made available. We consulted specifically on access to texts last year as part of a wider consultation on the specifications on the use of reasonable adjustments.
This summer, pupils will not only take the new English and maths GCSEs but will also receive a new grade. The new qualifications will be graded from 9 to 1, instead of from A* to G, with 9 being the highest. The new scale is intended to recognise better the achievements of high-attaining pupils and ensure that parents have greater clarity about how well their child performs in the exams. It will also clearly distinguish the new, more challenging GCSEs from their predecessor qualifications.
I hope hon. Members are reassured that passing the new English Literature GCSE does not require pupils to memorise vast amounts of texts and that our reformed GCSEs will provide all pupils with the qualifications they need to progress to further education and employment.
Helen Jones
There is very little for me to say, except to thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) for her contribution. I listened carefully to the Minister’s detailed response, and thank him for it. No doubt we will discuss the matter at length on other occasions. In the meantime, may I say what a pleasure it has been to chair the Petitions Committee and that I wish colleagues if not the best of luck, at least a sunny election campaign, with little rain?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 172405 relating to GCSE English Literature exams.
Written Statements
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Cross-Government Prosperity Fund
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
I wish to update the House on how the Prosperity Fund has supported global and UK prosperity in its first year and its plans for future years. As we leave the European Union the Prosperity Fund is a vital part of how the UK will be a global, outward-looking nation that is confident on the world stage and has strong, fruitful relationships with countries around the world.
On 21 July 2016 I informed the House of the aims and objectives of the £1.3 billion Prosperity Fund (HCWS104) and a short paper was published on gov.uk that details how the fund operates. The fund uses primarily Official Development Assistance (ODA) resources to promote economic reform in ODA-eligible middle income countries, which are home to 70% of the world’s poor, contributing to a reduction in poverty. Shared prosperity is a key part of the UK aid strategy. The fund has a secondary benefit of opening up opportunities for international, including UK, business.
Projects are focused on countries and sectors identified through cross-Whitehall economic analysis as being those areas with large numbers of people living in poverty, potential for inclusive growth and where UK expertise can make a real difference.
As set out in the fund’s spending round 2015 settlement letter, the fund is 97% ODA with a small non-ODA allocation. ODA projects must meet the primary purpose to support poverty reduction and promote sustainable economic growth.
The strategic direction for the fund is set by a cross-Government Ministerial Board supported by a director level portfolio board composed of representatives from key departments. This structure reflects the cross-Government nature of the fund and ensures that programmes deliver value for money and support Government objectives. Accounting Officers remain responsible for ensuring the value for money of programmes funded by the Prosperity Fund.
The Ministerial Board has met nine times since January 2016. These regular meetings have allowed it to respond promptly and flexibly to changing circumstances—for example endorsing increased funds to trade related projects after the EU referendum.
The Prosperity Fund has continued to refine its systems and processes throughout the first year in order to ensure that it succeeds. It has acted on positive feedback and helpful advice from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, the National Audit Office, and, most recently, the Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI).
We welcome this external scrutiny as an opportunity to test the portfolio and management systems with independent experts. As stated in our formal management response to the ICAI review, the Prosperity Fund accepts and is implementing their recommendations, many of which it had already identified through its own internal reviews.
Year one of the Prosperity Fund was designed as a transition year. The Ministerial Board allocated £55 million of ODA to projects in a range of ODA eligible countries including China, India, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Indonesia, Nigeria and South Africa and in areas such as financial services, infrastructure, business environment, energy, and trade and regulation. It also allocated £5 million of non-ODA in support of Government prosperity objectives in both ODA-eligible countries and developed markets.
In South Africa, electricity shortages have cut GDP by 2% in recent years. The Prosperity Fund piloted an innovative British technology to help address this, enabling local government, universities, businesses and utilities to save a minimum of 15% on their electricity consumption.
In Brazil, the work of the Prosperity Fund has been recently celebrated in national media as an example of the importance of international co-operation to tackle transnational bribery and reduce corruption, and has helped to shape the recently approved “10 Measures against Corruption” law in Brazil.
The Prosperity Fund financed the former Prime Minister’s anti-corruption summit in May 2016 which brought together world leaders, business and civil society to agree measures to reduce corruption. The fund has also placed the UK at the forefront of delivering international commitments to tackle corruption such as setting up the International Anti-Corruption Co-ordination Centre, financed by the Prosperity Fund and hosted by the UK’s National Crime Agency.
The fund is committed to meeting the UK Government transparency commitments on ODA spend. Details of all year one programmes will be released on gov.uk in mid 2017 and an annual report on the first year will be issued by autumn 2017.
The majority of the Prosperity Fund will be allocated to large, high impact, multi-year programmes. To date 18 such programmes have been endorsed by the Ministerial Board and are now being developed by UK Government Departments including HM Treasury, the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Many other Government Departments are involved in the design and delivery of individual programmes.
These programmes include country specific work in South America and Asia, regional programmes in South East Asia, and multi-country, sector specific programmes on trade reform, insurance, education and anti-corruption. The focus of all programmes is high impact and value for money. We expect the first of these to launch later in the year.
We will refresh our gov.uk page with more information on the fund following this update and will continue to develop these pages as the fund progresses, including with information on programmes as they launch.
[HCWS608]
Tailored Review of Arts Council England
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Matt Hancock)
I am today publishing the report of the tailored review of Arts Council England. The review was first announced in the culture White Paper in March 2016, and was officially launched on 9 August 2016.
The review’s purpose was to challenge and seek assurance of the continuing need, efficiency and good governance of Arts Council England. The review concluded that the functions of Arts Council England are necessary and should continue to be delivered by Arts Council England in its current form as a non-departmental public body.
The review found Arts Council England to be an efficient and well governed organisation that was highly regarded across the arts and culture sectors. The review made a number of recommendations for further improving the effectiveness of Arts Council England, for example through further integrating museums and libraries; further supporting skills capability and financial resilience; developing more local partnerships and strengthening the use of cultural investment as regeneration capital; strengthening the assessment of the impact of its funding; and ensuring that its funding is fully accessible in order to benefit everyone and not just the privileged few. There are recommendations too for DCMS, on providing stronger assurance that the Arts Council is investing public money effectively, and reviewing the cultural property and export licence functions.
The review was carried out by DCMS, and an independent challenge panel was appointed to assure its robustness and impartiality. The review was carried out with the full participation of Arts Council England, and gathered evidence from a range of stakeholders from across Government and the arts and culture sectors and through a public consultation. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the review.
The report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tailored-review-of-arts-council-england
[HCWS611]
Sky/Fox Merger
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
On Thursday 16 March I intervened in the proposed acquisition of Sky by 21st Century Fox on the media public interest grounds of media plurality and commitment to broadcasting standards by issuing a European Intervention Notice (EIN).
The EIN triggered the requirement for Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest grounds specified and for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to report to me on jurisdiction. I required Ofcom and the CMA to provide their reports to me in response to the EIN by Tuesday 16 May. Once I receive these reports, my decision-making role in this process would resume.
Given the proximity of this decision to the forthcoming general election and following discussions with the parties, Ofcom, the CMA and the Cabinet Office Propriety and Ethics team I wrote to Ofcom and the CMA on Friday 21 April to extend the period by which these reports should be submitted to Tuesday 20 June.
[HCWS610]
General Affairs Council
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Jones)
The General Affairs Council (GAC) on 25 April 2017 is expected to focus on: modification of the Commons provisions regulation; bringing cohesion policy closer to our citizens; and implementation of EU macro-regional strategies; followed by a working lunch.
Modification of the Commons provisions regulation
The presidency will provide an update on proposed changes to the legislation which governs the common provisions regulation, the overarching EU regulation which governs the European structural and investment funds. These are expected to be in place before our withdrawal from the EU and were proposed by the Commission as part of the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) in order to simplify and harmonise existing regulations.
Bringing cohesion policy closer to our citizens
The Council will adopt conclusions which: assess the EU’s cohesion policy in recent years; recognise the need for greater visibility in its implementation; and call for further simplification and flexibility in the period beyond 2020. A discussion between member states on the themes raised during the negotiation of the conclusions is expected.
Implementation of EU macro-regional strategies
The Council will adopt conclusions on ‘EU macro-regional strategies’, the frameworks for co-operation between member states and non-member states in tackling common challenges by better using existing EU initiatives and sources of funding.
Working lunch
Following the meeting there will be a working lunch, at which Ministers will have the opportunity to exchange views on the role of cohesion policy post 2020 with Corina Cretu, European Commissioner for Regional Policy. This is expected to be an informal discussion.
[HCWS609]
Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Alok Sharma)
On 23 December 2016 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office fulfilled the promise given by the former Prime Minister at the NATO Chicago summit in 2012 to commit £70 million for each of the calendar years 2015 to 2017 towards Afghan National Defence and Security Force (ANDSF) sustainment. At the NATO summit in Warsaw in 2016, the UK committed a further £210 million to sustain its commitment of £70 million per year until 2020.
The UK’s 2016 contribution, funded from the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund (CSSF), has been channelled through the United Nations development programme’s Law and Order Trust Fund Afghanistan (LOTFA) to support payroll management, Afghan National Police (ANP) salaries and Ministry of Interior (MoI) and ANP development.
The development of a capable, accountable and responsive MoI and ANP, committed to delivering rule of law, is essential to long term stability and security in Afghanistan. The ANP play a fundamental role in providing security; rule of law and public order; as well as helping to build trust in the legitimacy of the state. Due to the challenging security environment international support for Afghan policing continues to be required. The UK remains committed to supporting the development of security institutions in Afghanistan, including the ANP and MoI.
[HCWS607]
Northern Irelamd Finances
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
At the point when the Assembly dissolved in January, there had been no budget set for the Northern Ireland Executive for the 2017-18 financial year. As a result, since the end of March it has fallen to the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Finance to allocate cash to Northern Ireland Departments under powers provided by section 59 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Since that point, consistent with the UK Government’s ultimate responsibility for political stability in Northern Ireland, I have been working closely with the Head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS), in conjunction with the NICS Board, to explore the most appropriate means by which to provide further assurance around the budget for Northern Ireland Departments in the absence of an executive.
I outline in the tables on the attachments, an indicative budget position and set of departmental allocations, based on advice from the Head of the NICS in conjunction with the NICS Board. These allocations seek to reflect, as far as possible, their assessment as to the priorities of the political parties prior to the dissolution of the Assembly and the further allocations they consider are required within the budget available. By so doing I intend to give clarity to Northern Ireland Departments as to the basis for departmental allocations in the absence of an executive, so that Permanent Secretaries can plan and prepare to take more detailed decisions in that light.
Alongside that, I wish to make it clear—as I shall also do in proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill—that this Government, if returned and efforts to secure the resumption of devolved Government do not succeed, would ultimately be prepared to provide legislative authority for the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments for 2017-18.
The totals I set out would not constrain the future ability of an incoming Executive to adjust its priorities during the course of the year. Any future UK Government would similarly need to reflect upon the final shape of allocations in the light of the circumstances at the appropriate time.
Resource - Departmental Expenditure Limits
The resource positions begin from the indicative departmental totals set by the Permanent Secretary of the NI Department of Finance under his s59 powers. From there further allocations have been made in the light of the assessment made by the Head of the Civil Service, in conjunction with the Northern Ireland Civil Service Board, as to pressures to be addressed. These totals do not include the £42 million of resource provided in the March Budget, as that extra funding was allocated after the last Executive dissolved. This is in order to maintain flexibility for the any new Executive to allocate resources to meet further priorities as they deem appropriate.
Capital - Departmental Expenditure Limits
The capital position has been determined by the Head of the NICS, in conjunction with the NICS Board, based on engagement with individual departments, again reflecting the decisions and priorities of the last Executive. It includes the allocation of £114 million of Financial Transactions Capital. It would make available funding for projects which were announced by the Executive as part of their 2016-17 Budget. These include the A5 and A6 road projects, the Belfast Transport Hub, and the Mother and Children’s Hospital. However it would be for individual departments to prioritise and allocate their capital budgets. As with the resource totals above, this does not include the £7 million of capital provided in the March Budget.
It can also be viewed, with the attachments, online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/Commons/2017-04-24/HCWS612/.
[HCWS612]
House of Lords
Clerk of the Parliaments
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
On consideration of the letter from Sir David Beamish KCB announcing his retirement from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments.
That this House has received with sincere regret the announcement of the retirement of Sir David Beamish KCB from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments and thinks it right to record the just sense which it entertains of the zeal, ability, diligence, and integrity with which the said Sir David Beamish has executed the important duties of his office.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, on 1 November last year I informed the House that Sir David Beamish had announced his intention of retiring from the office of Clerk of the Parliaments with effect from 15 April this year, followed by an announcement, just before the Christmas Recess, that Ed Ollard would become his successor. I indicated at the time that there would be an opportunity to pay tribute to Sir David and I am delighted to do that today.
I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will agree that over 42 years Sir David served with great distinction. He held a number of important posts during his time as an officer of this House. Between 1983 and 1986 he was Private Secretary to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip, when those positions were occupied respectively by the late Lord Whitelaw and my noble friend Lord Denham—a period that some noble Lords will recall as a busy one for the management of the Government’s business in the upper House.
Noble Lords who have been in the House since the mid-1990s will be aware of Sir David’s role in enhancing the work of our Select Committees. As Clerk of Committees from 1995 to 2002, he successfully supported a significant increase in activity, improving the House’s capacity to scrutinise the work of government and setting the framework for the House’s present, widely respected Select Committees.
Prior to his appointment as Clerk of the Parliaments in 2011, Sir David served as Reading Clerk and Clerk Assistant. As Reading Clerk, he took the lead in establishing and embedding the office of the Lord Speaker and worked hard to ensure the success of this significant change, helping to define aspects of the role, handling arrangements for the election and personally supporting the first Lord Speaker.
More generally throughout his career, Sir David contributed to the ongoing debates around the role and future of the House—for example, as clerk to the first of the Joint Committees on Lords reform in 2002-03 and, as Clerk of the Parliaments, setting out the options for non-legislative reform of the House in 2012.
Sir David leaves behind a very different House from the one he arrived at in 1974, not least because I was not even born then. It is not only a more visible and influential second Chamber but a more modern and diverse institution. He leaves the House and its administration well equipped to handle the considerable challenges to be faced in the coming years.
Sir David was also an early champion in promoting the work of the House, at home and abroad, overseeing the development of outreach programmes. Under Sir David’s leadership, the administration had its first diversity and inclusion strategy. He led by example, with his efforts helping to secure the House’s status as a living wage employer.
Throughout his time as Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David sought opportunities for a greater degree of joint working between the two Houses, through close working with three Clerks of the House of Commons and establishing the new digital service and parliamentary security departments.
Beyond Sir David’s professional achievements, many noble Lords will also be aware of his extracurricular activities and achievements. Not content with winning “Mastermind” in 1988, with Nancy Astor as his specialist subject, Sir David has created—and continues to maintain—a website providing a list of all United Kingdom peerage creations, and I trust that his retirement will provide ample time for the continued maintenance of this project.
It simply remains for me to wish Sir David many happy years of retirement. We are greatly indebted to him for his exemplary service. I am pleased that this service was recognised in the other place, as he became the first retiring Clerk of the Parliaments to receive tributes there.
Finally, on behalf of the House, I welcome Ed Ollard, Simon Burton and Jake Vaughan to their new roles. I know that we all look forward to working with them. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness in paying tribute to Sir David Beamish on his retirement. Despite within this House the huge experience and long service of many noble Lords and the staff of our Parliament, there will be few who can boast of having served for over 40 years. I confess that I was born in 1974 but I was not very old. It is a truly remarkable record.
As we have heard, Sir David Beamish has seen considerable change in that time. When he started his parliamentary career in 1974, the Leader of your Lordships’ House and the Lord Privy Seal was the then Labour Peer, the highly regarded Malcolm Shepherd. At that time, there were about only 30 Labour Peers, despite being the government party. Lord Shepherd was, as one might imagine, pretty keen on House of Lords reform. He argued that only those who attended regularly should be allowed to vote—I hear some supporters of that view here today.
Parliament and politics have changed considerably in the years since Sir David first stepped through the doors of Parliament as a new young clerk. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House has rightly paid tribute to the part he has played in overseeing, managing and leading change. Perhaps he took the advice of his “Mastermind” specialist subject, Nancy Astor, when she said:
“The main dangers in this life are the people who want to change everything … or nothing”.
The knowledge and experience Sir David has gained during his time here will continue to be put to good use. I welcome that, despite retiring, he will still be giving evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs on the role of an effective Second Chamber. Those of us who have already given evidence to this committee are perhaps united in describing it as a “unique” experience, and look forward to Sir David’s contribution. Perhaps being quizzed by Sir Magnus Magnusson in the “Mastermind” chair is good preparation for giving evidence to any Select Committee.
In choosing his “Mastermind” specialist subject of Nancy Astor, the first woman Member of Parliament to take her seat on being elected to the House of Commons, Sir David showed his admiration for the first female parliamentarian. I suspect and hope that he has welcomed the developments in this House that during his time here have seen the first women Leaders, Chief Whips, Opposition Leaders and Opposition Chief Whips, and indeed the first two Lord Speakers, both of whom were female.
It is clear that not only has Sir David enormous knowledge about your Lordships’ House and Parliament but also a deep affection and respect, and he has enjoyed his work. Only recently, when my noble friend Lord Foulkes posed a question following debate about the role of the Speaker, not only did Sir David reply over a weekend but he also supplied a recording of the relevant debate—from 1968. That attention and commitment to detail is recognised by the staff of the House, so much so that the word “Beamish” has now become a noun: a point of detail that would have otherwise been missed is now known as a Beamish point.
I understand that as well as updating his website on British peerages, Sir David is widely thought to be a significant editor on Wikipedia across a range of subjects and I hope that noble Lords are not nervous at the thought that we can look forward to some updating of their profiles. Despite his considerable work for your Lordships’ House, Sir David also has a significant hinterland of interests that he will undoubtedly enjoy throughout what we hope will be a long, happy and fruitful retirement. On behalf of our Labour group, I thank Sir David for his many years of service and wish him well. I know that the whole House will join with me and the noble Baroness in wishing his successor, Ed Ollard, every success in his post, and we welcome and congratulate the new Clerk Assistant, Simon Burton, and the new Reading Clerk, Jake Vaughan.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the Leader and the Leader of the Opposition. Everybody in your Lordships’ House knows that Sir David Beamish is a man of many talents. One that he hid from me at least was the one that both speakers have referred to—namely, his ability as a quiz show contestant. Not only did he win “Mastermind”, he also won “Master Brain”, which was an amalgamation of the radio quiz “Brain of Britain” and “Mastermind”. His specialist subject there was the works of Beatrix Potter. I wonder if he thought of himself as Parliament’s equivalent of Mr McGregor. I suspect not because he was far too kindly. He honed his knowledge on that subject, apparently, on car journeys by thinking up questions to ask himself. I am not sure whether he whiled away the longueurs of committee meetings in your Lordships’ House by following the same pursuit, but if he did, I doubt whether committee members would have been aware of it.
Sir David began his career in an era when the regulation of banks in the City was allegedly done largely by the raising of the Governor of the Bank of England’s eyebrow. In David’s case, he expressed his displeasure, in committees at least, by knitting his brow and frowning in a manner that implied that he had thought of at least three compelling arguments why the proposal being propounded, no doubt by some relatively new and inexperienced committee member, was not seriously to be entertained. That could have a seriously restraining influence on more experienced members of the committee who, having seen David’s frown, were less inclined to support the proposal because they knew that he was, albeit elegantly, about to shoot it down in flames.
As we have heard, Sir David’s career covered, by House of Lords standards, a period of unparalleled change. His role was often to strike a balance between accommodating change and doing so in a way that was within the overall traditions of the House and therefore likely to command its support. He was extremely adept at doing so. We all know that there is a very considerable gap in the ages at which we expect our officials to retire and those at which your Lordships retire, and David is retiring at the height of his powers. I believe that he has a number of interests that he is keen to pursue more vigorously. I did not know about Wikipedia. No doubt noble Lords will be looking at their entries to see if they are changed in the foreseeable future. We wish him well in these endeavours and a very long and happy retirement. In wishing him well, I too wish Ed Ollard the new Clerk of the Parliaments, the new Clerk Assistant and the new Reading Clerk well. We are very fortunate in the calibre of staff in your Lordships’ House and we look forward in particular to working very closely with these three new appointees in the new Parliament.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I, too, pay tribute to Sir David Beamish and thank him for all that he has done for us. It has been my unique privilege as Convener to observe Sir David at close quarters on many occasions when he was doing his job as Clerk of the Parliaments. These observations have been, if I may put it this way, both from the front and from behind. I met him face to face in his office at our regular fortnightly meetings when we would discuss matters of mutual interest and I could watch him from behind each sitting day, he in his place at the Table and me in mine directly behind him on the Cross Benches, especially at Question Time. If there are two words that I think best describe the impression that these observations have made, at least on me, they are “boundless energy”. A conversation with him was always a stimulating experience. If you asked him a question, the words were hardly out of your mouth before he answered it, and his speed of thought was so astonishing that there were times when I wondered whether he had had a chance to think at all, but being David of course he did.
As for his behaviour as seen from behind at Question Time when he had to remain silent, it was his physical agility that impressed me. There was the jump to his feet as he called upon each noble Lord to put the Question. There was the crouching position that he adopted as the seven-minute deadline approached, which became even more pronounced as the Clock moved on towards eight minutes. At that stage his hand would grip the side of the Table to give him increased leverage for the next jump up to call the next Question. There was physical agility on other occasions, too. When the Lord Speaker or a Deputy Chairman of Committees got into difficulties on the Woolsack, those at the Table, so far away, had to resort to sign language. However, in David’s case it was not just sign language that he used; sometimes it was a unique kind of semaphore as he waved his arms around with increasing vigour in an urgent attempt to get his message across. So whether it be mental agility or physical agility, I doubt whether we ever had a more athletic Clerk of the Parliaments.
As has been mentioned already, David entered the service of the House in 1974. In her autobiography, The World Walks By, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, paid a generous and unique tribute to the help he gave her when he was in the Clerks’ department in the 1980s. It was he who drafted various amendments for her when she was involved with the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, and it is remarkable that he is the only person who is named in that chapter, so it was a unique privilege.
As Sir David reminded the Cross-Bench Peers when he came to speak to us at our weekly meeting on the day before his last day in the House before Easter, the reputation of the House at the start of the 1980s was even more fragile than it is today. Today, all the talk is about the size of the House and the need for reform to address that issue. In the 1980s, he said that the talk was all about abolition. A motion that the House should be abolished was carried at one of the party conferences—I leave your Lordships to decide which it was—by 6 million votes to 45,000. Since then, reforms have been made not only to our composition but to the ways in which we work. As a result, as has been said, the House is now a very different place from what it was when he embarked on his career all those years ago.
Sir David has played his full part in the development of better working practices with obvious good humour and efficiency. He has been a great servant of this House, and we on these Benches join all noble Lords in thanking him most warmly for all he has done for us and in wishing him well for the life in the wider world that undoubtedly now lies ahead of him.
Before I close, I, too, join in the words of welcome to his successor, Ed Ollard, and to those who will join him at the Table, and we look forward very much to working with them in the years that lie ahead.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, I warmly associate myself with the words of tribute already spoken and add my own on behalf of the Lords Spiritual. Sir David Beamish has combined wise counsel, trusty support and firm friendship for all on these Benches, and my colleagues and I have greatly benefited from his guidance. In addition to the impressive list given by the Leader of the Opposition, he has also witnessed as Clerk the first two female Lords Spiritual. As your Lordships’ House knows, there is something of an ecclesiastical revolving door on these Benches. Those of us who arrive here when our time comes for service lean heavily on the clerks and other staff to this House to ensure that we get up to speed quickly with the just requirements of this Chamber. Without the reassurance and gentle steers of the clerk, many of us would have found ourselves floundering.
I should add that I am especially grateful to Sir David for his enthusiastic commitment outside this place to the life of the Church, especially in my own diocese. An active member of St Barnabas, Dulwich, he has also somehow managed to find the time to become both secretary to the Dulwich deanery synod and a very cheerful member of the Southwark diocesan synod. It is my great pleasure to continue to work alongside him in these capacities. I warmly welcome Edward Ollard, our new Clerk, and very much look forward to working with him and the new Clerk Assistant and Reading Clerk.
Lord Lisvane (CB)
My Lords, I have known Sir David Beamish for 42 years. For three years I had the pleasure of being his opposite number in the House of Commons. I pay tribute to him for staying in his job a little longer than I stayed in mine. David’s friendship, courtesy, intellectual horsepower and indomitable cheerful optimism, no matter how adverse the circumstances, made that a delightful and constructive relationship.
As Clerk of the Parliaments, David was always a great advocate of comity—the mutual respect and co-operation between the Houses. This showed itself always in seeking a solution that was best for Parliament without ever losing sight of the interests of your Lordships’ House. More effective shared services between the two Houses was one outcome, but I was especially grateful to David for his partnership in commissioning the first comprehensive assessment of the condition of the Palace of Westminster. We both felt that we could not be another generation of stewards of this extraordinary building who were not prepared to deal with its problems. For David, his love not only of Parliament but of its ancient home was a powerful motive.
David has been a fine servant of your Lordships’ House and of Parliament, and I wish him and his family every happiness for the future.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, in reply to the Convenor, the pronounced semaphore that he refers to was so pronounced on one occasion, with a marvellous shake of the hand, that I thought fire had broken out in the House of Lords. Indeed, I was about to adjourn the House when I found out that it was in fact something about a manuscript amendment to an amendment, which I still do not totally understand. In endorsing everything that has been said, the Question is that this Motion be agreed to.
Clerk of the Parliaments
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Clerk Assistant
The Lord Speaker
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Simon Burton to be Clerk Assistant of the House in place of Edward Ollard appointed Clerk of the Parliaments.
Reading Clerk
The Lord Speaker
That this House do approve the appointment by the Lord Speaker, pursuant to the Clerk of the Parliaments Act 1824, of Jake Vaughan to be Reading Clerk of the House in place of Simon Burton appointed Clerk Assistant.
Schools: Gardening
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Benjamin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage school gardening, to ensure that every child understands the environment and has an early connection to nature.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as RHS ambassador.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, the science national curriculum requires that children are taught about plants and can identify common wild and garden plants. Guidance encourages schools to use the local environment so that children can investigate plants growing in their habitat. The government-backed 1 million trees for schools campaign gives millions of children the chance to plant saplings in their school grounds and communities, helping them to connect with nature and make their school grounds and neighbourhoods greener.
Baroness Benjamin
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Numerous reports have shown that children as young as four suffer from depression and anxiety. Research proves that gardening is not only therapeutic for them but gives them a sense of continuity, responsibility and an understanding of food production. It can help them with subjects across the curriculum, and even with a career in horticulture. Will the Government work with the RHS school gardening campaign to deliver gardening opportunities to schools across the country and urge Ofsted to take such provision into account when inspecting schools?
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness is quite right about the therapeutic benefits of gardening for children. I know that the RHS—I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her ambassadorship—has a great campaign in schools for this. That campaign now has more than 32,000 schools and organisations engaged, including 68% of primaries and 78% of secondaries, reaching 6 million children. As far as Ofsted is concerned, we do not want to load it up with too many specific, narrow requirements, but school inspectors consider the breadth and depth of the school curriculum and its impact on children. Inspectors will note where a school’s use of outdoor space has a positive impact. They also expect schools to provide rich and varied extra-curricular activities, which may well include gardening.
Baroness Fookes (Con)
My Lords, while warmly endorsing the RHS campaign, I would make another point to my noble friend. Could he encourage teachers, particularly career teachers, to look favourably upon the many interesting educational developments that come from studying horticulture at a much greater level? There are many of these amazing careers open, but very often we find that teachers downgrade them. That annoys me enormously.
Lord Nash
My noble friend is right that there are many good careers in horticulture, landscape gardening, gardening et cetera. We invested heavily in enhancing the careers provision in schools through our Careers & Enterprise Company. I know that this is something it has looked at, and that many schools take this quite seriously. Indeed, at Cambridge special school in Hammersmith pupils do a BTEC in land-based studies using city farm space attached to the school. This has been very beneficial to many graduates’ careers.
Baroness Nye (Lab)
My Lords, research by the Royal Horticultural Society shows that its Campaign for School Gardening can contribute to a sustainable environment, which is important because schoolchildren walk along roads where legal limits on air pollution have already been breached in 16 areas just this year. When will the air quality action plan to cut illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide be published? The election is no excuse, because Cabinet Office guidelines are absolutely clear that purdah rules can be lifted where public health is at risk.
Lord Nash
The noble Baroness has wandered slightly off my brief, but I will take this back. Of course, the Government are developing a 25-year environment plan to achieve our manifesto commitment to be the first generation to leave the natural environment of England in a better state than we found it.
The Countess of Mar (CB)
My Lords, there is an amazing pool of ignorance among children and young people as to where their food comes from. I am not talking about vegetables in this case but milk, eggs, cheese and meat. In most cities there are now city farms, and farms are very willing to accommodate children and young people to show them where their food comes from, so would the Minister encourage this practice?
Lord Nash
Most certainly. It is absolutely essential that children are taken out of their environment. I know that there is now Oasis’s city farm in Waterloo. There is also a very good organisation called Jamie’s Farm which a number of schools send children to so that they learn about farming, crop growing and animals and vegetables.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
My Lords, I was in York a few days ago, where there was a row of 20 new houses in dark brick, with dark windows, fences and dark pavements. One of them had hanging baskets, pots and window boxes. This completely lifted the appearance of the whole thing. On the therapeutic aspects, this needs real encouragement from not only the RHS but also the National Trust. Would the Minister please also turn the attention of the appropriate part of government to the issue of allotments, which give many city people the opportunity to go out and do some gardening?
Lord Nash
I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s comment about the therapeutic effect—both the British Medical Council and Natural England commented on this—particularly for children with disadvantages of some kind. I have seen this for myself in alternative provision schools and special schools. I will certainly pass on his comments about allotments.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
Given the educational value of these gardens, now that the Minister has had a windfall of time landing in his diary over the next few weeks, will he find time to dig through the weeds of the school funding formula to see whether head teachers will have enough resources for school gardens? Then perhaps the seeds of doubt will sprout about whether the line he is about to give us about the school funding formula is wearing a little thin.
Lord Nash
I am most impressed with the noble Lord’s ability to weave into this Question something which might appear to be so off-piste, but he will know, from his experience of having done my job, that when all the MPs disappear to try to get re-elected it is the Lords Minister who does all the work. However, I will attempt to come back to him with a more fulsome answer to his question.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, there is a great deal of public awareness about the developmental pressure on playing fields, but I do not think there is any about growing space. Gardening takes room—less room than sport—but it is very important. How is the Minister informed of those pressures and how is he protecting those resources?
Lord Nash
The noble Lord makes a very good point. We are very keen to protect school land and school playing field land. There is a legal requirement on anyone holding public land which has been used for a maintained school or academy in the last eight years—or 10 years in the case of some playing field land—to seek consent from the Secretary of State. This will include land used not just for playing fields but for horticultural purposes.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, the Ashden charity, of which my daughter-in-law is the chairman, gives awards for sustainable energy across the world, including in England. It gave an award to a primary school which dug up a small amount of the playground and planted vegetables. Does the Minister think that this ought to be encouraged?
India: Extremism
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ahmed
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the rise of extremism in India following the state elections in Uttar Pradesh.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, we are aware of concerns over religious tolerance and community relations following recent state elections in India. Prime Minister Modi has made it clear that every citizen has the right to follow any faith, without coercion, and vowed to protect all religious groups. We welcome this statement. The Indian Government have a range of policies and programmes to support minority groups, and we support India’s commitment to the fundamental rights enshrined in its constitution.
Lord Ahmed (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her reply. Is she aware of the recent Hindutva vigilante-style attacks on Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Dalits? According to a senior Indian army general, HS Panag, and the former chief justice of the Delhi High Court, the honourable Mr Shah, right-wing nationalists such as RSS and the Hindutva brigade have targeted all minorities in the name of nationalism. Is the Minister aware of the concerns expressed in the Pew report on religious intolerance in India, and the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom’s report on the constitutional and legal challenges faced by religious minorities in India? Will Her Majesty’s Government remind the BJP Government of their obligations under international law for the protection of minority communities?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we share the noble Lord’s concern about the importance of ensuring that there is religious freedom, because it is a foundation for economic and public security. I can assure him that the British high commission in New Delhi discusses human rights issues with institutions such as the Indian National Commission for Minorities and state governments. More than that, in direct answer to his question, the British Government work directly with the Indian Government to build capacity and share expertise to tackle challenges, including the promotion and protection of human rights. Next month, that will include working with India on its universal periodic review.
Lord Gadhia (Non-Afl)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, instead of interfering in the internal democratic processes of the world’s largest democracy, the Government should be working closely with Prime Minister Modi’s Government to open up and liberalise the Indian economy, and encourage more trade and investment between the UK and India to promote development in both countries? That is what the people of Uttar Pradesh overwhelmingly voted for, and that is the clear message we should send to India—one of our closest friends and allies—from this British Parliament.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we are indeed clear friends of India. The UK-India trade relationship is flourishing. The two Prime Ministers agreed that, when the UK leaves the European Union, they will make it a priority for both countries to build the closest possible commercial and economic relationship—but our friendship also goes to the development of human rights.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I am grateful for that commitment by the Minister, because many of us will be very concerned that, as a consequence of Brexit, the focus of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be on trade and economic development alone. Will she repeat, again, that there can never be a trade-off between economic trade and human rights and that we will remain committed to raising our concerns with President Modi at every opportunity, because the recorded level of violence against minorities has increased and we must raise it with the Government?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Prime Minister referred to reports of violent offences when she visited India in the first bilateral overseas visit after she became Prime Minister last summer to show the importance that we ascribe to our relations with India. The reports have also been raised more recently by my honourable friend the Minister for Asia when an Indian Minister visited this country. So we will continue to raise those issues. It is for the benefit of both countries that we develop our trade relationship—but, as I mentioned earlier, it is our firm belief that good relations and strong human rights are the underpinning for successful economic development.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that what happens between faith communities in other countries can spill over into the UK, particularly when we have diaspora communities? We have a significant Indian community in Bradford. They are mainly Gujarati. Some are Muslim, some are Hindu. Relations are good, but on other occasions and with other faiths we have seen how, when events in the countries from which their ancestors came worsen, relations in this country can worsen. I pay tribute to the excellent work that the Minister has done on interfaith issues in this country. Is this not something with which the Government should engage, and should they not point out to the Indian Government that this is not a matter simply for them?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, with regards to the diaspora, ensuring that there are good community relations is a serious issue. How could I think otherwise coming from Woking, where such a significant proportion of the community brings with them the strength of their background in the Punjab and enriches our community? It is important that, across the United Kingdom, faith should join us, not break us up.
Brexit: Negotiations
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the principal Brexit negotiation issues following the invoking of Article 50.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s letter to the President of the European Council comprehensively articulates this Government’s assessment of the principal negotiation issues. We are pleased that the indications are that both sides wish to approach these talks constructively and we look forward to negotiations beginning when the time comes.
Lord Dykes (CB)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Bearing in mind the importance from now on of very close relations with another leading member state—France—and the importance of trade negotiations, will the Government make an effort to have close relations with it in the context of national member states and their responses to the Brexit negotiations to make sure that, even if the Government cannot go as far as accepting the wise advice of Mr Macron when he came to London last February, they will make every effort to make sure that we have a good outcome?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I thank the noble Lord for that question. He will not expect me to comment on individual elections in other European member states, but your Lordships can rest assured that my ministerial colleagues and I are doing all we can to have relationships that are as cordial as possible and to build the atmosphere of trust that we wish to see before the negotiations begin.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the amount of parliamentary time that will be lost thanks to a general election and whether that can be added back in, so that there is adequate parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiations, given that the limit for the negotiations is two years and we are going to lose about two months?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I can assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords that there will be ample time for a debate about the matters before us, not just over the months to come after the general election but in the weeks before it—I am sure everyone is looking forward to it. As regards the time lost, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that, as I understand it, the General Affairs Council will not adopt the Commission’s draft negotiating guidelines until 22 May at the earliest. Therefore, political negotiations will not begin before early June. As the Commission has said, those negotiations will begin after the general election on 8 June.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, on the election, as TV’s Mrs Merton famously asked Mrs Daniels, “So what first attracted you to the millionaire Paul Daniels?”, perhaps I could ask Mrs May, “So what first attracted you to an election when you were apparently 20 points ahead in the polls?”. However, the Question in front of us is about Europe. We need an exit that assures access to the single market, a continuing relationship with Euratom and the other agencies, and protection of the rights of EU nationals. Some of these might require some involvement with the ECJ. Does the Minister not think that this is something the Government might now look at, so that we can achieve those broader objectives?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I am delighted that the noble Baroness is looking forward to 8 June as much as a number of us are. I can absolutely assure the House that we are looking at options as set out in the Government’s White Paper. The Prime Minister, I and other ministerial colleagues have made it clear time and again that we wish to end the primacy of EU law once we have left the EU. As regards the specific issues, I have nothing further to add to what has already been set out in the White Paper.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
My Lords, given the complexity of the negotiation with the 27 other member states, does my noble friend agree that any attempts, from wherever they may come, to push the Government towards revealing their negotiating positions can only weaken those positions?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend speaks with considerable experience of negotiating in Europe, so I absolutely heed his remarks. As I have said time and again at this Dispatch Box, while ensuring that this House and the other place will have the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s negotiating position, it is of paramount importance, as my noble friend so rightly says, that we protect our negotiating position, as that is clearly in our national interest.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, is not the deeper problem that the Eurocrats are much more interested in keeping their sinking project of European integration afloat, because it pays them so well, than they are in meeting the needs of the real people of Europe, which are much the same as ours?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord has his own unique way of saying things and not mincing his words. I think we can be sure about that. It is in all our interests, on this side of the channel and right across Europe, to ensure that the withdrawal negotiations work in both our and Europe’s interests, and to ensure that our exit is smooth and orderly and that we continue to trade with our European partners as we have done for generations in the past. That is the overriding intention, and it is good to see that so many of our European partners are saying similar things as we speak.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, on the subject of making the best use of parliamentary time, would it not be a good start after the general election if every party in this House accepted the results of the referendum?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My Lords, that would be a very good thing. As the Prime Minister has said, this party and this side of the House will be setting forward a clear approach to those negotiations to ensure that we get the very best deal for this country in the months ahead.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister agree with the CBI assessment that we will have to establish the equivalent of 34 domestic agencies to replace EU agencies when we withdraw—if we do—from Europe? Has any assessment been made of that and, in particular, of the cost of funding 34 agencies?
Lord Bridges of Headley
The noble Lord makes a good point. Considerable work is being undertaken by my department and right across Whitehall regarding the impact of our withdrawal on UK regulators and regulatory bodies. I shall not go into detail on that at this precise juncture, but noble Lords should rest assured that in the months ahead, were a Conservative Government to be returned, we would ensure that those plans are set out.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for using the word “partners” so regularly. Would he remind certain Members of your Lordships’ House, including the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, that we are talking not merely to Eurocrats but to companions and friends in 27 other European nations?
Lord Bridges of Headley
My noble friend makes a very good point. As I have said before—indeed, a moment ago—it is absolutely in our interests to ensure that these negotiations are not only in our mutual interests but also smooth and orderly. It is in no one’s interest to see Europe’s prosperity or security diminished as we leave the EU.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, would the Minister care to confirm, as he has in the past, that accepting the result of the referendum does not have to imply not scrutinising what comes after?
Lord Bridges of Headley
I have enjoyed the debates that we have had in this House, and I have said many times that obviously this House and the other place will have a considerable role to play as we leave the EU in scrutinising the Government’s proposals, the way ahead and the significant pieces of legislation, not least the great repeal Bill, that Parliament will be asked to pass.
Nuclear Energy: Small Modular Reactors
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Hanworth
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress has been made in assessing the submissions to the Small Modular Reactors Competition, and what steps are being taken to dispose of the nation’s stocks of high-grade plutonium.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, last summer officials met with all eligible small modular reactor competition participants to discuss their proposals. We will communicate next steps for the SMR programme in due course. Significant work is already under way to assess the options for the long-term disposition of the UK’s civil plutonium inventory. The different technologies have varying degrees of maturity, and more work is required to enable the UK to assess, select and subsequently implement the preferred option.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer. I am glad to hear that the second stage of the competition is forthcoming. The competition has been a confusing affair. It has been inhibited by the rules that prevent the Government engaging directly with competitors. The decision on how to handle our stocks of plutonium has been held in abeyance for many years. Is it true that the Government are now disregarding the possibility of using plutonium to fuel a fast reactor such as the PRISM or the CANDU reactors, and that they are favouring subterranean disposal? My essential question is this: when will the Government recognise the need to adopt a strategic plan for our nuclear industry that is supported by the necessary government funds?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the Government’s position is clear on how to deal with the plutonium inventory that we have accumulated over many years: the NDA has been set up with the funds to assess the two broad options, which are either to reuse plutonium or to store it safely.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Windsor Energy Group. Does my noble friend agree that the SMRs hold out one of the best paths for the development of cheaper but also safe nuclear power, and probably perform better than the existing vast creations and structures that have been built today? Does the competition cover not only the conventional SMRs but the other technologies, including stable salt reactors which offer an even cheaper and safer form of nuclear power? They are now being developed and taken up by the Canadians and may be the way forward for us as well.
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, the honest answer is that we simply do not yet know whether small modular reactors will represent a cheap source of low-carbon energy for the future. We just do not know what the economics are, which is why in due course we will be publishing a technical and economic evaluation, based on assessing the 32 proposals that have been put to us for SMRs. The only truthful answer at the moment is that the jury is still out.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that different designs of SMR require different levels of fuel enrichment, and that that brings into play proliferation issues. Can he explain what thoughts and conversations are going on about proliferation and how the UK will continue to pursue non-proliferation issues when we summarily remove ourselves from Euratom?
Lord Prior of Brampton
My Lords, clearly, in any assessment of new SMR technology, safety and non-proliferation will be crucial. The regulatory and policy aspects of developing SMRs are very much at the front of the Government’s mind.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, I speak as a proud former Rolls-Royce engineer and, as a result of my employment, a Rolls-Royce shareholder. Given the news that the EU is now excluding the UK from new collaboration, the growing evidence of the challenge of financing major nuclear power station development and the importance of low-carbon energy technologies to global decarbonisation, does the Minister agree that our exit from the EU provides an excellent opportunity to support UK technology and jobs—including in the steel industry, which we will be talking about tomorrow—and to address a major global export market through government support for the Rolls-Royce-led small modular reactor programme? I suggest that that would be a great feelgood message for after the election.
Lord Prior of Brampton
As the noble Baroness knows, Rolls-Royce is one of the 32 companies which have submitted a proposal. There is no doubt that if we could build SMRs on a modular basis, much of the work could be done in the UK. We may have lost out in the race to build big nuclear plants, but companies such as Rolls-Royce and others in the UK could compete effectively on SMRs and we could then export them around the world. But there is no point embarking on that new technology until we are sure that it can deliver low-carbon energy at an economic cost.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, there seem to be huge benefits in moving down the route of small modular reactors. The Minister will be aware that, notwithstanding the efforts of my leader, the Navy runs a huge number of nuclear reactors. When those nuclear submarines are plugged into the national grid, does the MoD get money back for the electricity being put into the national grid?
Lord Prior of Brampton
I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord is announcing yet another Labour Party policy: that in future, Polaris submarines will, instead of firing Trident missiles, be plugged into the national grid, but it is something to conjure with. In principle, the way that the grid will be supplied in future will enable those supplying it, whether through SMRs or other ways, to be properly remunerated.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, we will take the Cross Benches.
Lord Broers
My Lords, does the Minister realise that this is a very competitive industrial situation? We cannot go on procrastinating. In engineering matters, there is never 100% certainty. We must step forward and take a risk on this, to my mind.
Lord Prior of Brampton
The noble Lord makes the good and strong point that you can never be 100% sure, but you have to assure yourself that there is a route to market before you embark on a major new capital investment.
Arrangement of Business
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make a short Statement on this week’s business, which I hope will be of convenience to the House. It will not have escaped noble Lords’ attention that there were several developments last week. On Tuesday morning, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced her intention to invite the House of Commons to agree to an early Dissolution of Parliament to allow for a general election on Thursday 8 June. The other place did so emphatically last Wednesday. Following that decision, in consultation with the usual channels, the Whips’ Office issued a revised Forthcoming Business last Thursday, which included a number of changes to this week’s business to reflect the fact that the end of this Parliament is nigh. I am grateful to the usual channels for their constructive co-operation in this matter.
In a moment, my noble friend the Leader of the House will invite the House to agree to the Motion, which is a standard feature of what we know as wash-up at the end of a Parliament, to ensure that the remaining business can be considered this week, in the way indicated in Forthcoming Business. The majority of the remaining business will be the consideration of reasons or amendments from the Commons in the normal way, to the timings indicated in Forthcoming Business. This week’s business includes two Bills that are on their way to us from the Commons—the Finance (No. 2) Bill and the Northern Ireland (Ministerial Appointments and Regional Rates) Bill. It is proposed that both Bills go through their substantive stages in this House on Wednesday. It is also proposed that the Third Reading of the Criminal Finances Bill immediately follows the conclusion of its Report stage tomorrow.
Finally, subject to the progress of the remaining business, we expect to be able to prorogue at the conclusion of this Thursday’s business. I will update the House further as necessary, as the week progresses.
Business of the House
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That Standing Orders 40 (Arrangement of the Order Paper), 42 (Postponement and advancement of business) and 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the end of the Session so far as is necessary to allow Her Majesty’s Government to arrange the order of business.
Immigration Act 2016 (Consequential Amendments) (Biometrics and Legal Aid) Regulations 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 March be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before the House makes consequential amendments to two pieces of primary legislation. The first is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, also known as LASPO. The second is the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. These amendments are necessary for the commencement of the new immigration bail powers under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016.
LASPO is being amended in respect of access to legal aid for individuals liable to detention. The Immigration and Asylum Act is being amended in respect of the collection of fingerprints from some individuals in connection with the conditions of their immigration bail. The intention behind the amendments is to maintain the status quo for when legal aid may be accessed and when fingerprints may be taken. This statutory instrument is before your Lordships in the context of the commencement of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. When commenced, Schedule 10 will create a new status of immigration bail to replace the complex legal framework under the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of individuals liable to immigration detention.
There are currently a total of six legal statuses relating to bail or release for individuals liable to immigration detention under the 1971 Act. It may be useful to noble Lords if I were to list these. They are: temporary admission or release, under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2; bail, under paragraph 22 of Schedule 2; bail, pending appeal, under paragraph 29 of Schedule 2; bail, pending removal, under paragraph 34 of Schedule 2; bail, pending deportation, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 3; and release on restrictions, under paragraphs 2(5) or 4 of Schedule 3.
Under Schedule 10, these six statuses will be simplified to one single status of immigration bail. This statutory instrument makes the necessary amendments to harmonise the legal framework surrounding release from detention, such that it complements the new system that will be introduced upon commencement of Schedule 10. It follows that the reason for this statutory instrument being before the House today is so that commencement of Schedule 10 can progress smoothly. These changes to primary legislation are necessary to enable the new bail regime to function.
The LASPO amendments are being made to ensure that access to legal aid for immigration bail is neither narrowed nor widened following the commencement of Schedule 10. Indeed, when Schedule 10 is commenced, the provisions to which LASPO refers will be repealed. As I have already made clear, this means that changes to LASPO are required. The changes I refer to are in relation to paragraphs 26 and 27 of Schedule 1 and I will provide some further detail in this respect. Paragraph 26 provides for a person who is temporarily admitted to the UK to be eligible for legal aid. Paragraph 27 provides for a person who has been released on restrictions to be eligible for legal aid. This statutory instrument amends both those paragraphs to reflect the new legal framework under Schedule 10. We are also inserting a new paragraph 27A into the relevant part of LASPO. This does not represent a change of substance, but is a necessary change in order to ensure that those who are currently eligible for legal aid remain so. I ask noble Lords to note that paragraph 25 of Schedule 1 to LASPO does not need to be changed since it relates to people who are being detained. Those in detention are already eligible for legal aid in respect of bail; the move to immigration bail under Schedule 10 does not change this.
This statutory instrument also makes minor changes to the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and I will give some context. Schedule 10 will change the reporting conditions that can be attached to what will become immigration bail. Section 141 of the Act provides a power for an authorised person to take fingerprints from an individual in given circumstances. One such circumstance concerns individuals who have been refused leave to enter but who, under current provisions, are temporarily admitted. The power is exercised if an immigration officer reasonably suspects that the individual might break the conditions of temporary admission relating to residence or reporting and must therefore have their fingerprints taken. Section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act currently refers only to a condition for reporting to the police or to an immigration officer. However, the new powers under Schedule 10 mean that immigration bail can instead be imposed, subject to a condition requiring a person to report to the Secretary of State or any other such person as may be specified. This statutory instrument makes the necessary amendment to reflect the new provisions.
In conclusion, the consequential amendments made by this statutory instrument are intrinsic to the smooth and orderly commencement of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016. The amendments ensure that the new power of immigration bail will not adversely impact on anybody. The amendments to LASPO mean that an individual who is subject to the new encompassing status of immigration bail under Schedule 10 will be treated no differently from the way in which they would have been treated had they fallen under one of the six discrete statuses under the Immigration Act 1971. At the same time, this statutory instrument ensures that biometrics will be taken from only the same cohort of individuals as before, in circumstances as outlined in the legislation. I commend this statutory instrument to the House.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to intervene in a narrow area. As I understand it, Section 141 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides a power for “an authorised person” to take fingerprints from an individual in circumstances as set out in that section. One of those circumstances concerns an individual who has been,
“refused leave to enter … but has been temporarily admitted under paragraph 21 of Schedule 2”.
The power is engaged,
“if an immigration officer reasonably suspects”
that the individual might break the conditions of temporary admission relating to residence or reporting. I understand that that group of persons is regarded as high-risk, and that is the justification for taking that action.
However, in the United States of America, under the US-VISIT programme run by the Department of Homeland Security, at least 10 fingerprints are taken. A digital photograph is also taken to log and register facial characteristics. That is done for a group of persons entering the United States who are considered a lesser risk than the group referred to in these regulations. To what extent should we widen the amount of information that is held in the United Kingdom, which is described generally in the regulations as simply fingerprints? The regulations do not describe how many fingerprints are taken but refer merely to fingerprints. Should not the regulations be widened to cover a more comprehensive acquisition of information in the way that I have suggested? Will the Minister give us more information on precisely why we are not going down the more comprehensive American route? Are we absolutely convinced that the amount of data we are collecting is satisfactory and adequate in the circumstances?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, the regulations before us are not in themselves controversial. As the Minister outlined, they make relatively minor changes in respect of provisions contained in the Immigration Act 2016, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 and LASPO. I have read the regulations and the Explanatory Notes and am content that the Government have the required powers. As I said, these are relatively minor changes. No concerns have been raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised an interesting point. I look forward to the Minister responding to it. Paragraph 7 in the Explanatory Notes is particularly helpful as it sets out the policy background and why these regulations are needed. Therefore, I will detain the House no longer. I am content with the regulations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the two noble Lords who have spoken. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that these statutory instruments make consequential amendments to legislation. Legislation is constantly kept under review. As regards widening the scope of the measure, I cannot predict the decisions of a future Government, who may, of course, not be a Conservative Government. However, I am sure that a future Government will consider that measure when keeping legislation under review. At the moment, we have no plans to extend the current practice. Section 141 does not limit the number of digits from which fingerprints may be taken. However, officials who decide to take fingerprints must ensure that their actions are proportionate to the reasons why they are taking them.
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 March be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2017 was laid in Parliament on 20 April. I am very grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its very valuable advice. The council’s recommendations have prompted the order before you today.
This order relates to three groups of substances. The first is the synthetic opiate known as U-47700; the second consists of 12 methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances; and the third is etizolam and 15 additional designer benzodiazepines. The effect of this order is to insert these 29 drugs into Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act. This will make it an offence to possess, produce, import, export, supply, or offer to supply these drugs without a Home Office licence.
U-47700 is a synthetic opiate which was originally developed as a research chemical but has found no legitimate use. It is reportedly 7.5 times more potent than morphine. The order will insert U-47700 into Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Act as a class A drug, due to its high addiction potential.
On methylphenidate-related new psychoactive substances, the injecting of ethylphenidate, an amphetamine-type stimulant, was considered a public health issue in Edinburgh in 2015. Following ACMD advice, ethylphenidate and six similar substances were placed under a temporary class drug order. This temporary class drug order was relaid in 2016 for a further year, and the ACMD has now advised that these substances, plus an additional five related substances, be controlled under the Act. The order will insert these methylphenidate-related NPS into Part 2 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class B substances.
On etizolam and designer benzodiazepines—saying these things correctly is always a test for a Minister at the Dispatch Box—the abuse of benzodiazepines has been well known, and as such, many of these are controlled under the Act. The ACMD had become aware of increasing reports of the harms caused by designer benzodiazepines—those which are not licensed medicines in the UK but imported specifically for their psychoactive effects. Of particular concern was etizolam, which is related to a number of deaths in Scotland. The order will insert etizolam and the further 15 designer benzodiazepines into Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Act as class C substances.
Etizolam has been identified by some countries, including Italy, as having some therapeutic benefits, so the Government have asked the ACMD to keep its scheduling under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 under close review. There are no legitimate or recognised uses of any of the other substances before your Lordships today beyond potential research. For these reasons, my honourable friend the Minister for Vulnerability, Safeguarding and Countering Extremism accepted the advisory council’s advice that these substances should be subject to the order before you today. It is intended that two further related statutory instruments will be made to come into force at the same time as the order to add these substances to the appropriate schedule to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and to the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) Order 2001.
This order, if made, will provide enforcement agencies with the requisite powers to restrict the supply and use of these harmful substances in this country. It will also provide a clear message to the public that the Government consider these substances to be a danger to society. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I am supportive of the order before us this afternoon. I will not be attempting to pronounce any of the names in it. I have carefully read the order and the Explanatory Memorandum and am content to agree it. The Explanatory Memorandum is very helpful, particularly section 7, which sets out the policy background.
It is worth noting that the drugs are being permanently listed as controlled substances in each of the classifications today—namely, class A, class B and class C—on the advice of the independent experts who make up the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. This is being done following a review they carried out, and they are the experts in these matters. It is also worth noting—again, this is in section 7—that in each of these classifications these drugs have led to the loss of life. I suspect that those affected are more likely to be younger people, and of course that is devastating for their families. Losing anyone at any age is terrible, but in circumstances where that could have been avoided it is all the more heartbreaking.
In conclusion, I am content to approve the order and, with the other measures that are in force with the police, the NHS and the community drug projects, I hope that it will go some way towards ensuring that the people responsible for bringing these substances on to the street are caught and punished, and that their operations are shut down. Then the people taking these substances can get the help they need to get off them and deal with the problems they have in their lives. I am very happy to support the order.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, I have to declare an interest in that my son suffered from benzodiazepines for several years and has only recently, mercifully, recovered from them. Therefore, I have been very well aware of this word.
I am delighted to hear the Minister say that the department is much more aware of the harmful effects of these legally prescribed drugs. However, is she also aware that a proposal has been put forward to the department on providing the minimum help of a helpline for people who are afflicted? This has been put on the table and, if she is not aware of it, she might be able to write to me about it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am most grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Lord for their very constructive comments, and I am very glad to hear that the noble Earl’s son is now in recovery. On his point about a helpline, a number of tools are certainly available to people through websites. I am trying to think of the name of the website—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That is it. FRANK is an aid to guide people—particularly young people—away from drugs and the consequences of their use. Helplines are available. I do not know the answer regarding the one to which the noble Earl referred but I can get him some information.
On that note, I thank noble Lords for their comments.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2017
(6 years, 11 months 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 20 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 that we are considering today, if approved and made, will provide further new powers for Greater Manchester, as agreed in the devolution deals, to support its programme of public sector reform.
The Government have of course already made good progress in delivering their manifesto commitment to implement the historic devolution deal with Greater Manchester. Since agreeing the first deal with Greater Manchester in November 2014, we have passed the Cities and Local Government Devolution Act 2016, followed by a considerable amount of secondary legislation in relation to Greater Manchester. In March 2016, we passed legislation to establish the position of an elected mayor, who will also take over the role of the Greater Manchester police and crime commissioner. The first mayor will be elected on 4 May this year and will hold a three-year term of office.
In December 2016, we passed legislation giving Greater Manchester new powers on housing, planning, transport, education and skills, some of which are to be undertaken by the mayor individually and others by the members of the combined authority collectively. On 24 March, following parliamentary approval, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service made two orders which transfer the functions of the Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Authority to the mayor on 8 May and the fire and rescue assets and liabilities to the combined authority, as well as abolishing the fire and rescue authority. They also set out the detailed operation of the police and crime commissioner function when it transfers to the mayor on 8 May, and they transfer the assets and liabilities of the police and crime commissioner to the combined authority.
The draft order we are considering today provides a further significant step for Greater Manchester. It gives effect to many of the further proposals for devolution on which Greater Manchester has consulted. If approved and made, it will enable the mayor to designate areas as mayoral development areas, subject to agreement from combined authority members, and require the mayor to prepare local transport policies and plans, subject to agreement from seven of the 10 combined authority members—this is a function currently undertaken by the combined authority collectively. It will enable the mayor to pay grants to local authorities, which is designed to support the mayor’s decisions around the use of the consolidated transport budget, and require the mayor’s vote to be carried in any decision relating to use of the “earn back” infrastructure fund. It will transfer the functions, assets and liabilities of the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal Authority to the combined authority and abolish the waste disposal authority on 1 April 2018. It will also provide the combined authority with the same powers to share information as the constituent authorities have in relation to crime and disorder, education and skills, and environmental issues.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I thought the Minister might have made a glancing reference to the present editor of the Evening Standard for his contribution in a previous life—well, not quite previous life, but shortly to be so—as the author of what is described as the northern powerhouse. Some of us, however, might regard it as something of a northern poorhouse in large parts of the area where there are very significant social problems.
The noble Lord referred to the consultation process, and it is certainly true that there was a process. I am not sure whether he is delighted with the response because, out of the 2.16 million people resident in the area, a grand total of 511 responded to the consultation—that is to say that there were 511 responses, although that does not necessarily mean 511 different people, since some of them may have replied to more than one of the propositions. It is not a matter that has apparently elicited any great enthusiasm in the area, although that does not necessarily disqualify the substance of the regulations from approval.
I would welcome comment on a specific issue. Paragraph 2.6 of the report that accompanies the order states that the Act will be amended to,
“provide that the Secretary of State may by order make provision for any function of a mayoral combined authority to be a function exercisable only by the Mayor and such an order may confer ancillary powers on the Mayor for the purposes of the exercise of general functions”.
On the face of it, that appears to give the Government the right to prescribe extra powers to the mayor without the agreement of the combined authority. Will the Minister say whether that is the case or, if not, assure the House and indeed the local authorities that that power is not to be exercised by the mayor without the consent of the combined authority?
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I have raised this question before, but I do so again in the hope that this time the Government will listen. If one investigates these orders, in every case local authorities are being given powers that devolve to them choices and decisions that are more suitable for people living in the area. However, the other characteristic is that they enable local authorities to think in a much more holistic way to bring together housing, transport and planning. Yet as far as I can see the Government themselves are not learning their own lesson about how they do things in the centre. We still do things in the centre in precisely the siloed way that we are trying to avoid when it comes to devolution. We are about to have a general election, and this is an ideal moment for the Conservative Party, as represented by the Minister, to say that in future it will reorganise government so that government thinks in a non-siloed way.
I was rather unhappy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, which were a little curmudgeonly. After all, many of us have been looking for devolution for a long time. We thought that that was the essential way to reconnect politics with people; what they see in their locality matters a great deal. However, when we started to think about it we recognised that there was not much point in doing that if we merely replicated the siloed system at the centre. If in this most recent essay in better democracy we come to the conclusion that holistic thinking is the answer, should we not learn that lesson ourselves at the centre?
I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that he will take from this House the message to those concerned with the production of election manifestos—I hope the party opposite will do the same—that we all ought to be concerned with holistic government. If we have started to think in that way in relation to local authorities, we should do it at the centre was well.
Lord Beecham
Does the noble Lord agree that restoring the regional offices of local government, which the previous Conservative Government instituted, would be a helpful way of achieving the objectives to which he referred and with which I concur?
Lord Deben
I do not really want to politicise what is, I think, a generally accepted view about one successful and agreed part of the devolution proposals that we have at the moment. Let us keep to where we can be united and seek to get this Government and this Opposition in their various forms at least to agree on this simple concept. Let us have holistic government and not divided government.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
We on this side support much of what is in the order. The extension of powers and functions to the mayoral authority in Manchester is to be applauded, especially as it moves some way towards those that are enjoyed in London. However, even in London, the decisions made by the mayor can be called to account by an elected body, the London Assembly. Manchester will have the leaders of the constituent councils, and a scrutiny committee will be formed from those constituent councils—that is all. No specific body will be elected for the purpose of calling the mayor and his decisions to account, but the more powers that are given to the mayoral function the more important that calling to account becomes.
The Minister has listed the significant powers that the mayor of Manchester is to have. They include policing, fire, strategic planning, transport and housing, and waste disposal is now added to that list. The only way in which the constituent members of the combined authority can call the mayor to account on the decisions and choices that he makes is via either the council leaders or a small scrutiny committee. I for one think that is inadequate, and I envisage a point further down the line when the mayor will make a controversial decision and local residents will ask themselves, “How did this happen? Who made the decision and why were we not involved?”.
That is the danger, which I would urge the Minister to consider and rectify at some point in the future, particularly as money is now involved. This has already been pointed out, but I will quote from Part 5 of the order, which relates to funding. It states that,
“the constituent councils must meet the costs of the expenditure reasonably”—
whatever that means—
“incurred by the Mayor in, or in connection with, the exercise of the functions specified”.
That, it goes on to describe, is regardless of whether the constituent councils agree, because there only has to be a majority decision among the leaders of those councils, which means of course that local taxpayers in one of the constituent councils could be asked to contribute to a scheme with which their leader does not agree. I find that quite disturbing. There ought to be a mechanism for reaching difficult decisions that enables all local councils to agree to them. That in my view means the kind of set-up that we have in London with the London Assembly.
Obviously there is much in the order about devolution that I agree with and that is right, because we will have a body with a strategic vision for the conurbation of Manchester. What is not acceptable in my view is the lack of democracy that attaches to that, and the dangers of investing all those powers in one person. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to these concerns.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I shall start with my usual declaration and refer the House to my interests in the register. I declare that I am an elected councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. The Greater Manchester Combined Authority order before us brings into force what I hope is the final part of the agreement. I feel that we always seem to be discussing the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in various forms and I hope that this is the last time we will need to consider it before the election itself.
I have no particular issue to raise on the order. My noble friend Lord Beecham raised an important point on consultation. We have now had a number of these orders and I think that it is fair to say that, for each one, the consultation responses, while I will not say they have been derisory, have not been overwhelming coming through the door. At some point the Government might need to look at how we are consulting people. These are quite big changes that are taking place and, if no one is engaging with the discussion on that, it will be something we shall all regret.
The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made some important points on the devolution of power. I support the devolution of power. If the noble Lord and I were agreeing the manifestos of our respective parties we would be absolutely fine and we would probably agree. But I have no role at all in the Labour manifesto this time, so we will have to see what comes up. The noble Lord and I would probably agree on many things.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have participated in the debate on this order on Greater Manchester. I will pick up first on the fulsome tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, to George Osborne—equalled only by the fulsome tribute made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to Tony Lloyd. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, it is absolutely right that George Osborne has been very firmly behind these proposals, particularly in relation to the northern powerhouse.
On the points the noble Lord made in relation to consultation, I appreciate the need for consultation and strongly support it. However, he will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which looked at this draft order, was content that every effort had been made in relation to consultation. I agree that it is a shame that more people did not respond: nevertheless, it is important to put that in context. Those who did respond, responded favourably in every single area that the consultation looked at, as the noble Lord is very generously indicating.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is right about paragraph 2.6 of the report accompanying the order. It is not anticipated that we will use this power to upset the balance of power within the authority. Perhaps I could write him more fully on that point.
On a general point made by many noble Lords on overview and scrutiny—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, stressed the importance of this—it is important to note that, in fairness to the authority here, all the deals are bespoke: each one is somewhat different. Greater Manchester has gone further on independence of members by ensuring that a member represents the constituent authority. The chair of any overview and scrutiny committee has to be of a party different from that of the mayor. That does not necessarily apply to the audit committee. That must have an independent member, but they need not necessarily be the chair. I applaud the authority for pushing for that—and the Government were of course very keen to accept it.
My noble friend Lord Deben spoke graphically and eloquently of the silo system of government. I have much sympathy with him on that point and will take it forward. He may have other avenues open to him—perhaps even further up the food chain than me—where he can perhaps convey that message to ensure that it is taken on board. It is a message that is heard loud and clear.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, for her general welcome for the draft order and the programme of devolution. I agree with her on the need for balance between the different parts of the devolution deal; that is, the councils represented by individuals on the combined authority, and the mayor. On expenditure, while I appreciate that the phrase “reasonably incurred” perhaps lacks a certain substance, the courts are familiar with dealing with it. However, I take the general point that the noble Baroness makes; it is a very fair one. I also take her point about the need to take everybody with you in so far as you can. I am sure that any mayor of Greater Manchester, whatever their party or whether or not they are independent, will want to ensure that that is the case, so that it is not simply a question of counting heads for majority rule.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, once again for his constructive approach, as always, on this issue and for the vignette on Millwall. No debate is complete without a vignette from the noble Lord’s borough, and I am very pleased to hear the news on that in any event. I agree with him on the importance of scrutiny and look forward, as he does, to the elections and to taking this important step forward in the way that we govern our country. With that, I commend the draft order to the House.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
I have a final question for the Minister; it is not a problem if he writes to me on it. Police and crime commissioners are limited to two terms. I assume that the mayor is not term-limited. Perhaps he could look at that and write to me, because it would obviously be a slightly different case when it came to looking at mayors of combined authorities, police functions and police and crime commissioners.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
I thank the noble Lord and will gladly write to him on that point.
UK Convergence Programme
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
That this House approves, for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, HM Government’s assessment as set out in the Budget Report and Autumn Statement, combined with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook and Fiscal Sustainability Report, which forms the basis of the United Kingdom’s Convergence Programme.
The Commercial Secretary to the Treasury (Baroness Neville-Rolfe) (Con)
My Lords, the major political events of the past few weeks have been the calling of a general election and the triggering by the UK of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, giving notice of our withdrawal from the EU. Given that background, today’s debate, which stems from arrangements and rules in essence designed to ensure economic convergence among EU member states, might at first glance look a little odd. But the oddity, if it exists, is on the surface only, and there is good reason for submitting the 2016-17 convergence programme before us. Most importantly, there is the fact that, until we leave the EU, we have all the rights and obligations of a member state. Of course, we continue to exercise our rights of membership in this period, and the document before us, which explains UK economic policy, especially in relation to maintaining stability and bringing down the deficit, is one such obligation.
In practice, drafting the paper was relatively straightforward, since it is based on the Spring Budget report and the OBR’s most recent Economic and Fiscal Outlook. I am sure that noble Lords who have examined it will have seen much familiar content.
I should draw to the attention of noble Lords one detailed but vital point. It is the Government’s assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position, and not the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House. There is one further point which I should stress now. It is that, as the UK is outside the eurozone, we cannot be subject to any sanctions under the EU fiscal rules encompassed in the stability and growth pact of which the convergence programme forms part.
It may be helpful to the House if I provide a brief overview of the information that we have set out in the UK’s convergence programme, even though much of this will be familiar. Perhaps the most pleasing point is that in March 2017 we were in a better position economically than many—indeed, most—had predicted. The IMF recently revised up its 2017 growth forecast for the UK by 0.5 percentage points and growth in the second half of 2016 was stronger than the OBR anticipated in the Autumn Statement. In fact, last year the UK grew faster than most other advanced major economies, with near record employment, too. The deficit has also been reduced. Overall public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP is predicted to fall from 3.8% last year to 2.6% this year. It is then forecast to be 2.9% in 2017-18 and to fall thereafter to 0.7% in 2021-22—its lowest level in two decades.
As a consequence of all this, we are forecast to meet the EU’s 3% stability and growth pact target this year, for the first time in almost a decade. Accordingly, the UK will cease to be subject to the EU’s excessive deficit procedure. Although we are leaving the EU, this is good news. We are within sight of bringing to a halt the increase in the national debt as a proportion of GDP. Nevertheless, at nearly 90% of GDP, the Government believe our debt level is too high. That is why they set out fiscal rules that combine the flexibility to support the economy if necessary in the near term with a long-term objective of returning the public finances to a sustainable position.
The OBR forecasts that business investment will remain subdued as we begin the period of negotiation with our EU friends and partners. It continues to judge that, in the medium term, growth will slow due to weaker growth in consumer demand as a consequence of a rise in inflation. Accordingly, putting the public finances in good order will remain vital for the foreseeable future, all the more so given that the deficit remains too high and that there is a range of risks in the global economy. That is why we are getting ourselves into a position of readiness to handle difficulties of any kind that might come our way.
Our fiscal rules, which enable us to do that, strike the right balance between reducing the deficit, maintaining flexibility and investing for the long term. Our Autumn Statement and Spring Budget set out our plans to build on recent economic growth and our strong employment record, and indeed to raise productivity, which has been disappointingly weak over a long period. We are taking action to improve skills, to give more children the chance to go to a good school, to support the care system and the NHS, to drive innovation and to invest in infrastructure and digital. We have consulted on a Green Paper about an industrial strategy aimed at delivering a high-skilled, productive, competitive economy that benefits people in all parts of the UK. Sound public finances are an absolute necessity to make this happen and to provide the level of public services we all wish to see. That is essentially what the convergence process is about.
To conclude, following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit it to the Council of the European Union and to the European Commission. Doing so also provides the EU with a useful framework for co-ordinating fiscal policies. A degree of fiscal policy co-ordination across countries can be beneficial to ensure a stable global economy, which is of course in our own interest. The UK has always taken part in international mechanisms for policy co-ordination, such as the G7, G20 and OECD. Although we are leaving the EU, we will continue to have a deep interest in the economic stability and prosperity of our European friends and neighbours. We will also continue to play our part in this process while we remain an EU member, and we will play our part in other international policy co-ordination processes once we have left the EU. The Government are committed to ensuring that we act in full accordance with Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, and I ask this House to approve the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister made the best fist of a pretty thin case. First, it is somewhat absurd that we are debating and seeking to put through a Motion on the issue of convergence just at the point when the Government have set their sails in the opposite direction, away from any convergence as far as their direct relationship with the European Community is concerned. At least the Minister in the other place, when pressed on this particular obvious sailing point, said, “Well, I don’t really think the issues of convergence affected government policy a great deal”. It is quite clear that the Government have had their own agenda for the economy and have pursued it with considerable rigour, at particular cost to sections of our population—and, I might add, to the economy as a whole. But the issue of convergence certainly did not rank particularly highly in that agenda and the Government, I imagine, can therefore begin their approach to the question of Brexit untrammelled with any regrets that no British Government will have to face up to this issue in the future.
The Government are making much at this stage of economic growth over the last year and a half, with the prediction that it might last a little longer. That is against a background where their record on economic growth was close to catastrophic. They presided over the slowest recovery from a recession in more than 100 years and followed the worst policies for getting the country back on to an even keel. What has this meant? Their target was 2015, which was two years ago. They were meant to hit their target in 2015 but we now have a revision under a new Chancellor, who has slightly more elastic concepts on how rigorous an onslaught should be pursued on the debt position. He is saying that it may be the early 2020s but has not made too great an assurance about that. What would your Lordships say normally to anybody who had promised that they would bend every sinew to producing a position where they got out of debt in five years, and then after seven years said, “We haven’t made it—in fact, we are only half way there and we don’t think we’ll be able to do it for another five years anyway”? It suggests that there is a slight flaw in the Government’s thinking on how well they have done with the economy over the last few years.
The other dimension of it is quite clear: the absence of growth has reduced significantly the receipts to the Exchequer and made the Government’s onslaught on public expenditure even more savage. The Government boast about the fact that they have been conducting their position on public expenditure with a real sense of fairness. Tell that to the disabled. Tell that to the families where children are entering poverty in numbers that we have not seen for two decades. Tell that to the people who are seeing benefits for those in work cut at the levels which they are by this Government. That is to say nothing about what I hope the Government recognise is a crisis in the health service, or about the problems we have with regard to welfare and in particular with care for the aged. It says nothing about the real problems of so many in our community, who depend upon government handouts not because they are idle and have brought things upon themselves but because they live in a society, and an economy, in which it is difficult for them to earn sufficient to sustain their living standards. Yet the Government are busy eroding any support which they enjoy.
Let us turn as well to the question that the Government always emphasise as such a significant achievement: levels of employment. What kind of employment is it? It is no coincidence that when the Minister says that we have made painfully little progress—I am not sure whether she used quite that adverb but she was generous enough to concede that progress on productivity has been limited in recent years—it is a direct reflection of the employment conditions of so many of our people. Far from them being engaged in enterprises alongside employers who are seeking to promote the work, to engage the workers constructively and perhaps even from time to time to listen to them on how work could be done better, we have the exact antithesis. We have people on zero-hours contracts with no commitment to the company at all, apart from the hope that they will be able each week to sustain enough hours in work to keep their living standards.
What employers have been doing is worse. There are appalling examples. They have been saying to such people, “Sling your hook”. That phrase comes from dockers in the 19th century who turned up for work with their hook and if not so many were needed or those who were needed were carefully selected, they rest had to sling their hook, go away and receive no remuneration or sustenance of living standards. It is not surprising that the late 19th-century state had to react to that situation in the face of such discontent. The Government may feel that they are not presiding over a period of such discontent at this time. That may partially be because so many of the people who are in that position have no voice. They have no voice because the very vulnerability of the work they do renders them unable to challenge.
What does this all mean? It means that the Government are now engaged upon Brexit, which will dominate all political and economic debate for a considerable period ahead. What is conspicuous about Brexit—I hope the Minister may at least own up to this fact—is that the Government had absolutely no plans to cope with Brexit and had not anticipated that the vote might go that way. If they did anticipate it, they are very culpable for leaving us in this position, where it is quite clear that our negotiating position is a good deal weaker than it ought to be. The Government keep on saying that we are out on a deep, wide ocean and that we can greatly increase our trade with others whom we have neglected in the past. I have not noticed the British economy neglecting markets in the past. Our problem is being able to be sufficiently competitive to win them. We are walking out on the largest market of all. Whenever the Government mention the United States, India or China, do they not realise that trade with those countries adds up to only a fraction of that which we enjoy at present under the framework of the European Community? That is the nature of the risk being taken.
I realise that this is a straightforward Motion today. There is no question of the Opposition not seeing that we make a last gesture towards convergence, which is required of us as long as we are a member of the European Community, which we are at present. Underpinning it all—and this is what this Government have to face up to—is the basic weakness of their economic position. That may not worry Ministers in this House too much because, although they would probably like to continue in office, it is not quite as serious a threat as that to Ministers at the other end who have to retain not just their office but their seat as well. The confidence of Ministers in the other place may be shaken somewhat, and therefore, although I have indicated that the Opposition support this Motion, I offer some warnings as to the future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
First, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, for supporting the Motion and for filling the void in a debate with few participants today. I suspect he will not be surprised to learn that I do not agree with his cynicism. We have our own economic policy of course in this country, and as I tried to explain, the work to bring deficits down is important from both a European Union and a UK point of view, and we have made progress. It has been difficult, not least because of the legacy—the mess—that we inherited on the economic side, but since 2010 our economy has grown by 14.6%: faster than Germany’s and twice as fast as France’s. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have had good news recently from the IMF, and indeed the CBI published strong figures today. The deficit has been cut by almost two-thirds from a post-war peak of 8.8% and, as he acknowledged, employment is up, by nearly 2.8 million. The employment rate is at a record high of 74.6%.
This is, in my experience, the envy of other member states in Europe, alongside the small business creation that we have also managed to oversee. Our labour laws are strong, and will remain strong, but they also allow different types of employment which have helped us in this country to grow and to innovate. The rise in employment is not all in lower-paid or unskilled jobs. Three-quarters of the rise is in higher-skilled occupations. Zero-hours contracts have a part to play in a modern, flexible labour market, as we have debated before. They are also a small proportion of the workforce—2.8%. We have invested for the future and are at last tackling productivity in a comprehensive way, something which I am certainly very engaged in.
I do not think there is any point in us arguing about Brexit, but I am clear that our bold and ambitious plan offers this country a great future.
As I stated in my opening remarks, following this debate, and with Parliament’s approval, the Government will inform the Council of the European Union and the European Commission of our assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position. This is a legal requirement under the EU’s stability and growth pact, and the information we present is based entirely on information and documents already presented to Parliament and, in the main, debated. That includes the Budget we set out this spring, which upholds our economic stability, invests in the future and keeps the UK on a clear path to prosperity over the long term. The foundation of all those things lies in our work to improve the national finances, and that is the basis of the convergence programme that we are, this month, presenting to the EU. I am pleased to commend this to the House.
Air Quality
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat, as a Statement, an Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place.
“This Government are committed to making sure that ours is the first generation to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. As part of that, I am personally deeply committed to the importance of clean air. I can tell the House that since 2011, the Government have announced over £2 billion to help bus operators upgrade their fleets; support the development and take up of low-emission vehicles; reduce pollution from vehicles such as refuse trucks and fire engines; and promote the development of clean alternative fuels. In addition, in the Autumn Statement, we announced a further £290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis, and alternative fuels.
Our actions have enabled the UK to make significant progress on improving its air quality since 2010. We now have lower emissions of the five key pollutants: volatile organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, particulates and nitrogen oxides. However, due to the failure of EU vehicle emission standards to deliver the expected improvements in air quality, the UK is among 17 European countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet meeting EU emission targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts of our towns and cities. We are taking strong action to remedy that. Since November my department has been working jointly with the Department for Transport to update the Government’s national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide. We have updated the analytical base for the plan to reflect new evidence, following the Volkswagen scandal and the failure of the EU’s regulatory regime to deliver the improvements expected on emissions. The plan adapts to these new circumstances by setting out a framework for action.
Following long-standing precedent, we have now entered the period of pre-election sensitivity that precedes elections. In accordance with the guidance covering both local and general elections, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office has told us that it would not be appropriate to launch the consultation and publish the air quality plan during this time. The Government have therefore applied to the High Court for a short extension of the deadline to publish the national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide so that we can comply with pre-election propriety rules. The Government are seeking to publish a draft plan by 30 June and the final plan by 15 September. The application will be considered by the court”.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given earlier in the other place. However, notwithstanding that the Government may wish to absolve themselves by sharing culpability across other EU member states, they were given their final warning, as was clearly stated in the court case brought recently by ClientEarth, and told that they should publish their proposals to comply with EU law within two months.
Despite the argument that the purdah period on government announcements may start from a vote in the other place to undertake a general election, this announcement of government intentions could be said to be a matter of public health. I am sure the thousands of Britons at risk from diseases caused by air pollutants such as fine particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ammonia, and the businesses that will suffer lost working days from pollution-related illnesses, would agree that this is a public health issue and that an announcement is desperately needed. Will the Government not consider that an announcement on public health grounds could be made that would then comply with the court and negate any application for an extension?
It would be futile to ask the Government any further questions, as the Minister may well invoke purdah in all his replies. If I may, however, I will tempt him further by asking whether a new clean air Act would not be required to give citizens new rights to breathe unpolluted air and rectify the situation across all the responsible culprits.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On his last question, I can say that we believe the legislative framework exists to deal with these matters, and therefore a separate clean air Act is not necessary because they can already be dealt with.
On the issues at hand, we have been advised that there are very strong requirements vis-à-vis purdah. However, I say to the noble Lord and indeed to all noble Lords that we will ensure that this short delay in the timetable will not result in a delay in the implementation of the plan. It is precisely to deal with the purdah issue, relating to both local government and the general election, that we have given the dates by which we want to publish this report. Obviously it is in everyone’s interests that we publish, and we want to work in partnership. That is why we are working with the devolved Administrations and the Mayor of London, and indeed we are working with many cities that have this acute problem which we need to address.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, this is clearly a public health crisis, with 40,000 people dying prematurely in the UK every year because of air pollution and many more suffering from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The reason that the Minister has given why this needs to be delayed does not stand proper scrutiny, because here we face a genuine public health crisis, which is a legitimate reason for the purdah rules to be put aside. Given that the department has shilly-shallied about producing its 25-year plan for the environment, it is very good at talking the talk on protecting the environment, but it is not good at walking the walk.
I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that after Brexit, when we no longer have the European Union obligations, we need firm air quality targets in UK law to hold the Government to account? Secondly, what comfort can the Minister give to both parliamentarians and the public on the question that, in the absence of the European Union, there is no alternative to costly judicial reviews for the public to hold the Government to account on the crisis of air pollution?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords I do not think that the facts bear out what the noble Baroness said. In fact, it was during a Government in which her party was in coalition that £2 billion of taxpayers’ money was diverted: £400 million for ultra-low-emission vehicles, £600 million for the local sustainable transport fund, £224 million invested in cycling and more than £27 million since 2013 to retrofit and clean up more than 3,000 of the oldest vehicles. I hope that she would agree that that was a success during the time that her party was in coalition with mine. That is why £2 billion was diverted to that important subject.
On the question of how we will proceed, as I said, this is a short delay in the timetable, because we have purdah requirements. That is the advice that I have received. I fully acknowledge that this is a public health issue. That is one reason why considerable sums of money are being invested in it, why we will continue to do so and why we in the department very much want to bring forward these plans after the general election.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
Has the public health issue been part of the submission to the courts, because as well as adults, there is now strong evidence that atmospheric pollution impairs the development and growth of children’s lungs, which means that you are storing up big problems into the next generation? What have the Government done to ensure that enforcement powers are used when vehicles on the road are belching out pollutants because they have not been properly serviced or there is a fault? Quite a lot of them could be deemed as in the public service, including taxis, buses, and so on. Sometimes they are belching out vast quantities of grey, stinking smoke.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank the noble Baroness because that plays into why retrofitting is so important, why there has been investment since 2013 of £27 million to retrofit and clean up 3,000 of the oldest vehicles and why we have sought to introduce low-emission buses, taxis and alternative fuels. As I said, this is a very important issue which will need a partnership of us all, whether local authorities, the devolved Administrations, the Mayor of London or us, to mitigate. I have found it interesting how small features—the changing of a traffic light or turning engines off—can change pollution levels and create considerable advances.
Lord Higgins (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the problem of air pollution is greatest in London, and that the reality is that Transport for London has totally failed to deal with the issue? Indeed, it has made it a great deal worse, in two respects. First, it apparently has no authority to limit the number of minicabs. In fact, the extraordinary position emerges that no one has any authority to limit the number of minicabs. Does my noble friend agree that urgent action needs to be taken in that regard?
Secondly, there is the ludicrous way in which Transport for London has been building bicycle lanes. There is enormous congestion as a result of this, not only when they are being constructed but in the longer term. It is an appalling policy. I spend much of my time in Holland, where they do not have any problem with bicycle lanes operating properly without being blanked off in a way that prevents them being used in off-peak periods.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I shall ensure that my noble friend’s points are put to officials who meet fortnightly with GLA officials to discuss air quality. I think that that would be the best way forward.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is not the real problem, in London in particular, lorry emissions? Why do we not have a national programme of conversion of diesel trucks to LPG systems, because tests by Millbrook and HORIBA MIRA show that conversion of trucks to LPG leads to substantial reductions in carbon emissions and substantial savings by lorry operators, with a payback period of as little as 18 months? I have identified a firm called Quicksilver-AFI that has a system that is made for truck conversions, which is not too expensive, and which the Government could pump prime with public money, because the emissions from trucks are very much more substantial than from individual motor cars.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what the noble Lord said is extremely helpful. I have mentioned retrofitting quite a bit during this Question, but that is a point that I would like to take back, and I am most grateful to him.
Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review
(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McGregor-Smith
What action they are taking in response to the recommendations made in the report Race in the Workplace: The McGregor-Smith Review, published in February.
Baroness McGregor-Smith (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted today that we have time for this debate. Britain has been an extraordinary place to live and grow up in since I arrived aged two as part of a Muslim Asian family, but that is not to say that I did not face my fair share of challenges to achieve what I have in business because of the colour of my skin and my gender. Sadly, I am still considered the exception to the rule, rather than the norm. I find it appalling that, even today, some of these prejudices still exist, holding people from BME backgrounds back from reaching their full potential in the workplace, as my review clearly shows.
While there is a clear moral case for greater diversity, it is also vital for the continuing strength of the UK economy to have the best available talent in the workplace, whatever their background might be. My review puts forward that economic case for change. The boost to the UK economy is £24 billion a year if workers from BME backgrounds participate and progress at the same rate as their white counterparts.
The review finds that workers from a BME background are still being held back by the colour of their skin and are more likely to end up in lower-paid and lower-skilled jobs than white workers. One in eight of the working population today are from a BME background, yet only 10% of the workforce is BME, they hold only 6% of management positions, and rarely can they be seen at the top of any public or private organisation. Not only is this wholly unacceptable, but the public and the private sector are definitely shooting themselves in the foot by failing to help people from BME backgrounds to progress.
The review clearly demonstrates there is a huge economic benefit to both employers and the whole economy for BME workers to reach their full potential. Many employers are doing their best to harness BME talent, and I applaud those who take it so seriously, but many others are not, because they do not know what to do. That is why I have published a list of 26 recommendations, urging larger employers to lead the way in tackling barriers to BME progression.
First, I call on companies with more than 50 employees to publish breakdowns of their workforces by race and pay band, to draw up aspirational diversity targets and to appoint a board-level member to be held accountable for delivering on these. When I wrote to the FTSE 100 asking for race and pay band information, only 74 responded and only half of those had any meaningful data. That is, in itself, a real issue: if everyone does not publish data, the Government should legislate to ensure that they do. We should not hold out a lot of hope for this happening voluntarily. Companies have many priorities in these somewhat difficult times, and we will not get meaningful change unless this is done by all organisations whose employee numbers exceed 50. I urge that we legislate in this area very quickly.
Secondly, I want all organisations to use their purchasing power to ensure that they use suppliers that take this seriously. The public sector has huge spending power and this can be used far more effectively. We do not need another review to do this; we just need to change how organisations pre-qualify for work with the public sector. When taxpayers’ money is used, it should be done in a way that benefits all citizens in the UK. As the Government decide how best to disentangle themselves from a myriad of European rules on procurement, they must develop simpler processes that drive positive change in this area.
Thirdly, I want senior executives to take accountability for all of this and be the key sponsors for improving diversity in their organisations.
Fourthly, all employers must raise awareness of diversity issues by ensuring unconscious bias training is undertaken by their employees. They also need to have inclusive networks and provide mentoring and sponsorship.
Fifthly, all recruitment practices need to be examined. Non-diverse shortlists need to be rejected; diversity needs to be introduced to interview panels. How many BME individuals do we see on interview panels today? Work experience and internships need to be offered to everyone, not just the chosen few.
I also discussed a number of other key recommendations, including developing a simple guide on how to discuss race in the workplace—it is still so difficult for many of us to discuss it and I do not even feel comfortable talking about it today—and an annual list of the best 100 BME employers to celebrate success and promote best practice in the business community.
The Government, who asked me to carry out this review, are clearly taking this issue seriously, and I am encouraged that Margot James has created a new Business Diversity and Inclusion Group to bring together business leaders and organisations to co-ordinate action to tackle exclusion in the workplace. Many businesses also take this seriously and I was impressed by many of the case studies and examples of best practice that I saw.
I would now like everyone to adopt and embrace the recommendations and get on with implementing them. I am not keen for any more reports to be written: we just need to get on and change the outcomes for so many people who have great talent. They deserve to be not ignored in the workplace but supported. Let us help them achieve their aspirations and provide a significant boost to the UK economy.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I give heartfelt congratulations to my noble friend on the diligence, pragmatism and determination of her report. The evidence is excellently produced; I strongly endorse her conclusions—with minor modifications—and I am delighted that she has not overcomplicated it. As one would expect from an extraordinarily successful businesswoman, she has produced a coherent report that people can follow and take up its relevant practical points.
I have an inkling that race has never been an issue for my noble friend. She is a businesswoman, regardless of her ethnicity. It is interesting that many leaders who have achieved change have begun by avoiding, while not exactly denying, their own characteristics. It was often asked about the first woman Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher: “What did she do for women?”. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is blind, fulfilled an extraordinarily senior Cabinet position. I have never known my noble friend talk previously about ethnicity. I feel the same in my own career; originally, I would wear only a black, blue or grey suit, as one of 22 women in the House of Commons. However, there comes a moment when those of us who have broken through a barrier feel duty bound to stand up and help, support and give a pragmatic way forward, not just an aggressive rant.
With the current environment of Brexit, we need all the man and womanpower we can muster. There remains much too much evidence of underachievement from black and ethnic minorities throughout school, into apprenticeships and sometimes at university. Therefore, if we are to be competitive and fill jobs when migration is more difficult, we have an obligation as a country more than ever before to ensure that every individual is trained and developed to the maximum of their ability. It is still not right that there are so many more exclusions from black and ethnic minorities than there are from white children and that 6% of black school leavers attend a Russell group university, compared with 11% of white school leavers and 12% of mixed or Asian school leavers. As my noble friend said, race and ethnicity are sensitive subjects and much more complex than discussing women’s issues. Different racial groups have different experiences, cultures and backgrounds and are often treated in different ways or survive better in different ways throughout our welfare and national life.
I endorse the response of my honourable friend Margot James, the Minister in another place, where she talks about this being a business-led review. Many of these policies are for business to implement—business acting in its own enlightened self-interest. My noble friend has drawn on help from Business in the Community, where Sandra Kerr has been a great force over many years in this area; from the CBI; and from Professor Susan Vinnicombe, who did so much over 20 years to draw attention to the lack of women on boards; again, not by aggressive campaigning but by relentlessly putting the evidence in the face of boards, naming and shaming, and celebrating best practice. I am delighted that my noble friend has taken this approach in her report.
I am equally pleased that in their response the Government have taken up their responsibility to act not as a legislator over business but to demonstrate best practice as an employer. I support the areas where the Government have said that they are reluctant to enforce legislation now but, my goodness, I am pleased about what is happening in the National Health Service. If the National Health Service is the biggest employer in the country, how right it is that it should demonstrate best practice. When we spoke in this House about my noble friend’s report before she commenced it, I spoke about the work that I had done with the NHS in 1993, working with the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, talking with groups of people from black and ethnic minorities about their experience. I said then:
“I want to stress that taking action to promote equality in employment is not just a matter of moral justice or of fairness to people from minority ethnic groups. It is good, sound common sense, and it makes business sense too”.
It costs £230,000 to train a doctor. We want to be sure that every doctor’s training is well developed and they have the chance to get to the top. But why has it taken so long for those fine words, expressed in a heartfelt, sincere fashion, to translate into action?
That is why my noble friend is so right: this is not about words but action. I believe that those lessons are being learned. I am delighted that the chief executive of the NHS, Simon Stevens, himself chairs the NHS Equality and Diversity Council. A contractual requirement to drive race equality in the employment of NHS staff is written into the standard contract. Workforce data have to be published, as does information on the proportion of trust board members from BME backgrounds, the relative likelihood of BME staff being appointed once shortlisted, and on the importance of non-mandatory training and monitoring contracts. I say that because this is the Government acting as employer rather than imposing excessive rules and regulations on business. I very much hope that that will deliver a result.
Similarly, in the higher education field, if we are thinking about the pipeline and development, particularly of black and ethnic minority people such that they can fulfil their potential, all the way through we want to see people from black and ethnic minorities getting the best possible and fair opportunities. We know that in higher education there are all too few vice-chancellors from black and ethnic minorities—there are too few women but there are even fewer people from black and ethnic minorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Amos, as the vice-chancellor of SOAS, was the first black vice-chancellor, and I hope that there will be many more. However, we cannot ignore the lessons. The Equality Challenge Unit investigated the subject and came out with its recommendations last year. The House will be familiar with the themes: set up mentoring systems, formal and informal; ensure that there is representation and diversity on interview panels; set up BME networks within individual HEIs; and ensure there is access to relevant training. We hear these themes time and again, and have done for so long that people cannot now imply that they have not heard them.
There will be change only when this is owned at the highest level. Therefore, the connection with Sir John Parker’s report about ethnic diversity on boards last year is another part of the jigsaw puzzle, as my noble friend so rightly says. He points out that of the 14% BME population in this country,
“only about 1.5% of all FTSE 100 Board directors”,
are from black or minority ethnic groups. Again, we can look at the issues behind the process of recruitment—I declare an interest as somebody who has been involved in recruitment for many years. When we recruit, we tend to look in the mirror and not through the window. Inevitably, people recruit people who they know, like and trust. Many years ago, I kept appointing people to run NHS trusts who used to work for ICI. They were very good people; I did not even know that they had worked for ICI, but I kept doing it. Somebody said, “You know they are all from ICI, Secretary of State”, and I said, “My father worked for ICI in the early part of his career”. We appoint people from our university, from McKinsey, from BP—wherever your stable was, it is inevitable. Therefore, we have to go the extra mile to ensure that we have proper training to remove unconscious bias and ensure that people can genuinely fulfil their potential.
This is a generous-spirited country. We are going through the change of Brexit, and we have had real concern of late over hate crime; this is the moment to go the extra mile. My noble friend has helped to direct us in the right way forward.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I am delighted to be able to add my own support for and congratulations to those who have brought these issues before us today and that we have been able to squeeze this bit of business in before we all go our separate ways shortly. I therefore thank the noble Baroness for bringing the report here. Business-driven it may be, but I hope that my more humble contribution from my entire professional life, which has been lived in neighbourhoods, on streets and visiting people in their homes, and the rest of it, will add some light and give a wider context to the points being made.
Certainly, in the 40 years that I have been trying to be active in the field of better relations in communities, there has undoubtedly been progress, some of which has been enshrined in or has been stimulated by legislation brought through this Parliament. Things are not as they were. For all that, it is too early for us to congratulate ourselves. We have terrific panache in this country for being rather more subtle in the racism we deploy. I remember that at the beginning of my own career in the Church, we set up what were called racism awareness courses. All potential ministers were obliged to attend them. I was rather reluctant to do so as I thought myself a jolly good chap—the sort of person everybody would like to know. Through a systematic, well-organised and structured course, I was able to recognise just how subtly racism was embedded culturally in jolly good chaps like me—and it did not do me any harm to be made aware of that. At the end of the day, you can, from above, impose through targets, quotas or whatever as much of a desirable picture as you wish—but, until hearts and minds are changed and until people feel involved in a process, you have not really got to the nub of the problem.
Therefore, I was particularly interested in the sections of the report that dealt with culture and language. In the 40 years that I have been actively committed to these matters, I have never felt that there was a more urgent time for us to revisit them than now, when the question of immigration has been raised. Let it be said that it is a proper question, and that we must look at it as a society. It raises questions and, whatever side of the political divide we are on, we have to give it our very closest attention. However, the fact that it is one of the leading subjects of the day in our political discourse has unleashed some of the very racial attitudes that I have been describing. Linked to the question of immigration and the way we conduct the debate is an awful lot of terrifically dangerous and, I believe, unfortunate material. So it is time that we looked at this again: we must never be complacent in this area of our national life.
I happen to be the minister of a church that has people drawn from 55 national backgrounds. Over 20 languages other than English are spoken by the members of our congregation. Historically, Methodism is a white church, and here am I, a white man, as its minister. However, in our liturgical and other activities, in our social outreach and in our attempt to be useful in the community that we serve, we have to recognise that we must be very careful to develop, systematically, a team of leaders who reflect back to those in the congregation their own diversity. Having people in key positions from the range of ethnic backgrounds that constitutes our church is an important part of that. There is no point in me, as a white man, standing up there, cracking a whip and making things happen—even if it is for a cause which I passionately believe in and which can be shown to be just. We have to find colleagueship with people and establish a team that can take forward these matters and ideals.
In the work that I do locally in the field of education, we have all kinds of experiences, and I will share just one or two of them in the time left to me. In a moment I shall adduce the cases that I want to use for illustrative purposes, but I will preface those examples by saying what astonishingly brilliant young people there are from black and other ethnic minorities. They are people I have had the privilege of working with, and I have seen them develop, blossom and flourish. They are to be found, but I just wish that there was more of a flood of them.
Against that background, I want to talk about one or two things. For example, we have been able to establish a scholarship that gets seven children into a leading public school. A philanthropist has made the money available for that. He did not want people from the inner city to go in ones and twos, to be picked off in a rather self-satisfied environment. Therefore, seven go at any one time and some of them have done extraordinarily well. However, I have to say that on balance I am disappointed that they do not seem to end up in Russell group universities. I could discuss over a cup of coffee all sorts of reasons why that might be the case, but aspiration and the culture from which they come are as much a part of what eventuates as the experience of the education that we find it possible to offer them.
I have some responsibility for a secondary school for girls in east London, where 85% are from a Muslim background, mainly Bangladeshi, and wear the hijab to school. Only one girl from the whole of the sixth form ended up in a university that was not in London. Of course, they want to be at home in London and they will do brilliantly in those universities—nobody has anything against that—but somehow the limitation does not seem right: the community we are talking about is itself setting these targets and narrowing its vision, resulting in only one girl from the sixth form applying to a university outside London.
I will take as another example a young man with good A-levels who decided not to go to university. I took him out for a drink and asked him to tell me why. He said, “You will tell me that I could become a journalist or a lawyer or a teacher, that I could build my career and go places and be anybody I wish. I know that discourse—I have heard it. But where I come from there are quicker ways to make money”. He is a rather interesting young man who lives on the streets and he was absolutely serious; he was talking about drugs, crime, football, fame and music. I was totally astonished. I promise your Lordships that although that may be an aberrant example, and perhaps you might think I could have chosen a better one, it is nearer the bone than you would dare think.
Aspiration and culture among those who are waiting to be born in the way that is described in the report and in the remarks of the noble Baroness are part of what we must concentrate on and somehow get stuck into. We must give people the self-confidence to see themselves moving forward in the ways that I have described. I recognise that all that I have said is drawn anecdotally out of my experience, but it is experience that stretches back over 40 years and that has been lived out in our communities. I hope, therefore, that it will prove acceptable, for what it is worth.
Lord Kirkham (Con)
My Lords, to minimise the danger of repetition, the scourge of all debate, my contribution is based principally on my personal experience of more than 70 years as a UK-based born and bred citizen, more than 50 years of learning about, building and directing the affairs of UK retail businesses, and more than 25 years’ involvement with charities that are dedicated to improving the prospects of young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
I start by focusing on the absolute no-brainer business case for employing people from the widest possible pool of talent, a concept I think it is impossible to dispute with any credibility. The extensive retail experience I alluded to encompassed founding and running stores, regional chains and national retail organisations, and successful FTSE companies employing from fewer than 20 to more than 20,000 people. It is generally acknowledged that the best armies have the best soldiers and the best football teams the best players, and that yes, the best businesses employ the best people. So why would any company aspiring to long-term success and prosperity not recruit the very best staff and management it could afford, regardless of their race, religion, gender, age, sexual orientation, size, shape or anything else? There is no valid reason. Why would I or any retailer do any other, when the customers who cross the threshold of our stores are a cross-section of British society today—multiethnic, multicultural and multilingual, and with an equal variety in the depths of their pockets and in their tastes? It is basic kindergarten common sense to ensure that our businesses employ the very best management and staff, enabling us magnificently to fulfil our corporate aims. Clearly, having the widest choice of talent by recruiting from the biggest possible pool is an obvious and easy way of achieving this.
The business case and the moral case march hand in hand to say that no one should be overlooked for a job or for promotion because of where they were born or how they look and speak. But we can and should do more to help those from black and minority ethnic communities to present themselves as the best candidates for any job. That is not just a matter of qualifications but of attitude and, in particular, self-belief. My close involvement with charities that work tirelessly to help disadvantaged young people make the most of their life chances—the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and Outward Bound—have demonstrated to me how much can be achieved by helping the young to gain confidence, resilience and leadership skills. Many youngsters who benefit from these experiences are in fact from minority ethnic communities in our inner cities, and businesses that we work closely with can point to direct and tangible benefits from integrating the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award, for example, into their apprenticeship programmes.
Ultimately, the best way that we can reach the goal of everyone getting the best job that they can, limited only by their own talents and aspirations, is to ensure that they are the best they can be. We can do that through education and training in schools and voluntary organisations such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award and by changing attitudes permanently and raising ambitions so that no one thinks that any position is above or beyond them.
Positively influencing the developing attitudes of the young is undoubtedly the key to creating better workers without bias who will have the drive and determination to perhaps become tomorrow’s leaders. They will also be better parents and citizens. But making job applicants better can be only part of the story. As the noble Baroness said in her excellent report, we also need to change attitudes within business. We are all sadly familiar with the sentence that begins, “I’m no racist but”, and the speaker genuinely always believes what they say. But their bias, even if unconscious, is still there. Such attitudes have grown up over generations and it is not realistic to imagine that they can be changed overnight. In changing attitudes rather than simply actions, evolution trumps revolution every time. That has certainly been my experience, which is why the best way to achieve the fine objectives of equal opportunity and equal rewards is one that puts more emphasis on persuasion than on regulation.
I have been a marketeer all my life and I have been mightily impressed by the powerful and effective attitude-changing, long-term heavyweight marketing campaigns mounted by Governments in recent decades. I am going back a bit now, but if we take road safety as an example it was not just changing the law that made people wear seat belts but advertising on TV every night that helped persuade us of the benefits. Now “clunk, click every trip” is a given. Assisted by graphic and emotive advertising, Governments have achieved a huge impact in recent years in making smoking cigarettes socially unacceptable. Drink-driving, long illegal, is similarly becoming beyond the social pale as the closure of thousands of pubs bears witness. That is an outcome massively influenced by the Government’s hard-hitting multimedia marketing.
Those changes in attitudes may have taken time, but that will always be the case where bad habits and prejudice have deep and ancient roots. While we cannot dig out unconscious bias overnight, it is well proven that it can be done over time. I know from my own experience that not only can we enhance the performance of businesses in the UK, we can create a happy and more cohesive society by maximising diversity in both recruitment and promotion. The business and the moral cases could not be better linked or clearer and I urge the Government to push this message hard and relentlessly out there with all the conviction and marketing expertise that I know they have at their disposal. The sooner we start the better. As my noble friend Lady Bottomley said earlier, it is all about action not words.
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to speak in this debate and I congratulate my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith on what I think is an important and thorough review. Although much has improved over the past decade, reports like this shine a clear light on the fact that more needs to be done and it serves as a timely reminder to those in power that the foot cannot be taken off the pedal. I welcome many of the recommendations. I should also point noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register and say that my employer, BT, has invested heavily in this area and strives always to do better.
It is absolutely right that a simple guide should be developed on how best to discuss race in the workplace as well as ensuring easy access to an online portal and celebrating success through a list of the top 100 BME employers. The recommendation for further government collaboration with black and minority ethnic groups, relevant employer representatives and organisations such as Business in the Community is an important one, and I am pleased that the Government will be looking to work with businesses to ensure that they do all they can to fully embed changes within their organisations.
Equally, increased transparency and annual recording of diversity statistics for businesses with more than 50 employees are potentially good ways for companies to monitor what is really going on within their operations and to ensure that they are consciously acting properly in this regard, and just as importantly, making sure that they not operating on the “unconsciously biased” level, which has been referred to in connection with ICI recruitment. The review points out that that can be very common.
For businesses’ own knowledge, it is vital that they know exactly where they are on the spectrum of workforce diversity and where improvements need to be made. If you are serious about success, you have to track progress, and to track progress, you must have the figures.
Of course, social mobility and the inclusion of all in the workplace is first and foremost a moral issue, but the economic figures cannot be ignored. The review identifies the opportunity for an additional £24 billion into our economy each year just by realising the potential of BME workers alone. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I use this opportunity to pivot into another section of society that is woefully underrepresented in our workforce. We must ensure that we close the disability work gap and this is an essential piece of work if we are ever to ensure a fair and equal society for all. We must do all we can to make sure that disabled people can lead full and rich lives in the same way as non-disabled people would expect to, and what struck me while reading my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith’s important work is that many of the recommendations could also be applied to help improve the situation for this group of people.
The UK has one of the highest disability employment gaps in Europe. Disabled people in the UK are twice as likely to be unemployed as non-disabled people, and even more worryingly, once they are in work, disabled people are significantly more likely to experience unfair treatment than the non-disabled. I suppose that the statistic I find most shocking in this regard is that only 6% of people with a learning disability are in work, yet 65% would like to be. Here perhaps I may briefly read from a Mencap report: “Employers who overlook employees with learning disabilities miss out on valuable contributions to their businesses”. According to Mencap, “employing people with learning disabilities can improve perceptions of organisations. Employees with learning disabilities are committed to their jobs, which reduces recruitment costs and people with learning disabilities take fewer sick days than other colleagues”. So this need not be an act of sympathy and it is not about ethics, it is about real productivity and economics.
Can the Minister tell the House how closely his department has been working on a direct basis with disabled and BME people, and how integrated are its views on the problems it faces, as well as its ideas for solutions? As my noble friend points out in her review, possibly the most important piece in this policy puzzle is input from the very people it affects.
The term “work” is so much more than simply employment for any of us. It builds identity, confidence and supports independence. It is clear for both moral and economic reasons that the rate of employment among BME and disabled people, and indeed anyone who faces institutional barriers into work, needs to be put at the heart of all future employment growth strategies.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I apologise to the Chamber and to my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith for entering the Chamber just after she had started speaking. I thank her for bringing this important debate here and congratulate her on her excellent and well-researched review. My noble friend has been a champion of diversity for many years and deserves admiration for her dedication to ensuring that talent should flourish by bringing down barriers, rather than by imposing arbitrary quotas. This review looks at the real issues and the recommendations are practical and designed to overcome them. It looks at, among other things, improving transparency and unconscious bias. It considers the leadership and the prevailing culture of organisations. Most important is the title, as my noble friend made clear: The Time for Talking is Over. Now is the Time to Act—no more reports.
Understanding why black and minority-ethnic staff are not meeting their full potential and not rising to the top tiers of management is not a new issue. Organisations often demonstrate a desire to confront the challenges that exist to harnessing the talents of BME staff. As the Government’s response makes clear, the opportunity to generate a further £24 billion for the economy is compelling enough. The moral case is unquestionable. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister showed the Government’s commitment to the issue by launching the race disparity audit last August. However, while policy intentions are often clear, their implementation is often inconsistent, unco-ordinated and lacking in real drive and commitment. Many BME staff do not feel that they are operating on a level playing field. That is why there is a critical need for action.
This debate asks Her Majesty’s Government for their actions in response to the recommendations made in the report. As the Government’s response made clear, while the majority of the recommendations are for businesses, the Civil Service should lead from the front in taking positive action to make the Civil Service and, where possible, the wider public sector more inclusive. There is, of course, a lot of overlap in the barriers to be overcome. Change takes time, but the previous narrow focus on targets and quotas has failed to change the culture and has sometimes harmed the cause.
I was very involved with the Civil Service’s diversity plan when it was launched in March 2015 as the Talent Action Plan. Everybody loved to talk about diversity, yet the first draft of the diversity report submitted to my noble friend Lord Maude, then Minister for the Cabinet Office, was full of a lot of bland platitudes and arbitrary targets. More worryingly, it suggested a discriminatory approach that potentially conflicted with the core principle of recruitment into the Civil Service—that it should be on merit.
Our successful experience of increasing the number of women appointed to public boards had demonstrated that such quotas in isolation had failed to work. They failed to address the key barriers and obstacles that women faced. A key point in this instance was the insistence on track record and proven experience, which meant that the same candidates were constantly recycled from one board to another and did not allow new participants to enter. By replacing such a requirement with an emphasis on ability, we managed to expand the field of female candidates. We made other changes, such as the requirement that job advertisements should be written in intelligible English and make clear what exactly is required. It is not rocket science, but it made an enormous difference. I noted with interest that my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith made a similar recommendation in her report.
The results of our work on public appointments spoke for themselves. By 2016 the percentage of women being newly appointed to boards of public bodies rose from 34% in 2010 to more than 48%. Even the then Commissioner for Public Appointments Sir David Normington, who did not always rejoice in our reforms, paid tribute in his annual report. We therefore thought it would be sensible to apply a similar practical approach when tackling gender diversity in the Civil Service. In the interests of political impartiality, we commissioned the Hay Group to carry out a proper analysis of women in Whitehall. Its remit was to be brutally honest, to identify real problems and barriers, and to make practical recommendations. The final report was something of an eye-opener. It found that the policies were sound and progressive but that the culture and leadership climate prevented women progressing successfully into senior roles despite the fact that women entering the senior Civil Service possessed exactly the same required leadership qualities as men. Line-manager practice was variable, which meant that women’s experiences of leadership and talent were something of a lottery. Most critically, many women simply did not believe that the rhetoric on policy and promotions matched the reality on skills and behaviours.
I will not go into all the detailed findings but will highlight some of the more revealing. One woman described how she applied for a promotion but failed to get an interview. She was told that it was “because I would have performed better than the preferred candidate and it was his turn for promotion”. The leaders of the Civil Service were described as simply “not leading” and the culture was described as a “bear pit”. The Civil Service leadership was shocked and taken aback by the research, but it emboldened us to commission further work on LGBT, BME and those with disabilities. BME staff in particular, and in my opinion quite fairly, thought that the emphasis on diversity was always weighted very heavily towards gender.
Ethnic Dimension wrote the report on removing barriers to talented BAME staff progression in the Civil Service. The conclusions were strikingly similar to those of the Women in Whitehall report and again identified cultural and leadership climates as the main barriers to the progression of talented BAME staff within the Civil Service. Staff complained of a leadership that was not diverse, and of the persistence of unconscious bias and discrimination which blocked the progress of talented BAME staff and meant that there was not always equal access to promotions, projects, senior leaders and secondments. BAME staff were more likely to be marked down in performance appraisals, with little objective feedback as to why.
We published all the reports and used them to inform the senior Talent Action Plan, which was published in March 2015. The top senior leadership in the Civil Service worried that the reports were too critical, but the rank and file loved them. A number of staff felt that it was the first time that the conflict between rhetoric and reality had been properly addressed with practical actions and that they were being listened to. The Permanent Secretaries enthusiastically took ownership of the plan.
I return to my point on implementation. The Talent Action Plan was seen as a two- year plan. After year 1, in March 2016, the Cabinet Office published a progress report that set out which steps had been completed and which were still “in progress”. It was pleasing to note that the Civil Service had increased its unconscious bias training and appointed five Permanent Secretaries as diversity and inclusion champions. All Permanent Secretaries now have performance management objectives to improve diversity within their departments. However, the BAME report identified the crucial role of line managers in supporting and developing talented staff. It is always easy to write objectives but far harder to put them into practice. I await the two-year progress report on implementation of the Talent Action Plan, which I presume was due in March. I appreciate that it is a Cabinet Office-led exercise, but I wonder whether my noble friend can find out when we can expect to see it.
Ensuring the commitment to diversity and to BAME staff is hard work and we need to get it right. I commend my noble friend’s review and her recommendation of a one-year-on review so that the Government can assess the extent to which the recommendations have been implemented. I hope that both public and private sector can share their experiences to improve inclusivity in the workplace, so that the workforce will be able to deliver the incredible benefits to the UK economy.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith. It is a great report and a great piece of research. What is better, it is practical and implementable.
I want to tell the House the story of one recent experience and to ask a question of the Minister. Until recently, I was trustee of a charity called Creative Access. It was set up in the wake of the London riots by Michael Foster, who had worked all his life in the creative industries and was a very successful businessman. He was struck for the first time by how few black and Asian people were working in the industry. He established the charity to get more young people in and he went about finding them. For black and young people, it is not just that the door into the creative industries is closed to them; they do not know where the door is. Outside administrative roles, at senior levels the creative industries are populated by more than 90% white, middle-class graduates, mainly men but also some women.
He used his funds to give paid internships. He found companies across the creative industries—we must thank them—to take on these young people. Over time, he got them to fund 50% and the Government funded 50%. The reason for that is that while they started taking these young people out of social conscience, as time went on they found the amazing difference the young people made to their bottom lines. This is an economic issue. We know socially that, if you are black or Asian and young, you are two or three times more likely to be unemployed than your white counterpart. Of course that is a social issue. Yet if you get through the door with the right support and training you can add so much.
Five years on, we had put 720 young people through internships, and 84% of them at the end of that year got a full-time paid job. We were by far the most successful organisation, whether for-profit or not-for-profit, that this country has ever seen in getting disadvantaged kids full-time jobs. We were told that we were loved by the Government and that we would get re-funded. Then something happened called Brexit. The paper was in the box for us to be signed and then things changed. There was a new agenda—a new Prime Minister—and we were told we were no longer to be part of it so we had to shut down. We are now trying to re-establish ourselves as a social enterprise but I tell this story to the House because this report, too, was previously commissioned. So my question to the Minister is: in reality, how many of these recommendations and how much of this report will be implemented?
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I too rise to speak in the gap. I apologise for that, but I had not seen this debate on the Order Paper, and hope noble Lords will forgive me. I declare my interests in the register as chair of Drive. I also pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, for her excellent report and her superb speech today.
Incidents of racism and continuing prejudice in our society and places of work are indeed appalling. As has been said, the title of the report is absolutely right: The Time for Talking is Over. Now is the Time to Act. In the 21st century, we have a duty to ensure that companies in the private sector, public sector and voluntary sector reflect the communities in which they work. However, the response from the Government to the excellent recommendations in the report is not as proactive as it should be. For example, I strongly support the call for legislation on the publishing of workforce data on race and payroll, as that would really shine a light on to what is happening in our society.
I will focus my brief comments today on recommendation 16, on the supply chain. When, according to the Hackett Group in 2015,
“On average supplier diversity programs add $3.6 million to the bottom line for every $1 million in procurement operation costs”,
it is difficult to understand why there has not been more action on this issue to date. Leading organisations have not only an opportunity but, I believe, a responsibility to develop the entrepreneurial capacity and self-reliance of all the diverse communities in which they operate and draw their talent from, and to the communities to which they sell. The report rightly says that the public sector must use its purchasing power to drive change and that the Government should ensure they drive behavioural change in the private sector. It makes practical recommendations to bring this about.
The government response is all about the public sector equality duty, which is part of Labour’s legacy and, yes, that is a useful tool, but it is not enough to bring about the real change that is necessary for diversity and for the economy. Basic equality standards and diversity are two different things. The Government should have endorsed each of the points within the supply chain recommendations. There is a wealth of innovative best practice out there, and I would draw the Government’s attention to some of the extraordinary initiatives taken by HS2 with its inclusive procurement programme, which embeds the use of electronic data interchange throughout the company and the supply chain. It includes board members having a diversity-related pay element. Collaborating and supporting the supply chain is making a huge difference to that company and could make a difference to so many more.
Finally, on a more general point, government, along with the public, private and voluntary sectors, could and should do a lot more work in schools—especially primary schools—to broaden the horizons of all pupils, from whatever social or ethnic background, so that they can all see the opportunities out there that they could and should pursue. They can see role models such as the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and my noble friends on these Benches. They need to see so many more role models so that they have the inspiration to develop their own aspirations, so let us go out there and act on this excellent report from the noble Baroness.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend’s report states that it is now time to act and after spending more than a decade working with many of Britain’s wonderful black and minority ethnic communities, action and even legislation is now needed. It is young people’s lives that are being affected here.
As outlined, the first priority has to be data collection, as effective policy or law needs correct data. That priority is in line with Her Majesty’s Government’s current policy on data collection in this area—hence the Government’s race audit of public sector recruitment. Requiring businesses to publish merely puts them in the same position as most public sector employers, who either publish or know that they will be subject to a freedom of information request. Publishing the data will enable effective media and parliamentary scrutiny of companies as well as creating healthy competition between firms to have the best reputation in this area, which is often an effective driver of change.
The lack of meaningful data, as outlined, in many companies that disclosed data—when they could provide them—indicates to me that these companies rarely think that they will be called to account for the treatment of recruits and employees on the grounds of racial discrimination. Speaking as a former personal injury lawyer, companies knew that prosecutions and civil claims by employees could be defended properly only if they had good systems, such as risk assessments, and kept good data and paperwork. The powerful role of the employment tribunal in assessing claims for unfair dismissal has driven effective change within organisations. Can my noble friend the Minister please outline whether the Government will investigate whether the employment tribunal is being accessed by people who are subject to illegal behaviour of this nature and if not, why not? Further legislation may be needed to bring change in this area, but Her Majesty’s Government should look first into whether current legislation is effective.
I would also be grateful if my noble friend the Minister could explain the logic of why companies should be subject to health and safety regulation, employment legislation, hygiene legislation and various powers of licensing—with the local authority having various powers even to enter the premises—but why, on this matter, legislation is not appropriate. I would be grateful for an explanation.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, on her excellent report. It is full of wisdom and practical recommendations to change the culture and practice of encouraging diversity and inclusion in British business. It is a shame that the Government have refused to accept the necessity of a strong steer in implementing the recommendations. As the report says:
“Daylight is the best disinfectant”.
It recommends that companies with 50 or more employees should report annually on the ethnicity of their workplace by salary band and produce aspirational targets every five years. I was quite shocked by the figures on ethnic representation in the workforce—the loss of energy and talent, which, if properly harnessed, could increase Britain’s GDP by £32 billion a year.
You would think that there should be no need to legislate and that businesses would see the wisdom of encouraging diversity within their workforce. That certainly seems to be the Government’s point of view. However, just as with women on boards, and just as with the wage gap between men and women, it sometimes takes more than common sense for companies to act in their own best interests. It took a threat such as that made by Business Secretary Vince Cable in the previous Government about the underrepresentation of women on boards, and it took legislation to tackle the inequality of women’s pay, but the strongest language used in the Government’s response to this excellent report is “encourage”. “Encourage” means nothing, especially if you do not even realise you are discouraging and excluding some of your employees from being promoted or even not selecting them in the first place.
We are all guilty of unconscious bias. We all unconsciously favour people like us—people with the same background, the same skin colour, the same sex and even the same sense of humour. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, gave us an eloquent explanation of his exposure to unconscious bias training and of what happens when unconscious bias is not challenged. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, rightly commended the work the Government, as an employer, are doing on racial diversity, but there is nothing to impose what she termed “excessive rules and regulations on business”. I do not think that any of the rules and regulations here are excessive. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, wants us to achieve culture change through marketing messages and to use schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award to help life chances, but does not want legislation. He cited the example of “Clunk Click Every Trip” on seatbelts, but it is illegal not to wear your seatbelt. I am confused about which he feels should come first: legislation or attitude change—the chicken or the egg. Why not legislate? We will achieve change even faster. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, rightly pointed out the contribution that disabled people can make and the shocking loss of the talent they could bring. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, spoke about the conflict between rhetoric and reality—between warm words and what actually happens in the Civil Service. I commend the work that is being done in the Civil Service. The noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, talked about a scheme that started out of social conscience but made a fantastic contribution because of the diversity and talent it brought.
I agree with all the recommendations of the noble Baroness’s report but I want particularly to mention those on procurement. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said. To me, it should be a moral as well as a business imperative for government to procure from people who look like the people we serve, whose money we are spending, but I saw in the Government’s response to my own report on diversity and inclusiveness for women-owned businesses, the Burt report, that there was a reluctance on the part of government to use its most persuasive tool—procurement—to encourage women-owned businesses to pitch for government business and grow, which is just the effect that legislation on procurement from women-owned businesses in America has achieved. We have had the argument over women. We know that women have at least as much talent as men, but they still fail to get promoted, often by men.
You have to act to tackle unconscious bias. “Encouraging” is not enough, and we do not have years to wait. Let us not just “encourage” business to measure its performance and to plan for a more diverse, inclusive and thus successful company. Let us not just “monitor developments”. Let us ensure that companies understand what unconscious bias is. Let us ensure that they measure their performance. Let us applaud the best, most successful companies. In the post-Brexit world, we will need the talents of everyone to make our way and to succeed in the diverse global economy that we will face.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, on her report, which, as my noble friend Lady McDonagh said, is both practical and implementable, which make it a very welcome read. It is easy to see how she could arrive at that arrangement. I mean no disrespect to say this, and I hope the noble Baroness will not take it the wrong way, but the fact that it comes from the Conservative Benches and is written in a very level-headed and logical way makes its impact all the more powerful. We on these Benches, and other colleagues, have raised issues that she raises over a number of years but have not got the sort of response that I have heard today around the Chamber to the recommendations that have been made. I hope it bears also on the Minister when he comes to respond that this is a very well-considered report, which has come from a very interesting area in the political spectrum and has received support all round the House. As many people have picked up, it needs a lot more of a response from the Government than we have seen so far. I hope that when the Minister responds, he can fill in some of the gaps in the Government’s response to this excellent report.
We have had some very good responses from those who have spoken in the debate. I particularly liked the illustrations used by my noble friend—I can call her that, as she was once my Minister—Lady Bottomley and by my noble friend Lord Griffiths. I sympathise with his feeling that he was in the right place on all these matters because he was in an area that seemed to suggest that, as a jolly good chap, he could implement changes—but then discovered to his horror how difficult it was to actually make the transition. I have been there too. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, with his direct experience of trying to serve a wide and disparate consumer base, also picked up the point that there are some very obvious lessons to be learned by just looking around us at what we do. For example, looking at the Box to my right, it is very surprising to see a group so representative of the ethnicities in this country, and yet to not make that an issue at all. This is just how it is now in many parts of the Civil Service, and I congratulate it on what it has achieved in that.
It is worth reflecting on the key findings, because they are so startling. One in eight of the working-age population is from a BME background, but only 10% of the workforce and 6% of top management are. The employment rate for ethnic minorities is only 62.8%, compared with 75.6% for white workers. The gap is worse for some ethnic groups; for instance, for those of a Pakistani or Bangladeshi background, the rate drops to something like 54.9%. People from a BME background have an underemployment rate of 15.3%, compared with 11.5% for white workers, and many of them would like to work more hours than they currently do. I found this finding particularly interesting: all BME groups are more likely to be overqualified than white ethnic groups, but white employees are more likely to be promoted than those from all other groups. The potential benefit to the UK economy, which many noble Lords picked up on, from full representation of BME individuals is estimated to be an improvement to our GDP of £24 billion a year—1.3%. It does not take much to feel anger about that.
A lot of people have also suggested that that will lead to the agenda of change that one would like to see, but what we get from the Government is, I think, a very poor response indeed. As somebody has said, this is largely a voluntary arrangement: the report deals with the private sector and the Government can affect only the public sector. But this leaves completely untouched the areas in which the Government have both a stake and an opportunity to make real change. The points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, were very salient in this area: if it is true for health and safety, and for other aspects of public life, why is it not true for employment rights, for which the benefits are so clear and the attitude so obvious?
Looking in more detail at the government response, the response from the Minister, Margot James, is good in the sense that it picks up and reflects back to the report’s author the value that is in the report. We should all accept that it is indeed very valuable. The response says:
“It is clear from your report that you have examined the issues around race in the workplace … The findings are stark … it is clear that more has to be done”—
so the rhetoric is good so far. The recommendations are then dealt with, but it is quite clear that the Government have taken the strategic view that the only impact this can have is on employment in the Civil Service. They completely ignore the points made by my noble friend Lady Royall and others about the impact that the Government’s procurement system could have in changing the whole way in which people regard race, gender and other aspects relating to ethnic minority issues in relation to the world that we have to inhabit—and I suspect it will get worse after Brexit.
Under the heading “Supporting business”, the Government’s response is basically, “Not us, guv”:
“Businesses are best placed to know what support they need to improve diversity and inclusion and so we will work with them to ensure they have the resources they need to fully embed change within their organisations”.
I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. As far as I can see, that rather bombastic statement appears to apply only to,
“developing a guide on discussing race in the workplace as well as having a single portal where useful case studies and unconscious bias training packages can be sourced”.
That is pathetic, given the scale of the issue we are talking about. In any case, the Government do far more in making sure that training happens and ensuring that apprenticeships are going to be of a high standard—they will be specifying in future legislation and regulations all sorts of things to do with the quality and content of apprenticeships—so why do they not say in this report, “We will use the opportunities coming up with the Technical and Further Education Bill to ensure that these issues are taught properly and that people understand their responsibilities and the implications of what they do in the workplace”?
The next heading is “Improve transparency”. As people have said, daylight is often the best disinfectant, and we should never neglect that—it is often the first response and a good one—but it will never be sufficient to get to where I think the author of this report wishes to go. On this one, again, the Government seem to be incredibly limp, saying,
“we believe that in the first instance, the best method is a business-led, voluntary approach and not legislation as a way of bringing about lasting change”.
Ministers are always taught when they first step into their department that legislation is probably the last resort. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Prior, will have had that lesson when he first stepped into the Department of Health, his first appointment when he appeared in front of this House. He will have been told, “You can do far more by changing culture and attitudes”. At the end of the day, though, legislation is necessary. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, would be able to exemplify what she said about the way in which the courts deal with employment and other things have really changed how the culture operates because there is a standard to which employers will be judged.
I want to pick up issues relating to supply chains, which have also been picked up by other noble Lords. It is the case that organisations, particularly in the public sector but not only there, have been able to change attitudes and approaches all through their supply chains by specifying in contractual terms what they will and will not tolerate. Why is it so obvious in the Government’s response that they do not see this as an opportunity? We have found in other areas of government policy over the past few years examples of where the Government could use their power to effect change. I am thinking particularly of a debate that I had with the Minister only recently about how to improve payment practices for small businesses, where the exemplary, voluntary approach does not work, with something like £64 billion worth of outstanding cash sitting around in big companies’ pockets that should be paid over to small companies but no power that can get that to happen. This has a devastating effect on the economy, on small companies and on the whole process. The Government could do something to sort that out but have chosen not to do so, simply providing someone who will be a postbox for those who wish to complain about it.
The previous Labour Government required that all major projects should make sure that they had a supply of apprenticeships in all the contracts that were signed. Crossrail, which this Government have used a lot as an exemplar of where they want to get to, employs apprenticeships at a high level, and has been very successful in doing so, because the contract specified that those who had benefited from the monies that were being paid for Crossrail should employ apprentices. It can work, and I do not understand why the Government do not do that.
I could go on, but I will not. I will end with some questions for the Minister. The review concluded, in a wonderful phrase:
“There is discrimination and bias at every stage of an individual’s career”.
The figures that I cited reinforced that. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, asked businesses and the Government to act on her recommendations, as the consequences of not doing so would be damaging to the economy and the aspirations of so many, but the Government have decided not to do so. Can they explain why they think a voluntary approach is the right way to do this? As I have tried to exemplify, there are so many ways in which action could be taken, but a simple one, picked up by others earlier in the debate, is that a duty to publish figures in relation to gender pay has been imposed by this Government on all companies of a significant size. Why not extend that to ensure that we get the information necessary for companies to publish data on BME staff?
During the review, as I think was mentioned in the opening address, only 74 FTSE 100 companies replied to the call for data, and only half of those were able to share any meaningful information. Does not more need to be done here? Can the Minister give us an example of how he will put pressure on companies to ensure that at least the information required by one of their own who asks for it should be available? Again, this should be published.
The review highlights the importance of work experience opportunities that companies provide and reiterates a view that we on this side of the House have expressed that unpaid internships can act as a barrier to those without financial support to undertake them. What is the Government’s response to that observation in the review, and what action will they be taking to address the barriers of unpaid internships?
One of the review’s key recommendations is for the Government to assess the extent to which its recommendations have been implemented and take necessary action when required. Will the Government commit to doing that within the suggested timetable of a year and, if so, can the Minister explain how that will happen?
Finally, the Government’s response indicated that they will be setting out to all companies and institutional investors the value of employing a diverse workforce. How do they plan to do that and when will we see it?
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, said, picking up on a point made originally by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, that we have had enough reports in this area. We know what the problem is. It is time now for action. I do hope that the Government will get on with it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)
My Lords, it is one of the privileges of being in this House that one can sit through a debate such as this. We are talking about one of the big issues of our time—not just in this country. It is incredible to me that, 50 years after Martin Luther King gave his great speech, “I have a dream”, we still have a Black Lives Matter campaign running in America because young black men are being shot by policemen. This is not a British problem; this is a societal problem in pretty much every country in the world—not just in white-majority countries but in black-majority countries, Indian countries, African countries and the rest. Race is a huge, profound and difficult issue. There are no easy answers to it. If there were, we would have found a solution many years ago.
Let me start with a short extract from the excellent review by my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith:
“Every person, regardless of their ethnicity or background, should be able to fulfil their potential at work. That is the business case as well as the moral case. Diverse organisations that attract and develop individuals from the widest pool of talent consistently perform better”.
My noble friend Lord Kirkham says that it is a no-brainer. I think that everyone who has contributed to this debate would say that: it is a no-brainer. That is the extraordinary thing about this subject: it is a no-brainer. The moral case is obvious. The economic case is a no-brainer. Yet, as my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, asked: why has it taken so long? If it is a no-brainer, why is progress so slow? Why do young black people have lower aspirations? That is the conundrum that we face today.
The Government welcome my noble friend’s report and encourage businesses to take forward her recommendations. We will work with employers to support them in improving their diversity and inclusion. From a personal point of view, I believe that daylight is the best disinfectant. That is an easy catchphrase, I know, but it is absolutely true.
I want to talk a little bit if I can about my own experience in the NHS, where I was chairman of the workforce race equality standard advisory group before I went to the Department of Health. We have heard a lot about institutional racism over the years, especially in relation to the police following the Macpherson inquiry into the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. You would think sometimes, when reading about that, that it was only in the police and that it was only the police that were institutionally racist, but let me paint you a story about the NHS. It brings forward the contrast between words and actions, because the NHS constitution is clear that:
“All NHS staff have the right to be treated fairly, equally and to work in an environment that is free from discrimination”.
Those are almost the same words as in the constitution of the United States, which talked of liberty, equality and the pursuit of human happiness at a time of slavery and segregation. As we say in Norfolk, “Fine words butter no parsnips”. Again, this echoes the title of the McGregor-Smith review: The Time for Talking is Over. Now is the Time to Act. How many times and how many people have said that in the past—and here we are?
Some 20% of the NHS workforce are from a BME background, but only 5% of senior managers are from a BME background; 40% of hospital doctors are from a BME background, and only 3% of medical directors are from a BME background. Out of all the hundreds of NHS organisations, only three CEOs and four nursing directors are from BME backgrounds. People from BME backgrounds are twice as likely to enter a disciplinary process than white people. Even where there are very high levels of BME staff or very large BME communities served by a hospital, representation of BME people in senior leadership positions is far too low. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, is not here, because for a short time he was chairman of the Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, and he told me that there was no one from a Pakistani background in a senior position in that trust, despite the fact that the community that the hospital served was largely made up of people from that ethnic background.
These facts have been revealed only recently, in a paper called The “Snowy White Peaks” of the NHS, by Roger Kline. From that, we have developed nine standards—the workforce race equality standards, or WRES. My noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith talked about transparency; every trust has to produce nine standards, in public, going from board representation, training opportunities, promotion, levels of discrimination and the like. They will be published every year, and they have been incorporated not just into the NHS standard contract, which my noble friend Lady Bottomley mentioned, but into the regulatory system in the CQC’s well-led domain.
Research has been published by the King’s Fund’s Michael West, Mandip Kaur and Jeremy Dawson, in a paper called Making the Difference, which makes it absolutely clear that there is a very close correlation between hospital performance, whether it is measured in patient or clinical outcomes, or however you measure it, and diversity. That is supported by work done by McKinsey which shows very clearly that boards with a diverse membership get better corporate results.
We know that black and other minority ethnic people suffer in other ways, not just in the workforce. They die younger. Research done by Professor David Williams, now of Harvard University, estimates that 200 adult black people die prematurely each day in the USA because they are black not white. It is not just about poor housing or less healthcare, because it is true also of college-educated black people in the USA, but because they have to try that much harder and have to be overqualified and put up with all those subconscious slights of day-to-day living: a look of fear in the face of a single white woman; the look of surprise at a moment of success; not getting a good table or good service in a restaurant; and lack of courtesy from other people—all those small slights.
I can recommend to anyone who is interested Professor Williams’s TED talk called “How Racism Makes Us Sick”. In it, he reported on a very broad experiment and noted that black people were associated with words like “violent”, “poor”, “religious” and “lazy”. For whites it was words like “successful”, “wealthy”, “progressive”, “conventional” and “educated”. That is why there is subconscious bias—because there is this stereotype. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkham, said, “I am not a racist, but”. I suspect that applies to everybody. We have a deep, subconscious stereotype of what different people are like and I will come now to why I think that is.
This is my personal view—but it is not just mine. Despite what we have heard from other noble Lords, we have made more progress in removing discrimination against disabled people, women and people with a different sexual orientation. The crucial question is: why has race been so difficult? In part it may be because the roots of the issue are not just cultural but evolutionary. Xenophobia has deep evolutionary roots; suspicion or aggression to outsiders has been an effective strategy for human beings and, more importantly, our forebears for millions of years. Today, interview, selection and promotion processes in the workplace are the modern setting where intrinsic, subconscious bias now most evidently—but, as I have argued, by no means exclusively—plays out. We pick people “like us”; people who will “fit in”; people who will be part of our team: in other words, white, male and who want to play rugby at the weekends.
I have just read a fascinating book called East West Street by Philippe Sands, who writes about the origins of two strands of international criminal law originating from the Nuremberg trials after the war: genocide and crimes against humanity. In the epilogue he concludes powerfully that, for all the disadvantages and unintended consequences of the former law—which focuses on groups rather than individuals—it is necessary because:
“I am bound to accept that the sense of group identity is a fact”.
As long ago as 1883, the sociologist Louis Gumplowicz, in his book on the struggle between the races, noted that,
“the individual when he comes into the world is a member of a group”.
This view persists. A century later, the biologist Edward O Wilson wrote that:
“Our bloody nature … is ingrained because group-versus-group was a principal driving force that made us what we are”.
It seems to him that a basic element of human nature is that,
“people feel compelled to belong to groups and, having joined, consider them superior to competing groups”.
Yvonne Coghill is the co-director of the workforce race equality standard programme in the NHS. She is a black woman from the Caribbean who has been a nurse in the NHS for 30 years. Knowing that I was taking part in this debate, she wrote to me last week, saying: “Beliefs about what good looks like, what constitutes beauty and brains, are deeply ingrained in our society … the problem of race is a systemic and structural one … we are fearful and anxious about differences”.
Of course things have got much better. The six race relations and equality Acts between 1965 and 2010 have had an impact. Overt racism is rarely seen. The civil rights legislation in the USA came in from the 1960s onwards, together with affirmative action programmes. Interestingly, Professor Williams, to whom I referred, got his first break with a minority scholarship to the University of Michigan. I believe very much in giving people an extra hand. You have to look at people’s potential rather than their actual achievements. However, subconscious discrimination is still a major factor in the USA.
What is the conclusion from this? I think it is that there are no quick, easy answers. There is no one piece of legislation that we can pass which will solve these problems. The case for greater urgency is made in this review. As the EY case study in the review states:
“We believe that culture change takes time—and we are therefore patient and at the same time impatient”,
to change the status quo.
We are impatient to tackle this issue because it is a moral and economic imperative. However, we will have to be both patient and impatient—patient because we are trying to change deep-rooted behaviour and impatient because racial discrimination is both a moral outrage and a huge economic opportunity. This very important review from my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith has the full support of the Government. We will not resort to legislation straightaway but will see how things go. If legislation is needed at some time in the future, we will, of course, consider it at that time.
I conclude by again thanking my noble friend for this report. I hope that in two, three, four or five years’ time, we can look back at this as a moment when things started to accelerate. However, I fear that we need some patience.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I congratulate the noble Lord on his interesting speech, which I will read in Hansard and reflect on. He was asked a number of serious questions about policy from not just me and my noble friends but by noble Lords on the other side of the House as well. I would be grateful if he could confirm that he will write to us about these issues.
Lord Prior of Brampton
I should have said that a number of questions were raised that I could not address—for example, on different issues connected with disability and other issues, including one raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh. I will read Hansard tomorrow and write to noble Lords on those issues.