House of Commons

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 27 June 2017

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Speaker’s Statement

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I have a short statement to make. I would like to draw Members’ attention to the fact that the book for entering the private Members’ Bills ballot is now open for Members to sign in the No Lobby. It will be open until the House rises today and when the House is sitting on Wednesday 28 June. The ballot itself will be drawn at 9 am on Thursday 29 June in Committee Room 10. An announcement setting out these and other arrangements, and the dates when ten-minute rule motions can be made and presentation Bills introduced, is published in the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

1. What recent discussions he has had with trade bodies and companies involved in extracting oil and gas from the North sea.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

My Department is in regular contact with the oil and gas industry. As hon. Members will be aware, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), met industry representatives regularly, both in London and in Aberdeen. On 23 March the Oil and Gas Authority awarded licences for 111 blocks to enable exploration and production across frontier areas—the first licensing round to focus on frontier areas in two decades. I look forward to continuing this relationship, which is very important for jobs and the wider economy. Indeed, in my first week in post I attended a reception at Imperial College London and met several companies and trade bodies in the field.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the Minister for that answer and warmly welcome him to his new post. In 2016 the Chancellor announced that action would be taken to improve the tax regime for late-life asset transfers. In the 2017 Budget he re-announced the same policy, but now an expert panel is to be set up. Can the Minister let me know how many times the expert panel has met so far, and when we can expect the outcomes of its deliberations to be made public, as it says they will be on the gov.uk website?

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She and I have worked together in previous roles, and I look forward to visiting Aberdeen, where hopefully she will be able to explain this further. As far as late-life assets are concerned, we realise how important it is to get this right, and not just for the jobs and tax revenue, but for generating further investment. The discussion paper and the panel of experts are considering this. We look forward to hearing a wide range of views and will report our findings at the autumn Budget.

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that over the past decade Qatar has become an increasingly important source of gas for the UK, not least from imports of liquefied natural gas through my constituency. What steps is he taking to ensure that the current diplomatic crisis in the Gulf affecting Qatar does not lead to any disruption of energy supply into the UK?

[Richard Harrington]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government are monitoring the situation very carefully, and we do not believe that it will make any difference whatsoever to liquefied gas supplies.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I welcome the Minister to his new post. Getting back to the North sea, the kind of action described by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) is vital, especially to help along the return optimism. The Scottish Government have invested £5 million to explore decommissioning opportunities in oil and gas that could grow many new jobs. When will we get action from the UK Government, and when will we see a robust and comprehensive future energy strategy from the UK Government?

[Richard Harrington]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the Government have been very actively involved in funding seismic surveys and the 3D visualisation centre at Heriot-Watt University. I am looking forward to the next licensing round and to dealing with the strategy he mentioned. I should mention the Kraken development, which the Government have supported, because the first barrels of oil were produced last week, and we look forward to there being 50,000 barrels a day at peak.

[Drew Hendry]

The fact is that the UK Government have been slow to realise the potential of decommissioning, pulled funding from vital carbon capture and storage pipeline projects, failed adequately to address the drop in renewable energy investment and plunged public funds into risky and poor-value nuclear power projects against the advice of experts. When will this Government wake up and take our energy opportunities seriously?

[Richard Harrington]

I am afraid that I must completely disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s view of things. We are committed to supporting the development of a decommissioning industry. I think that there are significant opportunities. We are currently considering options for the delivery of a port and yard, and we will continue to engage closely with all relevant stakeholders as we develop our options.

[Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

2. What steps he has taken to consult businesses on the process of the UK leaving the EU.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Since the referendum, I have held discussions with businesses, workers and local leaders across the UK, and investors all around the world. These will continue over the coming months, including my weekly meetings with the directors general of the five main business organisations. The Government are creating a new EU exit business advisory group to ensure that business is not only heard but is influential throughout the negotiations.

[Jo Churchill]

My particular interest is in the UK’s life science sector, which is worth some £30 billion to the economy and involves nearly half a million jobs, many of which are in my constituency of Bury St Edmunds. Will the Secretary of State tell me how he will ensure that there is continued support to this vital leading research and science sector as we leave the EU?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. My hon. Friend is a great champion of the sector. In our negotiations, we want to ensure that we can continue these successful collaborations, as well as making further investment in the future of research through our industrial strategy. The House may be interested to know that I can announce today that the Government’s commitment to underwrite the UK’s fair share for the Joint European Torus costs—the leading nuclear fusion facility in Oxfordshire, supporting 1,300 jobs—will be made. The facility is funded through a contract between the European Commission and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. In making this commitment, the Government hope to provide the certainty and reassurance needed for a mutually beneficial extension of the contract.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

All the five business organisations to which the Secretary of State refers have come out against the Prime Minister’s extreme and damaging Brexit. What is he personally doing to ensure that the Prime Minister not only hears what they are saying, but listens to it?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the five business organisations have put forward a sensible set of principles to govern the transition and the shape of a final agreement. Those suggestions seem very sensible. Part of the point of engaging with business, as I do rigorously and frequently, is to ensure that that voice is heard.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

One of the important principles that those business organisations have stressed is the essential nature of having contractual and legal certainty for those who are entering into legal obligations so that they know that that will continue to be enforceable once we leave the EU. Will the Secretary of State therefore ensure that particular regard is had to the need for transition periods to be based on the reality of business practice, rather than on arbitrary considerations?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If he has the continued privilege to chair the Select Committee on Justice, I am sure that it will provide some help in this.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

Many businesses are particularly concerned about additional checks on trade imports and exports if we leave the customs union. Can the Secretary of State give businesses any reassurance at all that there will not be additional checks if and when we leave the customs union?

[Greg Clark]

I have always been clear, as have the Government, that we want not only no tariffs, but no bureaucratic impediments of the type described by the hon. Lady. That is one of the objectives set out by the business organisations. As she knows, the negotiations have just started, but we are clear that that is our objective.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend be asking businesses to list the most egregious and restrictive EU directives that may be removed once we leave in order to make British business more competitive and efficient?

[Greg Clark]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be an assiduous contributor to the scrutiny of the repeal Bill. The approach is to transfer into UK law that which was part of EU law precisely so that this House can scrutinise and consider what should be continued.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Government said yesterday that EU citizens will be able to apply for what they called “settled status”, so that they can continue to live and work in the UK. Application processes can be time-consuming, not to mention complicated, expensive and off-putting, especially when this Government are involved. How can the Secretary of State guarantee that all EU nationals working in the UK will be allowed to stay not just in theory but in practice, to the benefit of the many businesses that rely on EU workers?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his place. In fact, I think that Labour’s whole Front-Bench team has been reappointed. It is nice to see loyalty rewarded. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I thought that he would welcome the Prime Minister’s very positive statement. It is important that the process is implemented with no bureaucracy so that people can apply with confidence.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

3. What his policy is on the non-release or late release of cash retentions in the construction industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Unjustified late and non-payment of a retention payment or any amount owed is unacceptable. These practices cause particular problems for small businesses in the construction sector, and the Government are committed to tackling them. We will shortly be publishing research into these issues, alongside a consultation document.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The system of cash retentions has been wreaking havoc in the construction industry for decades. Can the Minister assure us that there will soon be radical action to overhaul the system, and can she explain why it has taken so long?

[Margot James]

There is, indeed, far too much abuse of the system of cash retention, and it has been going on for too long. The burden of administrative time spent securing payments and the drain on working capital weigh far too heavily on smaller firms in the supply chain, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will be taking action.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

If the Government had only listened in 2015 to the amendments the Labour party tabled to the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill, we would already have a solution. We were told then that the Government were going to take action. We were told again a few months ago that they were taking action with their proposals about naming and shaming businesses that did not publish their late payments. We now have yet another consultation. Research from Crossflow Payments shows that 74% of small businesses do not believe that the Government’s recent changes will make any difference. Can we have a policy that actually enforces action on late payments, rather than the series of consultations that we have had?

[Margot James]

I agree that action is needed, but it is important that we take the right action. We have undertaken a consultation, the results of which will be published shortly. That will be followed by a consultation on the 2011 changes to the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996, which will consider the merits of ring-fencing retentions and the extent to which contractors are making the payment of retentions conditional on the performance of obligations under other, completely separate contracts.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that the electric grid is able to support the charging of the number of electric cars estimated to be in use by 2020.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Claire Perry)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his pathfinding work in this area. I understand he is a proud owner of a Nissan Leaf—an electric vehicle made in the UK. He will therefore know that this is an exceptionally important point for us. I am very proud of the Government’s ambition for almost all cars on our roads to be zero-emissions by 2050, and also of our success in positioning the UK as a leading destination for the manufacture of and research into these vehicles. He will be reassured to know that good progress is being made with grid-readiness, and the upcoming smart systems plan and the automated and electric vehicles Bill will ensure that electric vehicle demands are managed efficiently, and the roll-out of electric vehicles is accelerated.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the Minister for her response, and I am glad to hear that, because a study of the impact of electric vehicles on the UK’s distribution network has estimated that

“voltage imbalances, coupled with overloaded distribution transformers could…impair power lines.”

How quickly can we have a report on that, given that the usage of such vehicles is likely to rise substantially in the coming years?

[Claire Perry]

I think my hon. Friend is right. With policies to really accelerate the usage of electric vehicles, this is a critical thing. He will know that Ofgem has approved business plans for the local network companies, which already bake in billions of pounds of investment, to ensure that the expected demands on the grid can be met. But, equally, it is not just about raw investment in cables; it is actually about changing consumers’ behaviour to ensure they can charge their vehicles at a time that puts least demand on the grid and perhaps saves them money. I refer back to our plan and to the Bill, which will enable smart charging and help people to charge their vehicles at a time when it puts least demand on the network.

[Mr Speaker]

It all sounds very exciting, I must say.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister ever worry that the country looks like investing £100 billion in High Speed 2, which will open at the earliest in 2033, but that, by that time, we will be able to use our phone to call to our home a driverless Uber-type vehicle powered by electricity that can take us anywhere in the country? Is that £100 billion not wasted money?

[Claire Perry]

I would define seeing you in an electric vehicle, Mr Speaker, as a success in my new role. We can have a conversation afterwards.

The hon. Gentleman will know that I think that upgrading our rail and road networks is one way to reduce congestion on the roads and to open up business opportunities and create potential new capacity for things such as electric rail freight, which has been severely neglected by successive Governments over many years. That is why we want to position ourselves not only as a leading manufacturer of electric vehicles—one in five electric vehicles sold in the EU are made in Britain—but as a hub for innovation. We are putting millions of pounds into innovation studies and research, to see how those new technologies can work together to ultimately achieve the aim of zero emissions by 2050.

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

Electric vehicles are a vital part of meeting our climate change commitments. Can the Minister update us on further action to tackle climate change after the USA’s repudiation of the Paris agreement?

[Claire Perry]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable question. I was delighted to be sent, on almost the first day in the job, to Luxembourg to meet our EU counterparts to discuss the fact that we are all very disappointed with Mr Trump’s decision to withdraw the US from the Paris agreement, and accept that more work needs to be done by the remaining countries to emphasise that Paris is non-negotiable, although we would like him to come back to the agreement. I was also personally able to increase the level of UK funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change trust fund, across the board with other European friends and neighbours, to ensure that any reduction of USA funding can be met.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I welcome the hon. Lady to her new position and, indeed, Front-Bench Members, new and old, to their roles? Can we have proper local accountability and ownership of local community grids, so that we break the monopolies of the distribution companies, which make masses of money and do not always reinvest?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly valuable point about how we start to move ourselves away from generating emissions in the heating and lighting sector. He will be pleased to know that I was able to put more innovation funding into trials that are doing exactly that.

[Albert Owen]

Already!

[Claire Perry]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I like to do these things seriously. We are already funding pilots to see how peer-to-peer exchange of power can work, and how further to improve community generation and storage of energy.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to support the growth of small and medium-sized businesses in the Thames Gateway.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Supporting small business is a crucial part of our industrial strategy. The Government are investing in the Thames Gateway, including through the local growth fund and the new lower Thames crossing. We will continue to work with industry and local authorities in the Thames Gateway to create the conditions for all businesses to thrive.

[Gareth Johnson]

The lack of connectivity between Kent and Essex frustrates commerce between those two counties. The lower Thames crossing will help with that, but it will take some years for it to be built. Will the Minister use that time to work with local businesses in the area to unlock its huge potential, which has yet to be fully realised?

[Margot James]

The lower Thames crossing is due to open in 2025. In the meantime, local growth hubs will continue to deliver support services to help businesses in the area to grow over that period. In addition, almost half of the South East local enterprise partnership funding of £274 million is directly supporting growth in north Kent and south Essex by improving transport infrastructure, addressing skills needs and creating new business spaces.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that one of the strengths of the Thames Gateway is the closeness of connections elsewhere in Europe, and one of the worries that small and medium-sized businesses have is whether they will be able to continue to recruit staff from other EU countries after Brexit. Will she acknowledge the strength of concerns of firms in the Thames Gateway, and can she offer them any reassurance about the prospects after Brexit?

[Margot James]

Having travelled around the country talking to many businesses over the past year, I acknowledge those concerns in the Thames Gateway area. However, I was reassured—I hope the right hon. Gentleman was, too—by the Prime Minister’s opening contribution to the negotiations last week and the reassurance she offered many hundreds of thousands of EU citizens currently residing in the UK, including those working in the right hon. Gentleman’s area.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is an estimable fellow, but West Dunbartonshire is a considerable distance from the Thames Gateway. Knowing the intellectual eclecticism of the hon. Gentleman, I think he may have a pertinent inquiry and I am absolutely fascinated to discover whether that is the case.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Businesses—those in the Thames Gateway, along with those in West Dunbartonshire—require confidence in those who form Governments and in those who support them. Does the Minister agree that that requires transparency? Will he call on every political party in Northern Ireland to publish fully everything in terms of the political donations and campaigns they are involved in?

[Mr Speaker]

No, that is manifestly out of order. The hon. Gentleman, I think, was more interested in what he had to say to the Minister than in anything the Minister might have said to him.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. What estimate his Department has made of the future level of investment required in the UK’s gas storage facilities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

There has been significant investment in the UK’s natural gas supply infrastructure over the past decade. It is highly complex, because we benefit from highly diverse and flexible sources of natural gas. They include: indigenous production from the North sea; six international gas pipelines with Norway, Belgium and the Netherlands; three liquefied natural gas terminals that can bring supply from anywhere in the world; and a number of modern, responsive gas storage facilities. We are confident that market-led investment will continue to deliver secure gas supplies, but I will continue to monitor the position.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for his answer. The ceramics industry is a major employer in my constituency. It is very energy-intensive and heavily reliant on a secure supply of gas for business continuity. In the light of the announcement that the Rough gas storage facility is to close, what assurances can the Minister give the ceramics industry that the gas it needs will not run out or become unaffordable?

[Richard Harrington]

As I explained in my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s first question, we have a very diverse range of sources. Analysis conducted by the National Grid and others confirms that the closure of Rough will not cause a problem with security. I give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking to monitor this, with my Department, on a weekly basis.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

7. What steps he is taking to improve business confidence.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to foster a positive environment for business growth.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The industrial strategy Green Paper was launched on 23 January and has been warmly received across the country. We have received over 1,900 responses to the consultation, with respondents from every part of the United Kingdom. I look forward to taking our modern industrial strategy forward, with the involvement of all Members of this House, in the months ahead.

[Gavin Newlands]

In a damaging blow to business confidence and the wider economy in Renfrewshire, Chivas Brothers announced that it was moving operations from Paisley in 2019. The workforce have voted to strike over a pay offer that Chivas Brothers itself admits does not meet commitments it made to the workforce. Will the Secretary of State join me in urging Chivas to offer a deal that prevents industrial action and recognises the contribution the Paisley workforce have given to Chivas over many, many years?

[Greg Clark]

Of course we want to avoid industrial action. I am not aware of the particular circumstances, but I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman so he can inform me of them in more detail.

[Liam Byrne]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Secretary of State for Defence, who spoke this morning about the need to provide extra investment in those areas that are left behind—even if the bill comes to something like £1.5 billion? When is he going to open talks with other hon. Members about the needs of their areas, so we can ensure that those left-behind regions are not left behind and left out?

[Greg Clark]

I am very surprised to hear that question from the right hon. Gentleman. Of all the people in this House, he was a great proponent of a city deal and a devolution deal for Birmingham and the west midlands, the value of which is over £1 billion. Looking around the Chamber, there are many Opposition Members who have made precisely such a case that we should invest in areas of the country, outside of national programmes. It seems to me to be reasonable to continue that programme.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I took soundings from small businesses in Rugby at a small business expo run by the Federation of Small Businesses on Friday. Their single biggest concern related to the recruitment of staff, in that the skills they are looking for often are not available among local jobseekers. Given those instances, will the Secretary of State reassure us about the training of young people and the ability to recruit staff from the EU moving forward?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. One of the big findings, which has been reinforced by the consultation on the industrial strategy, is that we need to ramp up the level of skills and technical education and training in this country. We will respond to the consultation in the weeks ahead, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that that will be one of its key pillars.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

The Kingswood Lakeside business park in Cannock is home to many leading businesses, and the new developments there will create hundreds of new jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those developments are evidence of business confidence, and show that Cannock Chase is well and truly open for business and is a great place to do business?

[Greg Clark]

I do indeed. Having visited Cannock Chase with my hon. Friend, I know that she is a great champion of the businesses there. It is fair to reflect that the confidence of manufacturers and employers in other sectors is high. As the CBI attested this week, it is high across the country, including in Cannock Chase.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

8. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues and other key stakeholders on the potential effect of the UK leaving the Euratom treaty on energy suppliers and on the availability of radioisotopes for the NHS.

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

We have discussed the UK’s exit from Euratom across the Government and with key stakeholders. Our objective is to ensure that leaving Euratom has no adverse impact on energy suppliers or on our international commitments on nuclear non-proliferation. Medical radioisotopes are not special fissile nuclear material, and are not subject to international nuclear safeguards. Therefore, their availability should not be impacted by the UK’s exit from Euratom. As the hon. Lady will have seen, the Queen’s Speech announced the Government’s intention to legislate to establish a domestic nuclear safeguards regime.

[Layla Moran]

Yesterday The Times reported that officials from the Minister’s Department estimated that it would take seven years to negotiate equivalent terms to this treaty. Given that experts have warned that, above all, we must avoid a cliff-edge withdrawal, does he not agree that leaving on the current timeline is infeasible and that it would be in the UK’s best interests to stay in Euratom and avoid this mess?

[Joseph Johnson]

I should have welcomed the hon. Lady to her place in the House. Our objective in these proceedings is clear: we want to maintain the UK’s leading role as a responsible nuclear state, with world-leading nuclear research and development and a flourishing nuclear power industry. We will establish a regime that ensures that nothing changes in that regard as we leave Euratom.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. What the Government’s policy is on zero-hours contracts.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the House, along with the considerable expertise he brings on labour market issues from his former employment.

Zero-hours contracts allow people to access the labour market who cannot or do not want to commit to standard, regular work. The Government recognise the concerns about employers who may be breaching the rules or otherwise exploiting their position. We want to make sure that everyone is paid properly and receives the employment rights to which they are entitled.

[Alex Norris]

I thank the Minister for her response and for her kind words. Given the ease with which, just yesterday, £1 billion was found to protect only one job in Westminster, will the Minister please say what actions the Government are taking to encourage business to offer genuine financial and personal security to the nearly 1 million workers on zero-hours contracts?

[Margot James]

The Government believe that people are entitled to be treated fairly at work, regardless of what type of contract they have with the company for which they work. The Prime Minister commissioned Matthew Taylor to undertake a review of the rights of employees. He will report on the ways in which employment regulations need to keep pace with changes in the labour market very shortly.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government are determined to ensure that employees get their employment rights. Why, then, did the Government introduce the huge fees for access to employment tribunals? Will they now abolish those fees?

[Margot James]

Employment tribunals are a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but I am in discussions with it over the review of employment tribunals that it has undertaken and we keep a watching brief on the matters the hon. Lady raises.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

What does the Minister have to say to the young dustman who said to me, “Jack, I’ve just got married. We’re about to have a baby. We’re paying a fortune in rent. We’d love to buy our own home, but no chance, because I’m on zero-hours contracts”? Is not the truth that he and millions of workers like him have seen through the pretence that the Conservative party is somehow the party of the working class, and the false claims and the phoney promises, and have simply had enough of falling pay, squeezed living standards and insecurity in the world of work?

[Margot James]

I think we should have perspective on these matters, because less than 3% of the UK workforce are actually on zero-hours contracts, and according to the most recent research 70% of those people are content with the number of hours they are working. I do accept the hon. Gentleman’s point about his constituent, however, and that is precisely the scenario that Matthew Taylor has reviewed and will report on very soon.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

10. What safeguards the Government plan to put in place to protect small businesses as part of negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

Ministers in the Department for Exiting the European Union and I are in regular discussions with small and medium-sized enterprises and their representatives, and we are arranging a joint ministerial roundtable with SMEs to ensure that their voices are heard throughout the Brexit negotiations. Only last week, the permanent secretary of the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and I held a roundtable with small businesses on the negotiations.

[Carol Monaghan]

A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that 92% of exporting small businesses trade in the EU single market. How does the Minister predict those small businesses will be affected by the loss of our membership, and how will she ensure that the sector continues to be represented in any future negotiations?

[Margot James]

The Government are committed to negotiating a full and open trade agreement with the European Union on our departure. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we are aiming for a situation in which no tariffs are applied to SMEs that export into the single market and there is no unnecessary bureaucracy.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

Many SMEs in my constituency are part of European and global supply chains. Does the Minister understand that those businesses, as well as larger financial services businesses, need clarity and certainty? When will she and the Government be in a position to give those businesses certainty about the transitional arrangements that will be put in place? As she knows, businesses are already making investment or de-investment decisions.

[Margot James]

The hon. Gentleman’s points are valid, but they are part of the ongoing negotiations, which, as he knows, have some way to go. However, we are defending our position as the No. 1 destination for foreign direct investment, and we will ensure that SMEs have a strong position in global supply chains into the future.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

11. What plans he has to implement an energy price cap.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

22. What plans he has to implement an energy price cap.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Our manifesto said that

“we will introduce a safeguard tariff cap that will extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers to more customers on the poorest value tariffs.”

I stand by that commitment.

[Emma Hardy]

The lived experience of many people in Hull West and Hessle is that the Conservative party has done nothing to fix the energy market for the past seven years. Although I welcome the Government’s move and transformation from calling an energy price cap Marxist and extremely dangerous to copying it, is the Minister facing calls to water down that policy either from the big six or from his own Back Benchers?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the House; she follows a distinguished predecessor. I would perhaps invite her to reflect on her own party’s history in this matter—the former Leader of the Opposition was the Energy Secretary and failed to do anything whatever about it. I have been clear about the commitment that we have made, and we will see it through.

[Chris Ruane]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. To misquote Caroline Aherne’s question to Debbie McGee, what first attracted the Secretary of State to Labour’s financially astute, socially just and politically responsible energy price cap?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back. What he describes as an energy price cap was launched as an energy price freeze. The problem with that was that as energy prices fell, consumers would be paying more than they needed to. That would have been disastrous for them, which is why the proposal that we have made, in response to the Competition and Markets Authority analysis, is a much more sensible approach than we got from Labour.

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

As we have heard, various media outlets have reported recently that senior Cabinet members were lobbying for the Conservative price cap manifesto commitment to be dropped. Indeed, the Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem was silent on the price cap element and, when questioned last week, the Prime Minister refused to confirm unambiguously that the price cap would be upheld. Will the Secretary of State confirm for the avoidance of doubt that he will implement the promised price cap, and not just stand by it, to deliver to 17 million customers the £100 saving that his Prime Minister promised?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady back. It is very good to see her back in her place. I did not hear her name chanted at Glastonbury and it is probably unparliamentary to do it here, but I warmly welcome her back. I have been very clear and the Queen’s Speech is very clear. It said, in terms:

“My government will ensure fairer markets for consumers, this will include bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair practices in the energy market to…reduce energy bills.”

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am afraid it is not clear. The Secretary of State’s recent letter to Ofgem simply asks it to advise him of the action it intends to take to safeguard customers on the poorest value tariffs. It was not a direction to implement a price cap. Can the Secretary of State confirm that should Ofgem not take directions to implement a price cap, or if it directs a price cap that is narrower than the Conservative manifesto commitment, he will legislate to uphold his party’s manifesto commitment and, if so, when?

[Greg Clark]

The powers that I have are to ask Ofgem to move in this way, not to order it; Ofgem is independent. As there is a strong body of opinion on both sides of the House that the detriment that consumers have been suffering should be put to an end, I would have thought that the hon. Lady welcomed it being put to an end as soon as possible, rather than waiting for legislation to pass through the House. Ofgem has those powers and I believe it should use them.

[Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that all regions benefit from the Government’s industrial strategy.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

The importance of our regions is a core pillar of our industrial strategy. We will build on successful clusters, of which the Humber Energy Estuary is a perfect example, as the hon. Lady knows. The Humber’s leading position in marine engineering has been further strengthened by the opening of factories around the offshore wind industry, including at Siemens, where 1,000 new skilled jobs have been created. This is the industrial strategy in action.

[Diana Johnson]

Ministers recently blocked Hull’s privately financed initiative to deliver rail electrification all the way to Hull, an important part of our infrastructure that is needed in east Yorkshire. Are people in Hull right to now believe that the £1 billion that was found for the Northern Ireland powerhouse comes at the expense of the northern powerhouse?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Lady knows as well as anyone in this House the commitment that this Government, and I in particular, have made to devolving funds to Hull and the Humber. They have benefited considerably, first from a city deal and then from a growth deal. That has contributed to the increased prosperity in her city, which I would have thought she would welcome.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has just outlined, and despite the fact that business confidence in the region is high, as outlined by the most recent Hull and Humber chamber of commerce’s quarterly report, there are still further initiatives that could be taken to advance the northern powerhouse. What further plans does my right hon. Friend have?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the aspects of the progress made around the Humber is the close working relationships that have been established by businesses and council leaders north and south of the Humber with the Government. I look forward to visiting the area again—I am a regular visitor—so that we can have further devolution of funds and powers there.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Over the last seven months nearly 2,500 job losses have been announced in York, including some at Nestlé, as well as the closure of two company head offices. There are clear challenges to York’s economy. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me, along with his senior officials, so that we can address those serious challenges and ensure that the industrial strategy reaches York as well?

[Greg Clark]

I should be very happy to do that. Nestlé is, of course, a major employer, and there is a cluster of food and drink and agriculture businesses in and around York. It has been identified in the industrial strategy as an area of real potential, and I look forward to working with the hon. Lady to realise that potential.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As the Secretary of State will know, expanding Torbay’s manufacturing sector is a key part of diversifying our economy for the future, but a lack of skills may hold us back. Will he confirm that the Government are still seeking to deliver institutes of technology throughout the regions in England?

[Greg Clark]

I will indeed. As I said in an earlier answer, the importance of upgrading our skills education is vital in all parts of the country, including Torbay, and institutes of technology are a way of making sure that industries can benefit from the particular skills that they need.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Having abolished the regional development agencies, the Conservative party has refused to invest in growth for good jobs across the country. Ours is now the most unequal economy in western Europe. If every region produced at the same rate per head as London, we would all be one third richer, but instead working people have not had a pay rise for seven years. Will the Secretary of State commit himself to matching the specific proposals for investment for jobs that are laid out in Labour’s industrial strategy, or does his new-found largesse end at the shores of Ulster?

[Greg Clark]

Again, that was a disappointing response. The hon. Lady knows, and the leaders of her local councils know, how important initiatives such as the city deal and the growth deal have been in the north-east. If she looks around the country, she will see that, whereas in past years most jobs were created in London and the south-east, that situation has been transformed, and the north-east of England is one of the areas that have created jobs at a more rapid rate than anywhere else in the country. She should commend that development.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

13. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Claire Perry)]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new job. I also have a new job, and, since taking on the role I have been incredibly impressed by the progress that the United Kingdom has made, both in meeting its own climate emissions targets and in exercising international leadership in that regard. I want the carbon growth plan to be as ambitious, robust and clear a blueprint as it can be, so that we can continue to deliver on this hugely vital piece of domestic and international policy. I am therefore taking the time to ensure that the draft could be extended to become more ambitious, and I intend to publish the plan when Parliament sits again after the summer recess.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have been on the edge of my seat while listening to the hon. Lady, as has always been the case, but I think I am right in surmising that she was seeking to group Question 13 with Questions 15 and 19. So carried away was she with the excitement of her new responsibilities that I think she neglected to inform us of that.

[Claire Perry]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I shall group Question 13 with Questions 15 and 19.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

15. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

19. What the reasons are for the time taken to publish the Government’s carbon reduction plan.

[Ruth George]

I thank the Minister for her words. Will she join me in commending the work of the Moors for the Future partnership in my constituency in the Peak District for the purpose of carbon reduction? It is revegetating the large areas of bare peat that exist there, thus fixing carbon emissions. Will the Minister also please let us know what effect the new timeframe of the carbon reduction plan, which was due in 2016, will have on industries and other partnerships that are relying on seeing the plan?

[Claire Perry]

I am, of course, delighted to welcome that incredibly innovative partnership, which was launched in 2002 and is making real progress in working out how we can naturally store carbon in the peat environment that the hon. Lady now represents. As I have said, I intend to publish the clean growth plan when Parliament returns from the summer recess. I look forward to cross-party discussion and, hopefully, consensus on a document that is hugely important both for Britain’s domestic future and for our international leadership.

[Paul Blomfield]

The publication date that the Minister mentions is almost a year after the date originally intended by the Government. Does not this reflect a lack of commitment to tackling climate change? What is she doing to engage with other Departments to ensure that they carry out emissions impact assessments so that we can see a real commitment to tackling climate change across the whole of the Government?

[Claire Perry]

May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that, as the proud MP for the constituency that has Britain’s leading carbon capture and storage research facility, he ought to welcome the progress that successive Governments have made on this agenda? We were the first country in the world to set binding carbon budgets, and we have over-achieved on the first and second ones. Our full intention is to engage the whole of Government and industry in delivering on the upcoming budgets.

[Mike Amesbury]

Again, we do not seem to have a date for publication. The Minister talks about a date after the recess, but what specific date is that? Does she not agree that this delay is creating considerable uncertainty for the business community, and that it has the potential to increase energy bills?

[Claire Perry]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. He will know that we are talking about setting a trajectory of budgets from 2022 and beyond. The progress we are making is absolutely exceptional, both domestically and internationally. Perhaps he is new in his place, but he could look in his diary and check when the House returns from the summer recess. My intention is to publish the plan when the House returns from the summer recess.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Single-sentence inquiries are now required.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The Minister spoke of peer-to-peer exchanges of energy. I have no idea what they are, but given the enthusiasm she has brought to her brief I believe that we all deserve a tutorial. Could that be arranged?

[Claire Perry]

It would be a pleasure to educate my right hon. Friend. Let us think of it as a lot of hot air being generated by one particular point and being shared around many other data points. It is part of our future, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure the hon. Lady’s ministerial peers in other countries—to whom I think she referred earlier—must have felt keenly conscious of their great privilege in meeting her.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I would like to applaud this Government’s record on tackling carbon emissions. Our carbon reduction plan, alongside investment in new technologies and ratification of the Paris agreement, will make us world leaders in this field and create many more jobs—particularly, I hope, in Taunton Deane, with spin-offs from Hinkley Point, the lowest carbon energy development in Europe. Can the Minister give any further indications of how the Government are responding to the United States’ withdrawal from the Paris climate change agreement?

[Claire Perry]

Even those who do not think that this is a pressing international issue must surely welcome the fact that there are now more than 400,000 people employed in this industry—more than in the aerospace sector. Britain has shown, in the G7 and the Environment Council meetings, that we are absolutely prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with our European and international partners to make up any deficit caused by Mr Trump’s withdrawal.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

We were promised the publication of this report in the middle of 2016. In October 2016, the permanent secretary promised that it would be published by February 2017. In January 2017, the then Secretary of State promised that the report would be published in the first three months of this year. Now we hear that it might be published this autumn. A year and a half on from the original promise, we are now clearly defaulting on our commitment under the Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the plan is published as soon as is reasonably practicable after the order has been laid. Is not the Minister ashamed of this lamentable failure to act on that legislative requirement to produce a report that is important to the future of climate change activity, and will she apologise to the House for the delay?

[Claire Perry]

I would have expected more from the hon. Gentleman. Let me just remind him what has happened since the Committee on Climate Change’s report was produced. We have had Brexit, we have had a general election and we have had the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris climate change agreement. I want to take the time to ensure that this report exceeds his expectations. I will take no lessons from those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have consistently failed to welcome this country’s progress, which the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)—who is, sadly, not in his place—was sensible enough to kick off in 2009. I believe in delivery, not promises, unlike the Labour party’s manifesto.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

As outlined in the Queen’s Speech, our industrial strategy will drive prosperity across the country, and in the past month we reached an important stage in that process. While we analyse the nearly 2,000 responses, we continue to make decisions that help UK-wide industries. We have announced £1 billion over the next four years for our most innovative industries, such as artificial intelligence, medicine, and autonomous vehicles. We have boosted investment in UK bioscience, such as by providing the University of Edinburgh’s Roslin Institute with some £20 million, which will not only support its research on infectious diseases but create more highly skilled jobs and cement the UK as a world leader in science and innovation.

[Rachel Reeves]

Energy security is essential for national security and for family finances. The essential Moorside energy project in Cumbria is key to such security, but with Toshiba now predicted to lose £7 billion and the French firm backing the project pulling out will the Secretary of State tell us if and when the project will go ahead and provide the assurances that industry, workers and consumers desperately need?

[Greg Clark]

We have inaugurated a new era of nuclear power through the approval of Hinkley Point C. The NuGen consortium, the membership of which has changed from time to time, is confident that that investment will be able to proceed.

[Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)]

T5. I welcome the Government’s commitment in the Queen’s Speech to the new industrial strategy. Will the Secretary of State update the House on his plans to support new, cutting-edge technologies that will help Britain to lead the fourth industrial revolution?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend was a great champion of the strategy in the previous Parliament, and I hope that he will be here. One of its early fruits is the industrial strategy challenge fund, which is already making resources available for research in healthcare and medicine, artificial intelligence, clean energy, driverless cars, advanced materials, and satellites and space technology. That is exactly in line with what he and his group have been urging.

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

T2. The Conservative manifesto pledged to deliver a country“where wealth and opportunity are spread across every community in the United Kingdom”,and I see that Northern Ireland has just had its share. Will the Secretary of State tell me how the Government’s industrial strategy will bring wealth and opportunity to places such as Blackburn, where the national average wage is far less than it is in Maidenhead, for example? Blackburn has seen too many cuts from this Government and it is time that we had some investment, so how quickly can the strategy be delivered?

[Greg Clark]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her place. She will discover over time, I hope, that a key part of the industrial strategy is to drive growth in all parts of the country. My Department and I have looked to get funds out of Whitehall and into local places in every part of the country, including £320 million in Lancashire for the funding of the growth deal. She will also be aware that it is necessary to have an economy that is prospering, and one thing that would stand in the way of that is the record peacetime taxation with which the manifesto on which she stood was threatening the country.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are very short of time. We need to speed up.

[Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)]

T8. Our emerging technology and universities sectors welcomed our manifesto commitment to increase R and D spending from 1.7% to 2.4% of GDP, but it was not in the Queen’s Speech, so what has happened to that commitment?

[The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)]

Fear not, Mr Speaker, legislation is not required to deliver on that commitment. It remains a priority for the Government and for the delivery of our industrial strategy. We want to get to 2.4% of GDP for our R and D spend, and we have a longer-term ambition of 3% after that.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

T3. Research by Citizens Advice found that half the people on zero-hours contracts, and two thirds of people on temporary contracts, worryingly believe that they are not entitled to paid holiday. Kirklees citizens advice bureau has found employers deliberately misleading workers about their rights. What steps is the Minister taking to make sure that workers are aware of their rights to a fair holiday? What repercussions will there be for companies that mislead staff? Can the Minister confirm when the Taylor review will be published?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Margot James)]

The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to workers who are misled and workers who believe erroneously that they have fewer rights than they do. We are absolutely committed that any individual, whatever contract they are on, is entitled to their rights. We have increased the powers open to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to enforce those rights.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

T9. Market towns are vital to the rural economy, and they are the heart of rural communities, drawing people together across the 531 square miles of my constituency. Modern shopping habits, however, can mean that it is difficult for businesses in market towns to survive. What are the Government doing to support our much-needed and much-loved market towns?

[Margot James]

Market towns, such as the ones in my hon. Friend’s constituency, will have all the support we are giving to the retail sector and high streets so that they can flourish.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

T4. The National Audit Office recently published a report on Hinkley Point C that is nothing short of damning, describing it as “risky and expensive”. When will the Government listen to the experts and scrap this costly expenditure, and when will they invest instead in carbon capture and storage?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)]

If ever you decided not to be Mr Speaker, a career as chairman of the BBC Radio 4 programme “Just a Minute” would be appropriate. In answering the hon. Lady’s question, I will try to keep to your one sentence rule.

The Hinkley Point contract is entirely designed so as not to get the Government involved in expensive capital expenditure, and the nuclear power produced by Hinkley Point will be an excellent part of a mix of power for decades to come.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Having access to the next generation of skilled workers is vital for business confidence and growth. Will the Minister consider promoting the opportunities of our ambitious apprenticeship programme through the annual business rate mailer to increase awareness?

[Joseph Johnson]

Significant attention was given in the Queen’s Speech to commitments to roll out new institutes of technology, to the extra £0.5 billion of spending that will be given to further education and to our target to deliver 3 million apprenticeship starts by 2020. High-quality further and technical education is an absolute priority for this country and this Government.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

T6. The British ceramics industry owes its current success and future survival to the innovation and development of breakthrough technologies. With funds such as Horizon 2020 potentially disappearing along with our EU membership, will the Government assure me that domestic projects such as the advanced manufacturing research centre will receive support to keep us at the cutting edge?

[Joseph Johnson]

We remain committed to ensuring that the UK remains the go-to place for science, innovation and tech investment in the years ahead. We want to remain open to collaboration and research partnerships with institutions across the European Union and around the world as we negotiate our departure from the EU.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the Government’s industrial strategy for Scotland?

[Greg Clark]

It has been warmly received in Scotland, and we have had a positive response from businesses there. I had an enjoyable roundtable in Aberdeen, which was described by one local business as a “breath of fresh air.” I look forward to continuing that engagement with everyone in Scotland, and I am sure my hon. Friend will play a big part.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

T7. While other countries, including our EU partners, have over the years used public purchasing to support their own industries, Britain often has not. As Brexit approaches, what are the Government doing to ensure that Government Departments, local services, emergency services, councils and other public bodies back British industry and British jobs by buying British first?

[Greg Clark]

The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have already changed the procurement guidance so that local value can be taken into account. We have anticipated the issue he mentions and this is being done.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

The Secretary of State is aware that I have long campaigned for parental bereavement leave, and I was delighted to see this policy in not only the Conservative manifesto, but the Labour manifesto. On that basis, will he kindly set out what steps the Government will take to introduce this important benefit?

[Margot James]

I agree that bereaved parents should have the opportunity to grieve away from the workplace, and we will seek to provide for that. I am willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss further how we might make such provision.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has talked repeatedly today about the discussions he has had on Brexit. Which trade unions has he met, and when?

[Greg Clark]

I regularly meet trade unions: I met Frances O’Grady of the TUC last week; I spoke to Roy Rickhuss of the steel union yesterday; and I spoke to Len McCluskey a few weeks ago. My contacts cover both sides of the employer and trade union mix.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Earlier this year, 116 MPs signed a letter I wrote to the Secretary of State urging him to implement the recommendations of the Hendry review for the world’s first ever tidal lagoon. When will a decision be taken?

[Richard Harrington]

The Hendry review also said that there are significant questions as to whether tidal lagoons can be cost-effective, and very complex issues are involved. We are fully aware that a Government decision is needed in order for anything to proceed, but it is absolutely right that we take the necessary time to consider this carefully.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Now that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has reached the midpoint of his parliamentary career, I had intended to call him if he was standing, but he is not and so I will not—but if he does, I will.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

I have listened to the questions and answers for the past hour, and I hear about the city deals and all the rest of it, but why does the Secretary of State not answer the specific questions about the trade unions? If he wants to give the impression that he is on the side of working-class people, why do not the Government drop the trade union Bill and all the rest of it?

[Greg Clark]

I could not have been clearer about the regular discussions I have with trade unionists. My concern, which I hope would be the hon. Gentleman’s concern, is to make sure that in all parts of the United Kingdom we generate the jobs and growth to ensure that all working people have a prosperous future to look forward to. That is the purpose of this Government, in contrast to the manifesto on which he stood.

[Mr Skinner]

Answer the question!

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Mr Skinner]

I did not get an answer.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that on the strength of his 47 years’ experience of this place he knows that not receiving an answer is not an altogether novel phenomenon in the House of Commons, irrespective of who is in power at the time.

New Members

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

The following Members took and subscribed the Oath, or made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law:

Jonathan George Caladine Lord, for Woking

Adam James Harold Holloway, Gravesham.

[Mr Speaker]

As we are about to hear the first urgent question of the Parliament, I think it right to remind the House, particularly the Front-Bench teams, of the conventions on time limits. Colleagues will understand that I do so because they have not been adhered to with any religiosity in recent times. For urgent questions, the Minister may speak for up to three minutes; the person asking the urgent question and the official spokesperson, where different, a maximum of two minutes; and the third-party spokesperson a maximum of one minute.

For oral statements, the Minister is usually limited to 10 minutes; the Official Opposition spokesperson to five minutes; and the third-party spokesperson to two minutes. Members wishing to take part in statements, urgent questions and business questions must be in the Chamber, in accordance with a very long-established convention, before such events begin, and colleagues should not expect to be called to ask a question if they are not in their place as the statement/urgent question/business questions begin.

In a moment, I shall call Jonathan Ashworth, but it might be helpful if I indicate to the House that, as there are not far short of 70 Members wishing to take part in the continued debate on the Queen’s Speech, I would like the exchanges on this question not to go on much beyond half an hour.

NHS Shared Business Services

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

12:41

[Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of Statement to make a statement on NHS Shared Business Services.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

As the House knows, on 24 March 2016 I was informed of a serious incident involving a large backlog of unprocessed NHS patient correspondence by the company contracted to deliver it to GP surgeries—NHS Shared Business Services. The backlog arose from the primary care services’ GP mail redirection service that SBS was contracted to run. No documents were lost, and all were kept in secure storage, but my immediate concern was that patient safety had been compromised by the delay in forwarding correspondence. A rapid process was started to identify whether anyone had been put at risk.

The Department of Health and NHS England immediately established an incident team. All the documentation has now been sent on to the relevant GP surgery where it was possible to do so, following an initial clinical assessment of where any patient risk may lie. Some 200,000 pieces were temporary residence forms and a further 535,000 pieces were assessed as low risk. A first triage identified 2,508 items with a higher risk of harm, of which the vast majority have now been assessed by a GP. Of those 84% were confirmed to be of no harm to patients and 9% as needing a further clinical review. To date, no harm has been confirmed to any patients as a result of this incident.

Today’s National Audit Office report confirms that patient safety was the Department and NHS England’s primary concern, but as well as patient safety, transparency with both the public and the House has been my priority. I was advised by my officials not to make the issue public last March until an assessment of the risks to patient safety had been completed and all relevant GP surgeries informed. I accepted that advice for the very simple reason that publicising the issue would have meant GP surgeries being inundated with inquiries from worried patients, which would have prevented them from doing the most important work, namely investigating the named patients who were potentially at risk.

A proactive statement about what had happened was again not recommended by my Department in July for the same reasons and because the process was not complete. However, as I explained to the House in February, on balance I decided that it was important for the House to know what had happened before we broke for recess, so I overruled that advice and placed a written statement on 21 July. Since then, the Public Accounts Committee has been kept regularly informed, most recently being updated by my permanent secretary in February. The Information Commissioner was updated in August.

In July 2016, I committed to keeping the House updated once the investigations were complete and more was known, and I will continue to do so.

[Jonathan Ashworth]

I welcome the Secretary of State to his place, but is it not an absolute scandal that 709,000 letters, including blood test results, cancer screening appointments and child protection notes, failed to be delivered, were left in an unknown warehouse and, in many cases, were destroyed? Does not the National Audit Office reveal today a shambolic catalogue of failure that took place on the Secretary of State’s watch?

As of four weeks ago, 1,700 cases of potential harm to patients had been identified, with this number set to rise, and a third of GPs have yet to respond on whether unprocessed items sent to them indicate potential harm for patients. Does the Health Secretary agree that this delay is unacceptable? When will all outstanding items be reviewed and processed?

The Secretary of State talks about transparency, but he came to this House in February because we summoned him here. In February, he told us that he first knew of the situation on 24 March 2016, yet the NAO report makes it clear that the Department of Health was informed of the issues on 17 March and that NHS England set up the incident team on 23 March, before he was informed, despite his implying that he set up the incident team. Will he clear up the discrepancies in the timelines between what he told the House and what the NAO reported?

The Secretary of State is a board member of Shared Business Services, and many hon. Members, not least my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), have warned him of the problems and delays with the transfer of records from SBS. Given that those warnings were on the record, why did he not insist on stronger oversight of the contract?

The cost of this debacle could be at least £6.6 million in administration fees alone, equivalent to the average annual salary of 230 nurses. Can the Health Secretary say how those costs will be met and whether he expects them to escalate?

Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the NAO that there is a conflict of interest between his role as Secretary of State and his role as a board member? Further to that, can he explain why his predecessor as Secretary of State sold one share on 1 January from the Department to Steria, leaving the Secretary of State as a minority stake owner in the company, and never informed Parliament or reported that share in the Department’s annual report—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but sooner or later the discipline of sticking to the two minutes has to take root. I am afraid that it is as simple as that and I am sorry, but he has had two and a half minutes.

[Mr Hunt]

Let me respond to those points. First, what happened at SBS was totally unacceptable. It was incompetent and it should never have allowed that backlog to develop, but before the hon. Gentleman gets on his high horse, may I remind him that SBS and the governance arrangements surrounding it were set up in 2008, at a time when a Labour Government were rather keen on contracting with the private sector? I know that things have changed, but the fact of the matter is that throughout this process our priority has been to keep patients safe. Transparency is nearly always the right thing; I am the Secretary of State who introduced transparency over standards of care in hospitals—[Laughter.] It is interesting that Opposition Members are laughing, as Labour was the party responsible for sitting on what happened at Mid Staffs for more than four years, when nothing was done.

Transparency is incredibly important but it is not an absolute virtue, and in this case there was a specific reason for that. If we had informed the public and the House immediately, GP surgeries would have been overwhelmed—we are talking about 709,000 pieces of patient data—and they would not have been able to get on as quickly as we needed them to with identifying risk. That was the priority and that is what today’s report confirms: patient safety was the priority of the Department and NHS England. I put it to the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) that if he were in my shoes, and faced with advice that said that it was wrong to go public straight away as that would compromise the very important work GPs had to do to keep patients safe, he would have followed exactly the same advice. That is why, while I completely recognise that there is a potential conflict of interest with the Government arrangements, I do not accept that there was an actual conflict of interest, because patient safety concerns always overrode any interests we had as a shareholder in SBS.

The NHS is a large organisation. It has a huge number of contracts with both the public and private sectors, and no Government of any party can ever guarantee that there will be absolutely no breach of contract. However, what we can do is ensure that we react quickly when there is such a breach, which happened on this occasion, and that we have better assurance than we had on this occasion. I assure the House that the appropriate lessons will be learned.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

While Members from across the House will be relieved that so far no patients are identified as having been harmed by this appalling incident, will the Secretary of State set out what steps he is taking to ensure that this can never happen again?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. There is a short-term and long-term lesson. The short-term point is that it is unlikely this would happen again because it was paper correspondence, and we are increasingly moving all the transfer of correspondence to electronic systems. The longer-term point is exactly that—[Interruption.] An Opposition Member mentions cyber-attacks; they are absolutely right to do so, because of course we have different risks. This clearly indicates that we need better checks in place, so that when we trust an independent contractor with very important work, we know that the job is actually being done, and that did not happen in this case.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

The NAO’s findings are deeply concerning for the families of patients caught up in this chaotic shambles. For those involved and the wider public, this will only deepen their mistrust and misgivings in how the Tories are running the NHS; we can be grateful that they are not in charge in Scotland. Surely it is simply astonishing that a company partly owned by the Department of Health failed to deliver 500,000 NHS letters, many of which contained information critical to patient care. Not only were 1,700 people potentially at risk of harm, but thousands of others were put at risk. Was this SBS contract properly scrutinised by the Secretary of State? Was patient care or cost-cutting at the forefront of that decision? Why did he publish a vague written statement in July 2016 when he actually knew what was going on four months earlier?

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid—the hon. Gentleman was within his time. He gets an additional brownie point.

[Mr Hunt]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that it is totally inappropriate to try to make political capital from this incident. The facts of the case are that the NAO today published a report saying that patient safety was the primary concern of both the Department of Health and NHS England throughout. There were some problems with the assurance of that contract, but the contract and the relationship with SBS in particular dates back to 2008. Both sides of the House need to learn the lessons of properly assuring NHS contracts, and I dare say the same is true in Scotland.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I fully support the Secretary of State’s actions, which were quite right in the difficult circumstances in which he found himself, but what action will be taken against the executives who presided over this shambles? Is there any enforcement mechanism under the contract against the other owner of the company?

[Mr Hunt]

The company has been stripped of that contract; it was relieved of the contract back in 2015. We are very clear that it will have to fulfil all its contractual requirements, including paying its fair share of the costs that have been incurred as a result of this wholly regrettable incident.

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Patient confidentiality and safety must be treated with the utmost seriousness at all times, and the NHS fails if it loses the trust of its patients, so how did the Secretary of State for Health come to the conclusion that risk to more than 1,700 patients was merely due to an issue of mail redistribution?

[Mr Hunt]

I did not come to that conclusion. The hon. Lady is right, as a doctor, to say that patients’ trust in the way we hold their records is very important. In this case, the correspondence concerning patients was not forwarded, but it was not lost either. It was held securely, so no patient data were put at risk, but it should have been forwarded to another part of the NHS, and it was not; it was effectively stockpiled. That is what caused the concerns. We have been going through the high-priority cases. So far, the vast majority of cases have had two clinical reviews, and the ones we are still concerned about are having a third clinical review. We are taking this extremely seriously.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

The Secretary of State mentioned Mid Staffordshire and patient safety, which is absolutely critical, but may I point out that the County hospital in Stafford now has an excellent record? It is currently seeing 27 patients in A&E with a waiting time of not much more than one hour, according to the app that I have on my phone. Will he confirm that the situation has been transformed because of the fantastic work of the staff in that hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to confirm that. I am also happy to say that the problems in the old Mid Staffs, which I am afraid we had in many parts of the NHS, are being addressed much more quickly because of an independent oversight regime—the new Care Quality Commission inspection regime—and the appointment of a chief inspector of hospitals, who is independent in law and gives his judgment independently in law. That is something the Labour party regrettably tried to vote down.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May I commend to the House the record of the debate I secured in November 2011, in which I warned the Government in terms about the very poor record of SBS and urged them not to part-privatise what had been an excellent NHS service? Ministers said at the time that the new contract would save £250 million. Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how much this scandal has cost, rather than saved, the taxpayer? Will he apologise both to the staff and the patients affected?

[Mr Hunt]

The costs are in excess of £6 million, and we are seeking to recover as much of that as we can from the company involved. I know that the regime in the Labour party has changed, but to try to turn this into an issue of privatisation when under the right hon. Gentleman’s own party’s Government—and indeed, during his own time as Health Secretary—we had problems at Mid Staffs that were squarely in the public sector is wholly inappropriate. This is about proper assurance of what is going on in the NHS, and both sides of the House need to learn the lessons.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

In order to reassure my constituents, will my right hon. Friend confirm that NHS SBS no longer provides this mail redirection service, that all backlogged correspondence has now been delivered to the relevant GP surgeries for filing and that no patient harm has been found in this case?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Of course we welcome the fact that no patient harm has been identified to date. We have to wait until the process of the third clinical review is completed on at-risk patients’ records, which will happen by the end of December. She is absolutely right to say that SBS is no longer performing this contract; it has been taken in-house. Other parts of the SBS contract not related to what we are discussing today were given to another supplier.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that this is a very straightforward case? It shows a woeful lack of transparency, is a good example of why so many of us have concerns about too much private sector involvement in the NHS and, bluntly, there is a conflict of interest for the Secretary of State.

[Mr Hunt]

I acknowledged in my statement that there is, or was, a potential conflict of interest when the contract with SBS was in operation, and the National Audit Office talks about that today. In reality, as the National Audit Office confirms, patient safety was always our overriding priority in all the decisions we took. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, as I do to the shadow Health Secretary, that he would have taken exactly the same decisions had he been in my shoes.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has confirmed that the contract has now been taken in-house. Can he also confirm that it is a totally different operation and that none of the people who were involved in making the decisions is now involved in making the decisions on the current service?

[Mr Hunt]

I can absolutely confirm that.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that the Secretary of State at least acknowledges that this was incompetent but, crucially, does this not run deeper? Problems were first raised in January 2014, and then again internally by an administrator in June 2015. He found out, as Secretary of State for Health, only in March last year, and the Public Accounts Committee found out and was able to look at this only in September, because information was released on the final day that Parliament sat last summer. He talks about transparency, but does he not think there are deeper lessons to be learned here not only about transparency but about how the NHS supports whistleblowers?

[Mr Hunt]

There are two big lessons that we need to learn. First, why did the company have no internal systems in place to deal with the fact that from 2011 the mail was building up into a backlog? According to the NAO report, the situation was not escalated to the chief executive’s level until the end of 2015. That is wholly unacceptable. Secondly, it is also unacceptable that we did not have the assurance systems in place that would have allowed us to know that a backlog was building up. That is why it is so important that lessons are learned.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

Who drew up the contract for the redirection service that omitted any key performance indicators?

[Mr Hunt]

The original contracts with SBS went back to 2008, which is when it started providing mail redirection services, but they were renewed in 2011, which is why I think Members on both sides of the House need to reflect on this.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Over 700,000 pieces of sensitive medical information went missing, and the situation was allowed to escalate over a five-year period without being discovered, which I think shows gross incompetence. What has been done to set right this wrong, especially for the families left behind who have been affected by this worrying incident?

[Mr Hunt]

There has been a huge operation to deal with this. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there were 709,000 pieces of correspondence. We did an initial clinical triage to identify which ones were low risk, such as notifications of change of address, and which ones were higher risk, such as test results. We identified 2,500 that had a high priority, and 84% of those have so far been identified as being of no clinical risk, but we are continuing to do more thorough clinical risk assessment.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

As I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, for many patients the image created by the media is one of documents being lost. Can he confirm that at all times the correspondence was kept either in secure conditions on NHS premises or in secure archive facilities?

[Mr Hunt]

I am happy to confirm that. I think that in such situations it is important to allay public concerns about what might have happened. What happened was unacceptable, but no patient data were lost.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that no patients were harmed and that the documents were securely stored, but 35 sacks of mail were destroyed. How does he know that he made the right call in every situation?

[Mr Hunt]

Just to be clear, what I said was that to date there is no evidence of any patients being harmed, but the process of proper clinical review, with multidisciplinary teams, will take until the end of the year. We have to do this properly to get to the answer. We hope that it remains the case that no patients were harmed, but we will not know that until the end of the year. However, throughout this whole process we have prioritised the highest risk cases and made sure that they get the most urgent attention.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Following this failure, I welcome the Secretary of State’s decisive action in bringing in the national incident team. How will we learn the lessons and share the best practice, as discovered by that team?

[Mr Hunt]

The NHS is extremely good at responding to crises and emergencies, as tragically we have found out in recent months. This is an example of the NHS doing a very good job when it realises the scale of the problem. For me, the lessons that really need to be learned are about not the response to the issue but the assurance processes that allowed the problem to happen in the first place.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The National Audit Office says that the review of the backlog of correspondence has found 1,788 cases of potential patient harm, so what action is the Secretary of State taking to support those patients?

[Mr Hunt]

All those cases have already been looked at by two sets of clinicians, and so far, on the basis of those two reviews, no patient harm has been identified. However, because we want to be absolutely sure, we are having a third clinical review that will be even more thorough, potentially with more than one set of clinicians, so that we can get to the bottom of this and find out.

[Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)]

I understand that the inquiry has focused on patient risk, but has there been any analysis of the impact on patient waiting times, which are also extremely important for patient care? Exactly how many patients have waited longer than they should have for treatment?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is right. That is one of the most critical questions when it comes to trying to understand whether there was any actual patient harm. Ordinarily, if a patient was waiting for a test result that did not arrive at their GP’s surgery, the GP would chase it up and get a copy, so there would be no delay in treatment. However, only by looking at the patient’s notes can we understand whether any harm is likely to have happened. So far we have not identified any patient harm, but we will continue to look.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State told the House in February that all correspondence was kept safe and secure, and he has repeated that claim today, so when did he know that 35 sacks of mail had been destroyed by staff, and why has he not mentioned it since?

[Mr Hunt]

As the hon. Lady knows, I was informed at the end of March 2016. The issue with the correspondence that was destroyed relates to procedures around what it is legitimate to do when patients have been dead for 10 years. At the moment we are not aware of any specific risk to patients as a result of those sacks of mail being destroyed, but we will continue to look at the issue very closely.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State was made aware of the failings of the contract and warned about the dangers in the House in 2011, yet he did not take up two places on the company’s board. Would that not have added to the overall scrutiny of the contract? Is he not guilty of being asleep at the wheel?

[Mr Hunt]

I have been Health Secretary for a long time, but not since as far back as 2011. However, the hon. Gentleman asks an important question. It is true that the Department was entitled to three seats on the SBS board but took up only one, but I do not believe that would have made a difference in this case, because the board directors were intended to represent the Department as SBS shareholders. What we needed was better assurance of the implementation of the contract. That needed to happen with the NHS as a contractor. That is the lesson that needs to be learned.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State talks about the need to learn lessons, but we have seen a pattern across Government—not just in the Department of Health, but in the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, for example—of companies being awarded contracts and then failing miserably. Those companies have the contract taken away but are then awarded another one. Clearly the lesson to be learned across Government is that some companies are simply not fit for purpose when it comes to delivering public services.

[Mr Hunt]

We do need to be robust when companies fail in their contracts with the public sector. I do not think that this affects only private sector companies, because we contract with people in the public sector and are let down. Equally, we need to be robust when the right things do not happen. Most importantly, the lesson from what happened with SBS is that we need to understand much more quickly when things are going wrong, so that we can nip problems in the bud. That did not happen in this case.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

How many more times is the Secretary of State going to come to this House, as he has done on countless occasions, when he personally is at the centre of a controversy? Even a cat has only nine lives.

[Mr Hunt]

I am not sure that I have as many lives as the hon. Gentleman.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan) was absolutely right when she suggested that the Secretary of State is trying to downgrade 1,788 cases of potential harm and a potential conflict of interest to no more than an administrative error by a contracted-out service. In my constituency, a tender for cancer care was ended prematurely, costing the taxpayer millions of pounds. Are these not examples of where the Conservative party’s ideological agenda to contract out our NHS services is failing and patients are suffering as a result?

[Mr Hunt]

Quite the opposite. Those examples show that we take the contracts off the private sector when it lets us down. That is what happened in the case raised by the hon. Gentleman and with SBS.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Shared services in my constituency saved £120 million in four years. When the system was privatised under Steria, it lost £4 million and goes on being inefficient. Can the Government escape from this paralysis of thought that is costing the country so much—that everything private is good and everything public is bad? Will they look to not outsourcing but insourcing services from the inefficient private sector back to our wonderful, efficient civil service?

[Mr Hunt]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Government who had an active policy of increasing private sector market share in the NHS were the last Labour Government. This Government legislated to stop the Government nationally prioritising the private sector and made that a decision for individual doctors at a local level.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

As a doctor, I understand the importance of ensuring that results and letters are reviewed in a timely manner. There will always be opportunity for error in any system relying on bits of paper being sent around. Hospitals such as Peterborough City hospital, where I have worked, provide results electronically, which is quicker, as well as having a back-up paper form, which provides for patient safety. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that good practice such as this is being rolled out elsewhere?

[Mr Hunt]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right to point out that we are in a different world from the world of 2011. The future is to transport patient records securely over electronic systems. It is much quicker and there is much less room for error, but we do need the back-up systems that she mentioned.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wrote to the Secretary of State in January on behalf of a GP practice in my constituency that is concerned about the potential impact on staff working at the practice. I raised the matter again four months ago during the previous urgent question, and the Secretary of State promised to look into the impact on staff. Can he report back to the House today?

[Mr Hunt]

I will relook at the situation in that surgery to ensure that we are learning any lessons that need to be learned. However, this is a complex process. There have already been two clinical reviews in the vast majority of the high risk cases, and we want to have a third review to really establish whether there was any actual patient harm. That takes clinician time, which is one of the reasons why we have not been able to complete the process by today. It will take until Christmas to do that because we have to balance the other responsibilities that clinicians have in their daily work.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Earlier, the Secretary of State assured the House that the individual directors who are responsible for this catastrophe are no longer in a position to cause similar damage. Is he aware that the briefest of searches through Companies House records shows that the same three or four names associated with Shared Business Services come up time and again?

There are about a dozen companies, many of which come under the Sopra Steria Ltd group of companies, and most of which advertise the fact that they do a lot of work for the NHS right now. One is titled NHS Shared Employee Services Ltd, which suggests that, far from having been removed from any influence, the individual directors who were legally responsible for this disaster are still very much in a position to make money for themselves while presiding over similar disasters in the future.

[Mr Hunt]

I note the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he will understand that I am not in a position to pass judgment at the Dispatch Box on the behaviour of individuals. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has respected and well-established systems in place to ensure that people who are not fit and proper to be company directors are not able to continue with their duties.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My constituents are served not by the SBS contract, but by the Capita contract. I have raised problems with that contract to the Secretary of State on many occasions. There are still problems with the helpline, which appears incapable of logging and following through with complaints. Why is this contract, which is clearly failing, not taken back in-house by the Government?

[Mr Hunt]

Just to be clear, this is a different contract, as I know the hon. Lady understands. We have been working hard, and I know that the hon. Lady worked hard with my Department in the previous Parliament to try to get to the bottom of the problems with the Capita contract. My understanding is that the situation is improving, but I will happily look into the individual situation she mentioned.

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State said that this takes time and, if I heard correctly, that a third of GPs have failed to respond. What steps is he taking to ensure that patient care is not being compromised by the extra admin burden on already overworked GPs?

[Mr Hunt]

We are paying GP surgeries for the extra admin time that this is taking. That is designed to ensure that, where necessary, they can buy in extra resources to deal with the extra admin. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that we have to ensure that GPs’ core work is not compromised by the issue.

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

I used to work as a clinical scientist in the NHS, so I know only too well the harm that can be caused by the non-arrival of a test result. If a diagnostic test is performed and the result goes nowhere and is not seen by a clinician, as in this case, it is the same health outcome as if the test was not done at all. Will the Secretary of State stop trying to downplay the situation and own up to the seriousness of this scandal?

[Mr Hunt]

No one listening objectively could possibly say that I am, or that anyone on this side of the House is, downplaying this very serious situation. Since the issue came to light, we have instituted a review of 709,000 pieces of patient correspondence. We have identified the high-priority ones, of which there are 2,508. Two, and sometimes three, clinical tests have been done on all of them. No patient harm has been identified to date, but we are not complacent. We will continue the process until we have been through every single patient record with that thoroughness.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I too will mention the Capita contract. This is not an isolated case. A pattern is occurring. The Government are failing in their governance over patient records. Will the Secretary of State now review that governance and bring it back in-house? It is so urgent that we oversee the safety of patients first.

[Mr Hunt]

As I confirmed to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), I will look into the outstanding issues with the Capita contract for GPs that are not related to the delivery of patient records. My understanding is that things have got better, but we were very unhappy with the initial performance from Capita.

Confidence and Supply Arrangement

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

Application for emergency debate (Standing Order No. 24)

13:17

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I rise to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter for urgent consideration—namely, the Government’s confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist party and the associated funding arrangements.

Yesterday morning, the Government confirmed a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party to secure a working majority in this Parliament. The central part of the deal involved a funding arrangement that would see Northern Ireland benefit from more than £1 billion of extra investment, while the other nations of the United Kingdom would secure next to nothing. The full details of the deal must be fully debated and all the issues properly scrutinised as quickly as possible, certainly ahead of Thursday’s votes on the Humble Address. Yesterday there was an hour-long statement, with little notice, from the First Secretary of State, who took questions from hon. Members. That cannot be considered satisfactory, given the significance and importance of the deal. Members must be given a chance to debate all the issues fully.

The normal arrangements for the funding of the nations of the United Kingdom have been turned on their head with the disregard of the Barnett formula. Had the Barnett formula been applied, Scotland would have been entitled to nearly £2.9 billion of additional funding and Wales would have got an extra £1.7 billion. The First Secretary yesterday claimed that the deal was to be compared to allocations made under city deals. That is not the case and that assertion must be tested. City deals in Scotland are match-funded by the Scottish Government and local authority partners; and Northern Ireland is not a city.

There are also questions about the role of the Scotland Office in all this. On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Scotland noted he would not support any funding that,

“is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules”.

This deal clearly does—it fails that test. We and all the new Scottish Members of Parliament need to know whether the Scotland Office made representations to the Prime Minister in advance of this deal being announced, and whether it did anything at all to protect Scotland’s vital funding interests in this deal.

While we welcome the increased funding for Northern Ireland, we believe there are serious questions regarding the relevance of the Barnett formula in the light of this new deal. If this represents a relaxation of ideological austerity, all regions and nations of the UK should benefit. This matter requires more attention from the House, and I humbly request an emergency debate to get the answers that this House and this country need.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the DUP funding deal. I have listened carefully—it was my decision to allocate to the hon. Gentleman three minutes in which to make his case—to the application from the hon. Member. However, I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.

I do realise that that will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he is a persistent terrier, and I feel sure that he and other Members from his Benches will raise this matter in all sorts of ways in days to come, and they will not be deterred in any way by the thought that they might be repeating themselves. [Interruption.] They will very properly return to this matter as and when they wish—preferably, however, when they are on their feet, rather than, as exemplified by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), from the comfort of their seat. We will leave it there for now.

Points of Order

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

13:21

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I raised the lack of clarity from the Communities Secretary on the Government’s plans to introduce local retention of business rates to replace the revenue support grant to local authorities. In reply, the Secretary of State indicated that today’s Queen’s Speech debate may be an opportunity to raise the matter. Has the Secretary of State given you, Sir, any indication that he intends to make an oral statement on these matters during the forthcoming debate? How might Members with an interest in this matter adequately question him if they have not put in to speak in the debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The relevant Minister will, I think, be making a speech to the House. That, of course, does not constitute a statement as such, but it is nevertheless a full treatment of the issues of which the Minister wishes to treat.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s second inquiry—how do Members probe the Minister if they have not put in to make a speech?—the short answer is, by intervention. It is not for me to try to set myself up as an executive coach, and the hon. Gentleman would not wish me to do so, but the idea of Members proceeding collectively with the same line of inquiry is not entirely a novel idea, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to encourage his colleagues to focus on a particular theme or point and to keep repeating that theme or point until they are satisfied, it is perfectly open to him to do so. I feel sure the hon. Gentleman’s followers, or his disciples, will listen to his advice with the very closest interest and respect at all times. We will leave it there for now.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

A separate and unrelated point of order, I feel sure, from Mr Paul Flynn.

[Paul Flynn]

With your prodigious memory, Mr Speaker, you might recall that the final point of order in the last Parliament was about a worry that the electoral system in this country is more open to corruption than at any time since 1880, and it is possible now to buy an election.

I do not know whether you saw the Channel 4 programme about the activities in Wales of a call centre that was employed by the Conservative party throughout the election to concentrate on my constituency, among others. It was not carrying out any kind of market research; it was being used to give information that was damaging to the Labour party to as many voters as possible. One hundred people were employed to do that, and they were paid to do it. The allegation was also made—I can confirm it from what happened in my constituency—that canvassing was also done from this call centre on polling day, and I had many complaints about people getting repeated calls.

We have an electoral system that is not fit for purpose. We are in an age where neither the Electoral Commission nor the Information Commissioner can handle the election. To restore integrity to our electoral system, we need major reforms, and I am sure you will use your office to ensure that that is accelerated.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I think he invests me with powers or influence that I might not currently possess, but I am very grateful to him for encouraging an increase in the said powers or influence.

As it happens, I do recall the last point of order of the last Parliament, and it is very reasonable of the hon. Gentleman to draw my attention to it. My pithy advice is that if he has ongoing concerns about what might constitute an offence, he should notify both the Electoral Commission and, indeed, the police.

I did not see the Channel 4 documentary to which the hon. Gentleman refers, although I have a feeling that he will exhort me to view it sooner rather than later. What I would say is that if there have been egregious activities taking place in his constituency—I do not suggest that this invalidates his concern, because it does not—manifestly those activities have not been successful if they were directed against the hon. Gentleman. That is not altogether surprising, as he has been a consistent presence in this House for three decades—he might not yet have reached the halfway mark in his parliamentary career attained by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), but he is getting a bit nearer to it. We will perhaps leave it there for now.

Debate on the Address

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[4th Day]

Debate resumed (Order, 26 June).

Question again proposed,

That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

Education and Local Services

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

13:26

[The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)]

It is a pleasure to be able to open this Queen’s Speech debate this afternoon.

Since 2010, this Government have been focused on the pursuit of higher standards in education, higher standards in our schools, higher standards in our universities and higher standards in technical education—in fact, higher standards across the board—to unlock the talents of every single one of our young people.

We have made significant progress. Thanks to the energy of our great teachers and leaders, nine out of 10 schools are now good or outstanding, with 1.8 million more children in those places since 2010. Thanks to the energy of our thriving universities, more young people are going to university than ever before, including more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Thanks to the energy of businesses, we are well on our way to achieving our target of 3 million apprenticeships by 2020.

Perhaps more than most Departments, the legislation we need to drive up education standards and opportunity is already in place. In the last parliamentary Session alone, we passed the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, creating the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to oversee our bold new reforms; we passed the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, the most significant legislative reform of the past 25 years in higher education, to give students better value and more choice, information and opportunity; and we passed the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to better protect and safeguard the most vulnerable children in our society.

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend mentioned the Children and Social Work Act, and an important provision the Government put into it was making relationship and sex education compulsory. What progress is being made on regulations to bring that into force?

[Justine Greening]

I am grateful for the cross-party support that enabled us to do that, and we are determined now to push on with the issue. We will shortly be setting out our plan for how we take the review forward and how we continue to get the overall support we need to make sure relationship and sex education in secondary schools, and relationship education in primary schools, are age appropriate and effective for children growing up in a very different Britain from the one many of us grew up in.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Justine Greening]

If I could make a little progress, that would be appreciated. I am sure there will be plenty of opportunities for interventions.

As I was saying—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but there is a fly buzzing around. We are determined to build on that strong platform of success, to create an education system that works for all our children and all our young people. Equality of opportunity for everyone—wherever they are, whatever their background—is in the end unlocked only by education.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The North Shore Academy in my constituency faces a spending cut of several hundred thousand pounds. It serves one of the areas that the Secretary of State is talking about—an area of high deprivation. How on earth can that be fair funding in an area of high deprivation?

[Justine Greening]

I will come on to funding later, but suffice it to say that it is important we make sure that all our schools are fairly funded. That challenge is recognised across the House. Clearly there are difficulties in doing that.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Lady feel that education and local services in England would be helped in any way by the large part of £30 billion that would be the Barnett consequential of money for England as a result of the deal in Northern Ireland, given what the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) just said about the North Shore Academy in his constituency?

[Justine Greening]

Our manifesto pledged to increase education funding. The challenge that the hon. Gentleman’s part of our United Kingdom faces is the real issue of its standards lagging significantly behind those of England in relation to scores on the programme for international student assessment.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Justine Greening]

I will make some progress. We want equality of opportunity for everyone. In her speech, Her Majesty the Queen set out that we will work to ensure that every child has a good school place and that no young person will be left behind, in part by making sure that this country possesses world-beating technical education and, of course, by maintaining our world-class higher education.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who is a near neighbour of mine.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

On the issue of a good school place for every child, the Secretary of State will be aware of the proposal that the local mental health trust in our area should no longer diagnose children with autism. Without a diagnosis there is no chance of an educational care plan, and without an ECP there is no opportunity for a child with autism to get a good school place. Will she personally intervene to stop that?

[Justine Greening]

Work on making sure that children can be in mainstream schools has been a key focus for this Government. That is why we have introduced educational health care plans—the correct term is EHCPs—which are holistic plans to make sure that children get not just their educational needs but their broader health needs assessed. I am always happy to look at specific issues raised by hon. Members. It is exceptionally important that our education system works for all children, whatever their challenges, not just the majority of children.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Justine Greening]

I am going to make a little progress. Under our education reforms, we are determined that no person, community or group should be left behind, because in reality no person, community or group has a monopoly on talent. Talent is spread right the way across our country, and this Government will create an education system that unlocks that talent in everyone and in all parts of the country. That is how we will succeed in finally shifting the dial on improving social mobility in the UK.

[Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)]

The Conservative manifesto proposed introducing primary school breakfast clubs. Given that research commissioned by Magic Breakfast, the Educational Endowment Foundation and the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that a good, nutritious breakfast can improve educational attainment by about two months in any given year, may I urge the Secretary of State to stick to that part of the manifesto and make sure that it is fully funded, so that all children can go to school without being too hungry to learn?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we already had plans to scale up the sorts of programmes undertaken by fantastic charities such as Magic Breakfast. We all recognise their benefits, particularly for disadvantaged children, who can get into school a bit earlier, have time to settle and start their classes ready to concentrate and learn.

In the election, people were faced with choices. Indeed, the Opposition set out their alternative plan. It was very big on rhetoric, but the question is what it will actually mean for people in reality. Of course, we do not have to go far to find out. It is clear what Labour would mean for education standards as we only have to go across to Wales and look at its education performance. Instead of high standards for children in schools, Welsh children are faced with low and falling standards. Indeed, according to the OECD it is the lowest-performing country in the UK, and it is run and overseen by the Labour party. In fact, its performance is now significantly below that of England in maths, reading and science. That is Labour’s legacy for Welsh children and it would import it for English children, if it ever got the chance.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

The Welsh Government are quite open about the fact that we need to get better scores in relation to the PISA results, but what I will not accept is how, yet again, the Tory Government are trying to demonise Wales. They did it before on health, calling it a line between life and death. It is a disgrace. Will the Secretary of State apologise to the people of Wales?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady’s comment shows the reality, which is that Labour needs to pull together a strategy to improve education in Wales in the same way as our strategy of reform has improved standards in England. It has not been easy, but Labour has dodged it in Wales. Labour will never be credible to parents in England until it sets out why it feels it is failing children in Wales, including on opportunity.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Lady rightly talks about the need for Government strategy to be credible in the eyes of parents, but what credibility does she think her Government have with parents when schools are sending home letters requesting donations so that they can afford to buy books and computer equipment so that their children can have an education?

[Justine Greening]

I think that what most parents are interested in is the fact that independent school inspections by Ofsted say that nearly nine out of ten schools in this country are now good or outstanding. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention shows very clearly the difference between Members on each side of the House. On one side, there is a genuine intent to see standards rise; on the other, it is all about politics, not outcomes for children on the ground. We heard that in the intervention by the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), who had nothing to say about the standards in Wales, other than calling for an apology for raising the issue of falling standards for Welsh children. That is a disgraceful response from a party in government in Wales.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Justine Greening]

I am going to make more progress. This was not the only area on which the Labour party made proposals. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that its plan on university and higher education funding had a £2 billion black hole. In fact, the IFS estimates that the proposal could cost as much £13 billion by 2020.

Inevitably, that Labour higher education black hole would mean cutbacks for universities. It would mean lower teaching standards or the introduction of an emergency cap on student numbers. If we look at how that £2 billion black hole would be plugged, we see that it would be the equivalent either of cutting 40,000 lecturers or of a cap that would mean 160,000 fewer students going to university, based on the average student grant for fees and maintenance loans. There just would not be the money. In fact, we know that if a cap were reintroduced because of a black hole in our higher education funding, it would be disproportionately likely to hit students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Labour’s higher education black hole could force universities with lower student numbers into significant financial trouble.

On equality, what is the evidence that no tuition fees mean that more disadvantaged students can go to university? Again, we do not have to go far to find the evidence. In Scotland, the policy of no tuition fees goes side by side with lower equality of opportunity for disadvantaged young people to go to university. That is because the policy benefits children who are more likely to go to university. However, the people more likely to go to university are children from better-off families. We all know that: it is not a surprise to the Opposition.

What benefits disadvantaged children is having more places at university for them overall. The imperative therefore is not having a cap on the numbers. In Scotland, there are no fees. In England, where there is no cap, more disadvantaged young people go to university.

[Wes Streeting]

Clearly, the right hon. Lady’s party had no offer whatsoever for students and young people at the election, so perhaps she might like to reflect on the terrible mistake that was made in the previous Parliament? Non-repayable grants targeted on the poorest students were scrapped by the Government. Is it not time to deal with the real funding crisis facing students, which is the one in their pockets?

[Justine Greening]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not answer my question. [Interruption.] There will be plenty more time to dig into the Labour proposals for higher education and what they mean for the most disadvantaged children in the country.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that it is a point of order, rather than merely a point of frustration.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Is it in order, Mr Speaker, for Front-Bench Government spokespeople to put questions to Back-Bench Members of the Opposition? They are there to defend their record; it is not for the Opposition to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about it. It is not in that sense, I must tell the hon. Gentleman, narrowly analogous to Question Time. At Question Time, I have said now and again to Ministers that it is not for them to ask questions; they are there to answer questions. A debate is a more seamless enterprise, as I think the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced denizen of the House, must know. It is perfectly in order for the Secretary of State to pose an inquiry to a Member, just as it is perfectly in order for another Member wholly to disregard it. I call the Secretary of State.

[Justine Greening]

rose—

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I should be delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

[Rebecca Pow]

Am I not right in saying that there has not been a fall in the number of students going to university since fees have had to be paid? Indeed, I have two daughters who have recently completed university. They both paid fees, but on different rates—one the high rate, one the low rate. They both agree that it was right that they should pay fees for the advantage they have gained, because they should earn more money than someone who does not go to university. Is it right that someone who does not go to university should fund people who do and who have the potential benefit of earning more money?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend asks some important questions not just about equality of opportunity but about equality more generally and why we are prioritising technical education. The approach in England has benefited students from disadvantaged backgrounds, who now go to university at a record rate. In 2009, the rate was 13.6%; it was 19.5% in 2016.

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way? I have been very patient.

[Justine Greening]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), and then to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown).

[Mr Harper]

I listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. He asked what we had to offer young people, and I will tell him, although I will say that it would have been better if we had mentioned it during the election campaign. Unemployment for young people is now six percentage points lower than it was in 2010, whereas in the eurozone it remains at 20%. Under this Government, young people have a very, very good chance of getting a job, which is an excellent route to prosperity. That is what we have to offer.

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend is right. Under the Labour Government, youth unemployment went up by just under 50%. It was not just young people from lower income backgrounds coming out of the education system often without basic skills. It was graduates who came out of the system and could not find a job. We are determined to make sure that never again is there a lost generation of young people in our country coming out of the education system wanting a career but not even being able to find a job.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on giving way to me. May I commend her on the increase in standards in education? To improve those standards still further—the current funding formula is unfair and depends on a lottery code—does she agree that every pupil and every school deserves fair minimum funding?

[Justine Greening]

As my hon. Friend knows, we are absolutely committed to making sure that we have fair funding across our schools. We had an extensive consultation that received 25,000 responses, which we have gone through. We are pulling together what that means for the right way forward. He is right to point out that many schools in his local community have been systematically underfunded, which is not tenable in a country where we want all children to receive consistent investment and a consistent opportunity to make the most of themselves. We are determined to introduce our plans to ensure that schools are fairly funded, wherever they are.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Justine Greening]

I am going to make a little more progress, because I was pursuing an argument on access to higher education, which is hugely important in relation to how we drive social mobility.

The Labour party has proposed a policy that will lead to more inequality. It would benefit the young people most likely to do well: university students from better-off, richer backgrounds. However, the policy would be paid for by everyone, including lower-income workers and pensioners. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that Labour’s policy does not seem to be an effective use of £11.5 billion to £13.5 billion if the aim is partly to aid social mobility for the most disadvantaged students. I am not sure what the Labour party thought was its raison d’être, but clearly it is no longer lifting up the children growing up in our most disadvantaged communities that are furthest from a level playing field on opportunity.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given the incredibly important role that primary education plays in the preparation of young people for secondary and further education, will the Secretary of State explain how the proposed funding cuts in Sandwell, which will amount to nearly £600 per pupil over the next three years and lead to a reduction of seven teachers per school, will help that process in one of the most socially deprived areas?

[Justine Greening]

I have made it clear that we are going to introduce proposals on fair funding. There is record funding in our schools, and we have set out a commitment to increase that further in our manifesto. We will introduce those proposals shortly.

To conclude on higher education, the £2 billion higher education black hole would mean an emergency cap on student numbers. Young people would miss out on university. They would almost certainly be from disadvantaged backgrounds: young people hoping to be the first in their family to get the chance to do a degree, as I was. It is literally a cap on aspiration. Labour are not being honest and up front with young people about the implications of their proposals for higher education funding. It is simply snake oil populism.

It is vital to ensure that higher education remains accessible, is affordable and provides value for money. We need to listen to the voices of young people at the last election and we are committed to doing so, but our approach must reduce inequality and the lack of access for disadvantaged young people, not increase it as Labour’s policy would.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I remind the Secretary of State that the last Labour Government expanded higher education and had a cap on fees. She talks about 1 million young people being unemployed. In the first Parliament under the Tory Government, youth unemployment was at 1 million and the Work programme was a disaster, wasting billions of pounds. I ask her to reverse the £3 billion of education cuts being proposed by her Government, which will devastate aspiration in schools around the country. It is time to act, Secretary of State, not attack the Opposition. You are in power—deal with the cap on aspiration now.

[Justine Greening]

I can set out for the hon. Lady exactly what we have been doing. We have been reforming our education system and standards have gone up; we have taken away a cap on the number of students going to university, which is why a higher percentage of disadvantaged young people are going to university than ever before; and, of course, our economic policies have led to 2.8 million jobs being created in our economy, which has provided opportunity for young people who would otherwise have been sat at home getting unemployment benefits, with their careers on hold until they were able to get them kick-started. That is what we have been doing.

The final thing we have been doing is tackling the huge, huge deficit left by the Labour party when it left office. [Interruption.] The Opposition are bored with hearing about it, because clearly—[Interruption.] I am sorry they are in such uproar at being reminded that when we came to power, the country was living £151 billion a year beyond our means—borrowing that was due to be passed on to young people. Clearly, the Labour party has learned nothing from this at all. Its only answer to every single question it faces in any policy area is, “Spend more money, but don’t worry about where it comes from because”—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a cacophony of noise. I have told the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) before that he should not yell out from a sedentary position. I had great aspirations for him to obtain the level of a statesman, but his apprenticeship has some distance to run if he is going to conduct himself in that manner. The Secretary of State must be heard, and the same goes for everybody else in the Chamber.

[Justine Greening]

We are focused on raising social mobility and on levelling up opportunity for people who do not have it. That is why we have made investment in technical education a priority, as Her Majesty set out in the Queen’s Speech. For too long, there has not been parity of esteem between technical and academic routes in education. That has cost our country dearly. It has also created inequality between those who go to our world-renowned universities and those young people who do not have the chance to do so. That inequality stretches across communities and regions. It has cost us dearly in the loss of the human capital and productivity that high-skilled people in a high-skilled economy provide. We are determined to continue our work to recover the legacy of Labour’s lost generation of young, unemployed, unskilled people coming into the labour force. Those young people have been let down—

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Speaker]

The Secretary of State cannot hear that the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) is seeking to intervene. It is up to her whether to accept the intervention; I am merely offering a helping hand.

[Justine Greening]

I give way.

[Trudy Harrison]

I congratulate the Government on the annual £500 million increase in technical education. In my constituency of Copeland, a practical skills community, it is essential to continue the legacy of world-class trades if we are to deliver a modern industrial strategy.

[Justine Greening]

That is absolutely right. It is critical that we take advantage of two opportunities. The first is the kinds of businesses and industries in my hon. Friend’s area that are creating jobs and opportunities. The second is a generation of young people who want opportunity and want a career. We should be investing in generating our home-grown talent to take advantage of those opportunities, which we all see in our local communities. Exiting the European Union provides new impetus to the focus on developing our home-grown talent.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to world-class universities. We are proud of them in this country, but it is important that they are able to attract students from all around the world. Why do the Government persist with the ludicrous idea that we must cut net migration to the tens of thousands, including cutting the number of international students coming to stay in this country? They pay their own way, they improve their relationship with this country, and when they go back home they want to continue doing business with us. It is ludicrous!

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that he is entirely misinformed, because we do not have a cap on the number of international students. That will save him from having to ask that question again. We are determined to ensure that our universities sector remains open to the best and brightest talent around the world. He can scaremonger and raise fake issues all he likes, but it will not change the position. The much bigger threat to universities lies in decimating the funding going into them. That is the biggest challenge they would face if they ended up with the kind of higher education funding black hole that the Labour party would present them with.

We are shaping the curriculum for young people going into technical education into 15 technical routes, each culminating in a so-called T-level, which will become the gold standard qualification for technical excellence. That reform is matched by investment, as the Chancellor announced in the March Budget—a Budget that the CBI called

“a breakthrough Budget for skills.”

That investment would be at risk under a Labour Government because of the black hole in post-16 funding for higher education. Our new institutes of technology will also provide a path to develop excellence in higher technical skills. One problem we have had with technical education is that there has not been a ladder of steadily more challenging qualifications so that young people can better themselves.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend outline how the technical qualifications will meet the needs of employers? After all, we need to ensure that the skills that are being developed meet business requirements.

[Justine Greening]

Part of the plan we set out in the manifesto was to establish what we called skills advisory panels. In other words, local employers within regions will look at what the needs are in their skills pipeline, consider them in relation to the 15 skills routes that we have set out and understand how that maps on to the provision in the education system locally. Across the country, that is exactly what we will need, to make sure we have the right number of people coming through with the right skills in the right places; to have an understanding of what is needed in the years ahead; and to know the risks in provision so that we can tackle them early. This is common sense and I think it will bring a significant step change in our ability to have a successful industrial strategy that benefits young people.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will make a bit of progress because many colleagues want to speak in this debate once I have sat down.

The Government are committed to having the best lifelong learning for adults in the developed world. We will achieve that by setting up a national retraining scheme.

All these reforms represent real support for people across the country, real opportunity and real ways to tackle inequality. We recognise that access to equality of opportunity—social mobility—is what will lift our country, not some kind of snake-oil populism from the Labour party, backed up by a fiscal black hole that will mean cuts in the very areas that are most important in improving opportunity.

Of course, throughout those reforms we will work hand in glove with British businesses, relying on their expertise, knowledge and leadership—businesses that the Labour party continually castigates as being part of the problem that our country faces, as Labour sees it. We see businesses as critical in driving opportunity and social mobility.

We know that good schools are the engines of social mobility, and they are not just about individual success. Schools are at the centre of every single community. Last week I visited the Kensington Aldridge Academy, in the shadow of Grenfell Tower. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to the teachers and staff of all the schools in the area, and indeed those in Manchester affected by what happened after the Ariana Grande concert. They were met with a terrible situation but helped the young people caught up in it with absolute professionalism. Leaders, headteachers and teachers in those areas have been the unsung heroes over recent weeks, along with our emergency services, and I want to put on record again my thanks to them for all the work they have done to make sure that our children are back in school but also getting the support that they need to deal with the experiences they have had. We are committed to ensuring that that support stays in place as those schools continue, when the cameras have gone, to help their students deal with what they have been through.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

With the news today that 95 tower blocks have failed the cladding test, it is clear that hundreds of children across the country, not just in Camden but in other local education authority areas, will experience the disruption of being moved out of their home. What will the Secretary of State’s Department do to help to support schools in areas where that disruption is occurring?

[Justine Greening]

We have been clear that we are getting in touch with schools that we know are being affected by such challenges. We did a huge amount of work in response to the Manchester atrocities, stretching far beyond Manchester into the broader north-west region, and in response to Grenfell Tower. As a result, the Government will have a much better, more systematic understanding of how to respond quickly so that not only are the right links in place between my Department, regional schools commissioners, local authorities and schools, but we can work in a streamlined fashion with local NHS services and educational psychologists. All those things have worked effectively, but we have had to work hard to identify emerging problems and tackle them quickly.

I would also like to take this opportunity to say a big thank you to the mental health professionals who came from all over the country to offer their support following the Manchester attacks in particular. It was much appreciated and enabled us to deal much more effectively with the children who had been affected by the tragedy. Such responses provide the blueprint on which the Government can continue to develop emergency response.

The Queen’s Speech made it clear that the Government are determined to introduce a fairer distribution of funding for schools. We will set out our plans shortly, but, as we outlined in our manifesto, we will make sure that no school has its budget cut as a result of the new formula. We have, of course, given our schools record levels of funding, and in our manifesto we committed to increase funding further. Now that the consultation has finished, we will explain our plans for the fair funding of schools shortly.

More broadly, school improvement and great teaching and teachers are, in practice, the same thing. I had the chance to meet many inspirational teachers and leaders at the Times Educational Supplement awards last Friday. It was a fantastic evening, and it emphasised to me that teaching deserves to be thought of as a high-status profession. We will continue to work hard to crack down on unnecessary workload, and we will ramp up the quality of continuing professional development, centred around a new college of teaching. We will continue to invest in the profession to ensure that we attract the best people. Alongside continuing our reforms on academies and free schools, we are making sure that headteachers get the support they need to improve their schools through the £140 million strategic school improvement fund.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment that no school will see any reduction in funding because of the Government’s fairer funding formula, which is extremely welcome. Will she condemn the propaganda that is still going out from schools and the unions, claiming that there will be vast reductions in expenditure on a per pupil basis?

[Justine Greening]

I think all parents expect teachers and headteachers to behave professionally. There is space for an important political debate, but I question whether some teachers have pursued it in the right way, given the high status that I want the profession to have in the public mind. There is absolutely a place for debate on the funding going to schools and the reform strategy that will see standards get better, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it has been concerning to see what many people have felt are utterly political messages being put out inappropriately.

We are also committed to ensuring that the whole education system, including independent schools and universities, works together to drive up standards for all our children. Of course, the Government’s 12 opportunity areas are there to deal with complex and entrenched challenges in education in areas such as Blackpool and Norwich. We are backing local leaders in those areas—teachers, businesses, civil society and local authorities—to come together to find solutions to long-standing problems and plan for future skills needs. We want to ensure that home-grown talent plugs the skills gaps. To confront that challenge, we need a powerful alliance of employers, civil society and Government, working hand in hand in every corner of our country. I welcome the huge number of businesses, charities and ordinary people stepping forward to help us to do better for our young people.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Although we all recognise the need to address deprivation, does my right hon. Friend also recognise the need to address the historical injustices for underfunded areas? Will she confirm that she will increase the age-weighted pupil unit block in the funding formula and help to reduce the costs that some schools are facing through the apprenticeship levy?

[Justine Greening]

As I said, we are committed to introducing fair funding. It is right that we hold all schools to the same standards and the same accountability framework, and it makes sense that we should ensure that children with comparable needs are funded comparably wherever in the country they are. I will set out shortly the details of how we will do that following the consultation.

I will finish my speech. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] In many respects I was just getting started, but I am sure the rest can wait for future debates. The Government have done sterling work in narrowing the gender pay gap and advocating having more women on boards, but those efforts cannot slacken and need to be stepped up. We will bring forward new approaches to supporting women in the workplace. The 30-hour childcare offer will help families with the cost of childcare, and our returnship pilots will explore new ways of supporting mothers—it is overwhelmingly mothers—to get back into work. We know from some of the work that is already under way how powerful they can be. Of course, inequality is not confined to gender, and the Government will bring a renewed focus to the ethnicity gap in our workplaces.

The Government have an ambitious agenda for this Parliament: creating world-class technical education, ensuring that there is a good school place for every single child, wherever they are growing up, and tackling inequality in educational opportunity in all its forms. To achieve those goals, we will be resolute in our pursuit of high standards. We are building on a firm foundation, although there is more to do and more to deliver. Our young people deserve nothing less. This nation contains a wealth of talent just waiting to be unlocked, which will create opportunity and success for individuals and a strong and prosperous country that can take on, and succeed in, any challenge.

14:09

[Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)]

Let me first welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Speaker, and also the many new Members to the Chamber for today’s debate. I am sure we are all looking forward to hearing some excellent maiden speeches.

I also welcome the Secretary of State back to her place and her new Ministers to theirs. I suspect she may have found herself debating education issues quite a lot during the campaign, not least in her own constituency, but a lot has changed in these few short weeks, so today’s debate might be rather different. In fact, the Secretary of State concentrated more on the Labour party today than on her own Government and the Queen’s Speech. There are more than 2,500 words about education in the manifesto on which the Prime Minister stood those few weeks ago, but barely 50 in the speech we heard last week. Maybe that is why the Secretary of State concentrated so much on the Labour party manifesto. What we have heard is not so much a programme but a Post-it note. Although I listened carefully to the right hon. Lady’s opening remarks, I do not think we know much more about her policy now than we did before she stood up.

Let us start with the obvious points. The centrepiece of the new Prime Minister’s education policy was meant to be new grammar schools. I will not rehearse the arguments, but I will just put this observation on the record:

“When people talk about the grammar school issue, I never get people asking the question, ‘Why don’t you bring back the secondary modern?’ And in fact…most children would go to a secondary modern school…if we brought back selection”.

Of course, that is not an original observation. In this case, it is the argument made by the Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), when explaining why he opposed new grammar schools, when that was the Conservative policy under the last Prime Minister. I do not think it was said in this election campaign, so let me be the first to say it: #IagreewithNick. Perhaps the Secretary of State can explain what a hashtag means to her Home Secretary. I also agreed with the Minister for School Standards when he said:

“Now our job is to improve the standards in the three thousand comprehensive schools in this country and I believe it’s not getting rid of the grammar schools that was the issue.”

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State could shed a little light on her own policy by responding to a question that has been asked in most of these debates but never properly answered. Would a Labour Government abolish existing grammar schools?

[Angela Rayner]

I think I have been quite clear that we would concentrate on standards and not structures, unlike this Government, who are ideologically obsessing and wasting billions of pounds—not my words, but those of the National Audit Office about the Government’s fixations.

The question is, will the Government now get on with the job and does the Prime Minister now also agree with Nick? Will the Secretary of State make it clear that there will be no attempts to lift the ban on new selective schools? Will she finally concentrate on solving the real problems—those that we hear about time and time again and that we heard about throughout the general election: the crisis in funding and in the teacher workforce—instead of creating more problems for herself?

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The Labour party manifesto talked about a lot of funding for many areas, but does the hon. Lady recognise that making unfunded promises and putting a huge amount of funding into the system has an impact on the economy and on schools? That impact was seen in Greece, which went bankrupt, with 8,500 teachers losing their jobs and schools having no teachers to teach in them.

[Angela Rayner]

I am absolutely astonished by that, given what has happened over the last 24 hours and the magic money tree that has suddenly been found for a coalition of chaos. I will take no lectures from the Conservative party, especially when the only numbers I saw in its manifesto were the numbers of the pages I was reading.

The Prime Minister also threatened to end universal infant free school meals during the general election. I hope the Government will now confirm that that policy has been abandoned, as part of their full-scale retreat from their own manifesto. Ministers claimed during the election that free breakfasts would be more cost-effective. Their costings left a bit to be desired, though: the original plan would have allowed only 7p per breakfast. I remember that when Labour was in government we got our school meal recipes from Jamie Oliver. The Conservatives must have been getting theirs from Oliver Twist. Even then the new costings were based on take-up of just 20%, so I look forward to hearing a full explanation of their policy on free school meals.

On a similar note, one thing that the Secretary of State has announced today is the Government’s new policy on mental health first aid training in schools. They said they would train the first 3,000 staff for £200,000—£66 per member of staff. At the same time, the charity delivering the policy said it would cost at least £117.25 per person, so the Secretary of State’s figures were out, but only by about £150,000. Having realised that her numbers do not add up, she has now rushed out another U-turn, saying that the £200,000 is for only the first year of the policy. Can Ministers finally tell us how much the policy will cost per year, how many teachers will be trained each year and how she managed to get the policy announcement so badly wrong? It seems a long time ago since the Conservatives were talking about strong and stable leadership. Only one day after the deal for the coalition of chaos was signed, and this Government are even weaker and wobblier than ever before.

Now let me turn to the words that the Secretary of State did get into the Queen’s Speech, which promised reform of technical education. However, she has already legislated for reform of technical education earlier this year, in the Technical and Further Education Act 2017, so can Ministers tell us whether there will be another new Bill on technical education in this Session? Or is the reality that this Government have come to the House with such a threadbare programme that they have been reduced to announcing Bills that they have already passed, in the last Parliament?

The Government had nothing to say on higher education. No wonder they wanted to talk about our policies. It is just weeks since they used a statutory instrument to sneak through their latest rise in tuition fees, while freezing the threshold at which graduates begin to repay their debts. The election came before the scheduled debate and vote on that rise, so I hope the Government will now provide time for that debate on the Floor of the House.

Nor did the Government have anything to say on the even more critical issues of early years education and childcare. At the end of the last Parliament they left early years education and childcare in disarray. They promised an early years workforce strategy but have given no indication of how they will implement it. Providers across the country have told the Government time and time again that the funding they are providing is inadequate, and hundreds of thousands of working parents have been denied the service that they were promised. How many words were there about that in the Queen’s Speech? None whatsoever.

Let me also touch on another issue, which is perhaps more important than any other this week: the safety of our school buildings. The Government had been planning to change the regulations on fire safety in schools contained in “Building Bulletin 100”. Funnily enough, those proposed changes have now been removed from the Department for Education website, but luckily we have a paper copy. The proposed new draft no longer included an expectation that most new school buildings would be fitted with sprinklers, on the basis that

“school buildings do not need to be sprinkler protected to achieve a reasonable standard of life safety.”

Perhaps the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government could take the opportunity later to confirm that these proposed changes have now been abandoned for good.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important to carry out a thorough and comprehensive check on the fire safety of every school building in the country? We cannot put too high a price on the safety of our children. In view of the likely costs, does my hon. Friend think that the Government should set up a contingency fund to cover all those costs, as a matter of urgency, so that local authorities do not have to consider cutting other already shredded budgets to find the money to pay for the necessary work?

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree—indeed, I was intending to deal with that point later in my speech. I hope that the Secretary of State will take my hon. Friend’s comments on board. We know that local government in particular has been hit by the Government’s so-called austerity agenda. The cuts that our local authorities face need to be looked at.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government told the House that the Government had ordered safety checks to be carried out to ensure that flammable cladding was not used on school buildings. Will he update the House on the results of that survey as soon as possible? If there are schools that use flammable cladding, can the Secretary of State for Education give a clear assurance that the costs will be covered by the Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) has requested?

It would also be helpful to know what action is being taken in student halls of residence. Can the Communities Secretary confirm that they are classed as “other residential buildings”, and are therefore subject to weaker requirements for sprinklers? If so, will the Government consider closing that loophole? What action will the Government take to ensure that both university and private halls are checked for flammable cladding?

Let me now turn to the subject of school funding. Yesterday, the First Secretary of State came to the House to announce the Government’s deal with the Democratic Unionist party. Fortunately for them, they seem to have located the magic money tree about which we heard so much during the election. The package included £50 million for schools, to “address immediate pressures”. That is £150 for every pupil in Northern Ireland.

Of course I welcome the Government’s acknowledgement that they were not properly funding schools in Northern Ireland, and the money is to address that; but can the Secretary of State explain why, as schools face billions of pounds in cuts, the Government are doing nothing to address the immediate pressures on schools in England?

The Conservative party manifesto said that the new funding formula would be introduced, and that no school would lose funding as a result—in fact, the Secretary of State said it herself. Achieving that will require an increase in school funding over and above current plans, so, again, it is time for clarity. When will the Department publish a response to the second stage of the consultation on the fair funding formula, and when will the new funding formula be introduced? Will the Secretary of State provide a cast-iron guarantee today that no school will be worse off, in real terms?

If the Secretary of State has been talking to parents and teachers in her own constituency—let alone across the country—she will know that schools are facing severe cost pressures, and that head teachers are being left with impossible choices. I absolutely agree with what she said earlier about the staff and workforces in our schools and public services, but I must say to her that they need more than words. Even given the money that the Government found by scrapping school meals, the Institute for Fiscal Studies—which the Secretary of State likes to quote so often—has found that the implementation of their plans for school spending would mean a real-terms cut of nearly 3% in per-pupil funding.

The Gracious Address referred to a highly skilled workforce in high-wage jobs, but in-work poverty is at a record high, and the UK has the second lowest wage growth in the OECD since 2010. The only country where wage growth is lower is Greece, and that is a direct result of the failure of this Government. Their failure to invest in education will lead to a generation of children not getting the education they deserve, and not getting on in life.

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. [Hon. Members: “Shadow!”] Give us a couple of months.

My hon. Friend has talked about the failure of a generation. Does she know that, at the University of Chester academy in Ellesmere Port, a generation of schoolchildren are now being failed because of a second failed Ofsted inspection—the second in four years? The multi-academy trust has also had a damning Ofsted inspection, but we heard nothing from the Secretary of State about what she intends to do to improve performance in academies.

[Angela Rayner]

During the general election campaign, I had the honour and privilege of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency, and he is absolutely right: those concerns are real. I think we saw that played out in the election. We saw that young people came to the Labour party because we had an offer for them. We also saw the direction in which the Secretary of State’s majority went. It certainly did not go in the same direction as mine. I think she needs to take heed of that.

We see the same picture of cuts in public services across the country: budgets cut, services lost and communities losing out. For instance, since 2010, nearly a third of designated Sure Start children’s centres have been lost. Funding for early-intervention services has been cut again and again, and it is the working families of Britain who will pay the price in the end.

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has mentioned both Greece and cuts. She must be aware that, according to the House of Commons Library, Government spending in 2010 was £715 billion and this year it will be more than £800 billion. That is an increase, not a cut, and it includes record spending on education. In so-called anti-austerity Greece, Government spending is down by 30%, so it is not exactly a model.

[Angela Rayner]

The hon. Gentleman will also note that we are in trillions of pounds of debt, and that the debt has doubled on the Government’s watch. They like to talk about the economy, but they failed on every single one of the fiscal rules introduced by the previous Chancellor. I will take no lectures on the economy from Conservative Members.

The Secretary of State seemed to suggest that Labour’s record in power was not one to be proud of. Of course, there are a number of aspects of our record that she failed to mention. Perhaps she will tell the House which party delivered record levels of investment in our schools; or perhaps she will tell us which party, during 13 years in power, slashed the attainment gap, and saw children from some of the most disadvantaged backgrounds do just as well as their more affluent peers. It certainly was not her party.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Perhaps it is the hon. Lady who is guilty of not telling the House that under the last Labour Government one in three children left primary school without the expected levels of numeracy and literacy, and there was a 3,500% increase in “equivalents to GCSEs” which were certainly not equivalents to GCSEs. That was conning children that what they were learning in schools was fit for purpose.

[Angela Rayner]

Again, it is clear that Conservative Members like to talk more about the Labour party than about their own record book. [Interruption.] Let me answer the question. Let us just be clear about the position. Where are we now in the programme for international student assessment tables? We are slipping again. It was the previous Secretary of State who said that the Government would be judged according to their standing in the PISA tables, but its status is falling continually, so I will take no more lectures. When the Government talk about, for instance, their free school programmes although they cannot even get the buildings up and running and are spending billions, I think we are seeing a record of shameful waste under the Conservatives.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and others have mentioned standards. Perhaps it slipped some Tory Back Benchers’ notice last summer that the number of pupils at key stage 2—those who were leaving primary school—who met the requirements in the standard assessment tests had fallen from more than 80% to just 53%. That was absolutely shocking. It was not because the standard of teaching had fallen, or because pupils had become less capable, or because head teachers were not performing well; it was because the Government have been meddling with every bit of curriculum that they can their hands on. That is making standards fall and setting children up to fail.

[Angela Rayner]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. From now on, interventions should be brief. A very large number of colleagues wish to contribute, and I am keen to accommodate as many as I can.

[Angela Rayner]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has said.

On the Secretary of State’s point on tuition fees, she seems to have misunderstood the way in which the policy was costed. That is hardly a surprise, given that her party is not exactly used to costing its commitments. The extra £2 billion that she calls a black hole would only be a black hole if all universities charged the highest fee level. Under her Government that number is rising again, with no end in sight. But based on actual outlay by the Student Loans Company, we have fully costed an end to tuition fees. Frankly, it is ironic to hear the Secretary of State who scrapped the maintenance grant complaining that we would not be able to undo her policy. This, too, is fully costed, and I am happy to send her a copy of our manifesto to show her just how we will do it. I will even get the next Prime Minister to sign it for her.

The Secretary of State talks about prioritising technical education. Does this mean that the 14% real-terms cut to the further education budget or the billions of pounds cut from the adult skills budget will be reversed? We can all guess the answer to that one. And may I remind her that our manifesto pledged to reverse her cuts to Sure Start? Sure Start and other early intervention programmes have the greatest impact on boosting social mobility for the most disadvantaged. How can she possibly justify cutting hundreds of millions of pounds in Sure Start funding, and the loss of a third of designated Sure Start centres under the Conservatives?

Finally, on helping the disadvantaged, the Secretary of State conveniently ignores the fact that new research shows that students from low-income backgrounds are most likely to be deterred by higher levels of student debt. Under Labour, there will be no barriers to young people pursuing whatever education they want, be it further or higher, academic or technical. It is only her party that, by slashing school budgets while tuition fees skyrocket, is capping aspiration.

Another way is possible. It is the plan set out in the Labour party manifesto—a plan that will invest in our young people to ensure that everyone, whatever their background, can fulfil their potential. It is a plan in which we reverse the cuts to school funding and then protect their budgets in real terms for the lifetime of this Parliament, and in which we provide free lifelong learning so that everyone can retrain and reskill when they need to, free from the fear of a lifetime of debt. It is a plan in which aspiration is encouraged, not taxed, and in which we invest in early years education and childcare, making sure that every child gets the best possible start in life, because social mobility does not start at 11 but in the early years, when interventions make the greatest impact.

This is what Members of this House must ask themselves. Do they stand for cuts to schools and local services, or for investment? Do they stand for the managed decline of further education, or do they support lifelong learning? Do they stand for taxing the aspiration of our young people, or do they stand for allowing every child to fulfil their potential? I know where we stand on this side of the House, and the choice has never been clearer.

14:33

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

In the past eight weeks we have seen a series of major terrorist attacks in this country. We saw the attack here in Parliament in which a police constable was killed. We saw the bombing in Manchester, and then we saw the atrocity in London. I was, until the general election was called, a member of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, and I want to speak briefly on the subject of that Committee because it is very important and, if precedent is anything to go by, a new Committee will not be established until the middle of October. That will mean that there will have been no scrutiny of the intelligence and security services for between five and six months.

The Committee, of which I was lucky enough to be a member—I hope that I might be put back on it when it is reconstituted—forms an important part of the oversight and scrutiny of our intelligence and security agencies. It is a peculiar Committee, in that it is a Committee of the House but it is not like a Select Committee. It was first established in a very narrow technical sense in 1994, at a time when we had only just publicly admitted that the Special Intelligence Service and the Security Service existed. Its remit now stems from the Justice and Security Act 2013, which set out the organisations that the Committee was to look at, monitor and comment on. It was established that the Committee should report not only to the Prime Minister but to this House. The Committee has nine members: seven are selected from the House of Commons and two from the House of Lords. Unlike Select Committees, there is no public election involved. Names emerge, and the Prime Minister—after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition—formally puts them to the House, where they are voted on.

I would be the first to admit that it is a strange Committee, in the sense that we have to get the balance right between freedom of expression and the right to know, on the one hand, and on the other, the need for the intelligence and security agencies to maintain secrecy. More and more has been put in the public domain, and I like to think that, over the past 18 months, we have produced a series of good reports. There were no minorities; they were all agreed upon. Those reports were based on the evidence that we received from the intelligence and security agencies and from Ministers. We meet in a secure building, and there are no performances as there are in Select Committees. There are no cameras there. The questions that we put to the officials and Ministers in front of us are not easy, as they would be the first to admit. Our task is to hold them to account on behalf of Members and of the public.

I put it to all Members, particularly those on our Front Bench and the Whip on duty, that we can no longer continue with a system in which it takes three to four months to reconstitute the Committee after a general election. In this modern day and age, that is ludicrous. The usual argument is that we have to go through all the same procedures and elections as a Select Committee, but that is incorrect. I urge the Government, and the Leader of the Opposition, to think about reconstituting the Committee before 20 July when we go off into recess. The secretariat of the Committee is drawn from civil servants all across Whitehall, and they are carrying on with their everyday work—they are not sitting there twiddling their thumbs—but they cannot get on with the task of helping the Committee to head in the direction that we, or our successors, would like to take it in.

This is a matter of crucial importance to the House. At the end of the day, it is based on an element of trust. In the past, there have been those who wanted the Committee to take on a similar role to that of a Select Committee. The trouble is that that would cause all kinds of problems because of the desire on the part of the agencies to maintain the secrecy element, although I fully accept that that might change. If we do not go ahead and reconstitute the Committee, it will be failing in its remit to scrutinise the work of the intelligence and security agencies.

As the House knows, all kinds of questions have been raised, particularly after Manchester, about whether the agencies and the police knew about the individuals involved, and whether they had ignored them. I do not know, but my experience of being on the Committee is that the agencies work hard to monitor and find people who wish to carry out terrorist attacks in this country. It is not a question, as one of them put it to us, of trying to find a needle in a haystack; they are trying to find the haystack. This Government and the previous Government put a lot of extra resources into the agencies to make certain that they could recruit more people, but that takes time. In The Daily Telegraph yesterday, the former director general of GCHQ talked about the role of the private sector, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have raised the whole business of social networks and whether such companies are prepared to allow the intelligence and security agencies the kind of information that they require when they are trying to find and monitor terrorists. My plea to the Front-Bench team is that they think very seriously indeed about reconstituting our Intelligence and Security Committee before the summer recess.

14:40

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Scottish schools finish this week for the summer holidays, and it is only fitting for me to start my remarks by paying tribute to the thousands of teachers, not just in Scotland, but throughout the UK, whose dedication in often difficult circumstances ensures that our young people have the best possible start in life. I want to give a special mention to my friends and former colleagues at Hyndland Secondary School who are watching this afternoon’s debate from The Rock—enjoy your afternoon.

This Queen’s Speech was arguably one of the most important that Members of this House will experience. We sit on the Brexit cliff edge with the UK’s constitutional future under question, and how we proceed will determine the future economic success of these nations. I was expecting bold statements, a clear direction and some reassurance to those working in our higher education sector. Unfortunately, however, we heard none of that. Higher education is often used to describe how great Great Britain actually is. Our universities are the best in the world and our scientists are the most innovative. However, those hard-fought positions did not arise from great British researchers and innovators, but as a result of the free movement of staff and students, of collaboration, and of rich and diverse ideas from a rich and diverse community. As in other sectors, great uncertainty hangs over our universities, and particular policies have made things difficult in recent years.

I have spoken in this place on many occasions about the need to reintroduce the post-study work visa, which is a particular issue in Scotland. Scotland has been blighted by depopulation for centuries. Emigration is our problem, not immigration. While numbers of international students have held relatively steady recently, the countries of origin are changing, with a now much narrower range of countries represented in this community. We have a large Chinese student community in Glasgow, and while we of course welcome those students and are delighted that they have chosen to study in Scotland, they generally return to China at the end of their course, taking with them their newly gained expertise. We get economic and cultural benefit from those students while they are here, but how much better would it be if we were able to have their expertise at work in our towns and cities? More worryingly, when we rely on only one group of international students, what happens to the sector if political or economic changes mean that they suddenly cease to come? That could have an impact on not only the university sector, but the wider local economy.

I have been told repeatedly that if a graduate’s salary is of an acceptable level, they are able to remain and work, but in Scotland and other areas of the UK salaries are much lower than in the south-east of England. The reinstatement of the post-study work visa will allow greater economic growth and encourage entrepreneurship. However, with this Queen’s Speech, immigration targets and xenophobia have overruled common economic sense and net migration targets are more important than creating a climate for economic growth. Maybe it is time for immigration powers to be devolved to Scotland.

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Carol Monaghan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman intervening?

[Mr Harper]

On that point, the hon. Lady said that one of the problems facing Scotland is people leaving, and although we have not been as successful as we hoped in reducing immigration to the United Kingdom, it has been running at a couple of hundred thousand, so will she explain why so few of those people have actually wanted to go to Scotland? Could that be connected to the mess that her party is making of government?

[Carol Monaghan]

The hypocrisy is outstanding. We have heard the leader of the Tory party in Scotland tell us simultaneously that there is too much immigration, too little immigration, and just about the right amount of immigration. The Tory party is completely confused. If immigration powers were devolved to Scotland, we could make choices based on our economic needs.

Another point that I have raised numerous times relates to the fee status of EU students post-Brexit. I am astounded that we still do not have answers to that most basic question. It has been hinted that these students will be considered international students and will pay fees accordingly. It was also suggested to me by a Government Member that EU students will continue to come in the same pre-Brexit numbers after Brexit. I often wonder what planet Tory looks like, but it appears to have little connection to reality. If EU students are asked to pay international fees, this market will almost entirely disappear. It will become the reserve of the rich and privileged of Europe. In Scotland, access to higher education is based on ability to learn, never ability to pay, and we apply that to our EU students as well. In her discussions with the Prime Minister and the Brexit Secretary, I urge the Secretary of State for Education to be an advocate for our European students and push for a deal that will not preclude young Europeans from studying in the U.K.

Turning to funding, and Horizon 2020 funding in particular, the Prime Minister has offered some assurances to the research community, but that misses the point of Horizon 2020. EU funding ensures collaboration across multiple institutions. It means that a tapestry is woven, with each institution able to provide its particular expertise in an area. The funding is important, but the collaborations are what make the magic happen. To lose that will be a great blow to our research base. It would be like having an orchestra made up of only one drummer but with the expectation that it continues to produce a symphony. Whatever happens during the Brexit negotiations, our research community, their collaborations and their free movement must be protected.

People could be forgiven for thinking that the Technical and Further Education Act 2017 was about education and raising skills, particularly in the much-needed STEM area. Indeed, many employers are hoping that that is the case. However, technical education in that Act means general skills training. Of course, I have no problem with young people training in particular trades; the issue is that it is being billed as a breakthrough in tackling skills shortages. We know that we have massive shortages in STEM, in construction and in the digital and information and communications technology industry, and Brexit will deepen those difficulties.

Although there is no doubt that some of the Technical and Further Education Act’s intentions appear to be positive, why not be honest and call it “skills education” or have a vision for technical education that centres on actual technical education and goes some way to addressing the skills shortages in specific areas? This seems like a missed opportunity.

I am delighted that grammar schools appear to be off the table for the moment, but I wonder whether the new coalition will bring them back into discussions with the Government. I wait to see what will happen on that front.

Regardless of the Secretary of State’s comments earlier, Scotland is one of the most educated nations in Europe, with only Luxembourg having a higher proportion of people educated to tertiary level. In Scotland we provide routes to higher education through our further education—[Interruption.] New Conservative Members might learn something if they stopped shouting. In Scotland we provide routes to higher education through further education, and many of our young people from disadvantaged backgrounds take full advantage of that. Those numbers are not captured in the UCAS figures that the Secretary of State enjoys referencing.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Lady still has not answered the question. Why has the number of students from less-advantaged backgrounds going to university plateaued in Scotland, in contrast to England? Why is it that, because of Scotland’s tuition fees policy, Scottish students are finding it increasingly difficult to find a place at Scottish universities and are having to come to English universities instead?

[Carol Monaghan]

Maybe the hon. Gentleman missed what I have literally just said. When we consider alternative routes into higher education through further education colleges, in Scotland more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds access higher education than anywhere else in the UK.

It is interesting that the Secretary of State referred to a £2 billion black hole in the Labour party’s costings for higher education, but I can point to a £1.5 billion fund that appeared to become available only yesterday. Brexit is now a serious threat to our higher education, our research and our science community. We now need to take major steps to ensure that they are protected in all the negotiations.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. In order to accommodate as many Members as possible, I will now impose a time limit of five minutes. It may need to be brought down even further later in the debate, but for now it will be five minutes.

14:53

[Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)]

At the heart of giving every citizen the opportunity to succeed is the need to ensure that they have access to the best education, and I commend the Secretary of State for the clear vision she set out today, which the Government are following, to ensure that education remains at the heart of this Government’s social mobility policy. We should never forget that good schools are the engine of social mobility.

I slightly take issue with the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), because in my constituency we had to wait for a Conservative Government to get record levels of investment. We did not get it under Labour.

Critical to the role of good schools in social mobility is their delivery of academic excellence. Again, it is good to hear the Secretary of State talking about our education system, which is now on a par with the best in the world in what it is delivering academically. I urge her to stress that that should be at the top of the agenda for every headteacher in this country, regardless of their area.

The Minister for School Standards has done a tremendous job of ensuring that academic excellence is translated into reality through our curriculum and through the Government’s focus, from the start, on using phonics to ensure that we get away from the unacceptable situation in which one in three young people leaves primary school without the basic ability to read. We now have far higher standards. I recently went into Marnel Community Infants School to see the inspiration that young people are getting from their teachers because those young people are able to read fluently much earlier.

The other part of the Government’s focus on academic excellence has been the introduction of the EBacc. I was particularly pleased earlier this year to see the New Schools Network report, which laid to rest some of the myths about the introduction of the EBacc, particularly that it might be reducing young people’s ability to follow arts subjects. The excellent research showed that although young people focus on English, maths, science, a language, history and geography, they are able to include other arts subjects in their GCSE choices. It is important for us to continue that as a country, as our creative industries are world-renowned and we must ensure that that continues.

I will not go into detail on the importance of the other part of the curriculum that the Government will be addressing in this Session—relationship and sex education—although I look forward to hearing more about how that will be developed with the input of the very expert groups that advised me when I proposed amendments to the Children and Social Work Act 2017 on Report.

The Secretary of State touched on technical education and the importance of parity of esteem. I congratulate the Government on their work with the technical sector to provide supported internships for some of the most challenged young people in this country—those with special educational needs. I was privileged to go into my local Basingstoke College of Technology last week to celebrate the first anniversary of supported internships. BCOT is working with local employers to give young people with a learning disability the opportunity to get the sort of supported work experience that will make an enormous difference to the rest of their life.

This is probably the final point I will be able to raise in my short remarks. Hampshire has the third lowest education funding in the country, and we need to see the Secretary of State’s proposed changes, which will mean £14 million of extra funding for our county to try to put right some of the inequities that built up in the past. In Basingstoke 90% of our primary schools are good or outstanding. We have 1,300 new primary school places, with more than £30 million of extra investment, but we need fairer funding to ensure that the historical inequities are addressed.

14:58

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome all colleagues, including many new colleagues, to the House—many of those new colleagues will want to give their maiden speech today. I also welcome the Secretary of State, who was re-elected only by the skin of her teeth.

The Prime Minister called the election to offer the country strong and stable leadership, and what has been left is a complete and utter mess for the country. It is an indictment of a terrible general election campaign but also a reflection of the Conservative party’s time in government. School funding was undoubtedly a key issue in the election, as was, latterly, funding for the police and security services. Those issues highlighted a similar concern, which is that the public are fed up to the back teeth with cuts to vital public services—services that are precious to the public—with the same rhetoric coming from this Government.

The school gates campaign was a particularly successful and effective part of the general election campaign, and I pay tribute to the headteachers, the unions, the staff and others for their work in highlighting these issues over many months. It is pretty pathetic of Conservative MPs to blame headteachers for their loss of seats at this election.

[Mrs Miller]

Does the hon. Lady regret that parents were inadvertently left with the impression that funding for schools might be cut, particularly in my constituency, where we were going to see an overall increase in school funding? That was not necessarily always the message that her party gave.

[Lucy Powell]

I do not, because the exchanges we saw earlier today reflect the ones in the election, which showed that Conservative Members had their fingers in their ears about the facts of the matter. Let us just go through some of those facts: before we even get into the fair funding formula, every school in this country will lose between 8% and 9% of its budgets over the course of this Parliament—or this new Parliament and two years of the previous one—because costs have gone up. Although the Government say they are protecting budgets in cash terms, they are not protecting them in real terms, so even the winners from the fair funding formula will still lose 3% of their budgets, whereas the losers will lose more than 11%. Every school in the country is a loser, and Conservative Members still have their fingers in their ears, even after the general election disaster they have just overseen. Those are the facts, and I do not blame any headteacher for telling them to parents.

The Conservatives should blame themselves, because those cuts mean that headteachers are having to make some of the most unpalatable cuts to school budgets. They are having to cut back on teachers, teaching assistants, school trips and extra-curricular activities. Those are the unpalatable cuts that the Government have overseen, which is why at the general election parents around the country said, “Enough is enough.” Perhaps that is why the polling has shown that since the election nearly 750,000 people have said they changed the way they voted in that election because of cuts to school funding. Perhaps it is time now that the Government actually started to listen. Persisting with the failed lines they used during the general election campaign will not cut it, so it is about time that the Secretary of State used her reappointment to go to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister and say that she needs to find the money to meet that shortfall. This is a funding crisis and she needs to deal with it quickly.

Having dug themselves in on school funding, the Government found themselves in the same rhetorical malaise on police resources as they also took centre stage in this election. I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Greater Manchester police and their response to the Manchester terror attacks; to Manchester City Council, whose response was exemplary; to the whole city; and, as the Secretary of State said, to the teachers, headteachers and the staff in our schools who supported the many, many children who, having been at that concert that evening, went and did their GCSE exams the very next day. They all did a great job.

However, the current plans for cuts in police numbers are just too much for Greater Manchester police to bear—they are unsustainable—which is why our chief constable has asked the Government urgently for extra resources for 800 police officers. I hope the Government can find the money from somewhere for that extra resource, because the new threats our country now faces mean that we need them. Again, the Tories’ arrogance and inflexibility during the campaign meant that police cuts were undoubtedly another vote loser for them. What an irony it is, then, that they have now managed to find £1 billion from their magic money tree for their grubby deal with the DUP. Had they found that money a few weeks ago for schools and the police, perhaps they would have had a majority here today—a bigger majority even. Perhaps they will finally learn some of the lessons of the election.

Finally, let me say that it is not all bad news, because one good thing to come out of this election—I know the Secretary of State will share my view on this—is the end to the bringing back of grammar schools. I know it was a policy she was not all that keen on. We are glad to see the back of it and I am sure she will welcome that. However, I urge her and her Government to learn the right lessons of this election and make sure that our public services and education system have the funding they need.

15:04

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I know the Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton), was not able to stay for the rest of the debate because she had an urgent meeting to go to, but I was very pleased to see her in her place earlier; the former Deputy Chief Whip will make an excellent addition to the Secretary of State’s team.

I am also pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), who speaks for the Scottish National party, because while she was on her feet the First Minister caved in and accepted that there will not be a referendum on Scottish independence until after Brexit. The credit should go both to the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition in Scotland; they can share the credit for having helped to save our Union, which is incredibly important.

It is also a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), who, in her five minutes, spent a great deal of money but did not take a second to explain how our economy can generate the money to spend on our important public services. I am going to spend my remarks dealing with that now. First, let me say that it is still incredibly important that we keep living within our means, as countries that do not do so find that, over time, they are not able to pay for any important public services. That is why it is worth reminding the House that when we came into office in 2010 the deficit was 10% and we were spending £150 billion more than we were bringing in in tax revenue. By the time of the election, we had reduced the cash deficit by 70% and the deficit as a proportion of the economy by three quarters, and the debt will start falling as a percentage of GDP from this period. [Laughter.] I have to say to Labour Front Benchers who are laughing that they opposed every single spending cut we made, so the deficit and the debt would have been higher—incredibly so—had they been in government.

One thing we hear from the Opposition is that living within our means did not work, but the important things like growth and jobs have demonstrated that it did. Between 2010 and 2016, of the G7 countries our growth was second only to that of the United States; we grew almost twice as fast as our nearest neighbour, France. In 2014, ours was the fastest growing G7 country, we were joint top in 2015 and again the fastest growing in 2016. What does that mean for jobs and opportunities for our young people when they leave school? Three million more people are in work than there were in 2010; we have a record high employment rate; we have a better performance than others in the G7 and the OECD, and almost double the performance of our Eurozone colleagues. When we came to power, the unemployment rate among young people in Britain was just under 20%—the same as in the EU and the euro area.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a point about youth unemployment. Does he agree that it is scandalous that the work of a young person is so undervalued by the Conservative party that the living wage does not kick in until someone is 25? How is it right that a young person doing a job should be paid less than their counterparts who are over 25?

[Mr Harper]

It is partly to do with skills and experience. Someone who comes straight from school into a job has to get some training, experience and skills. If the hon. Gentleman talked to businesses in his constituency, he would find it interesting to ask them how someone coming straight from school with no experience and no work skills should be on £10 an hour. He would find either that that young person would not get the opportunity to work or that the business would not be viable. If he does not believe me, he should talk to some of those businesses, as that is what they will tell him.

Let me return to the Government’s performance on unemployment. When we were elected, the unemployment rate among young people was as bad as it is in the EU and the euro area, at about 20%. Seven years later, in the EU and the euro area the unemployment figure has increased, whereas in Britain, under a Conservative-led Government, it has gone down by six percentage points. There are millions of young people who have the opportunity and social mobility generated by having a job, either when they leave university or when they leave school and college and train in an apprenticeship. Even more impressively, and despite what the Leader of the Opposition keeps saying—it is not true—during our period in power income inequality has fallen. The country has become more equal, not less equal, which says a lot about the opportunities that this party delivers in government. This party makes opportunities for our young people and gives them the chance to succeed.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a number of good points about the opportunities for young people. Does he agree that, in Gloucestershire in particular, we have seen a rapid rise in the number of apprenticeships? There have been 7,000 in the city of Gloucester alone over the past seven years. Does he absolutely support another great opportunity, which is to have a health university technical college serving the people of the whole of our county and beyond?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. Before Mr Speaker left the Chair, he did point out that interventions needed to be brief. If anybody finds themselves using the word “and”, it means that they are making one point too many.

[Mr Harper]

What excellent advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I agree with my hon. Friend. He has led a number of successful job fairs and apprenticeship opportunities in Gloucester. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has also helped to introduce a cyber training centre in Cheltenham to deliver those extra opportunities for our young people in the industries of the future.

Finally, let me touch briefly on local services, particularly social care. Too often when we talk about social care, we refer only to older people. I want to remind Ministers that almost half the social care spending in England is on working age people between 18 and 24. That social care spending is incredibly important, as it ensures that those people can be independent and that they have the opportunity to work, but we need to think about how we can fund it. It cannot be funded in the same way as social care for older people, as younger people are not likely to have accumulated assets. Any form of means-testing sets up another barrier to work, and I want to ensure that more of those young people can get into work.

In our manifesto, we pledged to get a million more disabled people into work. As chair-designate of the all-party group on learning disability, I want to ensure that more people with learning disabilities have the opportunity to get into work and to succeed in the years to come. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind as the Government make their plans for the future. We have a proud record. The only thing that I regret about our record is that we did not talk about it enough during the election campaign. If we had, the Leader of the Opposition would not have got away with his irresponsible over-spending manifesto that would have bankrupted our country. I am glad that the people of Britain saw through it and made sure that they returned this Government to office. We will continue to deliver for Britain as we have done over the past seven years. We have a record of which we can be proud.

15:12

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has endured a torrid few weeks—she has gone from Wonder Woman to the Joker in one spectacular electoral pratfall. We see the parlous state of her diminishing authority and of her Government’s capacity to govern in this damp squib of a legislative programme. Apart from the preparations for implementing our exit from the EU, for which almost half the country did not vote and which is a major cause of division and rancour in Britain today, there is little to it, and there is to be no legislative programme at all next year.

When a Prime Minister at the apogee of their power writes the Queen’s Speech immediately after a general election, they should be writing about the big policies and ideas that will take the nation forward and improve people’s lives, but this speech is more about what the Government Whips think they can get away with and about trying to limit the damage to our economy, future prospects and international influence following the UK’s vote to leave the EU—something the Prime Minister does not believe in and did not vote for.

I want to discuss what the Prime Minister could have done in the Queen’s Speech to help my constituents. I am talking about keeping them safe from gun crime, and educating their children. Merseyside police have faced a cut in resources of almost £87 million since 2010, and on current Government plans are being forced to cut a further £18 million over the next three years. They have lost a quarter of their staff—more than 1,000 officers and civilian personnel—and are due to lose 540 more. The challenges they face are great, as neighbourhood policing is largely gone. The Matrix unit, which tackled organised crime so successfully on Merseyside is gone as a single unit, yet we on Merseyside are facing a surge in gun crime, which has seen more than 100 shootings in the past 18 months, including five murders. Chief Constable Andy Cooke blames the impact of these cuts for the increasingly reactive policing his force is having to adopt as a replacement for the highly successful proactive policing for which they are so well known.

There are now more guns circulating on Merseyside, and the injury rate is becoming more serious, with firearms incidents up from 33% to 50%. The community safety initiatives that Liverpool City Council and Knowsley Borough Council provided to divert young people from involvement in crime have dwindled away thanks to a lack of money. Liverpool City Council has lost 58% of its resource, rising to 68% in three years, and Knowsley will have lost 56% at the end of another three years.

In January, I wrote to then Minister of State for Policing, Fire and Criminal Justice seeking a meeting about this worrying increase in gun crime, and it took place on 9 February—indeed, you were there, Mr Deputy Speaker, as was my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd). Although the Minister did not bother to turn up, we were assured by the Under-Secretary of State that a bid for extra resources would be considered sympathetically. The chief constable has recently revealed that the bid has been turned down, yet I have not had the courtesy of a letter from Ministers following up on the meeting of 9 February, or a letter explaining why the bid that was invited has been rejected, which is disgraceful.

Andy Cooke said:

“Have I got sufficient resources to deal with gun crime? No I haven’t...If I had more staff, would I put them to deal with gun crime? Yes I would.”

This Queen’s Speech could have done something about that, but it has not.

As you well know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is now no academic A-level provision in the borough of Knowsley, part of which is in my constituency and the rest of which is in yours. Since the closure of the sixth form at Halewood academy, young people in Halewood have to leave the borough to access opportunities that should be readily available for every child in their own local community. In areas such as south Liverpool and Halewood, we have a constant battle to increase educational attainment. The Queen’s Speech could have tried to do something about that, but it did not. It does not even guarantee that no school will have its budget cut, as the Tory manifesto purported to do.

I have been asking local headteachers what the new funding formula will mean for their school. Some have already cut teachers and support staff. One of my schools has lost 26% of its teaching staff. Others see redundancies next year as inevitable. Schools are cutting back on the curriculum; one has removed drama and cut back on modern foreign languages and music. All are now having to use school budgets to pay for shared support services, such as special educational needs outreach, educational psychology and family support services, which were once provided by Liverpool City Council. Others are forced to ask parents for money to make their budgets work. This is a catastrophe and will further disadvantage those pupils who already face barriers. This Queen’s Speech will do nothing to help my constituents who need to be safe from gun crime or who want their children to have a fair chance in education. It is the last desperate effort of a Government who seek only to cling on to office. We will make sure that they do not.

15:17

[Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and thank her for her contribution. I have had the great privilege of representing the city of Aberdeen, its communities and its people over the past five years—first as a councillor and then as a Member of the Scottish Parliament for the North East Region. I am truly humbled and honoured that the people of Aberdeen South have placed their trust, faith and confidence in me to represent them in this very special place.

I give an unwavering commitment to my constituents that no matter which party they voted for, if they voted at all, I will work hard and tirelessly for all of them to make Aberdeen’s voice heard. In 2014, the people of Aberdeen South voted overwhelmingly to stay within the UK, and at this election they have sent the clearest possible message that they do not want a second independence referendum. Although the First Minister may have paused her plans, she failed to take them off the table. The people in my constituency want the divisions in our country to be healed, not exacerbated, which is why Scotland’s First Minister must get back to her day job of improving our schools and hospitals and supporting our economy to grow.

I would like to thank my predecessors for their contributions to this place. For the past two years, Callum McCaig represented Aberdeen South with enthusiasm and energy. I first met Callum when we were elected to Aberdeen City Council. At that time, his friendly, helpful advice was greatly appreciated. He is extraordinarily capable and I have no doubt he will continue to contribute to Scottish public life. I genuinely wish him all the best for his future.

It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to Dame Anne Begg, who represented the constituency for 18 years with dignity and compassion. Her tireless and passionate advocacy for the rights of disabled people helped improve the quality of life of many people across our country.

Aberdeen is a global city with a global reputation, known the world over as the oil capital of Europe, and as a centre of excellence for innovation and technology. Aberdeen has long made an impressive contribution to the prosperity of the UK and it is the engine room of Scotland’s economy. However, there is far more to Aberdeen than just oil and gas. It is the silver city with the golden sands. Its beauty is unparalleled when its wonderfully sculpted granite buildings sparkle in the sun—when we get to see the sun, that is.

Aberdeen is a vibrant city that is also alive with culture, music and the arts. My constituency takes in the west end communities such as Queen’s Cross, Harlaw, Ashley, Mannofield and Ferryhill. It incorporates the tightly knit communities of Craigiebuckler, Seafield, Airyhall and Braeside. The constituency stretches further westward, following the mighty River Dee to take in the villages of Cults, Bieldside and Milltimber and right on to Peterculter. In the south, it includes Garthdee and Kincorth and goes along to the coastal settlement of Cove. In the former royal borough of Torry, the iconic Girdleness lighthouse, built in 1813, stands tall.

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in the debate. I want to thank my constituents for electing me to this place and I look forward to being a strong voice for them here. I want to conclude with the city of Aberdeen’s toast: “Happy to meet, sorry to part, happy to meet again—Bon Accord!”

15:21

[Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

I am so honoured to be here to deliver my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for Colne Valley. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my predecessor, Jason McCartney, for his work for the constituency over the past seven years and I wish him well for the future.

The beautiful valleys that are my home hold an important place in Labour’s radical history and are closely associated with the luddites, chartists and suffragettes. Colne Valley is in fact the oldest Labour constituency in the country, and celebrates its 126th birthday next month. One of our greatest and wisest Prime Ministers, Harold Wilson, was raised less than a mile from my home and attended local schools. His words when he spoke about Labour:

“This party is a moral crusade or it is nothing”,

ring so true for me now as a newly elected Labour MP. More recently, the honourable Lord David Clark and Kali Mountford have served as outstanding representatives of my community.

The beautiful Pennine landscape that many Members saw as the Tour de France cyclists scaled the heights is something to be proud of, but it is not just the place but the people who make Colne Valley so distinctive. It is about their creativity, compassion and dry wit. My constituency has a rich diversity, with a vibrant Asian community. Since the second world war, such diversity has enriched our economy and our culture. As a former teacher and headteacher, I took part in the Kirklees schools twinning projects, where black Muslim children and white working-class children shared lessons, food and play. Those children saw no difference in colour or faith but just enjoyed friendship and the joy of one another’s company. Such an experience reminds me of Wordsworth’s words:

“The Child is father of the Man”.

In these testing times of terrorism and radicalisation, young children can give many adults the lessons of forgiveness, tolerance and compassion.

Within the discussion and debate about what is a “good” school, my experience of education and of how children learn and thrive tells me that a culture of targets and tests does not result in a happy, clever or creative child. A whole child approach that cares for their emotional, physical and intellectual wellbeing is needed. Our own head of Ofsted has recently spoken about the need for an education that meets the child’s needs, not the school’s targets.

Colne Valley has some of the best schools and sixth form colleges in the country. The professionals who work there deserve to be supported through adequate funding and ownership of a broad and balanced curriculum. Huddersfield University has just been awarded a gold standard for teaching and leads our areas economic and cultural success. We are well proud of our flagship university.

As a country our media and creative arts are the envy of the world, and in our own Colne Valley, we have hosted filming for “Last Tango in Halifax”, “Happy Valley” and other peak-time popular programmes. Our valleys are vibrant with creativity and we have a vision for not just a northern powerhouse but, more specifically, a Colne Valley powerhouse, leading in technology, culture and arts initiatives. The vision for the valleys is real, but the cuts to our local services are impacting on the most vulnerable in our communities and will make the vision harder to achieve.

Having taught in one of the most deprived areas of the country, I know the impact of poverty on a child’s physical, intellectual and emotional wellbeing. I know the child who will not let go of my hand at the end of the day because there is no heating on at home or food in the fridge. Cuts to our local frontline services are hurting our children and devastating the most vulnerable in our communities. I am committed to campaigning for appropriate funding for our schools, our hospitals and our local services. Such services are the people of Colne Valley’s right and not a privilege.

On a personal note, I am glad to see the increased number of women MPs seated in this Chamber. I do hope, however, that when my granddaughter, Iris, who is four years old, reaches maturity, she will not view it as unusual for there to be a majority of women MPs fairly representing the population of our country. I am also delighted that we now have four—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. I call Tim Loughton.

15:27

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow two such accomplished maiden speeches and it is a great sadness that the time constraints mean that hon. Members trying to give an account of their constituencies and of their predecessors and also to talk about education do not get enough time to do so. Both were polished, accomplished, witty and gracious contributions and both Members will be great advocates for their constituents. The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) will, I am sure, be no luddite in the progressive way in which she will represent her constituents, and my new hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson)—one of 12 new Scottish Conservative hon. Friends, I am delighted to say—will be a great advocate for the people of Aberdeen and the majority of people of Scotland who want to stay in the Union that is the United Kingdom we value so much.

Much has been said about what is not in the Queen’s Speech, so I will break that habit and talk about some things that are in it. I certainly commend the eight Brexit Bills. They will give us many opportunities to talk long into the night, so I will not go into any detail here. I will, however, praise the inclusion of the domestic violence and abuse Bill. The Prime Minister in particular has long championed such legislation, and the record of this Government on domestic violence is second to none.

I particularly hope that we make progress on the disproportionate number of young women who are victims of domestic abuse. Some 12% of young women aged 16 to 19 were victims of domestic abuse in the last two years. Domestic abuse is prevalent in teenage relationships. It is an intergenerational blight that affects many young women in particular. Women who were brought up in households where domestic violence was the norm expect it. They think, “Well, that’s what will happen to me, isn’t it?” but it must not. We need legislation and much greater vigilance to drive out domestic abuse wherever it occurs. I saw, as a Children’s Minister, the impact that it has on child abuse, which is nearly always linked with some form of domestic violence. I welcome the inclusion of that Bill in the Queen’s Speech.

I also welcome the mention of mental health, and in particular that of school-age children. Approximately 200,000 young people aged 10 to 17 are referred to specialist mental health services each year. They are just the ones lucky enough to be referred. It is often too late, and too much of the additional funds that this Government have dedicated to mental health does not end up going to deal with mental illness issues, particularly among young people. We have a lot more to do in that area, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister flagged it up as such a priority issue at the beginning of the election campaign.

My main focus today is on the fair funding of schools, which was probably the single largest issue in my constituency during the election. West Sussex, where my constituency lies, is the worst-funded county authority in the country. A pupil in my constituency gets under £4,200 per year, which is way down the bottom of the list. I welcome the additional £4 billion that the Government have offered, but there will still be a shortfall, given the cost pressures coming along the line from pay increases, national insurance and the apprenticeship levy. The cumulative effect of being underfunded for so many years in West Sussex is that many of our schools do not have any further slack that they can take up; they are running on empty. That has to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

West Sussex MPs have taken our headteachers to see the Minister, and I have invited all the heads in my constituency to a roundtable meeting next month, to see the exact impact of the funding situation at the moment. I obviously welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has consulted on a fair funding formula. Only this Government have done that. We had a second consultation on the fair funding formula, which ended on 22 March, but the general election interrupted it. We must urgently get a resolution through a fair funding formula that does not just tinker with the deprivation figures, rural sparsity figures or prior attainment figures. We must come up with a formula that means schools in my constituency have the basics they need to operate.

We can argue the toss about the pupil premium and all the extras for deprivation on top of it, but this cannot wait any longer. I hope that the Ministers present will take back the message to the Secretary of State that we need, as a matter of urgency, a resolution to this consultation and a meaningful settlement, so that schools in my constituency have fair funding, to give our children a fair start with the rest of the country.

15:32

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I have listened to those on the Government Benches trying to have a go at Labour Members about the cost of our manifesto, but, very interestingly, during the general election they certainly did not give us any figures or cost their manifesto. They must have had a premonition that they would not have a majority after the election; that is the only reason I can think of. The message has not got across to them yet that people are fed up with austerity.

I have visited a number of schools in my constituency, and the message has been the same at each one: they may have to make teachers and classroom assistants redundant. I believe that every child should receive every possible opportunity to succeed in life, regardless of their background. I am therefore disappointed that no clear education legislation is outlined in the Queen’s Speech. There are only vague commitments to allow children to attend good schools.

I hope that the Government have finally dropped their vanity project of introducing more grammar schools. That policy would have served only to increase the divisions in society. Instead of trying to create new schools, we should be focusing on our existing schools to ensure that they are sufficiently funded. That is what will give our children the best opportunities in life. However, despite having pledged to ensure that every child gets the education they deserve, the Government proposed in their manifesto to remove free school meals. I am pleased that that policy has been scrapped, but we must not forget that they tried to introduce it in the first place.

It is under proposals from this same Government that schools are having their funding cut for the first time in 20 years, which will mean teachers losing their jobs and our children being taught in supersized classes. In Coventry, over £29 million will be cut from the local authority’s education budget, which will mean, on average, £600 less per pupil. One school in my constituency is facing a reduction of £1,600 per pupil. That is simply not good enough. Our children deserve better.

We have seen time and again that this Government are failing the people of this country, whether children at the start of their lives or people at the other end of their lives—for example, by threatening to scrap the pensions triple lock, or by letting down the women who have seen their state pension age increase but received inadequate transitional arrangements.

I will now move on to local services. We have seen a shift in focus, with responsibility moving from central to local government. It is important that local authorities can shape their service provision, but they are having to do so in the face of constant budget cuts. Since 2010, Coventry Council has lost £106 million a year, which represents a 50% cut in Government grant funding. By 2020, the Government will have cut £655 million from the council’s budget. When people have increasingly complex needs, especially in areas such as adult social care and mental health services, Coventry and Warwickshire local authorities expect a deficit of £33 million by 2020-21 in social care. Although we have, I hope, seen the back of the Government’s proposed dementia tax, more must be done urgently to tackle the crisis in social care, and there was no specific mention of that in the Green Paper.

The Chancellor said in his Mansion House speech that,

“people are weary of the long slog”

and that the Conservatives are listening to people after the election. But is he really hearing what the people of this country need? It is simply staggering that the Government are continuing to pursue an agenda of austerity. Other vital local services are still being cut. The Department for Work and Pensions has announced the closure of 108 sites by March 2018, including the Tile Hill jobcentre in Coventry, which means that claimants will now have to travel for up to an hour to get to a jobcentre. That will be incredibly difficult for many of the more vulnerable users of the jobcentre.

At a time when the gap between rich and poor is widening, it is more important than ever to ensure that we are caring for those who need it the most. Therefore, while I welcome the mention in the Queen’s Speech of the very important issue of domestic violence, let us not forget that 17% of specialist women’s refuges have closed since 2010. That means that women will have been unable to get the help and support they so desperately need. Some 20,000 police officers have been cut, and much has been made in the national press of the consequences. While the Government say one thing, their policies seem to do the exact opposite.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir David Amess)]

Order. In order to accommodate the large number of colleagues who wish to speak, the time limit is being dropped to four minutes with immediate effect, although I will use some latitude for Members making their maiden speeches.

15:38

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Unfortunately, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not my maiden speech. I am happy to welcome you to the Chair. It is 34 years since you and I arrived in this place—some would say too long—but we are still surviving. It is my great pleasure to congratulate, as I am sure all Members wish to do, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who made a speech that was witty and to the purpose. I am sure that the good people of Aberdeen, like those of Lincolnshire, which abuts Grimsby, will welcome our taking back control of our fisheries, which will be a vital part of the Brexit negotiations.

I think that what people want, particularly young people, is for us to be positive, aspirational and honest. If there is any fault with our Prime Minister, it is that during the general election we were almost too honest in explaining the level of the national debt, but in these debates we have to keep making the point. We have heard many calls for more public spending, but it all comes from hard-pressed taxpayers. I make no apology for reminding the House that the national debt stands at £1.7 trillion. In the five minutes that it was going to take me to make this speech, the national debt will have risen by £443,000—it will rise a bit less in four minutes, but it is still going up. There is no point in talking about cutting the deficit if the national debt keeps rising remorselessly every year.

The job of the Conservative party is to speak up for business, for wealth providers and wealth creators, and for taxpayers, because all this national debt has to be provided by our constituents. Sometimes that is not a popular message.

I have been asked to speak today on behalf of the headmaster of Queen Elizabeth’s High School, a grammar school in my constituency that is providing the scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs of the future. It is a high-performing school, but its budget has been cut by £600,000 in the past five years. Of course I support a fairer funding formula, but we need some equality of fairness throughout the country. It is simply not good enough for us to argue continually for higher levels of public spending to accommodate this or that interest group.

The first honest debate this country needs to have is about our ageing population and the cost of social care. Full marks to the Prime Minister for trying to talk about it. At the moment, we are apparently committed to maintaining the triple lock. We have not yet had a full debate in this Parliament about a future adult social care cap or floor, but we must have that debate. We have to be able to convince our ageing population that we have the resources to care for them, and that we will be humane and honest. The same argument surely applies to the NHS. Sometimes, I am the only person in this place who argues that we have not only to put more money into the NHS, but to be honest about where it is coming from. There is a limit on how much we can pay from general taxation when the top 1% pay for 25% of all spending, so let us be honest in these debates.

Let us be honest, finally, in our Brexit negotiations. Let us not talk about a hard or a soft Brexit. I am afraid that we have to stick to the Prime Minister’s Lancaster House speech. It is not hard or soft Brexit; it is inevitable Brexit. We are leaving the EU. If we leave the EU, we have to leave the single market. So let us be positive, let us be aspirational and let us, as a party, be united.

11:30

[Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Everybody happy? Welcome to Westminster. It has been a privilege to start work here and to represent the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill who have sent me here.

I offer some sympathy to Phil Boswell, the man I have replaced, and to his staff. No doubt, Phil and his staff expected a longer time down here than they received. Politics can be risky, as many hon. Members in this House will know better than May—sorry, I meant me. I follow the footsteps of many good people like “Mr Coatbridge”, the right hon. Tom Clarke, who served here for 33 years. I would also like to recognise another Lanarkshire man, the late Labour leader John Smith, who was the best Prime Minister we never had. However, the man I have come to follow was a working man who recognised that workers had no voice inside Parliament. This man was also Lanarkshire born and he gave birth to the Labour party. His name lives on today through the Keir Hardie Society, of which I am one of the founders.

Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, along with the other communities I represent—Stepps, Moodiesburn, Glenboig, Bargeddie, Birkenshaw, Tannochside and Viewpark—were once part of the industrial landscape of coal and steel, like many other communities. But sadly, that is all gone. What is left is not enough. We have poverty and not enough housing. Our generation of children today and tomorrow have no real vision. They are kept on low pay with zero-hours contracts and are told to be grateful if they have a job. There is no opportunity for a house, as they cannot afford it. Our society is failing them, and the gap between the rich and the poor widens every day.

My day job was with Royal Mail Parcelforce, delivering and collecting parcels every day. It was also my privilege to represent my workmates from Glasgow Parcelforce, to whom I was grateful. I represented those workers as a trade union representative of the Communication Workers Union. To workers today, I recommend you join a trade union movement—our strength is in unity. I represent the CWU, and I am proud to be part of the trade union movement.

I will also declare an interest. Royal Mail was not for sale; it was stolen, and I aim to return this great public service to its rightful owners—the residents of the UK. Today, I can tell this House and the private profiteer hedge funders that I am coming to take back my sons’ and daughters’ money, stolen by people who have no interest in Royal Mail, other than the pounds for profit.

I come here as a working man, just as proud as my father, Matt Gaffney, and my mother, Helen Gaffney, who both worked every day, and who will be watching on the telly back home in Uddingston to witness my moment. Love you both, and thank you! To all my family and friends who know me, I say enjoy this moment—it is yours.

My new job starts now. With the help of my family—Anne, Matthew, Christopher and Paul—and the CWU, my feet will stay on the ground. I am here to represent all my constituents, and I will aim to change society for the better.

There is enough wealth in this country to close the poverty gap and close down food banks. As we enter Brexit, we could build a new United Kingdom—one that cares for all walks of life, one that cares for humanity, and one that shows equality for all. No matter our race, colour, religion or sexuality, we are all equal, and everyone, from cradle to grave, deserves dignity and respect.

I know I have finished, but I am going to make one more point. We have a motto in North Lanarkshire Trade Union Council:

“The past we inherit, the future we build”,

and this I will apply as I stand here for unemployed workers, disabled workers and taxpaying workers, of whom there are many more than the privileged few.

15:47

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on that speech. It was passionate and intense, and he was quite right: it was his moment to enjoy, and so it should be. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), who was articulate and informed—that city has an excellent representative. It is a great pleasure to have so many Scottish colleagues around me on the Conservative Benches.

We have only a short time, so let me canter through some of the points I wanted to raise. Rightly, one of today’s themes is education. After all, if we look back just seven years, to 2010, one in three children leaving primary schools was unable to read, write or count properly. What that tells me is that, in too many schools under Labour, the standards just were not good enough. Seven years on, the number of children in schools classed as good or excellent has risen by nearly 2 million. That is nearly 2 million young minds now able to flourish, where previously they were struggling under poor standards.

Education is important to the individual, but it is also crucial to the economy. As we leave the European Union, all of us need to rethink what we mean by education, skills and training. That brings me to how we can best strengthen the economy as a whole. There are good measures in this Queen’s Speech on agriculture, fisheries, and spacecraft and other emerging technologies, but we face a broader challenge, which is that productivity in this country is persistently weak. Unless we address that, all our hopes for public services and other matters will simply come to nought.

At the beginning of this debate last Wednesday, I listened to the Leader of the Opposition tell us that the most effective way of increasing pay was strong trade unions and effective collective bargaining. That showed me that his thinking is out of date and blinkered, because the best way to achieve sustained growth and higher incomes is to raise our productivity. If we add 1% of productivity to our economy each year, that will be another £240 billion over the next 10 years—£9,000 per household. That is the way to grow the economy, lift people’s wages and pay for public services.

In the minute or so that I have left, let me touch on one aspect of productivity, namely trade. In recent months we have seen the pound fall and a resurgence in manufacturing, which is welcome. However, as the excellent economist for The Sunday Times, David Smith, has pointed out, we now need to liberalise the trade in services. After all, services are 80% of our economy.

The Bills on trade and customs are good and I welcome the fact that we have a dedicated trade Department focused on that task, but the liberalisation of the global market in services, which is so important to our economy and to jobs, will need a sustained and cross-Government approach if it is to succeed. Clearly, the EU-Brexit process will affect that most immediately, but there is a wider opportunity and I believe that this country should take up the mantle as the champion for open, global markets in services and pursue that through whatever means possible. Get that right and the chance to grow our economy—and, yes, lift people’s living standards—will be all the greater.

15:50

[Lesley Laird (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in today’s debate.

Before looking forward, I want to take a few moments to pause and reflect on the maiden speeches made by Members of Parliament who have represented Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath before me. My predecessor Roger Mullin served the constituency from June 2015 to May 2017, and in his maiden speech he quoted Kirkcaldy’s famous son, Adam Smith, who said:

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”

That same line was also used by Dr Lewis Moonie, another predecessor, who served this fine constituency from 1987 until 2005. What strikes me about that is that, while so much may have changed in our society, the fundamental challenges remain the same.

It would of course be remiss of me not to mention Gordon Brown, who served the Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath constituency for 10 years from 2005 and who also served this country as Chancellor and Prime Minister—a true and sincere public servant for his constituency and this country. Dr Brown made his maiden speech in 1983, representing the then constituency of Dunfermline East. On that occasion the debate was about social security and proposals to reduce benefit levels—an issue still relevant in today’s society.

The constituency that I am honoured and privileged to represent is Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and I thank the people of that resilient constituency for giving me the opportunity to represent them.

What repeatedly strikes me about my area is that it is full of talent and as yet untapped and unfulfilled potential. That potential deserves to be unlocked. My constituency is an area that has known the highs of industrial prosperity through mining, manufacturing, linoleum and shipping, and that now knows poverty and hardship as those industries have slipped away and never really been replaced. It is an area that offers so much in terms of skills and spirit, and it remains a hidden gem in terms of the contribution that it could make to our economy and society. It has character and resilience, shown so strongly through the towns and villages of our mining communities and beyond. Those attributes have seen it continue to hold its ground—and its head high—but it deserves to make better progress.

So I ask myself: what can we all do differently in this House to stop repeating history and that quote and sentiment from Adam Smith? Are we really saying that the many talents in this House cannot turn the tide for our most deprived communities? Are we really saying that our political will does not match the spirit and resilience of the communities we represent?

Today we are discussing education and local services, two enablers that help people in my constituency and others achieve a better life for themselves and their families. For the past five years, I have been an elected councillor in Fife and I know at first hand the life-changing and life-saving services delivered by local authorities. Yet these life-bridging services are being systematically dismantled and eroded, leaving investment in people, communities and infrastructure flawed and fragmented.

It was Winston Churchill who expressed concerns for

“the harsh excess of accumulated capital”

and the

“gaping sorrows of the left-out millions”.

As we discuss these life changing issues today, I put it to the House: is it therefore not our duty to try something new? And what would be the harm in that? So back to the start: the issues discussed by my predecessors in Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath are the issues we are debating today. Are we accepting of the notion that the poor are always with us, or are we prepared to take a different path? Again, what would be the harm in that?

Let me close today by once again quoting Sir Winston Churchill:

“The state must increasingly and earnestly concern itself with the care of the sick, the aged and the young. The state must increasingly assume the position of the reserve employer of labour.”

For the sake of the people of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and communities across the country, I sincerely hope we all seize this moment to stop repeating the mistakes of history and look to find new ways to regain a sense of society and opportunity for all.

15:55

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

I start by paying sincere tribute to the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird). I can see from her demeanour that she will sincerely and diligently represent her constituents. I also pay tribute to my new hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson). It is great to have both Members in this House: it sends a clear message to the people of Scotland that a referendum to divide this united nation is most unlikely to happen. I am grateful to see them both in this House.

I would like to start where the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) started, and pay tribute to the teachers and governors in my schools. They do a great job on behalf of our children. I was delighted that the Conservative manifesto pledged an extra £4 billion for education over the course of the Parliament. That is an increase in real terms, so there is no reason why any school budget in England and Wales should decrease. Before I am reprimanded by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), let me say that I am with him absolutely: we have to live within our means. Austerity only means living within our means.

We in this House have been struggling for too long with an unfair education funding formula. In Gloucestershire, the key stage 3 funding differential means we receive £3,700 per pupil, while the highest spending London authority receives £7,200 per pupil—a difference of £3,400. That cannot be fair. The new funding formula announced in our manifesto will go a long way to ending that unfairness. I was very encouraged by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education. It seems that she is well on top of this problem. When she publishes the proposals, I believe they will be fairer to less well funded areas like Gloucestershire. Under the proposals published in the previous Parliament, I heard from one of my head teachers that they were going to have to cut £400,000 from their budget, meaning the loss of 14 teachers. That is unacceptable for the children of our county.

I want every child in this country, from nursery school to postgraduate training university course, to have the very best education in the world. That is how this country will succeed in the world, and how we will increase productivity and trade. I pay sincere tribute to both my constituency neighbours in Gloucestershire for two things they have done—one each. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) has secured the real prospect of bringing a cyber-park to Cheltenham, which will bring huge opportunities for our talented and bright youngsters. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) has brought university-level training for nurses to the University of Gloucestershire—another real prospect for our youngsters. These are the sorts of opportunities I want to see in our country today.

There is a lot to do in education and there is a lot to do to explain how the money for our schools will be raised, but we owe it to our children. We want to be the world’s best when it comes to education. We welcome the new technical institutions, we welcome the new T-levels, and we want workplace visas for the brightest and best foreign students who come here from around the world.

15:59

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird) on magnificent speeches—far more magnificent than that of the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), but I congratulate him too in the generosity of the day. No, it was a magnificent speech, but we saw in the completely different way in which the three of them presented their cases that Parliament is at its best when it is diverse, and it is more so in this Parliament than we have ever seen before.

I truly worry about this country. We face probably the biggest challenge since the second world war, yet we have a Prime Minister who has shown herself to have a tin ear. Her authority, frankly, is in tatters, she has no mandate and she patently cannot carry the country. She is like a massive oil tanker holed beneath the water line. She cannot proceed at pace, she cannot turn around and everyone knows, in this Chamber and in the country, that she is doomed to sink. It is just a question of when.

Could there be any clearer sign of the vacuum at the heart of the Government than this Queen’s Speech? This is not a Queen’s Speech; it would barely qualify as a Queen’s intervention, it is so thin. It’s not worth the vellum it’s not written on.

We seem to have become a country that believes we can have our cake and eat it. We want Swedish levels of healthcare, but US levels of taxation to pay for it. We want cheap coffee and fruit, but we are not prepared to have migrants come to this country to serve it or pick it. We want our offices cleaned, our bedsores dressed and our grandparents cared for, but we are not prepared to pay cleaners and carers properly, nor to build homes for them to live in.

In Grenfell we saw the horror of leaving everything to the market. Cost-cutting has a human price. Every single one of us has a housing estate we feel ashamed of. Let us hope there will never be another fire like that at Grenfell, but in every sink estate and in every miserable flat with black mould growing on the walls, children grow up undernourished and unable to achieve their full potential, and people die before their time. It is not a tragedy that will ever get on the front pages of the newspapers, but it is a daily tragedy that we could all prevent. Let us hope we never again hear those words, “Health and safety gone mad.”

We simply cannot get a properly functioning modern society on the cheap. Look at the NHS: Ministers now say that it is all the fault of the public and that we expect too much. I am sorry, but all that my constituents want is a functioning local surgery where they can get an appointment. Unfortunately, the Government’s relentless assault on the NHS has meant that fewer and fewer doctors consider working as a GP in deprived areas or even in the UK at all. France spent $4,959 per head on healthcare in 2014; we spent only $3,935. The point is that we cannot have our cake and eat it. You cannot get a first-class flight if you only pay for economy. We cannot get a Scandinavian NHS if we only pay US taxes.

And let us end the biggest fib of all. We cannot get our national finances back in order by slash-and-burn economics. The Government should know that. After all, they have repeatedly failed to meet their own targets on the deficit and on debt. Deliberately attempting to get the proportion of national income down—deliberately creating a smaller state—is a wrong-headed ideological chimera. It leads to false economies, it has a terrible human cost and it will never get our house back in order.

16:03

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak today. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant)—I think. I congratulate the Members who have made such passionate maiden speeches today, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on his excellent maiden speech.

As a strong advocate for vocational and technical education, including apprenticeships, I welcome the major reforms of technical education included in the Queen’s Speech. With that in mind, I am disappointed by the decision of South Staffordshire College to shut the Cannock campus. Once the Cannock Chase Mining and Technical College, the college has been at the heart of Cannock town centre and served many generations. Despite the millions of pounds spent on a revamp in 2013, which meant that it was one of the best sites in the country, with state-of-the-art technology, year-on-year falls in student numbers have meant that the decision has been made to shut it.

However, I welcome the college’s commitment to proceed with a retail training facility at the new Mill Green designer outlet village, which will help to train a new generation of retailers. In the meantime, I hope that the college will look at ways of maintaining a presence in the town centre as plans for the campus are developed. Given the level of investment in the campus, it is essential that any future plans make the very most of the excellent facilities there, and, given its position, the plans for the site need to be part of a wider regeneration plan for the town centre.

Similarly, we need to look at the opportunities that the redevelopment of the Rugeley B power station present for the regeneration of Rugeley town centre. As I have said many times before in the House, I want to ensure that we have ambitious, bold and visionary plans for the future of Rugeley and that it can have a really prosperous future.

I turn my attention briefly to the electric vehicles Bill. I welcome moves to increase the number of charging points, and I hope that we will see an increase in Cannock Chase. Although Staffordshire County Council has installed charging points in Stafford in partnership with the local sustainable transport fund and the plugged-in places programme for the west midlands, I am afraid that my constituency is lagging behind. If we want a step change in the adoption of electric vehicles, we must make public charging points more readily available.

Finally, with 69% of voters in Cannock Chase having voted to leave the EU, I very much welcome the legislation that will be brought forward to deliver on the referendum result as the Government set out to get the best possible Brexit deal and build a new relationship with our partners in the EU.

16:07

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

It is a great honour to make my maiden speech following so many eloquent and passionate speakers across the House. It is an even greater honour to do so in an education debate, as a teacher and educationalist and my party’s spokesperson on this issue.

I was reminded by Mr Speaker himself at my swearing-in that some very clever people indeed have represented Oxford West and Abingdon before me. Nicola Blackwood is a capable, generous advocate, and while we disagreed on much, there is one point on which we agree absolutely—that the people of Oxford West and Abingdon deserve and demand the highest level of constituency representation. I pay tribute to the former Member for her genuine, heartfelt commitment to the area, and I promise my constituents that they will always be at the centre of my heart while I am here.

I am sure that Members all remember, before Nicola, the inimitable Dr Evan Harris, who inspired me through his fearless advocacy of progressive, evidence-based arguments, which many others would have avoided. I am now proud to call him my friend. Both of those predecessors were also enthusiastic proponents of science, and as a maths and physics teacher I intend to be just the same.

I may just be the luckiest woman in the world, representing the beautiful, historically important constituency of Oxford West and Abingdon. To the north sit Kidlington and the surrounding villages. Indeed, Kidlington is one of the largest villages in England and proud of this status. Then we have the stunning North Oxford, the home of 10 Oxford colleges and the haunt of many Oxford Brookes students as well. The community there is passionate and active, and I very much look forward to receiving numerous emails and letters replete with footnoted references.

Then we go to the villages further south, large and small, each with its charm and strong community spirit, and last but not least to the ancient market town of Abingdon—some say a contender for the oldest town in England. “Rubbish!” I say. It is the oldest town. Colchester, go away and try harder.

My constituency is a very special area, full of remarkable, talented people, but like all communities we face our fair share of challenges. Flooding, unaffordable housing and under-investment in public transport, notably cycling and buses, feature frequently, but none features more than the A34. Many here will know of the cross-party fight to secure the funding for the Lodge Hill junction. I promise that I will never let up on these local issues or any other. The most recent grassroots campaigns were on the children’s centres in the constituency and the crisis in schools funding, led by parents in the Oxfordshire fairer funding group, which brings me neatly back to the theme of this debate.

I am here because I have a burning passion: that every child, no matter their background, should have a fair chance of making the best of this world. This passion was ignited when I was shocked and ashamed to learn that in this country—this great nation, a member of the G7—that is not the case. I have lived in countries such as Ethiopia, Jamaica and Jordan, where such inequalities might be more understandable, but here we have no excuse. Such inequality is simply wrong, which is why I am so concerned by the Government’s interpretation of fairer funding. I have been a primary school governor for the last two years and have seen the figures for myself. There is a funding crisis—make no mistake—and unless more real-terms funding is found, the next thing to go will be teachers. With fewer teachers there will be fewer of the one-to-one interactions with that struggling student that we all know will make all the difference to them.

I end by asking the House this: is there anything more important than the support and the love that we give to the youngest in our society? After all, one day they may well be sitting here looking after us. I beseech the Government: in this time of great uncertainty, let us make sure we give them everything we possibly can to help them—and by extension all of us—succeed.

11:30

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) on making such a powerful, gracious and eloquent speech. It was a powerful reminder, if any were required, of the great talent that exists in our teaching profession, which I am pleased to say is now in this House.

I am sure the hon. Lady would agree with Benjamin Disraeli, who said:

“Upon the education of the people of this country the fate of this country depends.”

What applied then applies now. There is no better vehicle for social mobility, social cohesion, cultural appreciation, tolerance, prosperity or, indeed, quality of life. As a nation we can take pride in acknowledging that there are now a total of 6.6 million young people in good or outstanding schools. That is up by 1.8 million since 2010—an increase of more than 35%. There are now 147,000 more six-year-olds on track to become fluent readers than in 2012. What a remarkable achievement by schools, teachers, parents and governors.

I want to pay particular tribute to teachers in my constituency. They work immensely hard. They follow their calling and give a huge amount of themselves. They include teachers in schools such as St Gregory’s, which takes an increasing number of school children from eastern European backgrounds and in doing so fosters a tolerant and unified society in Cheltenham; Balcarras, which now sends 50% of its pupils to Russell group universities; and Pittville, which successfully addressed challenges in the past and is now going from strength to strength.

What is so remarkable about those achievements is the funding context in which they have been made. For decades now, Cheltenham schools have been significantly underfunded compared with the national average—and not by a small sum, either. In 2014-15, the block allocation for Cheltenham schools was £4,195. The England average was £4,545—a difference of £350—and yet we have Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who made a very eloquent speech last week, complaining that funding in her constituency is planned to rise from just over £5,400 to £5,500. Those are figures that in Cheltenham we could only dream of. They amount to just under 30% more. If I turned up to a meeting of my headteachers in Cheltenham with a promise of an additional 30% in funding, I would be welcomed like Moses.

All that might be tolerable if the cost pressures were manageable, but they are not. Schools are facing increasing cost pressures—salary increases, increases to employers’ national insurance contributions and so on. It is so welcome that the Government are facing up to that injustice. Unravelling the formula and starting from first principles is a task of almost unimaginable complexity. Lesser statesmen than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education would have run a mile, but she has taken up the challenge and has already delivered meaningful improvements, with £390 million put into the baseline.

However, it is also the case that the current proposal that officials have come up with needs some surgery. Let me deal first with the impact. Although Cheltenham gains overall from the proposals, albeit modestly, the way in which the cake is divided creates distorted outcomes and risks fostering resentment. Some schools, such as All Saints’ Academy and Pittville, do very well, but others actually lose—and those are schools that are located near to each other. All that poses the risk that regional geographic inequity will be replaced by neighbourhood geographic inequity.

[Richard Graham]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the way in which the funding system was going to work, but during the general election the Government made it very clear that no school would receive less money than it was currently receiving. Does my hon. Friend agree that that should give all our schools, in Gloucester and elsewhere, enormous confidence in the future?

[Alex Chalk]

That is precisely the point, and it was a welcome point that was included in the manifesto. I entreat the Government to ensure—as I know they will—that there is no risk of potential resentment that might lead schools to retreat to the core subjects that they are statutorily required to provide; other subjects might suffer.

What we need is a funding settlement that allows all schools to provide a full and rounded education, not just those that are able to satisfy the criteria for funding uplifts. The core funding element must be sufficient to achieve that goal. We need a funding settlement that consolidates the extraordinary progress that has been made over the last seven years, and lays the ground for still more progress. The prize is great. If we get this right, the future for education in Cheltenham and in our country, based on the work that has already taken place, can become even brighter.

16:16

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the eloquence of her maiden speech. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird) for the enthusiasm and commitment that they will clearly bring to the task of representing their constituents, and I congratulate them on their success.

The Queen’s Speech did not contain a single mention of local government or the services that it provides. Since 2010, local government has experienced bigger cuts than any other area of public service—in real terms, there has been a 40% cut in local government spending—but there was not a single mention of the issues. During the election campaign, my constituents expressed concern to me about longer waits to see GPs, about cuts in school budgets, and about delays in police attendances because there are fewer police officers. They also expressed concern about highway safety schemes and improvements that cannot be enacted—there are now more than 500 on Sheffield City Council’s list—and about playground equipment that cannot be replaced because there is no money. They mentioned that about two thirds of the libraries in Sheffield are now run by volunteers; in many instances they are run very well, but the permanent staff are not there any more. Of course, they also expressed concern about the crisis in social care funding. The message that we are receiving appears to be “Austerity continues”—unless, of course, you live in Northern Ireland.

There was also no mention of devolution in the Queen’s Speech. There was not a single word about it, although under the previous Chancellor it was a flagship policy, was it not? Are the Government committed to deepening the devolution arrangements that are already in place? Are they committed to extending arrangements to other areas? In that context, I am thinking particularly about the issue of Sheffield City Region. I accept that it is the region’s fault that we have not got further than we have so far, and the last Minister for the northern powerhouse was extremely helpful in that regard, but are the Government still open to new deals?

I have to mention the 100% business rate retention scheme, which features in the Local Government Finance Bill. On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government—who is present—described it as a “revolutionary measure”. I always thought that he was an unlikely revolutionary, but he does seem to run away rather quickly at the first sound of electioneering gunfire. What has happened to the measure? Are the Government still committed to it, or have they given up on fiscal devolution as well?

Let me return to the subject of social care funding. Before the election, the Government promised a Green Paper; now they are promising consultation. I think they have probably worked out now that quick fixes in the middle of an election do not work for social care funding. Will they come back to the idea, raised by the Select Committee before the election, of having a cross-party attempt to bring about an agreement that we can all sign up to, so that we can put a permanent solution in place for the future?

I raised the issue of tower blocks yesterday. What are local authorities and housing associations supposed to do if they suddenly find themselves facing great new bills because of the need to carry out urgent and essential work on tower blocks? Local councils and housing associations cannot raise rents; they are restricted by the Government’s rules to control them. They cannot borrow more, because they are restricted by a Government cap. Local authorities facing new bills have no mythical reserves to turn to; all they can do is cut the maintenance programmes for other parts of their housing stock. What an awful position for us to get into. We are trying to deal with an urgent problem in tower blocks, and we end up cutting the maintenance for all the other social housing stock. For heaven’s sake, Government, come forward with a comprehensive funding arrangement to deal with this problem!

16:20

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

It is with enthusiasm and humility that I rise to make my maiden speech representing the constituency of Ochil and South Perthshire. My enthusiasm is founded on the opportunity provided by being the first Conservative and Unionist representative for my constituency, and the first Conservative or Unionist to represent Clackmannanshire since 1931. My humility is based on the faith that the constituents of Ochil and South Perthshire have placed in me and my party to deliver progress for them during this Parliament.

I pick up the baton from Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh. I pay tribute to her work on equality and international issues and hope to continue raising awareness of those issues in this Parliament. I would also like to pay tribute to Gordon Banks, the first MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, who worked tirelessly on constituents’ issues and achieved such success that his dedication is still talked about on the doorsteps of Crieff, Alloa and Kinross today.

Ochil and South Perthshire is a large and diverse constituency formed of three distinct communities: South Perthshire, Kinross-shire and Clackmannanshire. It is right to start at Loch Leven in Kinross-shire, with its breathtaking views best observed from the villages of Kinnesswood and Scotlandwell, before moving to Kinross and Milnathort, home of fine local businesses such as Hunters, Unorthodox Roasters and Heaven Scent, as well as Rachel House, Scotland’s first children’s hospice. Furthermore, Kinross-shire plays host to the current Grand National winner, One for Arthur, so you know who to back in a tight race.

South Perthshire is renowned for its agricultural heritage, boasting crops, livestock and a fine, growing collection of distilleries—namely, Glenturret, Tullibardine and Strathearn. However, it is not just farming and whisky; South Perthshire has also provided one Prime Minister and two “Star Wars” actors. I will let Members of the House decide who provided the greater service to the United Kingdom. South Perthshire’s scenery not only wins affections but boasts the Crieff Hydro and the Gleneagles Hotel, providing relaxation and world-class golfing, so colleagues have more than one excuse to visit our constituency. Moreover, with Highland Spring based in Blackford, we can provide not only your whisky but your water too.

As you cross the stunning Ochils, you will reach Clackmannanshire—the wee county with a big heart. Clackmannanshire has a proud industrial past in mining, paper manufacture, mills and breweries. While some industries have now moved on, the Harviestoun Brewery, Diageo and the United OI glass works continue to complement the whisky and water from the north. From the Hillfoots villages to the towns of Alloa and Clackmannan, Clackmannanshire may have earned its name, the “wee county”, from its boundary lines, but it has the landscape, the people and the ambition to show that it is not size but what you do with it that counts.

In such a diverse constituency as Ochil and South Perthshire, connectivity is a key issue. I therefore intend to use my time in this House to improve connectivity for residents, whether it be in the form of rural broadband, mobile phone signal or greater infrastructure investment to better connect our constituency with the rest of the UK. But it is not just roads, rails and wires that my constituency needs; it also requires more social connectivity. We must look to combine inward investment with initiatives to build social capital in areas of deprivation, so that we can in turn improve social mobility.

More and more, our politics seems to be calling on anger and outrage to solve our problems. That is understandable. Anger is an easy emotion, but it masks fear. The rapid changes in 21st-century Britain can make people afraid, but rather than calling for a “day of rage”, I hope to call for “days of courage”. We need courage to face the tests of globalisation and to recognise the opportunities that they provide; courage to face the challenges of identity and nationhood, while recognising the strength of our United Kingdom; and, finally, courage to stand by our political convictions, but to know when it is best to stretch our hands across the aisle to work together for the betterment of our communities.

Clackmannanshire has recently adopted the motto “more than you imagine”. I hope to hold true to that motto, though lofty and perhaps naive, and to work with others in this House so that we can achieve more than we, and certainly the public, have come to expect.

16:25

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham). From his maiden speech, his constituents will recognise that they have a worthy champion, and we were all interested to hear about his knowledge of the area. I was also interested in his knowledge about the Grand National winner. If he has any racing tips before the races are run, perhaps he can let me know and I will not tell anybody else, so that we can keep the price down. I also congratulate all the other Members who have made their maiden speeches, especially my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird). Along with the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), they demonstrated their interests, their enthusiasm, and the knowledge that they will bring to our debates.

At a time when our country is divided and crying out for a vision for the future and when people are looking for policies that address some of the real concerns in their lives, we have a vacuous Queen’s Speech that contains little to address the country’s real needs. The Government are unclear about how to move forward on Brexit. They have come forward with several Bills, but no clear strategy for this country’s exit from the European Union. They still argue about whether immigration should be the main priority when the country has clearly said that jobs and the economy should be at the forefront of our negotiations. We have a Government that know little about how they should proceed.

Today’s debate is about schools and local government services, but where in the Queen’s Speech is the vision for our schools or our local government? There is none. We can argue about whether we have moved forward and about whether the pace of progress has been as quick as we want—nobody stands on a manifesto that says, “Let’s make our schools worse”—but where is the Government vision for teacher retention and recruitment? Schools are really struggling to get maths and science teachers. Where are the policies to address the need for ever-better school leadership? Where are the policies to ensure that parents of children with special needs do not have to fight for a statement to get the support that they need in school? All of that is non-existent.

I repeat to the Minister the great plea that I have always made on technical education. For 50 years, Governments of all colours have wrestled with the problem of this country’s skills shortage. It is not just a policy problem; it is a cultural problem in our society. Whatever the rhetoric and whatever anybody says about parity of esteem, skills and vocational education are still seen as second rate. Until we address that as a nation, we will not overcome the problem. I say to the Government and to Parliament that there is a real education crisis in this country, and we should have a national cross-party campaign to deal with it.

I only have 20 seconds left, but the same can be said of local government. It has had its money slashed, but the expectation to deal with the needs in various areas is ever greater. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the deal with my friends from the DUP, let no Minister ever again come to the Dispatch Box and say that there is no money to meet the needs of constituents in my constituency and throughout the country. What we needed was a Queen’s Speech with real policies and real vision; what we got was a vacuous, empty noise of nothing.

16:29

[Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be in the Chamber and to hear so many eloquent, powerful maiden speeches. I particularly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), who clearly showed that he will be a powerful advocate for his constituents in this Parliament.

It is a tremendous honour to have been re-elected by the people of Eddisbury to continue representing our area’s best interests in Parliament. During the campaign, my constituents were concerned about questions of school funding and of our economic prosperity in the light of our changing relationship with the EU.

Since first being elected in 2015, I have campaigned tirelessly for fairer school funding settlements for both my local authorities, which are members of the f40 group of the country’s 40 worst-funded councils. I was optimistic that the Government would finally address a source of deep unfairness to pupils in my constituency that has been entrenched for 30 years. Unfortunately, the published formula is not sufficient to address that historical unfairness. I am encouraged by our manifesto commitment to boost schools funding by £4 billion by 2022, and I urge the Government to target that extra funding at areas such as Cheshire, which are undoubtedly underfunded, and to ensure that pupils funded at the very lowest levels in the country receive a fairer funding settlement that brings them in line with those funded at far higher levels.

My teachers are used to delivering more for less, as they have been doing it for the past 30 years. I urge the Government to realise that now is the time to reduce that historical unfairness. It cannot be said enough that investment in education is imperative. The wider benefits for the individual and for society of providing a world-class education system are innumerable, and necessary if we are to equip our young people with the skills and knowledge to work in a global world.

It must be stressed that, to manoeuvre ourselves into a position in which we can properly fund our schools and other public services, we must achieve a well structured, well thought out and orderly exit from the European Union. In that regard, transitional arrangements are imperative and would reduce the economic turbulence that arises from falling off the cliff edge of EU membership.

Last year’s vote to leave the EU can be analysed in a number of ways, but the Chancellor is right to say that the British people did not vote to make themselves poorer, which is why our economic interests must be at the heart of our approach to the negotiations. We need a strong economy in order to invest in education, other local services and our NHS, and to maintain fiscal responsibility. If we are to fall into World Trade Organisation rules, we are very likely to see extremely difficult economic circumstances. Even if we manage to secure a free trade agreement within the two-year period ahead, we risk major shocks to the economy if we do not negotiate an appropriate transitional arrangement.

The importance of providing certainty to business was rightly mentioned in the Queen’s Speech. Whether it be access to markets across the EU, having confidence to invest or the ability to recruit skilled workers, giving business more time to prepare for the significant shift in the economic landscape will give greater stability. It will allow us to retain a close relationship with Europe, with frictionless trade, while we seek to find those new trade deals that others are so optimistic will appear.

16:33

[Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I also thank the people of North West Durham for allowing me to be here at all. It is apt that I should be called in this debate because, before entering the House, I worked with schools, colleges and teachers for nine years and my predecessor, Pat Glass, dedicated her professional and then political career to education. If I can be half the friend and ally of schools in North West Durham that Pat Glass has been, I will be doing very well.

Pat Glass leaves a brand new secondary school as one important legacy of her time here. Even in opposition, she managed to prise funding for a school from the former Education Secretary, which took the energy of a lion hunting a gazelle. I and others are truly grateful for all that she did for the constituency, and I wish her well in her retirement.

North West Durham is the most magnificent of places, and I am truly blessed to represent such a beautiful part of our country. The green, lush countryside is simply breathtaking, peppered with arable, dairy and upland hill farms; the richness of our culture and history is astounding; and the people are hard workers, proud and strong. Some in here would have us in the north painted as uncultured and without finesse—as savages—but people only think that or say that because they do not know our communities or our people. My constituents are the real wealth creators, and they are people who make this nation great. If anyone wants to see one of the world’s finest cultural traditions, they should look no further than Durham miners gala, which, although not in my constituency, is an annual pilgrimage for many of my constituents and is the biggest trade union gathering in Europe. It celebrates the best of solidarity, born of struggle.

North West Durham has a long and proud tradition of industry and skilled work. Consett was dominated by steel production and became renowned for the thick red dust that covered the town—airborne iron oxide from the plant. At its peak in the 1960s the steelworks provided jobs for some 6,000 people. We had lead mines and hundreds of jobs in a thriving textiles industry in Crook. That industry was unfortunately left to decline. Jobs and communities were not invested in and unemployment rose exponentially. Many are still living with the scars of that period today.

Turning to this place, this building is intimidating. It reeks of the establishment and of power; its systems are confusing—some may say archaic—and it was built at a time when my class and my sex would have been denied a place within it because we were deemed unworthy. I believe that the intimidating nature of this place is not accidental. The clothes, the language, and the obsession with hierarchies, control and domination are symbolic of the system at large. But the most frustrating thing has been to sit opposite those people who tell me that things are better, and that suffering has lessened for my constituents. I would like them to come and tell the people who have been sanctioned that things are better. I would like them to tell that to the teacher in my constituency who was recently made redundant. I would like them to talk to the 16,500 people in County Durham in receipt of food parcels. I would like them to talk to the nurses, the junior doctors and the firefighters—come and tell them that years of austerity have improved their practice or their profession.

I will end with this: we can choose, in this place, to be self-obsessed, to perpetrate fear and greed, to be a monument to injustice, or this can be a place that elevates equality, facilitates the power of the people, and esteems and properly funds a rich network of public services so that nobody is left in the indignity of poverty.

16:38

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who will be a powerful advocate for her constituents and the whole country. I also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) on excellent maiden speeches, along with all the others who have made their maiden speeches today.

I also wish to thank the electors of Stafford for returning me and, even more so, for turning out in such numbers; at 76%, our turnout was one of the highest in the country. One thing I was disappointed about during the election was that the economy was hardly mentioned, and nor were those hard-working people up and down the country who are not on great salaries—perhaps they are working from home, trying to juggle a small business and looking after their family. Yet they, along with all others, are the wealth creators in this country; they are the people on whom we rely in order to have the taxes out of which public services are funded. I hope that in this Parliament they will hear many voices, from all sides, speak on their behalf.

As we have a two-year Parliament, I hope that some of the concerns my constituents put before me on the doorstep can begin to be sorted out. In particular, I am talking about long-term funding settlements for health, social care and education. As I have said many times before, we need to work across parties to sort this out. We have two years now to start to do that—hopefully we will have longer.

Health and social care in my constituency is under great pressure. We are being asked to tackle deficits that are insupportable. Of course efficiencies can be made, but the funding is insufficient. We are asked to remove, potentially, one A&E out of three in Stoke and Staffordshire, but that cannot happen, because the other two could not cope.

In education, we have had a bit of an arms race to say which is the poorest funded county in England. I can say that Staffordshire is one of the poorest. I will not say whether it comes first, second or third, but we are down at the bottom. That has to change. It is a matter not just of a new formula to juggle the numbers around, robbing Peter to pay Paul, but of putting more money in real terms into education. I am not advocating that we increase borrowing to a substantial extent to cover both those areas; we must have additional revenues—potentially slightly higher taxes—to pay for these things. The Liberal Democrats were at least honest in their manifesto, saying that we would have to raise taxes to pay for increased investment in health.

On a constituency point, I will have to oppose one measure in the Queen’s Speech, which is phase 2a of HS2, which goes directly through the villages of Great Haywood, Ingestre, Hopton, Marston and Yarlet. It is unnecessary that it does so. I know that there is a need for capacity. I am not averse to a new line, even one that goes through my constituency, but the way in which this line has been designed is dreadful, and it is because it has to go at 400 kph. There is no reason for a design to go at 400 kph; it could be cheaper and better and have less impact on my constituency and elsewhere in the country if it went at 300 kph to 320 kph.

On the European Union, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) has said most of what I would like to say, but let me make just a few points. First, we want a smooth and sensible transition, with the economy and jobs put first, as the Chancellor has said. Secondly, let us look at working together with others to form a new common market, perhaps based on the European Free Trade Association. Thirdly, let us welcome the generous offer from the European Parliament regarding associate European citizenship—why not? Finally, we want more student exchanges and more modern languages.

16:42

[Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)]

First, may I express my gratitude to you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to give my maiden speech during this important debate? It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy).

I feel so truly honoured and humbled to stand in this great Chamber—the mother of all parliaments—to represent my beautiful constituency as a Unionist Member for Belfast South. From the banks of the Lagan as it weaves through my constituency, we pass the wonderful people of Botanic, Malone and Stranmillis, the striking architecture of Queen’s University and Stranmillis college, the hills of Castlereagh South right up to Carryduff. With communities in Ormeau, Ballynafeigh, Belvoir, Taughmonagh, Finaghy and right across, South Belfast has the most diverse community in Northern Ireland.

I represent a constituency of great depth and beauty, of arts and academia and of community, history and celebration. We have many areas of relative wealth, but also communities with challenges, including educational underachievement. I promise that I will do my utmost to represent all within my constituency to the very best of my ability.

I stand here not just in my own stead, but in the stead of so many generations of loyal Ulstermen and women who loved the Union. I think of my ancestors, particularly of my great grandfather James Sandford who, not just for his love of Ulster, but for his love of king and country, went over the trenches of the Somme to the horror that awaited. So many of my relatives fought for this country as proud Ulstermen—for freedom and democracy. Those are the very same freedoms and country that I will fight and defend with all that I have.

I am very proud to be part of this incredible Union. I feel not just proud but hugely privileged to be part of this great democracy that defends our right to private belief, public opinion, and the sacred and protected ability to argue, discuss and persuade. Our democracy is one with the right to all beliefs and views, and the right to have none at all. I believe that that is the very thing that makes us great.

I want to take this opportunity to send my sincere best wishes to my predecessor, Dr Alasdair McDonnell. He served his constituents well for many years and helped to make south Belfast what it is today.

Just recently, this House unveiled the coat of arms in remembrance of Jo Cox. My thoughts are with her family and friends, who undoubtedly still feel the pain so acutely.

I also look to my left, and above the door I see the coats of arms of three more of our colleagues who were murdered— murdered by terrorism. The one closest to me is that of the Rev. Robert Bradford, who represented my constituency of Belfast South and was murdered by the IRA while serving his constituents in Finaghy youth centre. I am reminded of the words of the poet:

“History, despite its wrenching pain,

Cannot be unlived, but if faced

With courage, need not be lived again.”

There is a warning in that sentiment; we must be always be vigilant lest we regress back to the horrors of our recent past.

I want to stand for all those who feel that they have no voice, while promoting those determined to build our economy and improve lives. Let us build on the strong foundations of the Union, of duty, sacrifice and service, to celebrate and grow our great and glorious Union. I look forward to being a champion for south Belfast and playing what part I can in building a peaceful, better and brighter future for the Union and for all her citizens.

16:46

[Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) for her maiden speech, which was made in the finest traditions of the House, and to my colleagues on the Government Benches as well as those on the Labour Benches who have made their maiden speeches with great passion and conviction. It has made me think about my maiden speech, in which I talked about education, saying:

“Education holds the greatest hope for a life rich in promise.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 646.]

I stand by those values today. We see the failings of education exposed in our economy in some parts of our country and, indeed, in our prisons and our hospitals. We should always redouble our efforts to ensure that education is better tomorrow than it is today.

I was very lucky. I went to a local school in my constituency, a good comprehensive in North East Hampshire, but not everyone has the chance to do that. Not everyone has the chance to go to a school where excellence is encouraged. Although 1.8 million more children are in good or outstanding schools, we must also recognise that 1 million are still in inadequate schools or schools requiring improvement. That means that we must do better and I am pleased that this Government, through this Queen’s Speech, will do just that.

It is not just about money, which was referenced—fairer funding is absolutely right. It is also about the freedom to lead, and leadership skills themselves. That is why I am delighted that more than 69,000 places are being created in free schools, because across the country we need to diversify the ability of local communities to set up schools that are right for them. That is part, of course, of an overall commitment that I hope will be honoured to create 600,000 more places by 2021. Some 50 schools will be open by September of this year, and the Budget earlier this year set out that 110 new free schools will be opened. I hope that North East Hampshire will be granted one of these new free schools in due course, because even in our most lovely of constituencies, that which I represent, we need an improved education system. We need diversity in our education system, because some children are still going to schools that are just not good enough. In free schools, we see a way forward. We see that they can be the impetus for change—high-performing schools with almost a third rated not just good but outstanding. This is what we need to drive for.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that no type of school is a silver bullet? What makes the difference is who the teachers are and, particularly, who the headteacher is. Just as council-run schools can be poor, so can free schools and academies. That is a very important lesson to learn.

[Mr Jayawardena]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comment. Indeed, I said at the beginning of my remarks that leadership skills are critical.

I am pleased that 80% of free schools are being set up due to parental demand or in areas that need new school places—including, I hope, Hampshire in the future.

We need to move further on fairer funding. The Government consultation is a good start. It awarded North East Hampshire £1.1 million more for our local schools, which is excellent news and will deal with the historical underfunding by the Labour party when it was in government. It is wrong that children in Hampshire receive less than those elsewhere in the country. It is wrong that teachers in North East Hampshire get less than those just next door in Surrey, where housing costs and the cost of living are lower.

It is right that the Government continue to strive to make funding consistent and to make it go further, to ensure that everyone gets a fair share. It is right, lastly, to focus on how we get there, which is by ensuring that our economy succeeds in the years ahead. Only with a growing economy can we put the funding into the services that we deserve and that the next generation should be able to expect.

16:50

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I start by congratulating Labour and Conservative Members who have made their maiden speeches today. I remember how intimidating it was when I made mine, and it is a great source of pride to see so many Labour Members giving their maiden speeches today.

In the Queen’s Speech, the Government revealed a threadbare legislative programme, with no majority, no mandate and no legitimacy, propped up by a self-serving deal with the DUP costing at least £1 billion. I welcome the absence of flagship Tory manifesto commitments such as grammar schools, cuts to the winter fuel allowance, cuts to pensions, cuts to universal free school meals and much else. The Conservative party knows that it cannot get that legislative programme through this Parliament.

However, the Queen’s Speech has not gone far enough in shelving Tory manifesto pledges that would damage our country. Nowhere is that clearer than in the squeeze on local services such as schools, nurseries, hospitals, GP surgeries, policing, housing and youth services, as well as local authority budget cuts.

Take the national funding formula, for example. The Government have yet to rule out the £3 billion of cuts to our schools budget. Schools in my constituency stand to lose £905 per pupil—891 teachers across the borough and a cut of £33 million by 2020. Where is the fairness in that, when we face some of the worst child poverty and inequality in the country? Despite the challenges, teachers, the local authority and parents have worked together to transform our schools, since inheriting the worst schools in the country back in 1997, so that they are now the best in the country.

This Government’s vindictive proposals, which seek to take away crucial resources, will set back that achievement and put at risk years of painstaking work to improve educational attainment and promote social mobility. I urge the Government to reverse that proposed cut. Nurseries also face severe funding cuts. Early years education is crucial, yet a number of nurseries in my constituency face closure. I appeal to the Government to think again.

Our police, fire and emergency services deserve not only our praise for their bravery in the light of recent terror attacks and the fire in Grenfell Tower but our recognition through increased pay and investment in those crucial services. That is why I appeal to the Government to reverse the cuts they propose, including the £400 million of policing cuts in London. Despite having lost 20,000 police officers around the country and many police community support officers, we stand to lose many more.

I want to end with an urgent appeal to the Government to make an unambiguous commitment to invest the necessary funds to ensure safety checks in our schools, housing and hospitals and all buildings that require it, in the light of the recent fire in Grenfell Tower where lives were lost needlessly. The Government must act now to strengthen the powers of the housing regulator so that residents never again feel voiceless, as the Grenfell Tower residents did when they warned of the likely dangers to their tower block.

16:55

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I would like to start by congratulating our new colleagues on their outstanding maiden speeches, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson) and for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham).

During the six-week general election campaign, Members on both sides of the House will have had the opportunity to listen to thousands of people. We have all heard their disappointments, hopes and fears. I value the long conversations I have had with many people who provide our outstanding public services, including our nurses, policemen and teachers, and I wish to feed back their thoughts.

One issue that came up consistently was education. I think we must first acknowledge how far we have come in recent decades. I recently read, with some amusement, a Government report that my grandfather, who was a headmaster, had contributed to. It sought to tackle head-on the importance of education for women. It stated:

“For girls, too, there is a group of interests relating to what many, perhaps most of them, would regard as their most important vocational concern, marriage. It is true that at the age of fourteen and fifteen, this may appear chiefly as preoccupation with personal appearance and boy friends, but many girls are ready to respond to work relating to wider aspects of homemaking and family life and the care and upbringing of children.”

We have come quite far since the 1960s, but there is further to go.

A significant priority must be a system in which every child has equal access to education, and that involves a system of fairer funding. That is why I am pleased that the Queen’s Speech included a commitment to fairer funding. It must mean that those schools that have historically been underfunded for years have their funding increased. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) has just said, funding is not the only mechanism to ensure future success. We need to ensure that we have enough teachers in training, especially in STEM subjects, and when they join the profession we need to ensure that they feel respected, supported and trusted. In an age when technology is so fast paced, would it not be brilliant if those STEM teachers were linked to businesses that are at the cutting edge of technological innovation in industry, and to businesses that ultimately might give jobs to the students they train?

I think that one way of doing that is staring us right in the face, because businesses are now paying the apprenticeship levy. For the first time, businesses will be actively required to think constructively about their role in training their workforce. The apprenticeship levy potentially goes further. It currently proposes that from next year 10% of the apprenticeship levy can go to a business’s supply chain, and what is the start of that supply chain, if not students and thus teachers? If businesses were allowed to use their 10% on supporting teacher training in STEM, that could forge important links between businesses and teaching. It could ensure that teachers had up-to-date knowledge of their sector and subject and were ready to relate that to the workplace. It would enable teachers to train without further increasing their student debt. Now is the time, if ever there was one, to properly engage businesses with learning, and innovation and technology with schools, and to rise to the challenge of how to help to build the next generation, because it is our future.

11:30

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I say how glad I am to be back in this place after a very close and hard-won general election campaign? It is wonderful to hear so many brilliant maiden speeches from colleagues in all parties; they are certainly going to give us old-timers a run for our money. I am particularly thrilled to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), who will make brilliant additions to the House.

In the general election, people in Wakefield rejected the planned cuts to our public services—our schools, hospitals and police. I am delighted that the Government have dropped their mean-spirited plan to cut free school meals for infants. Parents in Wakefield told me how worried they were for the children in our city who rely on that as their only hot meal of the day. It is interesting that although the Secretary of State for Education declined to answer questions from Members on this side of the House, while we have been debating she has slipped out a written answer stating that there will be no new grammar schools during the term of this Parliament. Labour’s ban on those drivers of inequality remains in place.

Education has the power to change lives. Most of us here know that because we know that it changed our lives. I am proud to have spent seven years working as a lecturer in entrepreneurship at Cranfield School of Management, which is a brilliant institution. I want every child in this country to get a decent education, no matter where they were born, but the odds are stacked against far too many children in Wakefield. A quarter grow up in poverty and are eligible for free school meals. That is double the national average.

Wakefield Council and our local enterprise partnership have taken steps to tackle the low levels of tertiary education locally with a new £6.9 million advanced innovation and skills centre opening in Wakefield this summer, and Wakefield College has just received a silver award in the teaching excellence framework. Wakefield is on its way, but the planned cuts are making life hard. The area has lost 11 Sure Start centres since 2010, and every 16-year-old who was eligible no longer gets the education maintenance allowance to help them to stay on in college.

I pay tribute to Wakefield headteachers, who are doing so much for our young people despite the £21 million of funding cuts that they will see over the next two years. There will be fewer teachers, bigger class sizes, fewer choices for students taking GCSEs and A-levels, a reduction in vocational courses, less support for children with special educational needs or mental health problems, fewer extra-curricular activities and enrichment opportunities, and less money for textbooks and computers. That is what the headteachers in Wakefield wrote in a letter to parents, asking them to campaign against the Government’s cuts.

I pay tribute to our brilliant headteachers. I visited Clare Kelly at Dane Royd Junior and Infant School in March to present her with a British Council award for the amazing work she does with our local children on languages. They come out learning not just French and Spanish but Chinese, putting those of us who like to think of ourselves as old-school linguists to shame. Another example is Miriam Oakley at Horbury Academy. When I was making a film to go on Facebook about the cuts that her school faces—16 teachers and £550 per pupil—she came out and said, “I thought you were a truant.” That was one of the lighter moments of my campaign; no one has called me a truant for the past 30 years. I also pay tribute to Rob Marsh at CAPA College, which is waiting for a response from Education Ministers on what is going to happen to its award-winning performance arts provision.

I urge the Government to look again at these cuts; they are harming children in Wakefield.

11:30

[Damien Moore (Southport) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for calling me to make my maiden speech in such an important debate. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends and hon. Members who have made such eloquent and passionate speeches today.

I am a former supermarket manager: only time will tell if my audience this afternoon is as receptive as my customers were to my prices or, indeed, whether my constituents will now ascribe my performance and contributions as being as fresh as my produce was, although I hope I am not past my sell-by date by the next election.

It is a great honour and privilege to be here as the new Member for Southport. I pay tribute to my predecessor, John Pugh, who retired at the last election. John was a diligent Member for the constituency for 16 years and is understandably held in high esteem. He quickly developed a reputation as a capable constituency MP and I hope to be as well regarded by my constituents as he was. I wish him and his wife, Annette, a happy retirement.

John was a perennial rebel in the coalition Government —he rebelled against the Whip over 30 times. Whether I will have the bravado of my predecessor only time will tell, but be assured that my constituency and my constituents will be at the forefront of my mind whenever I consider parliamentary affairs.

Although Members will have to cast their minds back some time to recall him, I would be remiss not to mention Sir Ian Percival, who served as the hon. Member for Southport between 1959 and 1987. He, too, gained a reputation for being an excellent constituency MP, as well as serving as Solicitor General between 1979 and 1983. I hope that I am able to emulate his civic pride, his dedication to his constituency and his astonishing longevity as Southport’s representative in Parliament.

Southport is far from being the quintessential seaside town. It has a fascinating history, and at one point hosted the exiled Prince Louis Napoleon Bonaparte, scion of one of England’s greatest antagonists, who would go on to be emperor of the French. Legend has it that he was so impressed with the tree-lined boulevard of Lord Street that he would later instruct his architects to make Southport a model for the grandiose Parisian boulevards that are the envy of the world today. Southport’s tree-lined central avenues, arcades and pavement cafés often lead to it being referred to as the Paris of the north, but with this explanation for modern Paris’s provenance in mind, maybe Paris is really the Southport of the south.

Historically part of the county of Lancashire and the royal Duchy of Lancaster, Southport today is on the fringes of Merseyside. In truth though, it is a unique town, which has its own special identity, and its citizens have a strong sense of civic pride. It is famous for its great sands, which stretch far out into the Irish sea, leading to the joke among its residents that, in England, you are never more than 70 miles from the sea—unless, of course, you live in Southport.

Today, Southport’s diligent and hard-working residents find themselves part of Sefton Council, and many of them feel they have too often been taken for granted, as their income is diverted into other parts of Merseyside. Southport’s public services have not been the beneficiaries of Sefton Council’s coffers, much to the chagrin of the town’s citizens. The people of Southport are egalitarian and charitable, but too often they have been taken advantage of, and the town has suffered as a result. I can assure my constituents that Southport will no longer be a soft touch, and I will solicit investment into the town every day I have the privilege of representing it.

Although I will shortly return to a sedentary position, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that I will often be on my feet championing my constituency and engaging with esteemed colleagues in this Chamber. It is the honour of my life to represent Southport in this House, and I hope to make a notable contribution to its future success.

17:07

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (Damien Moore) on a great speech, and I hope he gets as much pleasure from representing his constituency as I have from representing my own over the last 20 years.

It seems like a lifetime ago, but just before the general election I was given the privilege of asking the Prime Minister a question about my constituent Amy, who was being made homeless and who, with her young daughter, was being housed away from south-west London, in Birmingham. Her daughter represents one of the 118,000 children who are currently placed in temporary accommodation miles from their homes, their schools and the opportunity to have a good education.

Merton is a small borough, and Mitcham and Morden is half of it. Mine is a small south-west London suburban constituency, currently with 9,712 families on its housing register. In the last year, it has had 260 housing vacancies—less than 3% of that number—with almost half of those being one-beds. In the last year, the council has had one four-bedroom property to offer, and one five-bedroom property. As with most Members, housing is the single biggest issue people come to see me about. The Queen’s Speech includes fine words about letting agency fees, which is an honourable thing to legislate on, but the issue that all parties need to address—it is being voiced loud and strong—is the need for more building and more homes at rents that people can afford.

In the just over a minute that I have left, I want to tell Members about just one of the 21 families who came to see me on Friday to talk about housing issues. Southwark Council, which is currently responsible for just under 2,000 homeless families, has accepted that it has a responsibility to house Mr and Mrs Rogas. It said that it would place them in Mitcham, in a flat above a motorbike shop that is accessible via 30 steps. Mrs Rogas is dying. She is under the care of the hospice. She cannot walk. She is confined to an electric wheelchair. To breathe, she needs an oxygen cylinder. I ask right hon. and hon. Members: how can she get up and down those 30 stairs? I could not believe it when I saw it on Friday.

I spent 30 years in the housing industry, including housing associations and councils, but I see people like Mrs Rogas every Friday. I do not blame Southwark—it cannot meet the demand—and I certainly do not blame Mr and Mrs Rogas, but we in this House have a responsibility to those who are most excluded and most poor to redress these ills. We need to do something and we need to do it quickly for Mr and Mrs Rogas, because she does not have a lot of time left.

17:11

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who told a heart-rending story about housing in London. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Damien Moore). My only recollection of visiting Southport is from when I was a student, but perhaps we should gloss over that particular time.

I am delighted to have been returned as the Member for Harrow East for the third time. I thank my constituents for placing their trust in me once again, with an increased vote for the third time in a row. I have the pleasure of representing the most diverse constituency in the country, with three Hindu temples, two synagogues, an Islamic centre, a Sikh centre and a Buddhist centre across the road, and 24 churches, including the only Greek Orthodox church built in this country for more than 100 years. I can therefore claim that my constituency is a real melting pot.

Education is at the heart of that, and I am delighted that the Government saw fit to invest in increasing the number of school places across the piece in Harrow. Fifteen schools have expanded dramatically to meet that demand. We will also shortly open the first state-sponsored Hindu secondary school on a new site, which has been warmly welcomed by the diverse Hindu population across the constituency.

There has been a disgraceful campaign during which the teachers’ unions in particular have claimed—they carried on with their propaganda even after the release of our party manifesto, which increased the amount of funding pledged for education—that there will be a reduction in pupil funding of £543 per head. That is clearly a lie and it should be nailed as such.

Will the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), who is sitting on the Front Bench, confirm three particular issues? First, I ask him to confirm that we will press ahead with the local government finance scheme, which will allow local authorities to retain business rates. That is especially relevant to London, where it will become a devolved issue; Government funding will, in effect, cease and London will raise its own money for its own spending.

Secondly, will my hon. Friend confirm that we will press ahead with our plan to build 245,000 homes a year for the next five years—that figure is greater than that contained in the Labour party’s manifesto—so that a range of homes are made available for social rent, private rent and to buy?

Finally, I was delighted that my Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was almost the last Act to receive Royal Assent before Parliament dissolved for the general election. The Act, however, requires substantial secondary legislation and the commitment of the Government to make it happen. This is truly a revolution in the way local authorities treat homeless people. It is an absolute disgrace that people are still sleeping rough on our streets.

Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm in his wind-up speech the Government’s commitment, contained in our party’s manifesto, to ending rough sleeping once and for all over the lifetime of this Parliament? We have to do far more to build far more homes to give people the opportunity to fulfil their potential. Without proper housing, people cannot find proper employment or provide a proper base for their families. I look forward to that great achievement happening under this Conservative Government.

17:15

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to give my maiden speech in the House today.

I start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Natalie McGarry. During her time in this House, Ms McGarry clearly had a heart for international relations—in particular the situation in Kurdistan. I am sure I speak on behalf of all hon. Members when I wish her and her husband all the very best for the future, and for the impending arrival of their first child. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

Being elected to serve the people of Glasgow East in the House of Commons is the greatest honour of my life. As the son of a single mother growing up in the shadow of the Cranhill water tower, I never imagined in my wildest dreams that one day I would be standing here speaking on behalf of my friends, my family and my constituents.

It is customary in a maiden speech to take hon. Members on a tour of one’s constituency. I have the pleasure of representing an incredibly diverse constituency stretching from Barrowfield out to Swinton, Stepps down to Carmyle, and everything along the way, including my native Cranhill. It is a constituency that has also had some influential and notable former MPs, including the former Labour Health Minister John Wheatley, who pioneered an enormous expansion of social housing with the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1924.

On being appointed Health Secretary, John Wheatley sought to draft a piece of legislation to remedy the social housing crisis. The Act that would become known as the Wheatley Housing Act allowed central Government to provide subsidies to build public housing. That created employment at a time of a depressed construction industry and provided homes at affordable rates for low-income working class families. By 1933, over half a million council homes had been built in the UK. It was a small but influential effort that originated in Glasgow’s east end. Unfortunately, even now, housing remains a burning political issue in our community due to the ineptitude of Margaret Thatcher’s disastrous right-to-buy policy.

As a community, we are not without our challenges, but equally we are not lacking in spirit, humour and passion. Our greatest asset is our people and their ability to see the good in every situation. It is the humour of Glaswegians that inspires us and drives us on even in the midst of tough times. That humour is demonstrated by the likes of the Barrowfield’s rising star Kevin Brannigan, otherwise known on stage as Big Angie.

I have said that much has been done to regenerate Glasgow East over the past decade, but we continue to work with one hand tied behind our back. Stark health inequalities and poverty still overshadow the east end, with eye-watering austerity from the Conservative party leading to painful social security cuts and an enormous reduction in household incomes. It is simply unacceptable that in Glasgow East 6,234 children are deemed to be living in poverty. That is the burning injustice the Prime Minister must be pursuing right now. People in Glasgow East are no longer “just about managing”; we are just fed up with austerity.

Austerity from the British Government has affected, and will continue to affect, some of the most vulnerable people in my constituency. In particular, cuts to social security—I emphasise the words “social security”—are the primary cause for the increased usage of foodbanks and a disproportionate dependency on local services in the voluntary sector, which is at breaking point. It is quite clear to me that it is no longer the broad shoulders of the United Kingdom supporting my constituents; instead, it is far too often the broad shoulders of the Glasgow North East foodbank.

For too long now, it is the most vulnerable who have felt the sharp end of this Government’s austerity programme. Today, sadly, we live in a society in which the middle class are told blame the working class, the working class are told to blame the benefit claimants, and the benefit claimants are told to blame the asylum seekers and refugees. After that, there is no one left to blame. It is only then that the most vulnerable in our society are left isolated, often with no community support.

At a time when hard-hitting decisions are being taken about the nation’s finances, and at a time when there is a smokescreen debate raging about immigration, we must consider how we treat others, both as legislators and human beings. During my time in this House, I will remember the words from the “Book of Micah” in which we are commanded to:

“act justly, walk humbly and love mercy”.

Those are the values by which I will contribute, debate and legislate. I hope Her Majesty’s Government will do the same.

17:19

[Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on a wonderful maiden speech. His passion and his determination to serve his constituents well are clear. I look forward to working with him and all the other new Members in this House.

This is my first debate on a Queen’s Speech. My interest in rural schools is well known to my fellow Members. I was pleased to see in the Conservative manifesto a recognition of the importance of rural schools and was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mention the importance of fairer funding.

Moving on to technical apprenticeships, in a practical skills community such as mine in Copeland, it is essential that we continue the legacy of world-class skills to move forward. With 32 miles of coastline and the rugged beauty of our fells, we have a lot to be grateful for in my constituency, but we want to see the benefits of the northern powerhouse spread further north. We want to deliver the modern industrial strategy. I therefore welcome the 683% increase in technical apprenticeships and the expansion of the northern powerhouse up the country. I hope the commitment to new nuclear will be a prevalent feature of this Government, because Moorside is essential in my constituency of Copeland.

[Mr Speaker]

That was such a wonderfully pithy and succinct speech by the hon. Lady that I had not expected it to conclude, but it has done and we thank her for what she has said.

17:21

[Mr Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison) and, of course, the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Southport (Damien Moore), who also made their maiden speeches.

It is lovely to come back to the House of Commons 15 years later, because I did my work experience here as a local comprehensive lad. Those opportunities for people from all backgrounds, which allow them to aspire even to be MPs, are vital in an egalitarian society, but they are often lacking in the current curriculum, which has been imposed on many of our schools by this Government.

Every school in my constituency faces cuts and many secondaries face having half a million pounds stolen from their budgets under the Orwellian description of a “fairer funding formula”. It promises that some of the poorest schools in my constituency will lose out the most—not fair at all.

Brighton, Kemptown has the third-lowest enrolment of young people into university, despite having two universities and a music school in the constituency. This contrast of poverty will only get worse unless drastic changes are made. Only yesterday, one of my primary schools had to write to parents saying that teaching assistants would go and classes would be merged to make ends meet. One school has had to resort to asking parents to supply the very paper the children write on. If money can be found for a sweetheart deal with Northern Ireland, a lifeline can be found for the very future of our schools.

I know that my predecessor, Mr Kirby, cared about sports and education. He sat as an honorary vice-president of one of the local football clubs, Whitehawk FC, which is in my council ward. It is a community club that has as much passion, albeit not yet as much success, as one of the other clubs in my constituency—the Seagulls, who have been promoted to the top flight of football for the coming season.

I also want to praise my predecessor for being described as “pure grit” by the “ConservativeHome” website, and in that regard I hope to follow him—I hope to be the grit between the Tory-DUP alliance and its plans for Brexit, which will harm my community. Mr Kirby said in his maiden speech that 500 years after Brighton was invaded by France, we were suspicious of Europe. As we are the headquarters of American Express Europe, I must say that is not the Brighton and Peacehaven I recognise—the place where Queen Victoria set sail for her state visit to France; a city where, last year, almost 70% voted to remain in the EU and that, in the 1930s, hosted international children’s camps and festivals for young people and Kindertransport children, organised by the Woodcraft Folk and Socialist International, as did the towns of Saltdean and Telscombe in my constituency in 1940s. To me, it is a constituency that is open and tolerant to the world and the EU, not suspicious of it.

I spent many years lobbying and negotiating in the EU for the Erasmus programme, because I value what youth work does. However, youth services have been cut to the bone. The Joff and the Brighton Youth Centre in my constituency both defend many young people from turning to extremism, and they are the last line in supporting young people in education. Youth services, underfunded and misunderstood, have become the first victim of local government cuts—austerity that harms the most vulnerable and helps only the most wealthy.

Poor services and housing lead to poor academic attainment, poor health outcomes and a weaker economy, and they limit people’s possibilities. I hope that, like many MPs for Kemptown and Peacehaven, I will represent my constituents without fear and without favour. I hope that I will be able to do that across the Floor, so that we build a strong Britain and a strong Brighton through investment, not austerity. I want to start that today, not tomorrow, because my constituents cannot wait any more.

17:26

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr Russell-Moyle). Nobody can doubt his passion and commitment, and I look forward to seeing him display that grit over many months and years to come.

I would like to take the opportunity to thank the residents of Mid Worcestershire for returning me to this place. It is an honour to be a Member of Parliament, and like everybody in the House, I do not take that honour for granted.

There is much to praise in the Gracious Speech. It is a practical and consumer-friendly speech, and I am particularly pleased to see the recommitment to fairer funding, which I shall come on to in a moment. The overall theme of the speech, for me, was the continuation of the successes of the past few years. We can reflect on where we are in 2017: we have the highest employment level in this nation’s history, and unemployment is at a 45-year low. Over the past seven years 29 million people have had a tax cut and 4 million people have been taken out of paying income tax altogether, while the top 1% of taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax. The tax-free allowance has increased from £6,450 to £11,500. At the same time we have been paying off debt and Government expenditure has increased significantly so that we have record spending on health, education, pensions and disabled people—the last of those is up by £3 billion in real terms since 2010.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

While my hon. Friend is listing the Government’s great achievements, may I remind him that when Labour was last in government there were 1 million young people not in education, training or employment, and now we have one of the lowest levels of youth unemployment anywhere in Europe?

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She makes precisely my point about education, which is the focus of today’s debate. I am pleased that we are committed to £4 billion extra for education during this Parliament.

Hon. Members will be familiar with the fact that an increasing number of Members on both sides of the Chamber come from rather moderate backgrounds and went to comprehensive schools, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). It is important to remember that we come from quite humble origins, and that education has enabled us to be successful in life. It has been the key to success in my life and has enabled me to do many things. It is my role, and that of many of us here, to give as many people as possible the opportunities that we have had.

Education can be and is the silver bullet. It is vital, therefore, that we have an education funding system that is fair and reasonable to all. Money is not everything, but it certainly helps. If we look at the educational outcomes and the improvements that we have seen in London over the last few years, there is no doubt that the huge amount of money spent there has helped to enable that success, but let us contrast the significant differences in per-pupil funding. For example, in Tower Hamlets the figure is now £6,965 per pupil. That is a fantastic number, but it contrasts sharply with funding in my constituency, which is £4,319 per pupil. Of course there are differences in the socioeconomic make-up, but a difference of £2,600 per pupil is a phenomenal sum. We must therefore focus on fairer funding, because there is nothing honourable and absolutely nothing morally superior in maintaining the blatantly unfair existing system. We therefore must do something about it. I therefore applaud the Secretary of State for Education for at least making an effort to improve things in this area, and will therefore be voting for this element and the many other positive elements in the Gracious Speech when we enter the Lobbies on Thursday.

17:30

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is great to be called at this stage and to have had the opportunity to hear so many fine maiden speeches on both sides of the House. I congratulate all the new Members on making them.

The Queen’s Speech was clearly overshadowed by the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. It is a disaster that shocked the nation. Across the country, local authorities are responding with the seriousness that the disaster deserves. My constituency has most of Sheffield’s high-rise housing and the council has acted promptly to check the safety of properties. Indeed, the cladding of one, Hanover Tower in Broomhall, has failed the test. The council has met tenants and taken immediate action, but the issue will cost money to resolve. Beyond that one block, the council is also putting in place the further measures needed to reassure tenants. Across the city it is retrofitting sprinklers in all tower blocks, but the question is: who is going to foot the bill?

Local councils have been the hardest-hit by Government cuts since 2010 across the entire public sector, and those in our big cities hardest of all. Local services across the board have been hit, from youth services to adult social care, with deep cuts deeply affecting local services. It is therefore all very well for the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to say, as he did yesterday, that local authorities should just spend the money on fire safety and then contact him for help. What we need is a guarantee that help will be forthcoming—a clear statement that the funds needed to put Hanover Tower right will be provided, and a guarantee to fund the sprinkler systems across Sheffield, and indeed the same response across the whole country.

But the problem goes much wider than that. Much of the high-rise in my constituency is in the private rented sector. The council does not own the properties but it has a responsibility for the safety of those living in them, and there are fire safety issues there too. We have seen an explosion in numbers in the private rented sector in recent years, but at the same time, in Sheffield as in so many parts of the country, we have seen a fall, driven by the cuts, in the number of local government staff responsible for compliance in the sector, causing real risk to people in terms of fire and other issues. Do the Government accept that that is one of the issues that needs to be considered as part of any review of fire safety, not simply in high-rise but in accommodation generally in this country?

In the minute that I have left, let me turn to schools and the crisis they are facing. I have 24 state schools in my constituency. Every one of them has faced challenges in making ends meet over the last few years. Headteachers were right—I am disappointed that they have been attacked in the way they have during this debate—to highlight the combined threat of Government cuts and the new funding formula. From 2015-16 to 2019-20, every one of my schools faces cuts of between 6% and 19%—a loss of 103 teachers. Conservative Members seem to be in denial, as the Government are, about the crisis facing our schools.

If the statement that no school will lose out means anything, it must mean it in real terms. If that is the case, perhaps the Secretary of State could write quickly to the headteachers in my constituency to tell them that they need not worry about the redundancies that they are planning or the courses that they are proposing to remove, and to give them the guarantee that they want and that all our children deserve.

17:34

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I congratulate all the Members who have made their maiden speeches today. It is great to hear so many Scottish accents, with Scottish seats on the Labour Benches again! It was also special to hear the Geordie accent of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), who follows my good friend Pat Glass in this place.

As I said in my own maiden speech seven years ago, I am proud to have been an adopted Teessider for nearly 40 years, but I am even prouder of the public sector workers who have been so brutally treated by the Tories in power over the last seven years. Thousands of them on Teesside have lost their jobs as local councils and hospital trusts have seen their budgets decimated, while those who remain have had little if any pay increase in recent years. Is this really the way to treat the dedicated public sector workers who clean our streets, care for our elderly, run our school centres, police our communities, heal our sick, repair our public sector houses, and deliver a host of other local services?

I am also proud of my own local authority, Stockton Borough Council, which in the last week has been named the runner-up in the annual local government awards. I suppose that expecting it to win twice in the space of a few years was asking too much. Despite the pressures and the cuts, the council has a hard-working, highly committed team who work relentlessly to provide a better life for those in Stockton. Councils like that must make the decisions about who will be given a home help and who will have to go without. They have had to grass over the flowerbeds and roundabouts in our communities, because they have had to sack the gardeners as a result of Tory budget cuts. They have had to all but close down services for young people as social care has swallowed up more of their diminishing budgets, and they have had to row back on investment which could have created jobs.

I have been pleased to see the last two Governments build a little on the tremendous investment in our children that was made over the 13 years of Labour government, but that progress is now in jeopardy, damaged by budget cuts, the deployment of huge numbers of unqualified teachers, a lack of capital to replace the schools that are falling down and to provide new ones, and a workforce who are downtrodden by the Government and, in many cases, forced to beg parents for cash to ensure that children have the equipment that they need. Across the Stockton borough, schools will receive an average 1% rise over the next few years. That can only lead to sacked teachers and support staff, a restricted curriculum, and the need to get that begging bowl out for parents. While some parents may be able to stump up the cash, the vast majority cannot, possibly because they are public sector workers who have forgotten what a pay rise is like.

The jewel in the local services crown is, of course, the national health service. One of my key pledges during the election campaign was to save North Tees hospital’s A&E department from being closed as part of the Tory sustainability and transformation plans. In the past few days, I have acquired a copy of a report which spells out the future of hospitals in our area. It speaks of the need to hit financial targets, which means that either Darlington Memorial hospital or North Tees in Stockton will be downgraded and the emergency service removed from one of them.

Yes: this is driven by costs. It is driven by the fact that the Government have failed to train and recruit the consultants we need, and it is driven without the approval of clinicians and the general public, most of whom are being bypassed. The Government are trying to solve the wrong problem. They are trying to beat down budgets and use the shortage of clinicians as an excuse to reduce services. They need to train and recruit the people we need. What we really want in Stockton, however, is the new hospital that was axed by the Tory-Liberal Democrat Government in 2010. The Government do not have the cash—yet they found £1 billion or more to buy the votes of the DUP to prop up their shambolic Administration.

Our education system and our local services have reached a tipping point. Either we invest in them, or they will continue to deteriorate beyond use. The Queen’s Speech offers them nothing.

17:39

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me during the debate on the Gracious Speech.

This Parliament sits at a time of constitutional uncertainty and change. It is a Parliament in the balance, overshadowed by deep recent tragedies. In such an environment, it is with some trepidation that I rise to offer my thoughts. My trepidation, however, is blunted by the knowledge that it is with the authority of my constituents that I stand here. My constituents have placed their trust in me: their trust that I will seek to deliver a more hopeful, fairer, better future.

It is traditional to point out the strengths and character of one’s constituency, and that task is made much easier for me as I represent East Lothian. I have heard eloquent speeches today describing the beauty of constituencies, but rest assured there is only one truly beautiful constituency, and that is my own: East Lothian. It has a history as an arterial route for pilgrims, soldiers, scholars and artists, and the development of its six towns reflects their connections to the sea, to trade, to agriculture and fishing and to embarkation and de-embarkation spots for soldiers.

The towns reflect the long history of industrialisation. The place where I live, Prestonpans, reflects the industrial revolution and coal mining, evidence of which goes back to 1210, a mere 140 years before the post of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod was founded. The distinctive individual characters of the six towns are complemented by the surrounding villages, which carry their own identity. They weave together to create a constituency community that is distinctive, supportive, welcoming, creative, industrious, entrepreneurial and both forward and outward looking. Those are characteristics that I feel I can recommend to the House and to those listening.

Tradition dictates that I should pay homage to the previous MP, George Kerevan, who represented my constituency for two years. I am glad to do so, because it allows me to put right an innocent mistake. In Mr Kerevan’s maiden speech, he omitted to mention Fiona O’Donnell, the MP who had represented East Lothian for five years previously. I am glad to put right that small omission today. As I looked at the previous MPs for East Lothian, I suddenly realised the giant task that confronts me. John Home Robertson and John Mackintosh were giants in the political world; they were pro-Europeans. Indeed, John Mackintosh was an advocate for being Scottish, British and European. As I was looking at what John Home Robertson said in his maiden speech about John Mackintosh, I found words that articulate my trepidation but also give me a rule to live by. He said:

“If we are always open and stick to what we believe in we may not always be able to satisfy our Whips, but in the end we shall earn the respect of our constituents. I believe that they are the people who really matter to us.”—[Official Report, 9 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 1257.]

Much is spoken of this land’s assets, but I hope we can all agree that its greatest assets are the children and their future. If we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before, and as we stand on the shoulders of giants, we have a duty to give our children the opportunity to build a greater, stronger, fairer, kinder future. History will treat us harshly if we do not step up to fulfil the obligation that we owe to our young. My promise to my constituents and to this House is that I will always be open and advocate for what I believe. I will fight for a kinder, more hopeful and fairer future.

17:42

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), who has made a powerful and eloquent speech on behalf of his truly beautiful constituency, as he put it. I also congratulate the other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made their maiden speeches today.

I welcome the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to maintaining our 0.7% international development commitment. The new Government have two Ministers of State—one of whom I welcome to his place today—who are working jointly in the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I wish them well. Greater co-operation between the two Departments is to be welcomed, but I hope that this will be a partnership and not the first step towards a takeover of DFID by the Foreign Office. Shortly before the election, the cross-party International Development Committee reaffirmed, on a cross-party basis, the importance of maintaining DFID as a stand-alone Department, and I urge the Government to continue to do so.

[The Minister for Africa (Rory Stewart)]

indicated assent.

[Stephen Twigg]

I welcome the fact that the Minister is nodding at what I am saying.

In the recent general election, my pledge to my constituents was to seek a fair deal for Liverpool. Austerity has hit all parts of our country, but it has hit cities such as Liverpool the hardest. Liverpool City Council has faced budget cuts of nearly £100 million since 2010. Merseyside police have lost 1,700 officers or staff, and the Merseyside fire and rescue budget has been cut in half. In the next three years, the Liverpool City Council budget faces a further cut of £90 million. To protect social care, the council made the difficult decision to increase council tax by 4.99% this year, but even with that tax increase it is having to cut social care by £58 million. That is a loss of 5,000 care packages, which will affect some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in Liverpool.

Investment in education is vital for social mobility, community cohesion, and our future economy. There is real concern in the schools in my constituency about the impact of the proposed funding formula. The proposal that was consulted upon last year would result in a loss to Liverpool’s schools of £3 million. The Secretary of State today repeated the pledge in the Conservative manifesto that no school will have its budget cut but, as others have said, the crucial question is about whether that is in real terms. Otherwise, it will represent a cut for schools that desperately need to protect their funding. I urge the Government to maintain the deprivation and prior attainment factors in the proposed funding formula, which are vital for schools in some of the most deprived parts of my constituency.

This is not just about schools; we also need investment in our early years education. Children’s centres do vital work, but there are also nursery schools. I have two outstanding nursery schools in my constituency: East Prescot Nursery School, which celebrates its 70th anniversary this week, and Ellergreen Nursery School. I want assurances from the Government about long-term funding for our nursery schools, which do such a vital job.

Finally, I want to discuss the promised major reform of technical education. There is no doubt that it has been a long-term weakness that goes back decades, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) reminded us. Let us look to countries such as Germany and Switzerland, which have done this so much better than us. I say to the Government, “Good luck with major reform of technical education, but you cannot do it on the cheap.” The biggest cuts in recent years have been to 16-to-19 funding and, in particular, further education. As well as investment in our schools and in our crucial early years education, let us invest in FE, because only then will we achieve the promised major reform of technical education.

17:47

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I am honoured by the support of people from across High Peak that has enabled me to stand here today. As someone commented on my Facebook page:

“I can’t believe that one of our school run mums has been elected to Parliament.”

Well, I have four children and have been a school run mum for over 20 years, and I am proud to bring the views of school run mums to Parliament. As the first woman to represent High Peak, I will bring a different perspective from that of my predecessors. I pay tribute to my immediate predecessor, Andrew Bingham, who served as the MP for seven years and as a borough councillor before that, and I wish him well for the future.

I always said that I would only ever seek to be an MP if it was for High Peak. This north-western tip of Derbyshire, 90% in the Peak District national park, is extremely beautiful, but it is also my home and where I have brought up my children. There is nowhere I would rather live. Between and within the wild expanses of picturesque moorland nestle towns and villages that are vibrant, close and friendly. At the heart of each of those communities are their schools and nurseries. At school, children learn how to make friends, how to stay friends, how to work together, and how to plan and create things together. Those lessons apply not just to the children but to us parents as well. They mean that we school run mums can turn our hand to just about anything. We can organise play dates, childcare, fundraisers and parties, and we can organise campaigns to change things. Our schools and nurseries are not just factories for exam certificates; they create communities.

As I am sure that Members on both sides of the House who represent rural communities will agree, our schools are especially important in preventing rural isolation. That is why so many people across High Peak are very concerned about the enormous cuts facing our schools and our nurseries. The Government may say there is record spending, but when our excellent local schools in High Peak are about to lose over £4 million a year and our children are already in classes of 34 or more, it does not cut much ice to say that we could have lots of money for a free school if we want one.

We have outstanding schools already. Combs Infant School, where my two youngest boys went, will lose over £20,000 under these proposals, equivalent to one of its two teachers. Chapel-en-le-Frith High School is set to lose nearly £600,000, equivalent to 15 teachers. It seems that under this Government schools are punished rather than rewarded for their success, and nurseries too.

The underfunding of the promised 30 hours of free childcare is causing several nurseries in High Peak to consider whether they are able to keep going at all. In Gamesley, where the outstanding nursery’s fully qualified staff contribute so much to the life chances of children in this area of high deprivation, each place costs £5 an hour to run, but funding is being cut to just £4 an hour. It does not add up. No wonder more than half of nurseries are saying that they cannot afford to provide the 30 free hours. I urge the Government to have an urgent rethink of nursery funding before September, before we end up with fewer nursery places, rather than more; fewer children able to get the best start for school; and fewer parents able to work.

The fate of our schools and nurseries was so important to my constituents that they chose to elect a school run mum as their MP. And this school run mum will not fail to stand up for them, and for our schools and nurseries and the communities that need them so much.

17:51

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Ruth George). She is the most forceful, eloquent and committed school run mum I have ever heard in this House, and she will clearly be a great asset not just to our party but to the whole House. I congratulate her on an outstanding maiden speech.

I also associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who mentioned the plight of local authorities as they try to do the right thing about their tower blocks and other housing assets in the light of the terrible tragedy that has engulfed the nation and has led to such heart searching on what we do about our tower blocks and on who funds them.

Southampton has been tremendously responsible in its approach to its tower blocks. A number of programmes for installing sprinklers are already under way, and it wishes to progress them to the rest of the tower blocks, but, given the desperate cuts to local government over a considerable period, it simply will not have the resources—or if it does have the resources, it will be at the expense of many other basic services in the city. It is imperative that we get clarity as soon as possible on what funding will be forthcoming from central Government and the Department for Communities and Local Government to support authorities such as Southampton that are trying to act responsibly and carefully on the safety of their tower block residents. Hopefully those authorities will have Government support in making that happen in a way that allows local government to continue while providing the best safety for residents.

I find it odd that, in this Queen’s Speech, the Government of the day, who were allegedly the victors in the general election, have fled from their manifesto faster than any Government I have heard in this House. The Conservative manifesto’s chapter on education is headed, without any trace of irony, “The world’s great meritocracy”. That chapter does not seem substantially to exist as far as the Queen’s Speech is concerned. That gives me some pleasure, as grammar schools are not to be imposed upon us in the future and school lunches will not be cut. However, that world’s worst manifesto, which was

“a long list of punishments for the public,”

to use not my words, but those of the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), who is not in his place—I am sure inquiries will be made by his own side about that description shortly—still puts in place a number of changes that are inadequate for school funding. That is what I wish to emphasise in the seven seconds I have left available. It needs more than the distribution of the cake; it needs a larger cake. That is the fundamental point about school funding for the future.

17:55

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for this opportunity to make my maiden speech in this important debate, Mr Speaker. As I believe is customary, I wish to start by paying tribute to my predecessor—this is something I am very glad to do. Graham Allen served our community in Nottingham North with distinction over the past 30 years. He has fought for better jobs, decent housing and the best possible education for our young people. He was a skilled parliamentarian who used all the devices of this place for the betterment of our community. His greatest legacy will be his work on early intervention, securing cross-party support and taking it from a theoretical discipline to one that is already changing the lives of the youngest people in my community. I hope to carry on this work as Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament for Nottingham North. I and all my neighbours owe Graham a great debt of thanks. He ought to be a freeman of Nottingham or never to have to pay for a pint in Bulwell again, whichever he considers the greater honour.

Speaking of great honours, being the Member of Parliament for Nottingham North is the honour of my lifetime. I am humbled that my neighbours chose me to be their voice in Parliament, and I will not let them down. I am humbled, too, to be a Labour Member of Parliament. I am very aware of the great names that have come before me, and I look forward to proving myself worthy of such exalted company. I am especially proud, during Co-operatives Fortnight, to be one of 38 Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament this time, and again I look forward to serving the co-operative movement during my time here.

Nottingham has the very best of Britain, so I have pulled out a few highlights. They are not necessarily the ones that Members will find on Wikipedia, as I wanted to make them laugh, especially given the lateness of the hour. Our Old Market Square is one of the best big urban open spaces in the country, so every summer we chuck 100 tonnes—or whatever it is—of sand in there and make a beach out of it, because we are also as far away from the coast as it is possible to get. We have the best public transport outside the capital; we have two top-class universities—I am proud to be an alumnus of one—which have pumped out innovations such as the MRI machine and ibuprofen; we have produced the best British boxer of the 21st century, Carl Froch, as well as the best British boxer of the 19th century, William “Bendigo” Thompson, who was from not too far from where I live; Britain’s best actress, Vicky McClure, is a proud Nottinghamian; we have the oldest inn in England—we know how important that is; and in football our city has won more European cups than London, Paris and Rome—put together. We have the very best of Britain in Nottingham.

However, it is important to reflect on the fact that we have also traditionally had some of the worst of Britain—on health outcomes, results at school and outcomes in the workplace. We should not shy away from that challenge. All our challenges lead back to one point, which is our poverty. Thirty-four years ago, in his maiden speech, my predecessor but one, Richard Ottaway, remarked on Nottingham North’s proud industrial history and listed off all the big workplaces in the constituency. Four years later, my predecessor, Graham Allen, in his maiden speech, remarked that half of those had closed. Thirty-four years on from Richard Ottaway’s speech, none of them are there and they have not been for some time. They were not replaced by the skilled, well paid jobs of the 21st century; instead, what has replaced them is cyclical poverty. We should be angry about that. It is not inevitable and it is avoidable. I am angry about it, which is why I come to this place—I am here to do something about it.

This is what is regrettable about this Government’s legislative plan for the next two years: there simply is not the level of ambition and imagination that my community needs from its Government in order for it to become a better place. A lack of resources is a factor in that, and we have seen disproportionate cuts in Nottingham, but more than that we are talking about the ambition to genuinely create a better Britain that gives everyone a fair shake. Although this Government will not do the things that Nottingham North needs them to do, I will do everything I can, as a Labour and Co-operative party Member of Parliament and trade unionist, to fill this gap. I shall seek to use all the intricacies of this place to highlight our issues. I shall seek to build support for the long-term projects we need to change our community, and I will work and work until we see things get better. That is what I offered to my neighbours and that is what I offer to this place.

17:59

[Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) and all the wonderful, passionate and eloquent maiden speeches that it has been my privilege to listen to this afternoon.

The Queen’s Speech says that we will invest in schools, ensure that every child has the opportunity to attend a good school and see that all schools are fully funded. The National Association of Head Teachers says that the general election result showed that the public did not endorse many of the Conservatives’ more controversial policy ideas, including expanding selection and ending universal infant free school meals. It is right that those policies have been dropped from the Government’s legislative programme.

The Conservative manifesto contained a commitment to ensure that no school would lose per pupil funding under the formula, and it is vital that that promise is now followed through. However, the House of Commons Library says that the Government’s new funding formula would have “winners and losers”, with 54% of schools seeing a cash increase and 46% seeing a cut.

Figures from the National Audit Office show that, in the Borough of Rochdale of which my constituency of Heywood and Middleton forms a part, our schools are facing cuts of £15 million. On average, our local schools are facing cuts of £550 per pupil, which is equivalent to the loss of 468 teachers across the borough, leading to larger class sizes and increasing stress and disillusionment among those teachers remaining in post.

I have been contacted by many headteachers and teachers in my constituency, who have expressed their real and serious concerns about the impact of the new funding formula on our children’s education. They have told me that they have had to make budget savings year on year, and that now the cupboard is bare. The imposition of any more cuts will give them no option but to reduce the number of teachers. Locally, none of the schools in my constituency is a winner; they will all lose out under the new funding formula. Nationally, the picture appears to be much the same, with even Tory MPs complaining that these cuts are “entirely unacceptable”.

We must not forget our international obligations. We have signed up to sustainable development goal No. 4, which commits to ensuring that by 2030 all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education.

Last week, the wonderful children at St Vincent’s Roman Catholic primary school in Norden in my constituency invited me to a morning assembly on the theme of “send my friend to school” where they sang and performed brilliantly on behalf of their international neighbours. They reminded me that, at our current rate of progress, sustainable development goal No. 4 will not be achieved until 2084. None the less, it made me very proud to see those children looking outwards, not inwards. Seeing this care and compassion among our young people gave me hope for the future, and I hope that this Government will take note.

Let me briefly touch on the recent election. The Prime Minister recklessly gambled with her majority and lost it. Far from providing strength and stability, we now have a fragile minority Government propped up by Democratic Unionist party votes. I was one of the few MPs who voted against the election—because of voter fatigue. My constituents have had a major election every year since 2014, and at the time the election was announced we were in the midst of the Greater Manchester mayoral elections. I tried to save the Prime Minister from herself but to no avail.

17:59

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

First, let me congratulate all Members who have made their excellent maiden speeches today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris). He has very big shoes to fill, but I know that the experience and dedication that he has shown in local government will stand him in good stead in the days ahead.

Let me state for the record that I have declarable interests in that my wife is the Cabinet member for children and young people in our local authority of Cheshire West and Chester and education is the subject matter under discussion today.

A common concern raised with me on the doorstep during the election was funding for local schools, which I and many other Members have mentioned in the House on previous occasions and again today, but I want to focus today on the lack of accountability in our education system. Earlier this month, the University of Chester’s academy in Ellesmere Port was rated as inadequate by Ofsted, and the sad fact is that that is not the first time the school has failed an Ofsted inspection, having been rated inadequate in 2013. Although there have been improvements since then, we are now sadly back to square one.

We need to do something different, but the way the matter has been dealt with so far demonstrates a lacuna in Government policy towards failing academies. Whether it is an oversight or an ideological attachment to academies that does not concede they could ever have issues with their performance, the devastating reality is that the only prescription to remedy these failings is more of the same. My constituents deserve better than more of the same.

As Members will know, there is no mechanism for an academy to return to local authority control. Academies deemed to be failing or underperforming may be transferred to another multi-academy trust or sponsor, or made subject to other intervention from the relevant regional schools commissioner—who, for reasons I am yet to understand, thinks that Ellesmere Port is in the west midlands.

However, whatever the theoretical options are, I rather suspect that there are not scores of other sponsors queuing up to take over. If one does emerge, what guarantees do we have they will be any better than the current sponsors, that they will have any local knowledge or connection or that they will be accountable to the people they serve? The answer is of course none, yet we have a ready-made answer just waiting by the phone for a call—the local authority, with 90% of its schools rated as good or outstanding, a wealth of knowledge and experience, and, of course, the local connections that I believe will be vital in restoring public confidence in the school.

I know that the vast majority of teachers and support staff do a fantastic job in trying circumstances and that there are many at the academy who are working incredibly hard and doing their best, so it is important to note that this is a criticism not of the staff at the school but of its leadership and of a system that cannot deal with those failings. There is no doubt that if this was a local authority-controlled school an army of DFE advisers would have been in years ago extolling the virtues of academisation. Indeed, I know of one local primary that was positively encouraged to have the university as its sponsor—I am sure it is relieved that it resisted that particular temptation.

But this is the nub: we all want to see school standards improve and the best for our children, but the system designed to drive improvement is currently entrenching poor performance and underachievement. Although the Queen’s Speech has mercifully not included yet another round of tinkering with school structures, its big omission in education was any attempt to deal with the Select Committee on Education’s proposals and introduce a way in which failing academies and chains can be held to account. The sooner that triumph of ideology over reality is corrected, the better.

At the moment, we have a failing school and nobody taking responsibility for that failure. There is not even a governing body at the academy, and therefore no channel for staff, parents or the community to express their views and, critically, no accountability for the serial failings of leadership. The Queen’s Speech says that the

“government will continue to work to ensure that every child has the opportunity to attend a good school”.

It is about time that the Government put aside dogma and came up with proposals to actually make that happen. The education of our children is too important for them to continue to be let down in this way.

18:07

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

Let me begin by saying what a pleasure it has been to listen to so many excellent maiden speeches; as the daughter of a Scot, it is particularly pleasing to see so many new Scottish MPs on the Labour Benches. I thank the people of Burnley for bringing me back here again. It is a privilege.

I want to begin by speaking up for children in Burnley. I was pleased to hear in the Queen’s Speech talk of spreading prosperity and opportunity and I want to ask the Minister how Burnley’s children fit into this plan. There are 19,709 children in Burnley and Padiham and, of those, 31.9% are growing up in poverty. In the most deprived wards, that rises to 50%—the staggering figure of a half of all children growing up in poverty. If we are to build the strong economy we all want to see, we need to maximise the economic contribution of all our people. Acting to break the cycle of poverty does not just transform lives; it strengthens our economy, and we cannot afford not to act.

I want the prosperity and opportunity that the Prime Minister speaks about to apply to the children in my constituency. I want it to reach them and I want to ask why the Government’s actions seem not to match their rhetoric.

Education is undoubtedly the key to social mobility and economic opportunity. With that in mind, it is useful to look at what is happening on the ground in Burnley. There are eight state-maintained nursery schools. Every one of them is judged to be either outstanding or good, and all are at risk of closure. All the evidence shows that the first five years of life are so important. It is essential that that provision is not confused with childcare—I am talking about quality education, delivered by qualified teachers to children of nursery school age. Disgracefully, those schools are not protected. I want to thank the teachers and headteachers of the nursery schools in town who champion this cause in children’s interests.

In the Queen’s Speech, the Government promised to

“continue to work to ensure that every child has the opportunity to attend a good school and that all schools are fairly funded.”

All the children in my constituency have access to good primary and secondary schools, but the so-called fair funding formula will have a damaging and negative effect. Every school is to have its funding cut by more than £400 per pupil; shockingly, in the poorest parts of my constituency, that figure rises to more than £700. Can the Minister tell me what is fair about that and how it will enhance opportunity and spread prosperity? The reality is quite the reverse. Those budget cuts will mean teacher redundancies, supersize classes in primary schools and a reduced curriculum in secondary schools, all of which add up to fewer opportunities for the children in Burnley and Padiham.

At every stage, it seems that the Government are creating obstacles that hamper social mobility and deprive children of opportunities. This is a criminal waste that is denying opportunity and costing this country dearly. When will the Government understand that children are the future and that an investment in them is an investment in the future of our country?

18:11

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate and especially to enjoy such amazing maiden speeches from across the Chamber. I pay a special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), who spoke so well. I am sure he will be a tireless representative for his community. I also pay tribute to my electors in the constituency of Clwyd South for electing me for the third time in seven years.

The Queen’s Speech contained some very fine words, and here are my favourites:

“A priority will be to build a more united country, strengthening the social, economic and cultural bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.”

That is a fine sentiment, but then we discovered what really happened—a tawdry little deal and a strange game of “Who Wants to be a Billionaire?” that led to the Government giving one of the constituent nations £1 billion, seemingly on the basis of a confidence and supply deal to prop up the Tories. What sort of message does that send to my constituents and to people across the rest of Wales, and indeed to the rest of mainland Britain? It will not come as a surprise that Members across the Opposition Benches will rightly be asking for that extra £1.7 billion for Wales, and I am sure that other Members will be making similar requests for other parts of mainland Britain.

The Queen’s Speech rightly spoke about the importance of ensuring that people have

“the skills they need for the high-skilled, high-wage jobs of the future”.

Unlike some in this Chamber, I do not believe that we can pooh-pooh the issue of student debt. Our UK manifesto was right to address that, and I am delighted that our Welsh Labour Government have taken practical steps to ensure that students are better supported. Wherever one is on the political spectrum, it is undoubtedly true that student debt of levels that my generation did not see or know benefits absolutely no one.

There are some measures in the Queen’s Speech that I think few would oppose, such as greater action to tackle domestic violence, meeting the NATO 2% commitment and support for the police and security services to tackle terrorism and human trafficking, which is a global concern. However, we need to recognise that we can only implement those measures with proper resourcing. This week’s Economist magazine asks for an honest debate about taxation and cost-effectiveness, and about what we want to fund and how we propose to do it. That is a welcome debate, and in it we must speak up for the dignity of proper state investment for high-quality public services. We must speak up for the measures that were excluded from the Queen’s Speech. What would be wrong about giving, as part of those settlements, a decent bridging pension to the WASPI women—the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—who were born in the 1950s? I believe that the ideological debate with the penny-pinching, small state ideologues of the hard right, who always have their way, must have its day.

No speech in this Parliament would be complete without a message for the Government on Brexit. Let us have a Brexit that works for the whole nation, not just for the hard right of the Tory party. If we end up with no deal and without proper votes, we are going to be mighty cross.

18:15

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Being called to speak at such a late hour has given me the privilege of hearing so many marvellous maiden speeches, particular that of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), whom I have had the privilege of knowing for many years, and who I know will be a strong advocate for Nottingham in this place.

When the Prime Minister went to the country on 8 June, she asked to be judged on her record, and she was found wanting. She should have taken the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and not had the election, because what we now have is a Tory party with no majority in this House and a Government propped up only by the votes of the Democratic Unionist party, which, to paraphrase that great poet Robbie Burns, has been “bought and sold with English gold”. Actually, I want to congratulate the 10 hon. Members from the DUP—they are no longer in their places—on securing more resources for their constituencies, because ultimately that is what we come here to do. My fear is that the benefits about to be bestowed upon Northern Ireland will be at the continuing cost of austerity in Stoke-on-Trent.

We have had a Queen’s Speech that, at best, is a thin gruel of legislative programming. It contains 27 Bills, eight of which relate to the process of exiting the European Union, and none of which seeks to deal with the inequalities that are the root cause of most societal problems. Therefore, I will not judge the Government by their actions, but instead hold them to account for their inactions and the political decisions that they have taken or, in the case of this paralysed Administration, not taken.

In Stoke-on-Trent, schools will face a budget shortfall of around £11 million by 2020, so where in the Queen’s Speech is the measure to ensure an equitable, adequate and properly funded fair funding system for all schools across the country? I have met headteachers who are working under immense pressure to deliver the very best for the children in my constituency. Stoke-on-Trent’s young people are rich in talent and with the right support would have a bright future, but that future is being robbed by an uncaring Government. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may chunter from a sedentary position, but it is true.

It is not just in relation to schools that the Government are showing a dereliction of duty. Where are the measures to help parents who go to work with proper, affordable and accessible childcare? The proposal for 30 hours of free childcare is in principle a good one, but the Government are implementing the policy on the cheap. Nursery and wraparound providers in Stoke-on-Trent have told me that it will end up costing them more to provide 30 hours because the amount that the Government are offering per child per hour is simply too little to meet the operating overheads. It is childcare on the cheap, and the Government should be ashamed.

It is not just infants who are being let down; the Government’s silence on further education is also deafening. Although the Queen’s Speech made some references to technical education, it said absolutely nothing about the future of further education. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State may smile, but this is the Queen’s Speech that she struggled to make a case for earlier because there is so little about education in it.

In Stoke-on-Trent we have two fabulous colleges, Stoke-on-Trent College and City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, both of which do exceptional work preparing the next generation of Stokies for work. However, the general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, while acknowledging the impact on technical education, said that the Government’s plan

“fails to do anything for the rest of post-16 education, which is extremely poorly funded, and where many courses are being cut.”

The list of missing Bills and botched opportunities could go on, but time means that I cannot. The Queen’s Speech is a chance for a Government to lay out their priorities for the coming year. This Queen’s Speech suggests a Government who are out of ideas, devoid of aspiration and, at their very worst, indifferent to the people that I represent.

11:30

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

It has been an absolute honour and a pleasure to hear the maiden speeches from across the House today. Although Tooting is not awash with peaks and flowy rivers, it is very beautiful and I am immensely grateful to the people of Tooting for re-electing me.

Brexit will play a substantial part in the business of the House over the next two years. However, ensuring that we have a well-resourced education system is something that we cannot revisit in two years’ time. Children, parents and teachers need answers now. When I marched with 500 Tooting parents and pupils in May against Government proposals to cut their school budgets, I made a promise to stand up for them in Parliament. Three weeks later, here I am, standing up for Tooting children, Tooting teachers and support staff and Tooting parents.

I will briefly take the House on a journey that children across Tooting will take throughout their education under Conservative proposals. At three years old, parents struggle to find a place in local nurseries able to provide 30 hours of free childcare. At four years old, our children begin full-time education—indeed, my daughter starts school in September—but those who have special needs cannot be catered for due to lack of funding. Many headteachers attempting to provide the best for their pupils in Tooting are having to go cap in hand at the school gates, asking for donations just to pay their staff and keep their buildings in repair. When the donations run out, teachers are using their own money to purchase basics such as books and pens. At 18 years old, our children have to decide whether to cripple themselves with university debt, try to get one of a limited number of apprenticeship places or go straight into the workforce.

As graduates, our young people have to decide whether they can actually afford to serve in public service roles. They have to decide whether they can become nurses, knowing that they will potentially have to use food banks, or whether they can become teachers, knowing that their morale will be stripped from them within their first year of working. Poorly thought out Conservative promises versus everyday reality pretty much sums up the Prime Minister’s education proposals—a Conservative promise of a fair funding formula for our schools. Teachers should be teaching, not fundraising; they should be able to get on with their job.

There are schools in Tooting that have not been able to provide cleaning staff, so children have had to clean their own classrooms. Children should be learning, not vacuuming. Who suffers in all this? It is the next generation of children and young adults, whose potential is being curbed before they even have the chance to reach it. [Interruption.] I am enjoying hearing the Secretary of State speaking from a sedentary position when she would not come to speak to parents in Tooting.

[Justine Greening]

I simply want to set out that the hon. Lady’s party had exactly the same policy on funding to schools that would lose under the funding formula, which was to have no cash losers.

[Dr Allin-Khan]

Why was the Secretary of State, or any Conservative representative, not present at any of the hustings, the marches or the meetings during the electoral process? It is easy now to stand up in the Chamber where she feels safe among her comrades, but why is she not at the coalface speaking to parents, teachers and pupils? Nine-year-olds were marching against Government cuts. Where was she then? She was invited and she failed to show up.

At what point will the Prime Minister and her party accept that our children deserve more? They deserve a better start in life. Parents should not be worried about the fact that their children will be put in boxes based on their academic prowess at the age of 11. We are stunting our children’s potential before they have even had the opportunity to flourish. Under a Labour Government, my brother and I were able to come from a poor background and have the aspirational hope that the Secretary of State spoke about. Under a Labour Government, we were both able to go to Oxbridge and I now stand here before the House. We had a single parent who worked three jobs, but a Labour Government gave us the opportunity to achieve.

It is a Labour Government who will stand up for every single child in this country. A Labour Government will be for the many, not the few. It is a Labour Government who will ensure that we have class sizes in which our children can learn and have opportunities, and who will say that an apprenticeship is as important as going to university and crippling ourselves with debt. A Labour Government will ensure that every single child has the best possible start in life, and I look forward to being part of that Government very soon.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), I emphasise that, of course, the debate can continue until 7 o’clock, but there is no obligation on the hon. Gentleman, or on the Minister, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), to continue banging on until 7 o’clock. It is perfectly permissible for them to conclude their no doubt Demosthenian orations before that allotted hour—hint.

18:25

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I get the sense that you would like us to finish sooner rather than later.

We have had a packed debate, and it has been great to listen to the 48 Back-Bench Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), for Burnley (Julie Cooper), for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and for Tooting (Dr Allin-Khan); the right hon. Members for Broadland (Mr Simpson), for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper); the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), and for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston); and the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer).

However, I pay special tribute to all those hon. Members who have spoken in this Chamber for the first time and to their excellent maiden speeches, which show that, whichever part of the Chamber Members sit in, they come here with the right reasons and the right purpose, which is to represent their constituents and their constituencies as best they can. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr Russell-Moyle), for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), for High Peak (Ruth George) and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and to the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), for Southport (Damien Moore) and for Glasgow East (David Linden). I would merely say that it was 12 years ago, on 23 May 2005, that I gave my maiden speech in the debate on communities, and I stand here 12 years later as the shadow Communities Secretary.

A week is a long time in politics, they say. Well, what a difference seven weeks made. When the election was called, I was virtually laughed off College Green in media interviews. Tory MPs’ tails were up—they were heading for a landslide. They asked for a big majority, but the Prime Minister lost the majority she had inherited. Their response? Well, out went all their policies—to the extent that we had a delayed Queen’s Speech that could have been written on an Ascot betting slip. Why the Queen had to wait for a goatskin to be prepared, I do not know—never has so much pomp and ceremony accompanied so little content.

This is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the appalling tragedies that shocked many of us over the past weeks. It is with pride, however, that I commend the way the communities of Manchester and London united to show opposition to that violence and hate. I also pay tribute to the heroic response from the emergency services, the NHS and the community following the dreadful tragedy at Grenfell Tower, and to those who provided support to all who lost family, friends and everything they own as the fire tore through their homes.

I know that, within the Labour party, there are staff and elected Members who have been affected personally, and I anticipate that similar can be said for others around the House. I am proud to stand alongside, and pay tribute to, all those who have demanded answers over the failings that allowed this tragedy to happen. Rather than being torn apart, the community has come together in a remarkable display of human compassion, mutuality and solidarity. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister last week recognised the failure of Government in this tragedy, and I look forward to the results of the forthcoming investigation, which I hope will ensure this tragedy is never, ever repeated.

The consequences of a Tory Government are visible to all. They include unrepaired roads, uncollected bins, cuts to English classes for speakers of other languages, cuts to adult learning and closed children’s centres throughout England. Less visible, however, are the stresses that have been placed on core services, planning services, building regulation and inspection of commercial properties. A recent study by the Local Government Information Unit found that three quarters of councils had little or no confidence in their financial sustainability, and more than one in 10 believed that they were in danger of failing to deliver legally required services such as those I have mentioned.

[Lucy Frazer]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if only one in 10 believe that they are not capable of delivering, nine out of 10 are managing with some of their financial services?

[Andrew Gwynne]

The hon. and learned Lady shows a lack of understanding of precisely what is happening in local government. The fact that one in 10 are fearful of the financial future does not mean that 90% are satisfied. I suspect that she will regret making that intervention, because she will know that councils of all political persuasions up and down the country are struggling to make ends meet, and they want an end to Government austerity too.

Although I welcome the fact that the general election demonstrated the strength of public support for the policies of my party, and that it led to the Conservative party abandoning not just some but most of its damaging and unpopular plans, there is now a complete financial and policy black hole.

A 56% cut of central Government funding to local authorities was due to be replaced through new measures allowing local authorities to hold on to 100% of locally raised business rates. Where are those plans now? Local business rate retention was expected to begin in 2019-20. However, due to the lack of a legislative framework to carry the introduction of the policy, many in the local government world now assume that the plans have been kicked into the long grass. This is the third time that I have had to raise this issue. When will the Government provide the clarity that local councils need? Are the plans still going ahead, and are they still going ahead on the timescales previously mentioned? Where is the legislation?

The Minister can intervene if he wishes to answer those points—perhaps he will answer them in his speech—but the fact is that Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House will want to question Ministers precisely on the detail of how their local councils are going to be financed. The Opposition will not let up until we have the absolute certainty of how the revenue support grant is going to be replaced.

The King’s Fund predicted a £1.9 billion funding gap in social care this year, while the Local Government Association estimated a £2.6 billion funding gap by 2020. Once again, the Government had no answers in the Queen’s Speech. Almost half of elderly people are living in inadequate care homes.

Although it seems that the grammar school plans have been abandoned, thousands of teachers and teaching assistants have either already lost their jobs because of the cuts or left the profession early because of this Government’s policies. This is not propaganda. Many schools are due to be worse off under the new funding formula, which will still result in Government cuts of 3% to school budgets, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Since 2010, 455 libraries have closed. Investment in arts and culture has declined by £236 million. Some councils have been forced to impose cuts of up to 80%, which have disproportionately affected the most deprived areas in this country. In the previous Parliament, the 10 most deprived council areas in England faced cuts 18 times higher than the least deprived councils. If we want a Government for the many and not the few, it is really clear that it will not be served by the party currently sitting on the Government Benches. We need a party that is committed to governing in the interests of the whole country and to making sure that inequality is reversed.

Let us look at what this Government have done. Despite the cuts to all our public services, this Prime Minister has managed to find £1 billion to invest in securing herself a wafer-thin parliamentary majority. Why has the same priority not been placed on investing in our public services? One billion pounds would help to prevent cuts to the police budget and allow us to recruit more police officers across the whole country. One billion pounds could train 45,419 new firefighters. One billion pounds could not only fund the Government’s pledge to create 10,000 training placements for nurses, but allow them to do so without scrapping bursaries.

There is a growing consensus that the austerity project has failed, but this legislative programme promises more of the same—unless you live in Northern Ireland. Urgent action is needed on health and social care budgets, public sector pay and local government funding, yet all those issues were absent from this delayed Queen’s Speech. Local government faces a cliff edge, yet during the election Ministers were unwilling to debate those issues. They remain so detached from those they claim to represent that they are unable to see the looming crisis. This Queen’s Speech was an ideal time for the Government to admit that their 1% pay cap is not working and that public sector workers deserve to be paid a wage they can live on. It was an opportunity for the Conservative party to demonstrate that it had learned from the criticism it received during the election campaign. Sadly, I suspect we will still see nurses using food banks. It was an opportunity for the Government to recognise that not enough money is being invested in our education system. As has been demonstrated in today’s debate, schools that raise concerns about a lack of funding are dismissed as engaging in political propaganda.

It is time to build a country based on hope and shared prosperity. Local government and public sector services will play a vital role in supporting us to do that, enriching communities and creating an environment in which we are able to tackle isolation, division and mistrust: a country for the many, not the few. This is possible only if it is properly funded. We will take no lectures from this Government. We look forward to the day when we show this Government the door and we get the Government that our public services and constituents deserve and need: a Labour Government for the many, not the few.

18:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)]

This has been a good and wide-ranging debate. I am delighted to have listened to so many fantastic maiden speeches—we have been on a tour of the UK. The hon. Members for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker), for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Lesley Laird), for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr Russell-Moyle), for East Lothian (Martin Whitfield), for High Peak (Ruth George), and for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) all made passionate contributions from the Opposition Benches.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome my new colleagues: my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) and for Southport (Damien Moore). Those two new colleagues from Scotland are just two of our 12 new Scottish Conservative Members, which is great news. It was fantastic to hear the maiden speeches of my hon. Friends. They made serious but entertaining contributions to the debate and showed that they will be excellent Members of Parliament. All the new Members who have contributed to today’s debate have shown, in their own way, that they will bring a range of expertise and views to this House over the coming Parliament.

A strong education offer is essential to unlock talent, to create opportunities for our young people and to equip them with the skills they will need to help us build and maintain a strong economy that generates prosperity for all. Last year, we consulted widely on how to create more good school places and how to ensure that our schools work for everyone. We will continue to build on the constructive conversations we had with higher education institutions during the consultation, so that we can agree what more they can do to raise attainment and increase the number of good school places.

To meet the needs of our growing and rapidly changing economy, employers need access to a workforce with the skills they require. Our reforms to technical education will help businesses, young people and adults to achieve their potential, as T-levels will become a gold standard for technical excellence.

I will go through some of the points that hon. Members have raised about education. Members on both sides of the House raised the issue of school funding, so it is important to start by reiterating what the Secretary of State for Education said earlier. As she said very clearly, the Queen’s Speech was clear that the Government are determined to introduce a fairer distribution of funding for schools. We will set out our plans shortly and, as was outlined in our manifesto, we will ensure that no school has its budget cut as a result of the new formula. My right hon. Friend was extremely clear on that point.

[Lucy Powell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

Let me make some progress and then I will give way.

The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned the number of teaching staff being made redundant from our schools. I say to him that there are 15,000 more teachers in our schools today than when his Government left office in 2010.

[Lucy Powell]

rose—

[Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

I will make some more progress before I give way.

In responding to several Opposition Members on nursery school funding, I would like to say how important our nursery schools are. They are a vital part of our childcare sector. We have already committed to an additional £55 million a year to maintain their current funding levels to at least 2020, in recognition that they deal with some of the children from the most deprived backgrounds in our country. I point out to Opposition Members that our manifesto committed us to immediately instituting a capital fund to help primary schools develop nurseries where they currently do not have the facilities for one.

The shadow Secretary of State for Education raised the pertinent matter of school fire safety in her speech. Sprinklers must be installed in new school buildings if a risk assessment means that they are necessary or if they are required under a local authority planning policy. There are no plans whatsoever to introduce any changes that would make fire safety laws for schools less strict than they are already.

[Lucy Powell]

I want to go back to the Minister’s comments about funding, because he seems to be missing the point. The redundancies that are being made in schools now are a result not of the national funding formula but of increased costs and real-terms cuts happening to schools now. The national funding formula is on top that, and schools will continue to lose out. Can the Minister give a guarantee from the Dispatch Box that no school will lose funding as a result of those real-terms cuts?

[Mr Jones]

I can, as a result of the formula that has been put forward. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made that very clear today.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) mentioned social mobility and the importance of education in our primary schools. She said that we now have more good and outstanding primary school places than we did seven years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned the importance of tackling domestic violence and welcomed the measures in the Queen’s Speech to do so.

My hon. Friends the Members for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) made important speeches in which they referred to the opportunities that we have as we leave the European Union. In particular, they said that those opportunities are about not just the trade in goods but the trade in services, which is also critical.

The role that local government plays in providing services is also essential to the smooth running of our society. Despite challenging financial conditions, councils continue to deliver, and council tax is expected to be lower in real terms in 2019-20 than it was in 2010-11. Councils have embraced innovation and transformed the way they work to deliver services for their local areas.

[Maria Eagle]

I accept the Minister’s point that councils provide important services, but can he explain why Liverpool City Council will have lost 68% of its resource by 2020-21?

[Mr Jones]

The Government have had to look extremely carefully at funding in a number of areas over the past seven years, because when the Government the hon. Lady was part of left office in 2010, they left behind a deficit of £150 billion—the country was spending £150 billion more than it was earning every single year.

We have also given councils financial freedoms and flexibilities to manage their own budgets. In 2015 we provided them with more certainty and stability through the offer of a four-year financial settlement, and 97% of eligible local authorities have accepted that. It enables them to plan service delivery, transformation and more effective collaboration with local partners.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will make some more progress before I give way.

We are also responding positively to help councils meet the cost of increasing service pressures. In the spring Budget we provided an additional £2 billion to put social care on a more stable footing, and allowed relevant authorities the flexibility to raise more income through the adult social care precept. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) raised the important issue of social care. The former mentioned the importance of social care for the working-age population and what more we can do to get people with learning disabilities, for example, into work. That is an extremely important aspiration for the Government. The latter talked about what more we can do to deal with the social care challenges that we face, on which the Government will bring forward plans during this Parliament.

[Mr Betts]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not, because I am just coming on to the point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Before I cover the details of local government finance, I want to mention the important points made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) about housing, which I think we all see as a critical issue. That is why we are devolving £3.4 billion to the Mayor of London for affordable housing during this spending period and why, to answer my hon. Friend’s question, we are fully committed to implementing the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, a piece of legislation that secured agreement right across the House and on which I had the pleasure of working with him.

To answer the hon. Member for Sheffield South East—this was a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish from the Opposition Front Bench—local government devolution is still very much on the agenda. The Government are committed to delivering the manifesto pledge that we made to help local authorities control more of the money they raise and we will work closely with local government to agree the best way of achieving that.

[Mr Betts]

Before the election there was a Bill before Parliament to introduce 100% retention of business rates by local councils. That was due to start in 2019. This is a two-year Queen’s Speech with no mention of that measure. Can the Minister therefore confirm that this measure will now not go ahead in 2019 as planned?

[Mr Jones]

As I have said, we are absolutely committed to allowing local government to keep more of the money it raises locally and we will work with local government to achieve that.

Some of our councils have also been sorely tested in recent weeks, dealing with major terrorist attacks in London and Manchester, and the appalling fire at Grenfell Tower. Our thoughts across the whole House are with the victims and their families, friends and communities. It is essential, as the Prime Minister has said, that the people affected get the support they need. The efforts of the fire service, the police and the emergency services have been outstanding. As the Prime Minister said last week in her statement on Grenfell Tower, we pay tribute to the London boroughs for their fantastic response. That includes a number of chief executives, who are currently working at the new central command centre, as well as the Mayor of London and leading figures from a number of councils outside London.

It is well documented that the initial response was not as good as it should have been, but since then we have acted quickly, working with local authorities on the immediate issues in advance of the public inquiry into the fire. We rapidly provided funding to help the residents affected by the tragedy and we have the Bellwin scheme available to meet the immediate and uninsurable costs of responding to the disaster. We have also guaranteed funding for temporary accommodation for those whose homes have been destroyed as a result of the fire while permanent homes are found. Funding for legal representation for residents to ensure that their voices are heard during the inquiry will also be provided.

We have seen extraordinary acts of selflessness and spontaneous acts of good will associated with these tragedies, which show just how strong and resilient our communities are. We must foster our togetherness and create the conditions for strong local public services to serve our communities. We value the important work that our public sector workers do in delivering these essential public services. This Government’s proposals will strengthen the economy, generate the tax revenues needed to invest in public services and ensure that all our citizens are provided with high-quality public services, at local and national level, at every stage of their lives. I commend this Gracious Speech to the House.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Universal Credit: Lowestoft

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

18:54

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

I am pleased to have secured this debate, as it provides a timely opportunity to review the roll-out of universal credit in Lowestoft, which is in my constituency.

The full roll-out in Lowestoft began in May 2016. Significant problems have been encountered, with many vulnerable people placed in very difficult situations, and at times the system has struggled to cope. The position is now better than it was six months ago, but significant challenges remain. It is important for lessons to be learned before the roll-out to other areas accelerates this autumn.

Since the turn of the year I have been corresponding regularly with the Minister, highlighting the problems that have been encountered. I am grateful to him for taking those concerns on board, and for introducing measures that have led to improvements. I also thank him for visiting Lowestoft on 21 February, when he met staff from the jobcentre and representatives of Waveney District Council and Anglia Revenues Partnership to hear about the problems that had been encountered, and to hear their proposals for how the roll-out could be improved. That meeting was particularly poignant because the team from the council was led by its leader, Councillor Colin Law, who sadly passed away at the beginning of last month. Colin recognised that many vulnerable people in the local community were being placed in very difficult situations, and although not in good health himself, he was determined to ensure that the Government addressed their needs.

The principal problem with the roll-out has been the delay before claimants receive any payments. That has placed many vulnerable people in difficult circumstances, with no money to pay for the basic necessities of food and a roof over their heads. At the turn of the year my office was dealing with 20 ongoing cases, and when I visited a local food bank at that time, all the people whom it was supporting were there because of delays in receipt of their first payments. A further problem is that when those payments are received, they often do not include the housing element, which leads to a build-up of rent arrears.

The system that has been put in place is digitally based, requiring access to a computer. Many claimants immediately face the problem of either not having a computer or not being readily able to use one. The situation has been compounded by the fact that, initially at least, the IT systems were not functioning as well as they should have been. Constituents also experienced phone calls not being answered promptly, and then long delays while their problems were addressed. One constituent received very slow and inaccurate responses to his journal entries, and delays in the handling of his subject access request. When his housing element was eventually paid, it was for the wrong amount.

It is important to point out that universal credit requires those working at jobcentres—those on the frontline—to acquire new skills. They are no longer just the labour exchange. They need to be able to identify vulnerable customers at an early stage, to get to grips with housing challenges that were previously the responsibility of local housing authorities, and to work with the central universal credit team in building the universal credit model. All the Jobcentre Plus staff whom I have met are up for the challenge. They are determined to succeed, and it is vital that the Government provide them with the support and resources that will enable them to do so.

In the early stages of the roll-out, there was concern about the fact that the various agencies, including the Department for Work and Pensions centrally and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, were not properly co-ordinated and working together with Anglia Revenues Partnership and Waveney District Council. In recent months that has improved significantly. The lesson to be learned for the future is that the roll-out will be successful only if everyone works together. There is a vitally important role to be played by the voluntary sector, including Citizens Advice and the local organisations that are helping people into work.

A specific problem in Lowestoft, which has created particular difficulties, is the seasonal nature of employment. That is a problem that will be encountered in other coastal towns, as well as in rural areas where there is seasonal agricultural work. The situation has improved, but challenges remain with housing, which I will come on to in a minute, and particularly with the transition from employment and support allowance to universal credit. At present, no transitional provision is in place for customers moving from income support ESA.

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

[Peter Aldous]

I have a constituent who was an ESA claimant. He was required to take part in a work capability assessment. His WCA was carried out, and it was decided that he no longer had limited capability for work and work-related activity. His ESA claim was thus disallowed. His appeal against that decision was successful, but as income-related ESA had been abolished and he had been required to transition to universal credit, he has found himself significantly worse off and facing serious hardship through no fault of his own and with no support to help him through a very challenging time.

Waveney District Council and Anglia Revenues Partnership have also identified the following ongoing concerns. First, universal credit payment delays and cash flow difficulties continue to be a problem for the council in respect of providing temporary accommodation. They urgently need a decision to be made to restore such administration back to councils so that it is treated in the same way as supported accommodation. Secondly, housing benefit recovery in universal credit remains a significant concern. Local authorities and the Local Government Association have proposed that housing benefit debt should be transferred to the Treasury to produce a better outcome for the public finances. Recovery from universal credit will be non-existent, thereby burdening councils with debt that they will not be able to recover.

Thirdly, although universal credit decisions appear to be improving, the housing element is often still being received only in the second or third monthly payment. This is a deterioration compared with national housing benefit performance. Fourthly, the continuing lack of universal credit management information does not provide an insight to assist councils to manage customers’ and landlords’ expectations. Finally, there are no plans for universal credit to share data with councils about housing benefit cases migrating to universal credit. This is needed for local council tax support schemes, discretionary housing payments and supported accommodation claims.

A further issue that should be highlighted is the fact that since universal credit was rolled out in Lowestoft, the level of unemployment has increased. In May 2015, it was at a low of 2.5%. It stood at 3% when universal credit was introduced in May 2016, and it had risen to 5.1% in May 2017. Much of the increase is due to the fact that, under universal credit, a broader span of claimants are required to look for work than was the case under jobseeker’s allowance. However, this raises the question of whether universal credit is fulfilling one of its objectives—that of better preparing claimants for the workplace and making it easier for them to move into full-time employment. We need to look at that to ensure that it is being adequately addressed.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I sought the hon. Gentleman’s permission before asking him to give way. Does he understand, as many of us do, that the switchover to universal credit is proving very difficult? Does he agree that those who have physical and mental issues need a dedicated helpline to ensure that those vulnerable people do not feel overwhelmed and that they can understand the process of change? Many of them do not.

[Peter Aldous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with him. He talks about a dedicated helpline and, yes, that may be one way forward. I would also suggest that there needs to be front of house support and assistance in the jobcentres themselves.

Delays in the paying of universal credit have led to rent arrears building up and, as I mentioned, the situation is being compounded by the fact that the housing element has often not been included in the first payment. The feedback from the DWP nationally is that the timing of payments is improving and that if a tenant has a reasonable expectation of receiving their housing cost as part of the universal credit payment, the landlord should not take action to gain possession of a property and thus the tenant should not face the risk of eviction. In real life, it needs to be borne in mind that that approach is easier said than done and that the landlords have many costs and commitments themselves. Landlords are often in a position to reluctantly have to issue eviction notices as a last resort, but it should be pointed out that many landlords own only one or two properties and that the rents that they receive are a vital part of their income—often retirement income.

Delays in the payment of the housing element are triggering a downward spiral of events: arrears leading to evictions, leading to an increase in homelessness, putting added pressure on local authorities and housing associations to house those who are evicted. In due course, there will be a reduction in the supply of housing as landlords decide not to let to universal credit claimants.

[Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)]

I thoroughly commend what the hon. Gentleman has been doing to support people on universal credit in his constituency and the enormous amount of work and effort that has gone into that. As someone who has been working for the shop workers’ union for 20 years, I have considerable experience, particularly from the past 12 months, of members who have been transferred on to universal credit and are suffering incredible difficulties and hardships, as the hon. Gentleman says.

The hon. Gentleman calls for councils to have their debt underwritten by the Government, but the situation is also a severe problem for housing associations where many universal credit recipients live, and many associations are suffering. I hope that he will allow me to support such cases being made to the Government before the scheme is rolled out any further.

[Peter Aldous]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I will come to address the concerns that housing associations have mentioned to me. Her point is interesting in that jobcentres have in the past dealt with people who are not in work to get into employment, but now they are also dealing with people who are already in work, which is a major game change for jobcentres to deal with.

There is a concern that universal credit, the objective of which is to bring people closer to the workplace and to prepare them for work, may actually be doing the opposite. People need a secure and stable home life to be able to prepare and plan for regular work. That cannot happen if they are sleeping on the streets, sofa surfing or living in a hostel. Housing associations also face problems and are taking on more staff to liaise with tenants at an early stage to prevent rent arrears from increasing and to limit the serving of eviction notices. That is an added cost that they can ill afford, and they would prefer to be spending time and money on repairs and on building much-needed new homes.

The alternative payment arrangements are in place to help prevent such problems from arising, but in many cases they are not working properly and the process is taking too long. By the time decisions have been made to put in place such an arrangement, the landlords have invariably obtained court orders for possession. It is important to identify at an early stage where it is appropriate to make direct payments to landlords, and the jobcentre in Lowestoft has put in place arrangements to do that. Consideration should be given to changing the system of universal credit staff only communicating about an account with a tenant’s explicit consent. The feedback that I am receiving from both social and private landlords is that a change to allow the landlord to open communications and make a request for an alternative payment would be welcome and positive.

Although I understand that the Government wish to empower tenants to manage their own money, there is an argument that such empowerment involves choice. Tenants should therefore be able to decide whether to have the rent paid directly or for it to pass through their own hands. Again, the feedback I am receiving is that many tenants would prefer their rent to be paid direct.

There is a need for full and proactive engagement with private landlords. That did not happen initially, but the situation is now improving and a local meeting between the DWP, Waveney District Council and private landlords is scheduled for 17 July to explore how best to address the problems. Hopefully my suggestions on alternative payments will be on the table for discussion.

The roll-out in Lowestoft has not gone well, but there are signs of improvement and examples of good practice have emerged, which I suggest should be replicated as universal credit is rolled out in other areas. Lowestoft jobcentre has a vulnerable persons officer, and I propose that additional attention and support is given to those with mental health challenges. The jobcentre works closely with the citizens advice bureau, which provides a money advice service in the jobcentre. There is an officer who liaises with the national universal credit team in the building of the model, and there are good working relationships not only with Waveney District Council and Anglia Revenues Partnership but with MyGo, the new youth employment service promoted by Suffolk County Council. Such joint and collaborative working is very much the way forward and must be promoted and properly resourced.

Consideration should be given to the following. First, the Government should respond to the Public Accounts Committee’s most recent report on the impact of the changes and delays to the universal credit programme on operational costs, staff and claimants. They should also update the Committee on how staff are being enabled to engage in testing and learning processes and to feed back concerns. I appreciate that the general election purdah period has delayed that feedback, but it is important if the universal credit model is to be improved as the roll-out accelerates.

Secondly, there needs to be an initial assessment as to whether universal credit is achieving its objectives of better preparing people for the workplace, making it easier to move in and out of work and improving incentives to work. Thirdly, with the roll-out scheduled to move into more rural areas, work is needed to ensure that both digital services and broadband connectivity are resilient enough to cope and that the system takes account of claimants’ use of the public transport system, which may in places be far from ideal.

Finally, there needs to be more transparency and closer working with all the partner organisations involved in the roll-out. There is a lot of heavy lifting involved, and jobcentre staff cannot do this all on their own if we are to ensure that universal credit customers receive the fair and efficient service that they are entitled to expect and that, up to now, has unfortunately let down a lot of people, placing some in very difficult and desperate situations.

19:13

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing a debate on this important issue. I know he joins me in supporting the aims of universal credit. I also know that the insight he brings, and the amount of thought and work he has put in, will prove a great asset as we strive collectively to make universal credit the best it can be.

I also recognise the concerns that have been raised, and I reassure my hon. Friend and parliamentary colleagues that work is under way to improve delivery. This debate provides a chance to show how the Department has removed obstacles to this flagship welfare reform. More than 1 million people have claimed universal credit, and 530,000 are currently on universal credit, of whom 6,067 are in his constituency. There are now more people claiming universal credit than jobseeker’s allowance, which is an important milestone.

[Ruth George]

The Minister says that more than 1 million people have claimed universal credit and that currently 530,000 are receiving it. Does that mean that nearly half a million people have put in a claim and are yet to receive universal credit? If so, those are frightening figures.

[Damian Hinds]

No, it does not mean that. Obviously, people come into the benefits system and may be receiving benefits for a period of time but then go into work that is sufficiently remunerative to mean that they do not fall within the universal credit system. As the hon. Lady will know, people’s circumstances change, and can do so often.

As I was saying, the digital take-up of universal credit is a great success story, with 99% of UC new claims made online, which will mean that in the long run the service is more expedient and more user-friendly. Overall, 82% of universal credit customers reported they were satisfied or very satisfied with the service, and figures show that it is working. Claimants are spending twice as much time looking for a job as under the old system and they are moving into work faster, with 113 people moving into work under universal credit for every 100 who were doing so under the pre-existing system.

One result of the roll-out of universal credit full service in my hon. Friend’s constituency—I grant that this may seem paradoxical—is that the claimant count has risen since the full service went live in May 2016. As he rightly acknowledged, that is because under universal credit the count is extended—it is broader—to cover a wider group of claimants than under the old jobseeker’s allowance benefit. This is part of universal credit’s design and ambition to encourage and support more people into work.

My hon. Friend has deep roots in the constituency and community he represents, and I am very aware that he works closely with the local authorities in his constituency to make sure the voice of East Anglia is always heard. I was very pleased to have the chance to visit Lowestoft jobcentre earlier this year—he mentioned that—accompanied by the leaders of the Waveney and Great Yarmouth councils. I am also aware that he has made subsequent visits to the jobcentre, which I hope he also found useful. That visit was a great opportunity for me to see how we are delivering universal credit in his constituency and to hear at first hand some of the concerns people have had.

I also want to join my hon. Friend in expressing condolences following the death of Colin Law, the leader of Waveney District Council, in May. Councillor Law was a long-standing public servant who made a big contribution to the community he represented, as was manifested in the example my hon. Friend gave of his commitment even into his ill health. He will be missed by those on all sides of the political divide.

Given the ambition and scale of change that universal credit introduces, there are bound to be issues that arise as the service is rolled out. In particular, there are clearly concerns over the challenges some claimants face when managing a monthly budget for the first time, but let me assure Members that the Department has already been making inroads on this issue and there are many good reasons to feel positive about the future.

I take the opportunity to highlight how universal credit helps people looking for work in my hon. Friend’s constituency. There is a high level of seasonal work in the Lowestoft area. Before the introduction of universal credit, many people could have been reluctant to take up short-term or irregular work because of the old 16-hour limit with some of the legacy benefits. Since the launch of universal credit, jobcentre staff have contacted the large local employers, leisure parks and holiday resorts, to help generate job opportunities for claimants. We have run popular job fairs, attended by more than 1,700 claimants, promoting these openings. I know that my hon. Friend has had a lot of personal involvement in running job fairs, and other employability and opportunity events.

Universal credit claimants can now take up work, which may initially be just at the weekend and in school holidays, that builds up to extra hours as the season progresses. Claimants have the flexibility to take on extra hours without worrying about having to stop and then restart multiple benefit claims. Under universal credit, employers in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth are able to offer extra work at short notice to a workforce that can make the most of those opportunities without the additional administrative burden.

Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth jobcentres were among the first to roll out the universal credit service to all claimant types, which has given us invaluable insight into what works and what we can do better. From my visits and from the correspondence that I have had with my hon. Friend and with the local authorities in his constituency it became clear that we needed to be better at gathering information and improving the speed and accuracy of payments to claimants. It was also clear that we needed to do a better job of speaking with landlords in both the private and social sector about the changes that universal credit would bring.

I am pleased to report that this valuable feedback has helped us introduce real improvements to the way we do things: we have removed delays and data verification that were causing some of the payments to go out late; and we have introduced a “Housing Confident” scheme to ensure that universal credit work coaches talk to claimants about housing and that work coaches are alert to the support that claimants might need. It is about properly understanding the claimant’s needs, and this can extend to providing budgeting advice or, when needed, arranging for direct payments to landlords.

We have made improvements to the service that we offer private and social landlords. Thanks to feedback from landlords, we have made improvements to the way we set up direct payments of rent to landlords with an easier to use application form. That means that we are getting those payments out to landlords more quickly. We are also exploring how we can make it easier for landlords to find out the status of the application for a direct payment and we will be making an announcement about that soon.

Universal credit also brings big improvements for private landlords whose tenants get into arrears. Under the old system, landlords would need to apply for recovery of arrears via a third party deduction, often at a low repayment rate, which could mean a long wait before landlords got back their rent. In universal credit, it is easier and quicker to set up an arrears payment for landlords. In addition, under universal credit, repayment for private landlords can be at a higher rate—up to 20% where claimants can afford it. That means that claimants can get on top of their finances and landlords can get the money they are owed more quickly.

These actions are having results. Our internal figures show that far more claimants are getting the right money on time. We aim to make this information public in the near future. I know that my hon. Friend has acknowledged these improvements in performance.

[Jim Shannon]

In my previous intervention, I suggested that perhaps a dedicated helpline would be one way of addressing the issues. The hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) responded by saying that some more frontline staff would also be of help. Would the Minister consider both of those suggestions?

[Damian Hinds]

In response to the points raised by my hon. Friend about the roll-out of universal credit in Lowestoft, I said that I would come on to some of the questions around our customers and claimants—people with particular needs and complex needs. The essential point is that, in jobcentres, our staff see the full range of society and of course we must have the wherewithal to help those people as best we can. That does involve being responsive to different types of people and their different needs. I am confident that our staff do that in the correct way, but can we learn more? Of course we can.

I do appreciate the concern that exists around rent arrears. It is an issue that matters to many people. We have had a chance to debate that matter in a recent Adjournment debate in this House. As I said at that time, there are many complex and overlapping factors at play, and the role of universal credit is by no means the sole factor contributing to rent arrears. Our research shows that the majority of universal credit claimants are comfortable managing their own budget. Furthermore, we know that, after four months, the proportion of universal credit claimants who were in arrears at the start of their claim fell by a third.

Let me reassure the House that there are safeguards in place for claimants. We can advance up to half of a universal credit payment at the start of the claim. Our work coaches talk to claimants about their financial situation and can also refer claimants for support to help them manage their budget.

If claimants do not want to talk about their finances face to face, our new “Money Manager” website, developed in co-operation with the Money Advice Service, gives claimants practical support and advice. There are a number of alternative payment arrangements available, which include paying rent costs directly to landlords but also making more frequent payments to claimants and splitting universal credit payments in cases of domestic abuse. Our research shows that over time, claimants successfully reduce their arrears.

I want to turn to a couple of the other specifics mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney. On emergency and temporary accommodation, we are aware that the transitory nature of universal credit temporary accommodation claims can cause problems to do with the timing of when people will be in temporary accommodation, the assessment period and when the payments are made. We also recognise that this has resulted in some difficulties for local authorities and tenants in emergency or short-term accommodation. Our consultation on supported accommodation, which closed on 13 February, asked whether devolving shared accommodation to local authorities might also work as an approach for temporary accommodation. We are considering the responses to that consultation and the joint Select Committee on Communities and Local Government and Select Committee on Work and Pensions report, and we will work with colleagues across Government and in the devolved Administrations to set out further details of our plans as soon as we can.

On the question of claimants with complex needs, we make sure that our work coaches have the flexibility to shape support for individuals in difficult and different circumstances. Work coaches can adjust work search requirements to allow claimants to prioritise solutions to their issues, such as homelessness or addiction. We are also working with our partners to target resources most effectively. Hon. Members will be aware of the range of third-party services and partnership arrangements in place in a large number of jobcentres. We have also appointed vulnerable people officers in jobcentres to deal with claimants who face significant challenges. These officers work closely with the universal credit service centre to identify and resolve issues quickly.

The DWP’s response to the Public Accounts Committee’s report in February 2017 made a commitment to write to the Committee in spring 2017 to set out the impact of the changes to the programme on operational costs, staff and claimants. As a result of the general election, we will now send our response once the Committee has been reinstated. We also plan to publish a range of management information on universal credit later this year.

I recognise, of course, that there are areas for improvement in our service, but with every release of new software and every office that goes live with the full digital service, enhancements are made that improve the experience of using the service for staff, for claimants, for landlords and for our delivery partners. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney has seen for himself the drive, commitment and passion that so many of our staff, stakeholders and people across the programme have. They want to see this revolutionary welfare reform through, and I am confident that they will.

Question put and agreed to.

19:28

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Written Statements

Tuesday 27 June 2017

Joint European Torus Facility: UK Underwrite

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

Today I have laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing the contingent liability resulting from Her Majesty’s Government’s underwrite of the UK’s fair share of the Joint European Torus (JET) costs.

JET is a world-leading nuclear fusion research facility based in Oxfordshire and supports 1,300 jobs in the UK. JET is funded through a contract between the EU Commission and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. As part of this contract, the EU provides around £60 million of funding per year representing 88% of the JET running costs.

The current JET contract is due to end in December 2018 and the EU Commission is currently considering a potential extension of the JET contract until at least the end of 2020. This extension is crucial to the future of JET, the researchers that work there and to ensuring the UK continues to lead the world in fusion technology and research.

I wrote to the EU Commission on 20 June 2017 confirming that, should the JET contract be extended, the UK would continue to pay its fair share of JET costs. This underwriting of UK JET costs aims to provide the certainty needed to secure the extension of the JET contract and minimise the uncertainty around the future of this world-class facility.

The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the Government will hold as a result of underwriting the UK’s fair share of the JET costs. The value of the liability is subject to negotiation. Estimates as to the possible value of the liability will need to remain confidential so as to avoid prejudicing the UK’s future negotiating position.

It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide Parliament with an opportunity to scrutinise the proposal and raise any objections. Because of the dissolution of Parliament it was not possible to allow for a period of scrutiny before incurring this liability. This was in order to ensure that the underwrite was communicated to the EU Commission in time to influence a key report on which decisions about the JET contract extension will be based. This action was judged to be in the public interest because of the additional costs to the public finances which might be incurred if the Commission was not informed of the UK’s intentions in time to influence its decisions.

[HCWS13]

Contingent Liability

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)]

I am today laying a departmental minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) has received approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury (HMT) to recognise a new contingent liability associated with the Type 26 Global Combat Ship Manufacture Phase 1 Contract.

The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the MOD will hold as a result of placing the Type 26 Global Combat Ship Manufacture Phase 1 Contract, which will provide for the manufacture and testing of the first batch of Type 26 Global Combat Ships. The maximum contingent liability against the MOD is unquantifiable and will remain until the latest Out of Service Date of the ships manufactured under the contract, in the second half of the 21st century.

It is usual to allow a period of 14 sitting days prior to accepting a contingent liability, to provide hon. Members an opportunity to raise any objections. I regret that on this occasion pressing commercial and industrial requirements to sign the contract within the next few days together with the dissolution of Parliament, have meant that it has not been possible to provide the full 14 sitting days prior to taking on the contingent liabilities. Any delay would have risked losing significant financial benefits for the taxpayer. The Secretary of State for Defence has decided to proceed with the agreement, following scrutiny by the Department’s Investment Approvals Committee which confirmed that the contract offered best value for money for the taxpayer, and subsequent approval by HM Treasury.

Within the contract the exposure of BAE Systems Maritime-Naval Ships to a number of specified claims and to direct losses is limited to £50 million, while in respect of indirect losses and, within certain prescribed categories, catastrophic risks the contractor is indemnified against claims in excess of £50 million. It is the view of the Department that the likelihood of any claim is extremely low.

[HCWS14]

House of Lords

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Tuesday 27 June 2017

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Oaths and Affirmations

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

14:35

Several noble Lords took the oath or made the solemn affirmation, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Civil Society and the Democratic Process

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:40

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to bring forward amendments to legislation to ensure that civil society plays a meaningful role in the democratic process.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, the rules for third-party campaigning are set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The law was changed in 2014 to ensure that third-party campaigning was more transparent and accountable through the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. The Government are keen to ensure that civil society plays a meaningful role in the democratic process, and believe that current legislation facilitates this.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the present position harms our democracy and keeps important voices out of public debate? In fact, civil society was effectively snuffed out at the general election. Does the Minister agree that organisations involved in incomes for pensioners, the care of the elderly, the care and education of children, social housing and public safety should be allowed to express their views freely at the next general election?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I know he has taken a particular interest in this and served on the Select Committee that produced the report Stronger Charities for a Stronger Society. One of its conclusions was that although charities are quite properly regulated in their campaigning activities, particularly at election times, any new regulation or guidance should clearly recognise that advocacy is an important and legitimate part of their role, to be set out in clear and unambiguous language. We need to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the rights of civil society to campaign in the way the noble Lord has just mentioned, and on the other, maintaining the integrity of the electoral process by having transparency on expenditure.

[Lord Lansley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is no legal bar to an organisation campaigning at a general or other election as long as, if it is a charity, it is consistent with its charitable objectives? However, it is right that it should be transparent about that by registering to do so with the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who piloted the relevant legislation through the other place. During those debates he made the point that the boundary between what you could and could not do has not changed. What we did was insist on transparency and accountability. Therefore, if charities or civil society organisations want to engage in certain activities during a campaign, they have to register and declare their expenditure.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I am glad that the noble Lord has raised the question of transparency. During the referendum, the DUP spent £250,000 on the leave side, but because of the rules in Northern Ireland it does not have to declare the source of that income. We do not know who funded that. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennedy and I, I asked for a meeting with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission about this serious matter, but she has declined to meet us. Can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have—which I am sure will not be affected by the deal with the DUP—to re-examine this issue?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to have another look at the exemptions that Northern Ireland has from certain parts of electoral law, in particular on declaring sources of expenditure. We have a new First Secretary of State, and I am sure he will be interested in taking this matter forward in discussions through the usual channels.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the time may now have come to make sure that transparency of income for campaigning charities is extended? It is striking that there are a number of charities, some Muslim, that the Charity Commission has been concerned about, but right-wing bodies such as the Taxpayers’ Alliance and the Global Warming Policy Foundation do not declare their large donors. It would be useful, appropriate and an extension of democratic transparency if those rules were changed to ensure that donations were necessarily declared in their annual reports.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, who piloted the relevant legislation through this House in 2014. I mentioned a moment ago the House of Lords Select Committee on Charities report, Stronger Charities for a Stronger Society. Chapter 3 is on improving governance and accountability. The Government will look at the recommendations in that chapter, to which the noble Lord referred. In due course, we will respond to the Select Committee report. There has been a slight discontinuity because of the general election.

[Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)]

Is it not the case that the whole democratic process in this country has reached a new nadir, with public expenditure no longer being distributed on a needs basis or according to some consistent programme or policy, but with taxpayers’ money being appropriated by the Government of the day to buy votes from other parties to keep them in power? Is that not a thoroughly squalid and corrupt bargain?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am not quite sure how that derives from the Question on the Order Paper. I refer the noble Lord to the exchanges in the other place yesterday when the First Secretary of State put the arrangement that he just described in a slightly different context.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

I would like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, who referred to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, of which I am chairman. I am very happy to disclose the identities of all our donors, who are thoroughly respectable people. It is right, however, that if donors do not wish to declare themselves they should not be forced to do so, particularly since they will be vilified by those, like the noble Lord, who disagree with what we stand for.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The stakes are rising by the minute in this exchange about electoral expenditure. As I said a few moments ago, if transparency of income is one of the recommendations, it will be addressed by the Government. The whole House will have noted the challenge laid down by my noble friend Lord Lawson.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, the report by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on the flaws in this piece of legislation was published some considerable time ago. In view of the clear evidence of chilling on the part of the charities who felt unable to conduct their proper campaigning during the last election and the one before, will the Minister tell us when those recommendations will be implemented?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is indeed the case that the Hodgson review was published in March last year. Since then, we have had the report by the Select Committee and one of its recommendations was that the Hodgson report should be implemented in full. In due course, we will respond to the report and, by implication, to the Hodgson review, but at the same time there are other pressures on the Government in this field. We have had Eric Pickles’s report on electoral fraud and the Law Commission report on electoral law. We have also just had a general election and it might be useful to look at the experience of civil society during the recent election before we come to a final decision on whether legislation needs to be reviewed.

Fire Safety: Lakanal House Fire

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:48

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will publish all the correspondence, internal briefings, and policy advice relating to the 2009 Lakanal House fire and subsequent inquest; and whether they will implement the Coroner’s recommendations relating to building regulations and processes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

I expect all correspondence and relevant files to be released to the public inquiry. Work on simplifying the guidance that supports part B of the building regulations on fire safety was under way, but we need to look again at that in the light of the Grenfell Tower fire. The Secretary of State has announced the establishment of an independent expert advisory panel to advise the Government on any immediate steps that may need to be taken on fire safety.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. I asked this Question because I was a Member of the London Assembly and chair of the Housing Committee and we produced a report on the Lakanal fire. When the Grenfell Tower fire happened, there were striking similarities. Now we have another 95 high-rise buildings with the same cladding. Is it the building industry that is failing or this Government failing to do their job properly and update building regulations and guidance in proper time?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the work which the noble Baroness has done. Indeed, her expertise, I am sure, will be most welcome when the inquiry is under way. It is the case that we will have to update these building regulations. As I say, work was under way when this dreadful fire happened, but obviously it is right that we should look at updating the regulations in the light of that event, because the previous advice was to simplify them. That might not now be the appropriate way forward.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the issue goes wider than what has been covered so far? Is not the evidence now from Camden in particular that there are no fire doors in some of these tower blocks and there are gas leaks? Do those failures not rest with inspection by local authorities of their housing to ensure that the facilities and safety precautions that are already in place are properly doing the work that they should be doing?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am grateful to my noble friend. This is not simply about the issues that have arisen from the Grenfell Tower fire, although obviously they are the focus of the public inquiry. I think Camden has identified that in five blocks, four of which have subsequently been evacuated, some 1,000 fire doors were missing. That must also give rise to concern.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer the House to my interests in the register. In the Lakanal House fire in 2009, there were compartmentation breaches that allowed the fire and smoke to spread through the building, in conflict with the evacuation procedure. Failures like this have come to light often only as the result of a fire or when the advice of the fire brigade has been sought after construction, although the power to take enforcement action expires one year after construction and the power to prosecute expires after two years. Does the noble Lord agree that this is far too small a window for action to be taken, and will he act on the London Fire Brigade’s call to extend these deadlines to a more appropriate period to be determined by consultation with key stakeholders?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his suggestion. It is right that these issues should be looked at by the independent advisory committee that is being set up by the Secretary of State. It will come up with urgent actions that need to be taken and will decide which first actions are appropriate. I will take away the noble Lord’s suggestion; it is something that no doubt the committee will wish to ponder on. However, this episode has thrown up a whole range of actions to be taken not only in relation to the cladding but much more widely, as we have seen in evidence from around the country.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does this not demonstrate that we should not allow the industry to set safety standards, which is what has happened in this case? Do we not need to have a stronger public sector that can actually set these standards on our behalf?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, it is not true to say that safety standards are set by the industry. They are set by the Government in consultation with the industry and the public sector. We take advice from many sources and we will do so again through the public inquiry that is now being set up. It is important that we do not prejudge this and that the public inquiry acts in a judicial way. It will be judge-led and will look at all the evidence before we come up with conclusions. That is the purpose of the inquiry.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the coroner in the Lakanal House case actually cited some of the wider issues with the maintenance and refurbishment of buildings as well as their outer envelopes. I am slightly bemused that the Minister has said both today and yesterday that work has not yet started on the revision of part B regulations, because on 3 March 2015 the then Minister for Housing, Stephen Williams, announced that not only would the review start but that it would report back to Parliament in 2016-17 with a revised document. Can the Minister explain why this was stopped after the 2015 election and what interim steps will be taken before the result of the inquiry to make sure that we do not have to wait a long time before urgent changes can be made to these regulations?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. I did say that work is actually under way on the review, not that the work had not started. Work is being undertaken on the review that was recommended by the Lakanal coroner, but in the light of recent events we have halted the work so that we can take evidence on what has happened in relation to the Grenfell Tower fire, because it is important that we should do so. I will say two important things. One is to restate the point that we have an advisory committee that will look at the issues and come up with urgent recommendations, and of course the public inquiry will want to consider the possibility of an interim report that could look at taking urgent action as well.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, I understand that as late as in May this year the red tape task force published a recommendation that the EU directive that covers precisely this point was extraneous and should be withdrawn. Do the Government agree with that?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Countess. As I say, I do not want to prejudge what will be decided partly by the advisory committee, which will make recommendations to the Secretary of State, and partly by the public inquiry. It is the case that regulation is necessary and we are revisiting that. The Lakanal inquiry and recommendations focused on simplifying fire regulation. We are revisiting that because it might not now be the appropriate response, but we do not want to prejudge that; it is something that the inquiry will want to look at.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, in his response yesterday on the Statement, the Minister said:

“we have been in contact with all the private sector landlords and are recommending that they test the cladding. It is not compulsory”. —[Official Report, 26/6/17; col. 201.]

Why is it not compulsory? What is the difference between a socially-owned block of flats and a privately-owned block of flats?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I did, indeed, say that. That is the case. There are far more blocks in the social housing sector that are of the relevant height, above 18 metres, that are being contacted. We have contacted all private sector landlords and we will follow up on that, but the noble Lord is absolutely right: it is not compulsory for them to do so, because that is what we have decided.

Brexit: Nursing Staff

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:55

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on the NHS of figures released by the Nursing and Midwifery Council showing a 96 per cent reduction in the number of nurses registering to work in the United Kingdom in the year since the referendum on leaving the European Union.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are aware of a reduction in the number of European Economic Area trained nurses applying to register with the Nursing and Midwifery Council. The department’s assessment suggests that this is largely a consequence of the NMC introducing language testing, rather than the vote to leave the European Union. The number of European nurses working in the NHS increased by more than 400 between June 2016 and March 2017.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, what the Minister did not say is that there has been a 96% fall in the number of nurses coming from EEA countries in the space of nine months. This comes on top of a shortage of thousands of nurses in the NHS. The RCN has today issued a statement which absolutely disproves the Minister’s argument that it is to do with English language testing. It is quite clear that it is to do with the Government’s obsession with migration control at the expense of our public services and the imposition of a pay cap on nurses and other NHS staff. He and his fellow Ministers have found £1 billion to bung the DUP; when are they going to find the money that is needed to get rid of the cap on nurses’ pay and pay them what they deserve?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I am afraid the noble Lord is mistaking cause for correlation in this instance, and let me explain why we think that is the case. The General Pharmaceutical Council introduced language testing in November 2016; it had experienced no significant drop-off in applications from EEA member countries after Brexit but before that point and a big downturn in applications after that point. So it is language testing; it also happened with the GMC as well when it introduced language testing. I know this is something that the noble Lord supports—he said as much in a debate on this very issue in 2015—because it is an issue of safety. That is why language testing has been introduced. I would like to say, however, that of course we value the work of EU staff who come here, and, indeed, all nursing staff. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we want them to stay and have offered a generous package to allow them to do so, and there are more EU nurses here than there ever have been.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, the Department of Health’s own modelling predicts that there will be a shortage of 40,000 nurses by 2026. My own local hospital has 60 nurse vacancies, and I am sure other noble Lords have similar examples. What do the Government propose to do to avoid the NHS becoming unsafe because of these nursing shortages, given that some nurses are already being asked to stay on at the end of 12-hour shifts in order to fill gaps in the roster?

[Lord O’Shaughnessy]

I thank the noble Baroness for giving us the opportunity to talk about the fact that we have increased the number of nurses and health visitors by nearly 5,000 since 2010. She is quite right to say that we need more of them; we have a growing and ageing population and higher expectations of what the NHS should be delivering. It is for that reason that we have a number of things in action: we have 52,000 nurses in training; we have a return to practice programme, which has already prepared 2,000 nurses to come back into the profession; and we are introducing nursing apprenticeships and nursing associates. We are not complacent about this issue—we know it is important—but there are a number of programmes in train to fill the gap that she has identified.

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could consider that one of the reasons that people are not coming from the European Union is that they feel unwelcome; housing is almost impossible to get, particularly in some of the metropolitan areas; the reduction in the value of the pound against European currencies means that salaries have stagnated even more for some of these people; and, actually, morale is so poor in parts of the health service and social services that people would rather remain and work in their own countries.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I reiterate the point that the Prime Minister made yesterday about the welcome, and indeed the offer of settled status, not just to nurses but to any other EU citizens and workers in the country. It is absolutely not the case that they are unwelcome—quite the opposite. They are as valued as much as any other person working in the health service. The noble Baroness mentioned housing, and she is right, of course, that housing is a huge issue for everybody. Indeed, one thing that I want to look at in the next few years is how we can take surplus land that sits within the NHS and make sure that some of it is used to provide the kind of key-worker housing that nurses, doctors and, indeed, other members of the public sector can use, so that they are able to come into the service and support our hospitals.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Manzoor]

My Lords, it is a fallacy to continue repeatedly to suggest that EU nurses and doctors are not welcome in this country. Quite frankly, I am fed up with it. I worked in the NHS for over 25 years, and this is damaging staff morale because people are almost being targeted to feel that way. EU nurses and doctors do tremendous good work, and they are respected, welcomed and valued, as are other nurses and doctors from across the world. We have a great opportunity to celebrate this. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I completely agree with my noble friend, who speaks from experience. It is important not to peddle a myth of unwelcomeness, when it is clearly the case that nobody has said that they are unwelcome. No one in government has said that they are unwelcome; nor has the BMA, the RCN, or anyone else for that matter. They are valued as highly as any other member of the medical profession.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that any fall-off in the number of nurses and doctors from the EC poses a real risk to the health service? Does he accept that, while the number of nurses in training may be increasing now, the Government were wrong in the coalition period after 2010 to cut the number of nurses in training in the UK?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The critical point is to have enough nurses and, indeed, enough medical staff. Of course, where they come from is going to be dictated by various circumstances. As I have discussed already, language controls have been introduced in order to focus on patient safety. We do need to increase the number of nurses in the health sector. That has happened since 2010. There has been an increase. There are more in training. But clearly there need to be more as we have a growing and ageing population.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister know how many unfilled vacancies there are at this time for nurses?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I do not have that information at my fingertips. Of course, at any time there will be unfilled vacancies as nurses move around. As I said, we know that recruiting more nurses into the health service is an important priority for the years ahead, which is why we are undertaking the programmes that I mentioned.

Southern Rail: Gibb Report

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

15:03

Asked by

[Baroness Randerson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the publication on 22 June of the Gibb report on Southern Rail, what steps they are taking to deliver improvements for passengers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, Chris Gibb’s independent report into Southern Rail makes a number of recommendations for the network that we have already been working with industry to deliver. In early January we committed an extra £300 million to improve infrastructure resilience, and we have established a new board to tackle issues ahead of the huge upgrades Thameslink will bring in 2018. However, Chris Gibb found that the main cause of widespread disruption for passengers was trade union action and unusually high levels of sick leave.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister says, the report is now six months old. That is six months of misery for Southern’s passengers. Can the Minister tell us why the Government did not publish this report before the election? He is right to say that there were criticisms of the trade unions. There was also criticism of the Government for accepting a bid with the fewest drivers and a driver shortage from the start. Is the Minister able to assure us that in future there will be sufficient numbers of staff and there will be no further attempts to run this on the cheap?

[Lord Callanan]

There have certainly been no attempts to run the service on the cheap and I do not agree with the noble Baroness that performance over the past six months has been poor. In fact, since strike action has been reduced, Southern Rail’s performance has significantly improved in the past six months. Its public performance measure, which measures performance across train operators, is up by 23 percentage points—from 62% in early December to 85% now. We want and expect that figure to improve further but, as Chris Gibb’s report makes clear, that can happen only if industrial action by the trade unions stops.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In his report, Mr Gibb recommended that the Government should “urgently consider” transferring the East Croydon to Milton Keynes and Great Northern metro services from the problem-ridden GTR franchise to Transport for London in 2018. Mr Gibb also indicated that similar consideration might be given to transferring the inner-London Southern metro services in time for franchise renewal in 2021. The current Secretary of State for Transport previously made it clear that he would not transfer any further rail services to TfL, as that would mean giving control over more routes to a Labour mayor. The Government have now had six months to consider Mr Gibb’s recommendations on transferring more routes to TfL. What is the Government’s response to those recommendations—particularly those relating to 2018—and what are the reasons for the conclusions that the Government have reached on transferring more rail routes to TfL in the light of Mr Gibb’s recommendations?

[Lord Callanan]

Chris Gibb’s report sets out several reasons why Southern Rail faced problems last year, including disruption from infrastructure works, the process of introducing new trains and insufficient numbers of drivers at the start of the franchise. The Secretary of State has now ordered the operator to reduce reliance on overtime, which means that it has started to increase the number of drivers, although that has an 18-month lead time. We decided to proceed with 34 of Chris Gibb’s 38 recommendations, but the transfer of additional lines to TfL was not one that we proceeded with.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend refrain from giving TfL any more responsibilities until it has cleared up the mess of the roadworks around the Palace of Westminster, which are being conducted in an inconceivably incompetent manner? Will he also consider whether it is really sensible to have the ownership and management of the track and of the trains in separate hands? It did not work in that way in the great days of the LNER, the GWR and the Southern Railway before the Second World War. It would be better to put those aspects back together again; then, we might have sensible management.

[Lord Callanan]

I agree with the first part of my noble friend’s remarks but disagree with the second part.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that London Councils has been negotiating on behalf of the London boroughs to address the impact of the Southern Rail disputes and their implications for the Freedom Pass, which the boroughs contribute to? No information is available about how London councils are to be reimbursed and when the decision will be made. What action is the state taking to ensure that ratepayers are not short-changed? I declare an interest as a Freedom Pass holder.

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that I have no information on the subject; I will write to the noble Lord about it.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend think that these miserable—I use the word in a complimentary sense—passengers will be consoled by his eloquent advocacy of space travel in his speech yesterday?

[Lord Callanan]

No—I suspect that they will not be.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

To help the House, will the Minister remind us when and by whom the decision was taken to separate control of the track from control of the trains and to privatise them separately?

[Lord Callanan]

It was taken, as my noble friend reminds me, by the John Major Government. But I see no evidence that the Labour Party policy of renationalising the railways and handing even more power to their friends in ASLEF and the RMT will bring any improvement for passengers whatever. It will enable them to hold the whole country to ransom, rather than just the poor miserable passengers on Southern rail.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, how optimistic is my noble friend the Minister that passengers on the Southern Rail franchise, even miserable ones such as myself, can expect a decent service over the summer months when, as I understand it, industrial action is planned for later this week and for 10 July by both the RMT and ASLEF?

[Lord Callanan]

I am afraid that the noble Viscount is correct. The unions have announced further industrial action starting from Thursday, so I can give him no consolation. We can spend as much as we like on upgrading infrastructure, providing new trains and taking action over management failings—but if the drivers and conductors fail to turn up for work, there is very little we can do about it.

If I give the House a little information on what offers have been made to ASLEF, perhaps your Lordships might have a little more sympathy. The operator has held 32 days of meetings with ASLEF to try to resolve the dispute since it began in March last year. Three formal offers were made; two deals have been accepted by the ASLEF executive, only to be voted down by the membership. ASLEF has turned down a 23.8% pay rise offer over four years that would have increased a Southern train driver’s basic salary by £12,000 to £60,000 for a four-day, 35-hour week. This would rise to £70,000 with overtime on a fifth day. That is an extremely generous offer. They are being well paid to provide a service to the public; I wish they would get on and deliver that service.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:11

A Bill to make provision about space activities and suborbital activities, and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Callanan, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Unpaid Work Experience (Prohibition) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:12

A Bill to make provision for the prohibition of unpaid work experience exceeding four weeks, and for connected matters.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Holmes of Richmond, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Disabled Access) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:12

A Bill to amend the Equality Act 2010 to improve access to public buildings by introducing six-inch and 12-inch rules for step-free access.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Thomas of Winchester (on behalf of Lord Blencathra), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Democratic Political Activity (Funding and Expenditure) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:13

A Bill to make provision for the regulation of funding and expenditure of political parties; to make provision for the phased introduction of a cap on donations to political parties; to make provision for affiliation fees from trades unions and membership organisations to political parties to be counted as individual donations in prescribed circumstances; to make provision for the public funding of political parties; to make provision for the modification of rights of candidates and parties to election addresses; to make provision for limits on political parties’ expenditure between regulated periods; to confer powers on the Electoral Commission, and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Tyler, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Home Education (Duty of Local Authorities) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:13

A Bill to make provision for local authorities to monitor the educational, physical and emotional development of children receiving elective home education, and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Morris of Yardley (on behalf of Lord Soley), read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Refugees (Family Reunion) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:14

A Bill to make provision for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom to be granted to the family members of refugees and to refugees who are family members of British citizens and settled persons, to provide for legal aid to be made available for refugee family reunion cases, and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Hamwee, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

House of Lords Commission

Communications

Constitution

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

Economic Affairs

European Union

Finance

Hybrid Instruments

International Relations

Liaison

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

Privileges and Conduct

Procedure

Science and Technology

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

Services

Standing Orders (Private Bills)

Membership Motions

15:15

Moved by

[The Senior Deputy Speaker]

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed as the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this session:

Andrews, B, Boswell of Aynho, L, Brougham and Vaux, L, Dear, L, Faulkner of Worcester, L, Fookes, B, Garden of Frognal, B, Harris of Richmond, B, Haskel, L, Henig, B, Hooper, B, Mar, C, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Morris of Bolton, B, Pitkeathley, B, Simon, V, Stedman-Scott, B, Ullswater, V.

House of Lords Commission

That a Select Committee be appointed to provide high-level strategic and political direction for the House of Lords Administration on behalf of the House and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Doocey, B, Evans of Bowes Park, B, Fowler, L (Chairman), Hope of Craighead, L, Laming, L, McFall of Alcluith, L, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Newby, L, Smith of Basildon, B, Wakeham, L;

That Liz Hewitt and Mathew Duncan be appointed as external members of the Committee;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Communications

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the media and the creative industries and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Allen of Kensington, L, Benjamin, B, Bertin, B, Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B, Chelmsford, Bp, Colville of Culross, V, Finkelstein, L, Gilbert of Panteg, L, Hart of Chilton, L, Henley, L (Chairman), Kidron, B, McIntosh of Hudnall, B, Quin, B;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Constitution

That a Select Committee be appointed to examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Beith, L, Corston, B, Drake, B, Dunlop, L, Hunt of Wirral, L, Judge, L, MacGregor of Pulham Market, L, Maclennan of Rogart, L, Morgan, L, Norton of Louth, L, Pannick, L, Taylor of Bolton, B (Chairman);

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(i) To report whether the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny;

(ii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006,

(b) section 7(2) or section 19 of the Localism Act 2011, or

(c) section 5E(2) of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004;

and to perform, in respect of such draft orders, and in respect of subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the functions performed in respect of other instruments and draft instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments; and

(iii) To report on documents and draft orders laid before Parliament under or by virtue of:

(a) section 85 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

(b) section 17 of the Local Government Act 1999,

(c) section 9 of the Local Government Act 2000,

(d) section 98 of the Local Government Act 2003, or

(e) section 102 of the Local Transport Act 2008.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B, Flight, L, Fookes, B (Chairman), Jones, L, Lisvane, L, Moynihan, L, Rowlands, L, Thomas of Gresford, L, Thurlow, L, Tyler, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Economic Affairs

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider economic affairs and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Bowles of Berkhamsted, B, Burns, L, Darling of Roulanish, L, Forsyth of Drumlean, L (Chairman), Harding of Winscombe, B, Kerr of Kinlochard, L, Kingsmill, B, Lamont of Lerwick, L, Layard, L, Livermore, L, Sharkey, L, Tugendhat, L, Turnbull, L;

That the Committee have power to appoint a sub-committee and to refer to it any of the matters within the Committee’s terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairman of the sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

European Union

That a Select Committee be appointed:

(1) To consider European Union documents deposited in the House by a Minister, and other matters relating to the European Union;

The expression “European Union document” includes in particular:

(a) a document submitted by an institution of the European Union to another institution and put by either into the public domain;

(b) a draft legislative act or a proposal for amendment of such an act; and

(c) a draft decision relating to the Common Foreign and Security Policy of the European Union under Title V of the Treaty on European Union;

The Committee may waive the requirement to deposit a document, or class of documents, by agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons;

(2) To assist the House in relation to the procedure for the submission of Reasoned Opinions under Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union and the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality;

(3) To represent the House as appropriate in inter- parliamentary cooperation within the European Union;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Armstrong of Hill Top, B, Boswell of Aynho, L (Chairman), Brown of Cambridge, B, Browning, B, Crisp, L, Cromwell, L, Falkner of Margravine, B, Jay of Ewelme, L, Kennedy of The Shaws, B, Kinnoull, E, Liddle, L, Neville-Rolfe, B, Selkirk of Douglas, L, Suttie, B, Teverson, L, Verma, B, Whitty, L, Wilcox, B, Woolmer of Leeds, L;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to them any matters within its terms of reference; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees, but that the sub-committees have power to appoint their own Chairmen for the purpose of particular inquiries; that the quorum of each sub-committee be two;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Finance

That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:

(1) Considering expenditure on services provided from the Estimate for the House of Lords,

(2) With the assistance of the Management Board, preparing the forecast outturn, Estimate and financial plan for submission to the Commission,

(3) Monitoring the financial performance of the House Administration, and

(4) Reporting to the Commission on the financial implications of significant proposals;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Collins of Highbury, L, Cope of Berkeley, L, Courtown, E, Cromwell, L, Cunningham of Felling, L, Doocey, B (Chairman), Goudie, B, Kerslake, L, Leigh of Hurley, L, Stoneham of Droxford, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Hybrid Instruments

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider hybrid instruments and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Addington, L, Crickhowell, L, Dykes, L, Grantchester, L, Harrison, L, Swinfen, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

International Relations

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the United Kingdom’s international relations and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Balfe, L, Coussins, B, Grocott, L, Hannay of Chiswick, L, Helic, B, Hilton of Eggardon, B, Howell of Guildford, L (Chairman), Jopling, L, Purvis of Tweed, L, Reid of Cardowan, L, Smith of Newnham, B, Wood of Anfield, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Liaison

That a Select Committee be appointed to advise the House on the resources required for select committee work and to allocate resources between select committees; to review the select committee work of the House; to consider requests for ad hoc committees and report to the House with recommendations; to ensure effective co-ordination between the two Houses; and to consider the availability of members to serve on committees;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Evans of Bowes Park, B, Foulkes of Cumnock, L, Garden of Frognal, B, Hope of Craighead, L, Hunt of Kings Heath, L, Lang of Monkton, L, Low of Dalston, L, Newby, L, Smith of Hindhead, L, Williams of Elvel, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be appointed to the Board of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST):

Haskel, L, Oxburgh, L, Selborne, E, Winston, L.

Privileges and Conduct

That a Committee for Privileges and Conduct be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Bassam of Brighton, L, Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L, Cathcart, E, Dear, L, Eames, L, Evans of Bowes Park, B, Hope of Craighead, L, Irvine of Lairg, L, Jay of Paddington, B, Mackay of Clashfern, L, Newby, L, Smith of Basildon, B, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Taylor of Holbeach, L, Ullswater, V;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on a sub-committee;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That in any claim of peerage, the Committee shall sit with three holders of high judicial office, who shall have the same speaking and voting rights as members of the Committee;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees; and

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Procedure

That a Select Committee on Procedure of the House be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Bassam of Brighton, L, Brabazon of Tara, L, Evans of Bowes Park, B, Farrington of Ribbleton, B, Fowler, L, Geddes, L, Hope of Craighead, L, Humphreys, B, Morris of Aberavon, L, Newby, L, Powell of Bayswater, L, Rowe-Beddoe, L, Smith of Basildon, B, Stoneham of Droxford, L, Taylor of Holbeach, L, Thomas of Winchester, B, True, L, Warwick of Undercliffe, B;

and that the following members be appointed as alternate members:

Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L, Browning, B, Foulkes of Cumnock, L, Meacher, B, Scriven, L;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House,

Science and Technology

That a Select Committee be appointed to consider science and technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Borwick, L, Fox, L, Hunt of Chesterton, L, Kakkar, L, Mair, L, Maxton, L, Morgan of Huyton, B, Neville-Jones, B, Oxburgh, L, Patel, L (Chairman), Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L, Vallance of Tummel, L, Young of Old Scone, B;

That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of sub-committees;

That the Committee have power to co-opt any member to serve on the Committee or a sub-committee;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee and its sub-committees have power to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee or its sub-committees;

That the evidence taken by the Committee or its sub-committees be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny

That a Select Committee be appointed to scrutinise secondary legislation.

(1) The Committee shall, with the exception of those instruments in paragraphs (3) and (4), scrutinise—

(a) every instrument (whether or not a statutory instrument), or draft of an instrument, which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be, or might have been, taken in either House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament;

(b) every proposal which is in the form of a draft of such an instrument and is laid before each House of Parliament under an Act of Parliament,

with a view to determining whether or not the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds specified in paragraph (2).

(2) The grounds on which an instrument, draft or proposal may be drawn to the special attention of the House are—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it may be inappropriate in view of changed circumstances since the enactment of the parent Act;

(c) that it may inappropriately implement European Union legislation;

(d) that it may imperfectly achieve its policy objectives;

(e) that the explanatory material laid in support provides insufficient information to gain a clear understanding about the instrument’s policy objective and intended implementation;

(f) that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument.

(3) The exceptions are—

(a) remedial orders, and draft remedial orders, under section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) draft orders under sections 14 and 18 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, and subordinate provisions orders made or proposed to be made under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001;

(c) Measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made, and drafts of instruments to be made, under them.

(4) The Committee shall report on draft orders and documents laid before Parliament under section 11(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 in accordance with the procedures set out in sections 11(5) and (6). The Committee may also consider and report on any material changes in a draft order laid under section 11(8) of the Act.

(5) The Committee shall also consider such other general matters relating to the effective scrutiny of secondary legislation and arising from the performance of its functions under paragraphs (1) to (4) as the Committee considers appropriate, except matters within the orders of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Faulkner of Worcester, L, Goddard of Stockport, L, Gould of Potternewton, B, Haskel, L, Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L, Janvrin, L, Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L, O’Loan, B, Sherbourne of Didsbury, L, Trefgarne, L (Chairman), Watkins of Tavistock, B;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Services

That a Select Committee be appointed to support the House of Lords Commission by:

(1) Agreeing day-to-day policy on member-facing services,

(2) Providing advice on strategic policy decisions when sought by the Commission, and

(3) Overseeing the delivery and implementation of both;

That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:

Bassam of Brighton, L, Campbell-Savours, L, Hollis of Heigham, B, Hope of Craighead, L, Humphreys, B, Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L, Laming, L (Chairman), Shrewsbury, E, Taylor of Holbeach, L;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House.

Standing Orders (Private Bills)

That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders relating to private bills be appointed and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members together with the Senior Deputy Speaker be appointed to the Committee:

Fellowes, L, Geddes, L, Goodlad, L, Gould of Potternewton, B, Naseby, L, Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L, Simon, V;

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;

That the reports of the Committee be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;

That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes.

Motions agreed.

Artificial Intelligence

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Citizenship and Civic Engagement

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

Political Polling and Digital Media

Motions to Approve

15:15

Moved by

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

Artificial Intelligence

That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the economic, ethical and social implications of advances in artificial intelligence, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018.

Citizenship and Civic Engagement

That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider citizenship and civic engagement, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018.

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006

That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report on the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018.

Political Polling and Digital Media

That it is desirable that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the effects of political polling and digital media on politics, and to make recommendations, and that the Committee do report by 31 March 2018.

Motions agreed.

Arrangement of Business

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Announcement of Recess Dates

15:16

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, I have nothing to move en bloc, but what I have to say may lead to some block bookings.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not know who writes this stuff.

It may be for the convenience of the House if I take this opportunity to confirm the dates of the Conference Recess. We will rise at the conclusion of business on Thursday 14 September and return on Monday 9 October. These dates will be included in tomorrow’s edition of the forthcoming business, together with the already advertised dates for the summer adjournment, which are unchanged from those I advertised in March. All these dates remain, of course, subject to the progress of business.

NHS: Shared Business Services

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O'Shaughnessy) (Con)]

My Lords, with your permission, I shall now repeat the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health on NHS Shared Business Services. The Answer is as follows:

“As the House knows, on 24 March 2016 I was informed of a serious incident involving a large backlog of unprocessed NHS patient correspondence by the company contracted to deliver it to GP surgeries, NHS Shared Business Services, or SBS. The backlog arose from the primary care services GP mail redirection service that SBS was contracted to run. None of the documents was lost and all were kept in secure storage, but my immediate concern was that patient safety had been compromised by the delay in forwarding correspondence, so a rapid process was started to identify whether anyone was or had been put at risk. The Department of Health and NHS England immediately established an incident team.

All the documentation has now been sent on to the relevant GP surgery, where it is possible to do so, following an initial clinical assessment of where any patient risk might lie. Some 200,000 pieces were temporary residence forms and a further 535,000 pieces were assessed as low risk. A first triage identified 2,508 items with a higher potential risk of harm, of which the vast majority have now been assessed by a GP. Of those, 84% were confirmed as no harm to patients and 9% as needing a further clinical review. To date, no harm has been confirmed to any patients as a result of this incident.

Today’s National Audit Office report confirms that patient safety was the department’s and NHS England’s primary concern. But, as well as patient safety, transparency both with the public and this House has been my priority. I was advised by my officials not to make the issue public last March until an assessment of the risks to patient safety had been completed and all relevant GP surgeries informed. I accepted that advice for the simple reason that publicising the issue could have meant GP surgeries being inundated with inquiries from worried patients which would have prevented them from doing the most important work: namely, investigating the named patients who were potentially at risk.

A proactive statement about what had happened was again not recommended by my department in July for the same reasons, and because the process was not complete. However, as I explained to the House in February, on balance I decided that it was important for the House to know what had happened before we broke for recess, so I overruled that advice and placed a Written Statement on 21 July.

Since then, the Public Accounts Committee has been kept regularly informed, most recently being updated by my Permanent Secretary in February. The Information Commissioner was updated in August. I committed in July 2016 to keeping the House updated once the investigations were complete and more was known, and will continue to do so”.

15:19

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that. Clearly, this is a serious matter. More than 700,000 letters with patient information were waylaid, with more than 1,700 cases of potential harm to patients. The correspondence lost included blood test results, cancer screening appointments, medication changes and child protection notes. I will put just three quick points to the Minister.

I noticed that the Secretary of State, in this Statement, referred a lot to advice that he received from civil servants. I find it rather odd that a Secretary of State should announce to Parliament the advice given by civil servants, which usually is not disclosed. Why can he not stand on his own two feet in relation to the decision made to delay an announcement to Parliament by four months? Secondly, I am still not clear from the Statement why such a perfunctory Written Statement was made the day before Summer Recess last year. Why was a full Statement not made?

Thirdly, I understand that Shared Business Services makes £80 million a year from this NHS contract, and that so far the exercise of trying to discover where the letters have gone and to put this right has cost £6 million. Can the Minister confirm that the entire cost will be paid by Shared Business Services? Can he also say what other penalties the company will pay? Finally, the NAO points out that the Secretary of State has a conflict of interest, as he is a major shareholder in this outsourced company. Is this why he was so reluctant to come to Parliament to give information?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I will answer the noble Lord’s four questions. The first was on taking advice from officials. I think the noble Lord would probably be alarmed if the Secretary of State was not taking advice from officials. That should be welcomed. It is clearly the case that he was thinking on his own, because he took the decision to follow that advice in the first instance in March, but was of the view by July that enough was known and that it was important to update Parliament before recess.

The second question was about the timing of the Statement. The noble Lord will remember that summer 2016 was a reasonably busy period after the EU referendum. The main point here is that the Statement was made before recess and was not held back until the autumn. As regards NHS Shared Business Services and the consequences for it, those consequences have been severe: it no longer has this contract and will, as my right honourable friend confirmed in another place just now, pay its share of the costs.

Finally, as my right honourable friend said, it could appear that there was a potential for conflict of interest, but in his view there was not one, because at all times—as confirmed in the NAO report—patient safety was the driving force behind the actions of the department and NHS England. It will always be the case, whatever arrangements the department has with an ALB—whether a standard agency, a joint company or whatever it is—that patient safety must come first. That was confirmed in the NAO report today.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, as I understand it, that Statement on the last day of term before the Summer Recess last year was one of 30—which implies to me that the Government consider the last day of term to be a very good day to hide bad news.

The Minister suggests that the company, or its shareholders, will have to pay its share of the costs of investigating this scandal. Can he assure us that the NHS will not be out of pocket, particularly in the light of the fact that the loss is not just financial? A lot of doctors and various officials, in both the department and trusts, have had to spend a great deal of their time looking into this—and, of course, time is money. Will this scandal actually cause the Government to be a little more cautious in future when they claim that putting health services out to private companies always gives better value to the taxpayer and the NHS?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

The noble Baroness will know that I was not in post at the end of last summer, so I cannot explain why there were the number of Statements that there were. I know that Governments of perhaps different hues have also tended to put out Written Statements, so I do not think any political party is entirely innocent in this regard. The point is that the information was made available to Parliament.

On the point about cost settlement, there are interested parties here and the costs need to be settled once we have got to the bottom of exactly what has happened and once those inquiries and indeed the investigations into the potential for patient harm have been settled. I underline that as yet no instances of patient harm have been discovered.

Finally, the point about privatisation is quite an important one. The noble Baroness will know that the private sector is involved in the delivery of all parts of the NHS. Breach of contract, which is what this is, and the covering up of mistakes happen in all parts of the health service—public, private, shared and all the rest of it. It is not a case of “private sector bad, public sector good”: we know that from instances like Mid Staffs and so on. The core point is that we need very strong data security standards, and that is why the Government will be responding in due course to the Caldicott review and the review of these issues by the CQC.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

On one of the points the Minister responded to, perhaps I may politely offer him a piece of advice. Everyone here knows that officials advise and Ministers decide—but it is not convention, protocol or indeed courtesy to announce in Parliament that advice has been given by Ministers’ officials and he has decided to overrule it. That is not just a matter of useless etiquette; it is a fundamental aspect of maintaining the trust between Parliament and the Minister and between the Minister and his officials, which will serve him well in future.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

I take the noble Lord’s advice very seriously. Indeed, I note that he, as a former Secretary of State for Health, understands what is going on and the dynamics within the department. I would say only that the NAO report has described a set of actions that have taken place and why they have taken place. It has described the decision-making process, which is why the Statement responds to the content of the NAO report as it was set out today.

[Lord Tugendhat (Con)]

Could I press the Minister further on shared costs? Why is the company paying only some of the costs? Is the NHS paying the rest of the costs or is there some other body, public or private, that is going to put up some of the money? It is difficult to understand why the company is not paying the whole of the costs.

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

To date, the cost of dealing with this problem is around £6 million. Clearly there is a contractual relationship between NHS SBS and various bits of the NHS. It needs to be established clearly, independently and objectively where the culpability lies for any incurrence of costs, both with the problem in the first instance and in dealing with it. Once that has been established, costs will be fairly and correctly apportioned to whoever caused the problem in the first place.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

Has the Minister seen the reports that managers moved many of the documents out of sight and actually destroyed many of them? If that is the case, it is very serious. If it were a wholly private company, its directors would be suspended pending investigation. If it is the case that documents were deliberately destroyed, will the most serious action be taken against the directors of that company?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Clearly, if there were such an incidence, the noble Lord is quite right that it would be dealt with very strongly—but it is important to point out that there has not been evidence that that has happened. Documents were destroyed that sat within SBS, but they were not part of the backlog and they conformed, as we understand it, to the protocols around destroying old papers when they have gone past a certain time limit. So there is no evidence that what the noble Lord described has happened in this instance—but, as he points out, if it had happened it would be of the utmost seriousness.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, what is the governance mechanism of this joint private venture? Considering that one of the key tasks is to deliver letters and patient reports in a timely manner to GPs’ surgeries, what risk assessment was made during the process of the work?

[Lord O'Shaughnessy]

Yes, this specific case was a joint venture between a private company and the Department of Health, which has a share and director places on the board. The department had a director on the board of this joint venture throughout. Part of the problem was that the issue of this unacceptable practice was not brought to the attention of the board until far too late in the process. That is obvious from the timeline that has been set out. The particular issue about redirection is no longer the case. Mail is now returned to sender if it is not delivered, rather than creating opportunities for the things going wrong that happened through this redirection service.

Queen’s Speech

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Lords Chamber

Debate (4th Day)

15:30

Moved on Wednesday 21 June by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:

“Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to open this third day of debate on the gracious Speech. The focus of today’s debate is home affairs, justice, constitutional affairs, devolved affairs, communities and local government. The debate will enable us to explore some of the key themes of the gracious Speech, including seizing the opportunity to reshape our immigration system as we leave the European Union, tackling injustice, protecting our communities and strengthening the union between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I and my noble friend Lord Bourne look forward to hearing the many contributions from noble Lords who have put their names down to speak. Given the wealth of experience represented on all sides of the House, I am sure that we will have the benefit of many thought-provoking insights into the challenges and opportunities facing our nation at the start of this new Parliament.

I want to begin by addressing the tragic Grenfell Tower fire. I know that the whole House shares my heartfelt sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and those who have had their lives devastated. We owe it to all those who have suffered to establish exactly what happened and to learn the lessons of this appalling tragedy. To that end, we will establish a full public inquiry. As the Prime Minister said in her Statement in the House of Commons last week, it will be chaired by a judge to get to the truth about what happened and who was responsible, and to provide justice for the victims and their families, who suffered so terribly. The families of victims will be consulted on the terms of reference under which the inquiry proceeds. The Prime Minister has also set out her expectation that the inquiry will produce an interim report as quickly as possible.

We are committed to providing funding for residents and victims’ families so that they can be legally represented at the inquiry. We must ensure that victims’ voices are properly heard. That is why there will also now be an independent public advocate to help bereaved families after major disasters.

The Grenfell Tower fire is not the only tragedy that we have faced in recent months which has affected the whole nation. Communities in Manchester and London have had to endure unimaginable horrors. What ought to be everyday activities—be it visiting tourist attractions, attending a concert, enjoying a night out, or simply chatting with friends at the end of prayers at the local mosque—have been perverted by both Islamist and far-right extremists alike. In the face of such horrors, time and again we have seen our communities come together, demonstrating unwavering acts of kindness and generosity in support of their neighbours. We will not let such provocations change the true character of Britain as a wonderfully diverse, open and inclusive country.

The Government have long had a role in protecting the public from terrorism. In the previous Parliament, we announced a 30% increase over five years in cross-government spending on counterterrorism and enacted new legislation to ensure that the police and intelligence agencies have the powers that they need to keep the public safe. But we cannot stop there. As the terrorist threat evolves, we must continue to learn lessons and further improve our response. The gracious Speech therefore included a commitment to review our counterterrorism strategy. The review will not only look at the existing legislative framework, including the sentencing powers of the courts, but seek to apply the lessons we have learnt from our response to the events leading up to, during, and in the aftermath of the recent attacks. This review will inform a strengthened approach to counterterrorism. Should the review find that further legislation is necessary, your Lordships’ House can be assured that we will put this before Parliament.

We also have a responsibility to protect the public from the harms which extremists pose to our society. This is why the Government are establishing a powerful new Commission for Countering Extremism. The commission will play a key role in supporting communities and the public sector to identify and confront extremism. It will promote our fundamental values and support integration, and it will advise the Government on the policies needed to tackle the evolving threat from extremism.

Challenging extremism is not a new government objective. The new commission will build on the comprehensive programme of work set out in the counter-extremism strategy. This strategy is all about working with communities, standing up for our fundamental values, supporting integration and striving to defeat extremism. However, there is more that we can and must do. The Commission for Countering Extremism will play a crucial part in supporting future efforts to stamp out extremism in this country. This Government will stand with our communities. Together, we will defeat terrorism and extremism, and ensure that our pluralistic British values are given the opportunity to flourish.

The gracious Speech also set out our plans to bring forward a landmark Bill to tackle domestic abuse. This Government are determined to build a society that does not tolerate domestic abuse, in which victims and their families feel safe and supported in seeking help, and where perpetrators are dealt with effectively. However, legislation can only ever be one part of the solution so the provisions in the Bill will be accompanied by a full programme of non-legislative measures backed by the £20 million of funding announced in the last Budget. Fundamental to the Bill will be the introduction of a statutory definition of domestic abuse. We want to dispel the myth that domestic abuse is solely about violence and to provide absolute clarity and certainty to both the public and professionals that at the root of much domestic abuse is a pattern of control which can take many forms, including financial control, verbal abuse and emotional harm. Without domestic abuse being properly understood and recognised, we will not be able to provide victims with the support that they are entitled to receive.

The Bill will also create a bespoke new domestic abuse prevention and protection order regime. The current protective orders landscape can be confusing. It is not always clear to victims and professionals how orders can best be used to protect victims of domestic abuse. A new order specific to domestic abuse will provide a single, clear pathway for all concerned, offer better and earlier protection for victims and do more to tackle the root causes of offending behaviour. The Bill also responds to the devastating and lifelong impact that domestic abuse has on children, who can carry the traumatic events into adulthood. We want to make sure that the criminal law and sentencing frameworks clearly and explicitly recognise the harm to children who are exposed to domestic abuse, and that sentences adequately reflect the seriousness of this offending. The Bill will also establish a domestic violence and abuse commissioner, to stand up for victims and survivors, raise public awareness, monitor the response of statutory agencies and local authorities and hold the justice system to account in tackling domestic abuse. We are committed to having a robust and thorough consultation on both the legislative proposals and the non-legislative programme. I am sure that noble Lords—I can see some of them before me—will want to engage with this process.

We need to ensure that the criminal justice system works for all victims of crime—a sentiment which I am sure my noble friend Lady Newlove would endorse. That is why the gracious Speech also included a commitment to introduce legislation to modernise the courts and tribunals system. We want a world-class courts system that provides straightforward and efficient access to justice, including through the better use of technology, and provides targeted support and care for those who need it.

As we leave the European Union, we will need to establish a new framework for regulating immigration of European Union nationals and their family members. By enabling us to set our own domestic rules, we can better balance the requirements of the UK economy with the need to reduce net migration to sustainable levels. We have made some progress in this direction, with the most recent figures showing a 25% fall in net migration in the year to December 2016 compared with the previous year, but we need to do more.

To help us deliver on this objective, the immigration Bill will enable us to end the European Union rules on free movement for EU nationals, ensuring that we have the flexibility to create a fair and controlled immigration system. As has been the case under successive Governments, the details of the new arrangements will be set out in Immigration Rules which will be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. Although I cannot pre-empt EU negotiations, I can assure noble Lords that we will maintain the common travel area, thereby safeguarding the ease of movement across the Irish land border.

In developing our future immigration system, we are clear that we need to meet the needs of businesses and communities, and we will ensure that both have an opportunity to contribute their views. Our objective is to put in place an immigration system which is right for the UK economy and for the country as a whole.

This leads me to the subject of devolved affairs. The gracious Speech was very clear in stressing the importance that the Government place on working constructively with the devolved Administrations. This will be especially vital in relation to work on our exit from the European Union. We have been clear from the start, and throughout the discussions, that the UK Government will negotiate as one United Kingdom, working closely with the devolved Administrations, to deliver an EU exit that works for the whole of the country. There is considerable common ground between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations on what we want to get out of this process.

With regards to legislation, a number of Bills in this session will require close engagement across the Administrations of the UK. The Government will engage constructively and will seek legislative consent motions where appropriate. The overriding priority for the UK Government in Northern Ireland remains the restoration of a devolved power-sharing Government in Scotland—excuse me, in Stormont.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Just checking—you know what I mean. The UK Government are working with the main Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government to restore a fully functioning and inclusive Executive and Assembly.

Finally, the gracious Speech included a commitment to promote fairness and transparency in the housing market. Housing is increasingly unaffordable and it is therefore not surprising that home ownership among younger people has declined in recent years and the number of young people in the private rented sector is on the increase. We have made some good progress, with nearly 190,000 new homes delivered last year, but we need to sustain that momentum to meet the affordability challenge. All credible sources agree that we need between 225,000 and 275,000 new homes per annum to tackle this problem. In order to make all types of housing more affordable, the Government will implement proposals in the housing White Paper to help to ensure that more homes are built.

As well as taking action to make buying a home more affordable, the Government will also take forward measures to help people who are renting. We will bring forward a draft Bill to stop tenants being charged letting fees. This will mean that tenants can see, at a glance, exactly what a given property will cost them, ensuring they are not hit by surprise fees which they may struggle to afford.

The Government are committed to building a safer, fairer and more prosperous society. The measures set out in the gracious Speech will help us deliver just that. Over the two years of this first Session of the new Parliament, I look forward to debating with your Lordships’ House the many Home Office measures which I have outlined.

15:44

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interests: specifically, that I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

As we debate the Motion on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech, our thoughts are with the victims and their families of the terrorist attacks—in Manchester, at London Bridge and Borough Market and at Finsbury Park mosque—and of the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. Our thoughts are also with the heroes of the emergency services, the security services and the NHS, who have all worked to protect and save lives, as well as on the many selfless acts of courage and kindness from members of the public, faith communities, charities and businesses. They have shown our country at its best, in the most difficult and tragic circumstances.

As the Official Opposition in your Lordships’ House, we will work with the Government in a constructive manner at all times and will robustly challenge where we think the Government do not have it right. Our aim is always to make sure that we pass laws that are fit for purpose. We respect conventions, including that the elected House has the authority that we do not.

The first job of government is to protect our citizens from threats that endanger our lives, liberty and well-being. Terrorism, and the fight against it, is never far from our minds, and combating it must be the number one priority for the Government. I support the review to be initiated to ensure that the Government’s counter- terrorism strategy provides the police and security services with the powers they need and that punishments and lengths of custodial sentences are correct.

There are, though, two other points to be made here. First, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation has an important role to play here, and the recommendations he or she makes must be listened to carefully by the Government. There is no point, and it will serve no purpose, if the Government take further powers for the police and security services to keep us safe but do not resource them properly. Any review undertaken by the Government has to look at the question of resources and the lack of them and whether the powers presently at the disposal of the police and security services are adequately resourced. Providing new powers and new laws but no new money to back them is the worst thing that can be done, as it provides little or no protection and delivers a false sense of security.

Further, if new powers are sought, we as an Opposition will seek to ensure that there is proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight. This is not the time for Henry VIII powers or regulations to be enacted without at least the affirmative procedures in place and, if necessary, we will propose amendments in your Lordships’ House to ensure that is the case.

The proposed new commission for countering extremism will have an important role to play, and it will be vital that communities are involved and are seen as part of the solution. It will not have gone unnoticed that, in the recent atrocities in Manchester and at London Bridge and Borough Market, the security services had been alerted by the Muslim communities to concerns about individuals who were later involved in these terrorist attacks.

Internet providers and companies that operate online must play their part in ensuring that extremist ideology in all its forms has no safe place to corrupt people online. I call on all companies that operate in this area to work closely with the Government to ensure this happens quickly and that they play their role in keeping us safe. There can be no excuse for not co-operating fully with the authorities.

I fully support the proposals from the Government to tackle the evil of domestic abuse. That must be stamped out. I fully support the noble Baroness in the work she does in that regard. We will support the Bill fully when it comes to this House.

I welcome in principle the proposals to introduce an independent public advocate to act for and support bereaved families after a public disaster and at public inquests. The intention here, though, must be to give families the best possible support and ensure that no stone is left unturned and no family is left out, marginalised or prevented from having their voice heard due to issues of costs and available resources. Families who have lost loved ones in previous disasters have proven, time and time again, that the truth will come out, no matter what is said at the time or how powerful the opponents are. The Hillsborough families proved that; the sense of injustice and the lies told, heaped on the tragedy of losing loved ones, drove them to do right by their loved ones. But it should not be like that. Victims and their families should have proper representation, funded by the state, right from the start.

The return of the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland is supported by everyone, on all sides of the House. It is vital that an Executive is formed and that normal working relationships are restored. The progress made in Northern Ireland over the last 25 years has been the result of a willingness on all sides to seek agreement, to co-operate, to build a better future for families and to live in peace, and that prize is too precious to lose. My parents came from the Republic of Ireland to make a life for themselves in London in the 1950s, and they retired there many years ago. I have numerous friends in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. I was in County Mayo the weekend before last and in Belfast a few months ago at a conference. The city is welcoming and friendly, and no one wants to return to the past. There should be no return to the hard border—it is in no one’s interest, north or south. The Government must redouble their efforts to get the Executive back on their feet, and we will support them in achieving that. Nothing in the arrangements for propping up the Government can be allowed to get in the way—these matters are far too important.

It is my sincerest hope that, moving forward from the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower, we will never again hear the nonsense that we have heard about red tape and health and safety laws and regulations. The rule that there should be two—or is it three?—regulations out before a new one is agreed should be confined to the dustbin, where it belongs. What we saw in Grenfell Tower was a catastrophic failure of regulation or of its proper application. It was an unimaginable tragedy in one of the richest countries in the world, in the richest borough in the United Kingdom and probably the whole world. The updates from the Government have been welcome. They have highlighted the complete failure of Kensington and Chelsea Council, in contrast to the wonderful help and support from businesses, charities, faith communities and the local public, along with support from the Red Cross and the various government agencies on site and other local authorities. All of them deserve our thanks and praise.

I still find it shocking that the leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council has not resigned. You would have thought that, out of a sense of honour and accepting responsibility for the complete failure of the administration to deliver on its responsibilities, he would have resigned immediately, but he is still hanging on to office. Councillor Nicholas Paget-Brown, it really is time to go.

I pay tribute to the emergency services, which came to the aid of their fellow citizens at the time of unimaginable horror: the police, the ambulance service, the doctors and nurses, other NHS staff and the fire service. The firefighters, brave men and women, who were unable to seek the advice of a structural engineer from Kensington and Chelsea Council to confirm whether it was safe to enter the building, took the decision to enter the burning building anyway and save people’s lives. They are true heroes, each and every one. They rightly deserve our thanks for the work they have done, for their bravery and their courage. We can never repay the debt we owe them.

When we look back before this tragedy, though, there is one group of heroes that not all of us praise. With one group of firefighters, the previous Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who is now Foreign Secretary, had such a bad working relationship that he spoke about them in such an unfair manner and would never listen to them. They have had their pensions cut and their terms and conditions changed. They do a unique and very special job. They are the same people—the same heroes we praise today—and they deserve to be treated better. I hope that the Foreign Secretary reflects on some of his previous, ill-judged remarks and how unwise they were then, and that we will have no more of it from him. If we can do nothing else, they deserve to be listened to and treated with respect, as they have been in the past.

Housing is one area where we have to do better. The Prime Minister told us that,

“we simply have not given enough attention to social housing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/17; col. 169.]

I would qualify that statement by saying that the Government have given plenty of the wrong attention to social housing, and that is part of the problem. We should build more council housing, at proper social rents that people can afford. The affordable rent model supported by the Government in most parts of London and some other parts of the country is unaffordable. People in many parts of the country are trapped in a perfect storm. They are unable to raise the deposit to buy a home, there is no social housing at genuinely affordable rents and people are forced into renting in the private sector at a cost that makes it impossible for them to save for a deposit to buy their own home. That is why home ownership is on the decline.

A number of proposals from the Housing and Planning Act have been dumped, and I hope that many more will go in the next few weeks and months. We need a proper plan to improve the type, quality and number of houses built. However, to achieve that, the Government have to give way and let the public sector build at a level probably not seen for 40 years. The banning of unfair tenants’ fees is a measure that we will support, as we will other measures that improve housing and seek to meet the demand for quality homes fit for people to live in and thrive.

I grew up in council accommodation that was warm, safe and dry. It was provided at a rent that my parents could afford to pay while bringing up their family. As a child, I did not realise how lucky we were as a family. My three siblings and I are now all home owners, and we are better off than our parents were at this stage in their lives. That is what most people aspire to for themselves and for their children. This Government have completely forgotten about that, and they need to get back to it in addressing the housing crisis.

In conclusion, I look forward to all the contributions today from noble Lords. In this two-year Session of Parliament, we as an Opposition will make our points robustly but fairly. When we think the Government have got it wrong, we will say so, and when we think they have got it right, we will say so, too.

15:56

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friends will speak in detail on all the matters raised in the gracious Speech but I hope to touch briefly on a range of issues, concentrating mainly on home affairs and associated matters. However, first, I associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, expressing concern for those affected by the Grenfell Tower fire and the terrorist outrages in London and Manchester, and thank the emergency services, whose members risk their lives to protect us.

This gracious Speech was as much about what was left out as what was included. A prisons and courts Bill having previously been proposed, prison reform appears to have been dropped. Counterextremism legislation having been proposed in the previous two Queen’s Speeches, it is now replaced with a commission. A British Bill of Rights having previously been proposed to replace the Human Rights Act, there is now silence. Even where non-Brexit legislation is proposed, the legislative programme begs more questions than it answers, an example being the domestic violence and abuse Bill. Of course everything must be done to protect victims of domestic violence, domestic abuse and coercive control but, as with the proposed review of counterterrorism, the Government appear to be going for the low-cost or no-cost option by introducing legislation rather than addressing the real need—for more resources.

Central government funding for local authorities has been drastically reduced and, with it, local authorities’ ability to provide the local services that are increasingly needed. So it is with domestic violence, with refuges desperately needed by those affected being outsourced to private contractors in order to save money. Privatisation of these services and poorly drafted contracts inevitably result in the minimum level of service being provided, with little or no provision for the emotional, legal and childcare needs of survivors.

That appears to be a recurring theme in the Queen’s Speech. Of course, in the light of the recent spate of terrorist attacks, a review of the Government’s counterterrorism strategy is necessary. But seemingly before the ink is dry on whatever the Queen’s Speech was written, the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, appears on the BBC’s “Today” programme to say that existing counter- terrorism legislation is sufficient—something that the Home Secretary appears to accept. Again, it is not legislation that is required but resources. If the Home Secretary will not listen to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, who says that her force is struggling for lack of resources, who will she listen to? Perhaps it will be the Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who says that community policing is in danger of disappearing—an essential source of community intelligence that thwarted a recent attempted attack in Westminster, where the alleged perpetrator was apparently caught on his way to commit a terrorist attack.

It is not the police and the security services alone who will defeat terrorism, but communities working with them. The nature of the recent attack shows that it is those closest to the perpetrators—friends, families and neighbours—who are most likely to prevent such attacks by noticing changes in behaviour. But communities will not pass on their suspicions unless they trust the police and the security services through restoring community policing, and by an independent, evidence-based review of the Prevent programme. There is a great deal of suspicion in some communities of Prevent, justified or not, yet the Government will not even publish their own internal, Home Office review of Prevent. The former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, before he recently stepped down called for such an independent review. Those determined to undermine Prevent are being given all the encouragement they need by not carrying out such a review.

The other aspect of the Government’s review is to look at the severity of prison sentences for those convicted of terrorism offences. For the most determined terrorists—the suicide attackers we saw in Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge—no prison sentence will act as a deterrent. Yet again, legislation is being substituted for resources. There is a crisis in our Prison Service, with a Victorian estate, overcrowding and increasing levels of violence and suicide. The Government do not appear to know the difference between tactics—dealing with what is currently the public focus—and strategy: having a long-term plan to deal with underlying issues. One of those issues is the current crisis in the Prison Service. Brexit is the dominant issue, and unless the Government rethink their approach, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded to, we will be both poorer and less safe as a result.

The Government appear to have abandoned plans to scrap the Human Rights Act, and will accept the jurisdiction of the court which adjudicates it—the European Court of Human Rights. They have also signalled their intention to adopt the EU general data protection regulations, incorporating them into UK law. That is essential if the flow of data between the UK and the EU is to be maintained for security, law enforcement, medical research and commercial purposes. However, they should also accept that the UK needs to remain within the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, which adjudicates on these common standards. A free trade deal, a European arrest warrant and a host of other issues essential to our prosperity and security depend on the ECJ.

Yesterday’s announcement about the status of EU nationals resident in the UK did little to quell their anxiety. They are being been offered second-class UK settled status rather than permanent leave to remain, and all that subject to a deal with the other 27 member states. In the past, having the stated aim of making the UK a “hostile environment” for illegal immigrants, the Government succeeded in making the UK a hostile environment for all immigrants, including foreign students and overseas workers in the National Health Service and social care, who no longer feel welcome. I dread to think what the proposed new immigration policy will contain.

Finally, we have the commission for countering extremism. One of the first things that the commission should do is to distinguish between a religion such as Islam and Islamism, which is a political ideology that believes in the violent overthrow of democracy and liberal values, replacing them with a totalitarian state. As the press spokesman for the Metropolitan Police Service following the 7 July bombings in 2005, I said in answer to a question from a journalist that as far as I was concerned the terms “Islamic” and “terrorism” were a contradiction in terms. I said it then and I repeat it now.

In its 2015 counterextremism strategy, the Government described extremism as,

“the vocal or active opposition to our fundamental values”,

including “our belief in equality”, which,

“followed a history in which we have seen injustice, misery and damage caused by discrimination on the basis of religion, race, gender, disability or sexual orientation”.

Do the Government stand by that definition of extremism as including those who vocally and actively oppose equality for LGBT people? I am asking for a friend—of Dorothy.

16:05

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I address my own remarks to two points in the gracious Speech that fall within the scope of today’s debate. First, like so many others, I welcome the Government’s undertaking to initiate a full public inquiry into the horrifying fire at Grenfell Tower to ascertain the causes and ensure that the appropriate lessons are learned. I also welcome the fact that this is to be a judge-led inquiry. Indeed, no one should be under any illusions about the problems that whoever leads this inquiry will face. Urgency suggests that it may have to begin its task before any criminal prosecutions take place. If so, great care will need to be taken to ensure that the inquiry does not adversely affect the criminal process by prejudicing the right to a fair trial. In some cases, such as that of the Victoria Climbié inquiry, which was chaired with such distinction by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, the criminal proceedings were concluded before the inquiry. Whether that will be so in this case is perhaps yet to be decided, but I suspect that the decision will be that the inquiry should go ahead without delay.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, drew attention to one of the problems to which this gives rise last Thursday in the question that he put to the Lord Privy Seal when she repeated the Prime Minister’s Statement on Grenfell Tower. He asked:

“Can we please ensure that when people give evidence, they do so in full and do not hide behind the fact that, if they answer certain questions, they might incriminate themselves?”.—[Official Report, 22/6/17; col. 83.]


The noble Baroness’s answer was that it was to be a judge-led inquiry, as the Minister said yesterday in answer to a similar question. It would be for the person appointed to determine how it works.

The Lord Privy Seal was absolutely right about that. I can go further, however. There is no doubt that the judge will ensure that the inquiry was conducted according to the well-established rules of our common law, which protect a suspect’s right to silence. Everyone is entitled to that protection. There are no exceptions, even in situations such as this, which have provoked so much public anger. How much of an impediment to the inquiry there will be if it is held before any criminal proceedings are concluded we have yet to see. I suspect not very much if the inquiry indeed concentrates on the causes and lessons to be learned, as the gracious Speech put it, which are so important. The terms of reference will need to be very carefully drafted in close consultation with the judge to ensure that the focus of the inquiry is neither too narrow nor too wide. It is of course reassuring to those with my background that the Government are putting their trust in the judiciary to achieve the clarity and certainty that is needed in a highly charged situation such as this.

Secondly, I welcome the Government’s undertaking to make further progress on tackling discrimination, but one particular aspect deserves attention. I suggest that legislation to address the hardship and injustice to cohabiting couples caused by a gap in the present law in England and Wales is long overdue. I refer to the problems that arise if there is a dispute about property division when their cohabitation ceases. Legislation to address these problems was passed by the Scottish Parliament in 2006. It was the subject of an appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Gow v Grant in 2012. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, drew attention in her judgment to the Scottish position in that case and to the need for similar legislation in England and Wales. She pointed out that the Law Commission published a report with recommendations on this as long ago as 2007, but despite the hardship and injustice caused by the lack of legislation and the prevalence of cohabitation, to which the Law Commission again drew attention in 2011, still nothing has been done; the gap remains. I hope that the Minister and his officials will feel able to look at that judgment and find a place for this legislation, which is badly needed, as early as possible in the life of this Parliament.

16:10

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I too wish to contribute to your Lordships’ debate on the humble Address. Last Thursday, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury observed in this House that the gracious Speech spoke of taking British values around the world, but for that to happen we need to know what we mean by British values. That applies equally to the measures under discussion today. Traditionally, these values have expressed themselves in a respect for the rule of law, local and national institutions, our liberties and freedoms, and parliamentary democracy. They were born of a society in which people participate, not a consumer society. From them spring mutual obligations, not merely contractual ones. Mutuality issues from civic virtue of the sort we have seen on our streets in response to calamity and terror in recent months in London and Manchester.

PC Keith Palmer faced lethal force in defence of this place and gave his life for others. I had the privilege of taking part in his funeral at Southwark Cathedral and the streets of south London were lined with serving police officers and members of the public.

Kirsty Boden, a nurse who also moved into danger on the terrible night of 3 June to help those who were injured, in consequence suffered with her life, dying by the doors of our cathedral offices. Police were on the scene, the very first of them unarmed, their instinctive response to tackle the threat regardless of the possibility of lethal harm to themselves. The whole operation was completed in eight minutes.

The firefighters at Grenfell Tower on 14 June went beyond the call of duty to tackle a blaze in which many people perished and which consumed the whole building, together with the homes and possessions of nearly everyone living there. They, too, displayed virtue of an extraordinary kind. So did the people of the parish church of St Clement and St James Notting Dale, who opened up their church and their hearts to care for those made homeless by the conflagration, as did other local churches, with the local community bringing emergency provisions in abundance.

At the Finsbury Park mosque, imam Mohammed Mahmoud led others to intervene to prevent harm to a man subsequently charged with grievous offences in the wake of the attack near the Muslim Welfare House on Seven Sisters Road in the early hours of 19 June.

The question has been raised of whether all our political structures are as capable and resilient as these first responders, members of the public and faith communities in meeting the needs of people in extreme distress. In Kensington and Chelsea, any deficit appears to lie in the values held through to the resources deployed to fulfil them.

“For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also”,


as we are reminded in St Matthew’s Gospel.

The initiative of Her Majesty’s Government, as confirmed by the Minister, to create a commission for countering extremism is welcome and the Church of England is willing to be involved in its work. I note in the briefing that accompanies the gracious Speech that it will,

“support the public sector and civil society in promoting and defending pluralistic values across all our communities”.

One needs to be clearer in defining “pluralistic values”. If we mean a framework that encourages those with differing beliefs and views to live in harmony and mutual respect, that is something bishops will support. If it means that everything is relative and there are no core common values, or that absolute values are discouraged, then I think we have gone too far.

I understand the desire for a review of counterterrorism in the light of recent attacks, but the emphasis may be in the wrong place. The Home Secretary has already acknowledged that we have some of the toughest counterterrorism legislation in the world. That outrages have occurred is not principally a sign that such powers are inadequate, but that very ruthless people wish us harm. The answer to this is diligence, the resources to deliver such vigilance and a society resilient enough to face down the threat of hatred that manifests itself in such appalling violence. It needs to be said that hatred leading to violence is a wicked distortion of the image of God, in which every human being is made. Indeed, it is a wicked distortion of any and all religious identity and belief. Contrast that with the many acts of kindness, loving care to neighbour and friendship in past weeks in each local context. A number of churches in my diocese have been invited to the breaking of the fast during Ramadan. Southwark Cathedral hosted one such event following the London Bridge attack.

In conclusion, those services that responded so magnificently to the outrages and calamities of recent weeks need the resources to meet future crises of the moment and the capacity to meet other ongoing demands. Compared to 2010, there have been significant reductions in the funding of fire and emergency planning services. The number of police officers has fallen by more than 20,000 in England and Wales. The Prison Service is now aiming to recruit an additional 2,500 prison officers, but this has to be seen in the context of a previous reduction of more than 6,000 key and experienced staff, which in my diocese, in our five large prisons, has adversely impacted on morale and prison regimes. These services, upon which our well-being and our very lives depend, often operate to the limits of their capacity. We must take responsibility to ensure that they are not pushed beyond the limits of capacity.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to remind noble Lords that the advisory Back-Bench speaking time is five minutes today, so when the clock reaches four, noble Lords should think about winding up.

16:18

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, one of the topics for today’s debate on the humble Address is constitutional affairs. This is, indeed, a testing time for our constitution. Most of the next two years seem likely to be occupied with Brexit-related legislation. It will be heavily and appropriately scrutinised by Parliament, particularly by your Lordships’ House. It seems distinctly likely that various issues arising out of our departure from the European Union will find themselves once more before the courts. When and if they do, I hope that we will never see a repetition of the outrageous press response to the decision of the Divisional Court in the Gina Miller case, nor of the failure by the Government explicitly and immediately to condemn such an attack.

The independence of the judiciary is a critical feature of the rule of law. That does not mean that any Government have to agree with the decisions that judges reach—judges are not infallible; there is an appeal system—and the reasoning behind judgments can be criticised with perfect legitimacy. It is even permissible on occasions to question whether judges have entered political areas which they should not enter. What is not acceptable, however, is a failure to defend the independent judiciary on the grounds that this might be tantamount to an attack on the freedom of the press.

The new Lord Chancellor has made a confident start. He has a considerable task to restore the relationship between the Government and the judiciary. If he reads the Lord Chief Justice’s evidence to the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House, he will realise just how much work needs to be done. We should ensure that our judges, highly regarded around the world, are properly respected, paid and supported. I welcome the review of their pay and conditions recently announced. The crisis in judicial morale described by the Lord Chief Justice is extremely worrying. There is, I know, a real issue with recruitment. We certainly want a diverse judiciary, but we want one where there is no dilution in merit.

The civil liability Bill is, as I understand it, designed to reform the law in relation to whiplash claims. Although claimants’ lawyers are always sceptical about the figures, I have seen no serious challenge to the fact that the volume of road traffic-related personal injury claims has remained static over the past three years and is more than 50% higher than 10 years ago, despite the fact that there has been a decrease in the number of road traffic accidents from around 190,000 in 2006 to around 142,000 in 2015. I welcome all steps to clamp down on what has undoubtedly been a racket in whiplash claims, but of course we should be careful to ensure that genuine claims result in compensation. There should be a reduction in insurance premiums as a result. Insurance companies should be kept to their promise in this regard.

However, any reductions in premiums that whiplash reforms bring about will be substantially eroded by the increase in the size of premiums necessary because of the alteration of the discount rate announced by the then Lord Chancellor earlier this year. This alteration is, to put it kindly, surprising. Not only will this change affect insurance premiums but it will cause an enormous increase in the size of claims of medical negligence against the NHS and others. I declare an interest as a barrister practising not exclusively but certainly in this area. I am familiar with the astonishing rise in the size of these claims. One has to question whether the changes are desirable. I hope the Government will consider bringing forward changes so that if, as a claimant, you seek a lump sum rather than periodical payments, the choice you make should indicate that while you are not necessarily an adventurous investor, you can be treated as a middle-of-the-road investor for the purpose of the discount rate.

Access to justice is vital. I am sorry that the prisons section of the courts Bill is to go. I hope that much of what the Government want to achieve can be done with non-legislative measures. The courts Bill, as I understand it, will make the courts cheaper and more accessible. The online court is an exciting development. If it increases access to justice while not disadvantaging the digitally challenged, that is to be welcome. I understand why some are sceptical about it; justice must be not only done but seen to be done.

The Government are committed to reviewing the LASPO Act. Part 1 of that will certainly benefit from such a review. I hope they take into account any recommendations made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his review of similar matters. Access to justice must be maintained.

Finally, I return to the rule of law. It is said that the future of this Government is uncertain. The party opposite has said that it will bring the Government down. Some of the comments attributed to its leaders about the use of extra-parliamentary means to do so, if they are true, show very little regard for the rule of law. I note in particular the allegation of murder made by the Shadow Chancellor about Grenfell Tower. Let us wait until the public inquiry has reported. The next two years are likely to provide stress tests on our constitution. I hope that in your Lordships’ House that constitution will maintain its vigour.

16:24

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, we live in strange times. When the Scottish Parliament is told that now is not the time for another referendum on separation not by the British Prime Minister but by the Scottish First Minister, as happened today; when Mr Gerry Adams takes to quoting Edward Carson, that stalwart of unionism, to bolster his case, as happened this morning; and when the strong and stable Government announce that their strength and stability depend on what is just about the smallest party in Parliament, we know that times are strange. In that context, we must be doubly circumspect, especially on the subject that I will speak about, which is one of the greatest political achievements of the past century—the Northern Ireland peace process.

I will say something about what is called the deal. First, I have no objection in principle to the distribution of extra funds to Northern Ireland. I have always believed that that is justified. The Province is a unique case—it still carries the economic legacy of decades of violent turmoil; it still depends hugely on public expenditure for its economy and employment; and it is the only part of the United Kingdom that has a land border with part of Europe, in southern Ireland. Just south of that border is a highly competitive taxation regime and currency. That makes Northern Ireland unique, and I am afraid that I have no sympathy with other Administrations who complain and say, “Me, too—anything they get, we should get”, because those areas did not have 30 years of war, turmoil, death and desolation, as Northern Ireland had.

I have always believed that Northern Ireland is a unique case, but other aspects of the deal might have worried me and could have carried the greatest dangers. If, for instance, the DUP had insisted on imposing its particular moral values on social policy on the mainland, or if it had succumbed to the temptation of pressuring the United Kingdom Parliament to intervene injudiciously in the events in Northern Ireland, I would have been worried. Thankfully, both those things have been avoided—at least for the moment, and let us hope that that continues.

A wider issue touches on the role of the UK Government in the peace process as a joint and even-handed guarantor. I do not wholly share the pessimism of former Prime Minister Major about the inevitability of the situation leading to a crisis. After almost 20 years of peace, the benefits for the whole population in Northern Ireland are obvious to them above all, so I do not go the way that John Major does. However, the Government would be extremely unwise and utterly complacent to ignore the consequences of the recent accommodation of the DUP, particularly for perception. The perception of conflict of interest for the Government, with their role as joint guarantor of the Belfast agreement while they are at the same time in an accommodation with one of the parties to that agreement and one of the contestants in the negotiations, will be particularly difficult, especially given the number of extremely contentious issues that remain to be dealt with.

As the House will know, the power-sharing talks enter a crucial stage in Belfast today. I hope that they will come to a speedy conclusion, but my experience in Northern Ireland tells me that that is not entirely inevitable and that, even if they do, there will be forthcoming talks. If I were asked to offer advice to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which I confess that I have not been, I would tell him to look at the history of recognising the real perception of conflict of interest, such as now arises, and to consider using neutral chairmen for any forthcoming negotiations in the Province. I say that not to question the integrity of the Ministers or the Government; there is a legitimate precedent for this. Your Lordships may remember that US Senator George Mitchell chaired the peace talks; Chris Patten, now the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, chaired the RUC reform process; I appointed Richard Haass, the American diplomat; and the Canadian General John de Chastelain oversaw decommissioning, ably assisted by the Finnish statesman Martti Ahtisaari.

All those outsiders and many more like them assisted hugely in progressing the peace process, and I believe that similar figures could and should be asked to do so now. I propose that not because I question the Government’s integrity but because, in this House, we know that what matters is not the substance but the perception of a conflict of interest, which must be countered. It would be a tragedy if an arrangement that was meant to bring stability to the UK brought instead only instability to Northern Ireland and to one of our finest achievements in many years.

Finally, I have one quick word about Scotland. I have been a lifelong supporter of and advocate for devolution, but I say to the Government, in the knowledge that the Prime Minister has finally discovered this, that devolution was never meant to be, nor is it now, the gateway to separation. It was the opposite of complete separation and complete centralism. That is what the people of Scotland have supported over the years and their discontent is now becoming obvious at those who try to use devolution as a Trojan horse with continual, incremental and consistent application of constitutional change to drag it away from what it was meant to be—devolution—and towards separation. I hope the Government will recognise that and support the people of Scotland in what they really need, which is better services in health, education and the economy. The people of Scotland will be grateful.

16:30

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my local government interests, as recorded in the register. Public services provided through local government are the bedrock on which people build their daily lives. Where a council such as Kensington and Chelsea has fallen far short in providing critical services, as demonstrated in recent events, then the elected leader of that council should be accountable and, as I said in this House a week ago, that leader should resign.

Public services provided locally such as schools, decent affordable homes, safe roads, a clean environment, places to exercise, public health and care for the most vulnerable in our communities, old and young, are the vital services that local government provides. These same services have endured the largest cuts of all, and the impact is serious. One million vulnerable older people are not getting the care they need. Children in need are not getting the support they deserve. There are more roads with potholes. Community places for leisure, such as libraries, parks and play areas, are being closed; the list goes on.

A recently appointed government spokesman has already commented that the days of austerity must end. He said that the voters have spoken, and I agree. However, it seems that austerity is set to continue, unless the Government need to buy your support. So the lucky people of Northern Ireland, who already have the most invested in their public services, will have even better services. Meanwhile, residents in all other parts of the UK will continue to feel the impact of more cuts to the services provided through local government for at least the next three years. For many, the worst is yet to come.

The gracious Speech had just two lines to address these huge challenges:

“My Ministers will work to improve social care and will bring forward proposals for consultation”.


This is despite the fact that the Government already agreed, in the last Parliament, with the independent Dilnot proposals for funding social care—and despite the fact that social care funding is already in crisis, as expressed by care providers, the commissioners of care and carers. Local authorities are not able to ensure that all vulnerable adults will get the support that they need now; a further long delay in improving the funding can only make matters worse. All estimates of the funding gap, be it from the Local Government Association or the Institute of Fiscal Studies, calculate that unless there is dramatic change, the gap will be £2.6 billion in two years’ time. How local government could do with accessing the same DUP money tree.

On all other local public services, the gracious Speech is silent. Children’s social services will continue to be cut. One local authority I know well has had to cut these services by 25% over the next three years simply to make the books balance. Services for the most vulnerable children in our communities will get worse.

The Conservative Party manifesto referred to the need to improve residential roads and fill potholes. That cannot be done with continued cuts to funding. In that same manifesto, there is talk of strong support for access to the arts and culture outside London, yet local facilities such as libraries—400 of which have been already been closed—local museums—two of the four in my area are closing now—and funding for music have been absolutely slashed.

Schools funding is being unfairly cut, jeopardising children’s futures. All this amounts to a complete failure by the Government to take proper regard for the provision of these essential local services. We need more money. Alternatively, we could all move to Northern Ireland.

16:35

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)]

My Lords, in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech I want to address two pressing online safety concerns which I very much hope the Government will address during this Parliament: adult content filters and the need to bring online enforcement standards into line with offline enforcement standards.

The Government’s current approach to adult content filters, which cover a broad range of adult-only content including pornography, violence and gambling, is addressed through the voluntary filtering agreement of the big four ISPs which was negotiated in 2013. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, I do not believe that this voluntary agreement goes far enough. It does not apply to all ISPs, and there is no transparency about filtering standards, with different companies embracing different regimes. According to the latest figures from Ofcom, 99% of households with children have access to the internet, but the number of parents using filters is pretty small, about one-third, and lack of knowledge of filters remains high—42% of parents of five to 15 year-olds and 35% of parents of three to four years.

One way of dealing with this variable take-up would be to require all ISPs to provide default-on internet services to all households. In this scenario, internet service providers would automatically place family-friendly filters and controls on their services unless an internet user over the age of 18 chooses to opt in to receiving internet services with adult content. Sky has already taken the initiative to adopt the default-on approach to its services and has seen a significant increase in the number of households using its filtering options to 62% of existing customers. This is significantly more than any of the other big four. Evidence of the effectiveness of default-on was presented to the House of Lords Communications Committee in the previous Parliament. Ofcom said:

“ISPs that have had the most success with take up—if success is measured by take up—are those that have adopted a default-on process ... Default-on does drive take up. It is as simple as that”.

The committee’s report, Growing up with the Internet, recommended,

“all ISPs and mobile network operators should be required not only to offer child-friendly content control filters, but also for those filters to be ‘on’ by default for all customers. Adult customers should be able to switch off such filters”.

Confronted by this evidence, the committee made the right recommendation:

In this context, we cannot pretend that we are seriously committed to child safety online yet turn a blind eye to those ISPs which continue to present the filter options in a format that we know will result in significantly fewer children being protected than would be the case if they embraced default on. The committee’s recommendation embraces three key elements. First, it addresses all ISPs, not just the big four that subscribe to the voluntary agreement. Secondly, it says that all ISPs should be required to offer family-friendly filters. At present, no ISPs are required to do so: it is entirely voluntary. Thirdly, it says that all ISPs should be required to provide adult content filters, in the default-on format—something that only Sky does.

I look forward to the Government’s response to the committee’s report and sincerely hope that these measures will be incorporated in the Green Paper on internet safety and future legislation. This will be particularly important given the Government’s aspiration for the digital charter—that the UK should become,

“the safest place in the world to be online”.

My second concern is the outstanding issue of the definition of “extreme pornography”, versus the original definition of “prohibited material” used in Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act 2017. Your Lordships’ House debated these definitions on Report on 20 March, and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments again today. At Third Reading, I expressed my sadness at how the Bill had left this House, especially that we had removed the power from the regulator to take enforcement action against, among other content, animated child sex abuse images that fall under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009—images that were reported to be present on Facebook just days after Third Reading.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Ashton, said in response to my concerns about the definitions that,

“there is still work to do”.—[Official Report, 5/4/17; col. 1094.]

The Minister in the other place subsequently said, in respect of the definitions,

“we regard that as unfinished business”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/17; col. 1146.]

Mrs Claire Perry, the honourable Member for Devizes, said that the Minister,

“has assured us from the Dispatch Box and in meetings of his firm commitment to making sure that these definitional questions are resolved in such a way as to enable all parties to support them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/4/17; col. 1146.]

I am very keen to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to quickly resolve this unfinished business in such a way as to enable all parties to support the definitions before Part 3 comes into effect.

Section 29 of the Digital Economy Act requires a review of the definitions in Part 3, including “extreme pornography”, between 12 and 18 months after Part 3 comes into effect. If there is cross-party recognition that the definitions need more work—and indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said on Report that the definition of extreme pornography “is not ideal”— we should be doing our utmost to resolve the unfinished business to ensure that Part 3 comes into effect with, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones said, definitions,

“based on something deliverable online and offline with equal strength”.—[Official Report, 20/3/17; col. 37.]

I shall be introducing a Bill to the House highlighting this challenge on 10 July.

16:43

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, noble Lords will not be unaware of the ongoing criticism in the press and media of the existence and the conduct of your Lordships’ House. We find ourselves in the position of being continuously subject to ridicule and indeed contempt in cases. It is interesting that two of the first four Private Members’ Bills before us this Session deal with matters pertaining to this House. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, is no doubt about to launch himself into another series of activities, and there is another Bill further down the list. I believe this proves the need for further action. With the noble Lord, Lord Burns, reporting this summer on ways to reduce numbers, the time has come for the Prime Minister to appoint a Minister for Lords reform and settle things for the foreseeable future. We need out of this ongoing limbo. I believe consensus is within our grasp as we struggle to deal with the size and imbalance of the House—which, I remind noble Lords, was created not by this House but by successive occupants of No. 10 Downing Street. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this in his wind-up.

I have often mentioned my unhappiness with the current policy with regard to the devolved Administrations. I call it a policy of “devolve and forget”. The wretched Sewel convention is at its heart. I note that the Constitution Committee of this House has also expressed some concerns. I am all for devolution, but there still needs to be parliamentary oversight. The lack of such oversight is why Northern Ireland got into trouble in the 1960s and 1970s. We have not learned from that, and we are repeating the same mistake today by ignoring what is happening in the regions. Growth in the devolution of powers to cities and regions in England cannot be left without some form of oversight; otherwise, we go back to the time of the city state. It has to be said that changes to our constitution in recent years, especially following the Scottish referendum in 2014 and the introduction of English votes for English laws in the other place, have left us with many pieces of unfinished constitutional business. I have to say that the handling of those issues was perhaps not the coalition’s finest hour.

With regard to the announcement today in the Scottish Parliament, I had the pleasure of watching the First Minister of Scotland deliver her Statement, and I was very glad to hear it. I hope it is the first positive sign of some realism because, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, said, the Parliament was being used as a battering ram not to strengthen the union but to bring it to a conclusion. I think he was quite right on that, and the announcement from Scotland today is very welcome.

With regard to Northern Ireland and the deal that was struck yesterday, it would be impossible not to have concerns. In recent years, purely from a delivery point of view, the Stormont Executive have been a flop, with scandal after scandal and inefficiency, while the RHI controversy, if it is as reported, is downright incompetence. Judge Coghlin’s inquiry into the botched scheme has not yet held its first hearing, but he has already amassed the equivalent of 1,000 lever-arch files full of documents. His report’s first public hearings will be in October. I do not know how long it will take, but you can count.

While no devolved Administration will look a gift horse in the mouth, one cannot be other than concerned at the reaction in the press and from some other nations at the news of extra money for Stormont. I could make a case all day for extra resources, but the fact that it is linked to votes in the other place makes it look bad. I can well understand that the people in Scotland, Wales and the regions of England are unhappy. The Barnett formula is a delicate flower and has been good for Northern Ireland. If that formula is unravelled, it could cost us dear in the long run.

What concerns me most, however, is that unionism in Northern Ireland has been linked to cash. Look at the cartoons in the papers today. I have never been a believer in begging-bowl unionism, yet some in the media have spun it this way. The cut and thrust of politics reveals it as a numbers game, and people are inevitably going to exploit an advantage if it arises. That applies to all parties, and do not let any of them deny it. However, unionists must never create the impression that their unionism is cash based. That is not what being part of the union should be about. Unionists must also be aware of the needs of others in the UK and that their ongoing support is the only way in which the nation can stay together in these troubling days as we approach Brexit. The sad reality is that, if the numbers surrounding the losses expected to flow from the RHI scheme are to be believed, nearly half of yesterday’s cash will be swallowed up in making good those losses. What an irony it would be if those figures are correct.

Given the mess that Stormont got into last December, which in my view could easily have been avoided by a little grace and leadership, Sinn Fein now has to make up its mind whether to stick with the institutions or play the Dublin card. Mr Adams should never have been given this opportunity in the first place, but I hope good sense will prevail and the parties will agree to re-establish the institutions. If not, I hope the Government will be prepared to keep an open mind on ways in which devolution can be preserved, as a little thinking outside the box is preferable to collapse and direct rule. Remember, in the advancing pace of the Brexit negotiations, Northern Ireland’s voice is not being heard. This state of affairs cannot continue.

16:49

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, while the gracious Speech addresses the great issues which face our country today, such as departure from the European Union, it also includes important justice legislation. I certainly welcome the inclusion of the draft domestic violence and abuse Bill, which provides a stronger and better- defined framework to protect victims and, in particular, children. I observe only that it is very welcome that this issue, which for so long was swept under the carpet, is now given a high political profile and parliamentary time. I pay tribute to those inside and outside this House and another place who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue over the years.

I will also refer to a different issue, which relates to provisions in the civil liability Bill, which my noble friend Lord Faulks mentioned. I welcome the fact that the gracious Speech refers to the introduction of legislation which will help to reduce motor insurance premiums. The enhanced oversight of claims management companies is a very welcome development. The growth of the sector has brought a wholly predictable and detrimental culture of the encouragement of specious claims. Motor insurance fraud and the facilitation thereof has reached epidemic proportions and, in some circumstances, the creation of a whole new sector of crime. The continual push by claims management companies to encourage the public to make claims—for example, through television advertising and direct, unsolicited approaches by phone, text and email—is so very clearly wrong. I trust that the move to transfer oversight of claims management companies to the Financial Conduct Authority and the provisions of the civil liability Bill to tackle fraudulent whiplash claims will have considerable effect in strengthening the regulation of those companies, and will ensure that senior executives will be held personally liable for the actions of their businesses—something which has not occurred in the past.

I would like to raise another related but specific issue of crime, and that is the other major driver of very high motor insurance premiums, which is vehicle theft. We are facing an extraordinary rise in vehicle theft concerning motorcycles. We are advised by the Metropolitan Police that some 50,000 crimes a year in London relate to this issue. Indeed, there have been 13,000 thefts in the past 12 months, which is a rise of 40% over the previous period. It is worth bearing that statistic in mind: a 40% rise in a very specific area of crime. It seems that gangs are behind this. In London, there are thought to be 500 criminals, or thereabouts, who are pursuing this extraordinary level of crime. The results are raised insurance premiums, but there have also been many attacks on motorcyclists. I travel occasionally on two wheels and am fortunate not to have been a victim. There has been an extraordinary set of circumstances whereby gangs are, in broad daylight, stealing motorcycles which are then used to pursue other crimes—bag snatching and, in particular, the snatching of mobile telephones—in London.

At the centre of this appears to be a feeling of immunity by these criminals: that they cannot be pursued actively at pace by the police. The police have of course to think of the safety of other road users and, it appears, the safety of those individuals themselves, but we must find a way in which the police, whose efforts in this regard are to be commended—in particular, on Operation Venice, which has been set up specifically to address these issues—can outwit these criminals before another murder takes place. We understand that there was a terrible tragedy when someone who was attempting to prevent the theft of their machine was knifed to death by a gang. This is a rapidly growing crime and we need to find a solution. I would welcome all efforts that the Government can make, in co-operation with police forces in the large cities around the country, to tackle this crime.

16:56

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, there has been much discussion in your Lordships’ House and elsewhere about the implications of Brexit for everything from aviation, to our universities, to employment rates, and a whole range of aspects of public policy and legislation, but there has been little discussion and little profile so far of the impacts of Brexit on children and children’s rights. I want to address that issue this afternoon.

There are more than 500,000 children of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom and many more UK nationals’ children who will have a parent or relative living elsewhere in the European Union either temporarily or permanently, and, of course, there are other children who are EU nationals living elsewhere in the EU who have some family connection to British citizens. All these children are currently protected by legislation and policies at the European Union level on everything from the safety of toys to internet safety, child trafficking, family reunification rights, and many other aspects of the law.

In all these areas there is a very real danger that if the great repeal Bill is not enacted properly, with due attention to the position of children, both UK and other EU nationals, the children who are most vulnerable will fall through the safety net. It is critical when looking at the great repeal Bill and other aspects of implementation of this Brexit process that the Government are very clear in a number of areas. First, they should enact at all times the principle of acting in the best interests of the child whenever any aspect of the law affecting children is being considered, whether that is to transfer an existing EU law into British law or whether to ensure that the appropriate procedures are in place to protect children when their family relationships, for example, cross what will now be a border between the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union.

Secondly, it is critical that child safety is protected by having appropriate arrangements with Europol, Eurojust and the other European agencies to make sure that arrangements that are currently in place to protect children who are vulnerable across the European Union continue after Brexit. Thirdly, it is critical that we are aware of the impact on child poverty initiatives that might come from reductions in European funding in certain communities across the United Kingdom. Fourthly—I hope this suggestion might ring true with the Secretary of State for Education, who had a good record on engaging with young people when she was Secretary of State for International Development—it would be very good in all this process, particularly given the way in which young people appear at least to approach the issue of Brexit, to give them a say in this process and to have them involved in the implementation of any new arrangements.

It is also important that we involve properly in this process the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and, I hope soon again, Northern Ireland. Each of those Governments and the Parliaments that they work with have specific legislative responsibilities for children and children’s rights within the framework of UK law and within the framework of UK government. In each of those Administrations there will be specific concerns about the great repeal Bill and the impact of Brexit on children and child protection. In this area, as I am sure is the case in many other areas, it will be vital to have open and transparent engagement with the devolved Governments to make sure that they can protect the children who come under their responsibility just as much as the UK Government can protect those children in England who come under their responsibility.

More generally, that has to ring true for the devolved Governments. I welcome the fact that the second independence referendum is off the agenda, at least for the foreseeable future. I also make a plea to the UK Government: while the stand-off between them and the Scottish Government may be relevant in a pre-election period and in the context of a debate about a second independence referendum, it should be set aside for the conduct of negotiations over Brexit and for the proper arrangements be put in place to engage with the devolved Governments. It is their responsibility, as well as the UK Government’s, to step up to the plate here. Those arrangements should operate in the same transparent way as the negotiations clearly will at the European Union level. If that is the case, the whole history of claim and counterclaim about who said what to whom and who is trying to disadvantage whom, which has been the relationship between the Scottish and UK Governments over the last 10 years, could be set aside. We could then see what each is proposing, the hard work that is going on, the conclusions that are reached and who is actually acting in the interests of the people of Scotland and of the rest of the United Kingdom.

In relation to children’s rights, to powers and to funding, an open, transparent engagement with the devolved Governments and Parliaments would benefit us all.

17:00

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have certainly sacrificed some key reforming measures that should have been included in the gracious Speech. One such issue, referred to by my noble friend Lord Paddick, is the problems in our prison system. The need for greater efforts to promote prisoners’ rehabilitation is clear from even the most cursory look at reoffending rates. Some 44% of adult prisoners, 59% of short-term prisoners and 69% of juvenile prisoners are reconvicted within a year of their release—an unending cycle that continues to repeat itself on a regular basis.

All too often the problems and pressures that lead offenders into crime are still there when they leave prison. That is why we should ask a fundamental question: do prisons really rehabilitate inmates? All too often their pro-criminal attitudes are unchanged. Imprisonment causes many prisoners to lose their accommodation, their jobs and, sometimes, their families. On release they are, therefore, more likely to be jobless, homeless and without family support, all of which increase the risk of reoffending. Research and experience tell us a great deal about successful approaches that can reduce these dismal reconviction rates.

For example, we know that focused offending behaviour programmes can reduce reoffending. These programmes can change attitudes to reoffending and improve empathy with victims. They can help offenders to restrain impulsive and aggressive behaviour, to resist peer pressure and to recognise and manage the trigger situations that lead them to offend. Practical resettlement support for prisoners also reduces reconviction rates. Which other factors help support a reduction in offending? Getting released prisoners into jobs cuts reoffending; providing educational opportunities reduces reoffending; providing stable accommodation on release cuts reoffending; maintaining family ties cuts reoffending; and effective drug rehabilitation dramatically cuts reoffending.

All too often, prisoners receive little in the way of purposeful activity or rehabilitation, and the position has deteriorated in the past five years. Will the Minister look at the Ofsted inspection of prison education provision and Unlocking Potential, the report produced by Dame Sally Coates? However, we need to go much further than that and ensure that every prisoner who needs a programme to tackle his offending behaviour or an intensive drug or alcohol treatment programme can get on to one.

The Minister was right to draw attention to domestic violence, but at present the waiting lists are often far too long. For example, it can take two years for a prisoner assessed as needing a programme to tackle domestic violence to get on to one. That cannot be good enough if the strategy is to stop that sort of reoffending on release.

So many prisoners reach the end of their sentence without work being done that could reduce their risk, and victims of crime suffer as a result. Underlying all this is the fact that we use prison too much and too often. We now have 148 prisoners in England and Wales for every 100,000 people in our general population, compared with 101 in France and 76 in Germany. We are not twice as criminal as Germany, so why do we need to use prison twice as often? As a result of our high use of imprisonment, much of the prison system is overcrowded, overstretched and cannot provide effective rehabilitation for all its prisoners.

The report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons into Brixton prison published this month illustrates these problems graphically. At the time of the inspection in January, two-thirds of prisoners said that they had felt unsafe in the prison. Levels of violence had increased and self-harm incidents had quadrupled since the last inspection of that prison. Prison should be removed as an option for many lower-level offences and sentencing guidelines should scale down the length of sentences except for the most serious offences and the most dangerous offenders.

I urge the Government to think again about their regrettable decision to drop the prison-related elements of their previous Prisons and Courts Bill from the programme for this Session. Those provisions amounted to just 22 clauses. If they were reintroduced in a short prisons Bill, I believe there would be strong all-party backing to ensure its safe passage through this Parliament, and the prospects for reducing the high number of crimes committed by released prisoners would be much better.

In conclusion, £1 billion can buy 10 votes for the length of this Parliament. The same amount could improve our prison system and make it fit for generations to come for a very long time.

17:06

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, like Peter Clarke, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, I was extremely disturbed to note that, despite all the evidence that the long-term and unresolved crisis in our prisons was deepening, there was no mention of any attempt to resolve it in the gracious Speech, as many noble Lords have already pointed out. The need to update the Prison Act 1952 was one reason David Cameron made the Prisons and Courts Bill, which had not completed its passage through the other place at Dissolution and from which prisons now appear to have been dropped, a major part of his 2015 manifesto.

The best evidence that our prisons are in crisis is that two-thirds of them are officially overcrowded, the accuracy of the previous chief inspector’s description of them as places of “violence, idleness and squalor” being acknowledged by Michael Gove when Secretary of State for Justice. Such a deep crisis can be resolved only by carefully thought-through, long-term plans, backed up by consistently sufficient resources. The last Secretary of State, Liz Truss, claimed that her White Paper Prison Safety and Reform, published last November, was a “blueprint” for a once-in-a-generation reform of our prisons, a claim I wish she had not made because it does not stand up to scrutiny.

The last major crisis in our prisons in 1990, the year of the riots in Strangeways and 23 others, was followed, in 1991, by the only previous White Paper on prisons, Custody, Care and Justice, whose centrepiece was 12 priorities which the then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, described as the way ahead for the Prison Service. Unlike Prison Safety and Reform, which appears to have been written in a hurry by one person, its predecessor was painstakingly drawn up under the old Whitehall presumption that White Papers were statements of government policy which had to be implemented. Inexplicably, not one of the 10 following Secretaries of State responsible for prisons—two twice as Home and Justice Secretaries—has implemented it. Judging by his open letter published on 21 June, their number seems likely to be joined by David Lidington, who claimed:

“We know where the problems lie in our prisons, and we know what is needed to fix them”.


If that is so, why on earth have they not been fixed before now?

If only Liz Truss had ignored all the unco-ordinated initiatives of her predecessors and gone back to and updated the 1991 priorities, which were: to improve necessary security measures; to improve co-operation with other services and institutions, by working closely with the probation service and by membership of a national forum and area committees; to increase delegation of responsibility and accountability at all levels, with clear leadership and a published annual statement of objectives; to improve the quality of jobs for staff; to recognise the status and particular requirements of unconvicted prisoners; to provide active and relevant programmes for all prisoners, including unconvicted prisoners; to provide a code of standards for conditions and activities in prisons, which will be used to set improvement targets in the annual contracts made between prison governors and their area managers; to improve relationships with prisoners, including a statement of facilities for each prisoner, sentence plans, consultations, reasons for decisions, and access to an individual appeal body for grievances and disciplinary decisions; to provide access to sanitation at all times for all prisoners; to end overcrowding; to divide the larger wings in prisons into smaller, more manageable units wherever possible; and to develop community prisons, which will involve the gradual realignment of the prison estate into geographically coherent groups, serving most prisoners within that area.

Had these been implemented, we would not be facing today’s crisis. What is so worrying for the future is that, since 1991, there cannot be a single aspect of imprisonment that has not been studied, many times over, by experts, resulting in thousands of recommendations in hundreds of carefully researched reports, the only thing that all have in common being that they have been studiously ignored by the Prison Service and the Ministry of Justice. Having seen the fate of the 1991 The Way Ahead priorities and countless other sensible recommendations, I am sceptical about whether any of those currently in authority, who have resisted outside advice and orchestrated failure for so long, are the right people to implement reform.

If I have one cause for optimism that improvement is possible, it is the quality of so many of the people who work in our prisons. But their continued commitment cannot be taken for granted, and, if there is one thing that the lost years since 1991 have proved, it is that the prison system needs consistent direction and leadership. The stakes are too high for this crisis to remain unresolved any longer, and I beg the Prime Minister to think again.

17:12

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s commitments to work with all the parties in Northern Ireland to support the return of devolved government and to strengthen the bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, which are clearly set out in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech.

Since the former Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland resigned from the power-sharing Executive on 10 January 2017, Northern Ireland has been without a functioning Government. This has caused considerable disruption to the day-to-day functioning of the local administration and has placed some additional burden on the legislative process in this House. Noble Lords may remember the fast-tracked legislation that was required to enable the setting and collection of regional rates in Northern Ireland. Clearly, this administrative and legislative vacuum cannot be permitted to continue much longer.

The Democratic Unionist Party has consistently played a positive role in the ongoing negotiations to achieve an agreement on the restoration of devolved government. We wish to work together with all elected Assembly Members to arrive at a consensus solution—and, unlike other parties, we have set no preconditions. I am convinced that the main concerns of the Northern Ireland electorate are very similar to those of the people of England, Scotland and Wales: namely, the delivery of high-quality health, education and other public services. Petty sectarian wrangling during the current negotiations must not be allowed to frustrate the achievement of these objectives, which requires the re-establishment of stable government in Northern Ireland.

I believe that the Government’s commitment to strengthening the bonds between the constituent nations of the United Kingdom is at least as important as their promise to support the return of devolved government. The decision to leave the European Union has led some to question the present constitutional relationships within the United Kingdom, and in particular it has been suggested that Northern Ireland should be granted “special status” within the EU. Clearly, it is essential that any agreement on resolving the problems surrounding the Irish border, which may form part of the first stage of the Brexit negotiations, is fully discussed with all the relevant parties. In particular, the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland must be consulted during this process. In my view, any solution that requires the erection of tariff barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom would be unacceptable. The economic and cultural unity of the United Kingdom must be preserved.

Both the negotiations among the Northern Ireland parties on devolution and the first stage of the European Union talks involve issues of vital importance for the people of Northern Ireland. We must hope that all the parties involved adopt a constructive approach that will result in an agreement beneficial to all concerned.

In conclusion, I welcome the agreement reached yesterday between the Government and the Democratic Unionist Party to provide additional funding for infrastructure and public services in Northern Ireland. I hope that this agreement will provide an additional incentive for the participants to work towards a speedy and successful conclusion to the devolved negotiations currently taking place. Indeed, I feel fairly optimistic that this will happen. I know that the Democratic Unionist Party looks forward to working with the Government to benefit all in the United Kingdom—and I omitted to declare my interest as a fully paid-up member of the Democratic Unionist Party.

17:17

[The Lord Bishop of Bristol]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate on the gracious Speech. I thank the noble Lords who have spoken thus far in what has been an interesting debate today.

I would like to draw attention to two or three things. The first is the fairly well hidden-away commitment in the gracious Speech to reform mental health legislation in order that mental health services might be prioritised in the NHS. Like much in the speech, the detail is particularly lacking at this point but I hope that noble Lords will join me in saying that that is an important and welcome development.

I think we all realise that mental health has been the Cinderella of the National Health Service, and this has been brought into sharp focus by the terrible statistics that we are learning about on young people’s mental health and, in particular, how mental health services applied to young people are peculiarly stretched at this time. Obviously I am speaking from memory but I seem to recall that my teenage years were the best of my life and were not dogged by depression, anxiety and many of the things that trouble our young people today. I want to hear more from the Government about this and I hope that the Minister will comment on that aspect of the gracious Speech.

Secondly, I want to mention the domestic abuse Bill. I hardly need remind your Lordships’ House of the shocking statistics that accompany this phenomenon in our culture: two women per week are killed by a former or existing partner, and over 2 million cases of domestic abuse are reported every year, most involving men attacking women but not exclusively so. Then there is the very shocking news that 750,000 of our children live in households where they have to witness this kind of abuse. I am told that of those children on the at-risk register, 75% come from homes where domestic abuse exists.

We should be encouraging of these developments in the gracious Speech, not least the direction of the Bill that may come before us. First, it will seek to establish a domestic violence and abuse commissioner. That can be only a good thing, but we will wait and see quite what power and authority such a person will have. Secondly, there is an attempt to do something that has not been done before: to define domestic abuse in the law. While there are some risks with that, it might create cohesion, which will help in drafting a whole raft of aspects of the Bill. It might also help some victims who are not sure whether the behaviour aimed at them is unlawful.

There is a need across the country to create more consistency in the way that police services deal with aspects of domestic abuse. Consolidating domestic abuse offences into one Act may be helpful in that.

It has been mentioned, and I will do so again, that sentencing policy needs to further reflect the damage done to children who live in homes where domestic abuse exists. I look forward to seeing the detail of the Bill.

Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Dholakia, noted that the dropping of the prisons aspect of what was the prisons and courts Bill was a rather worrying development in the gracious Speech. Are we to assume, just for starters, that there will be carryover from the former Bill to the projected courts Bill? In particular on domestic violence, I hope the provision to protect victims of domestic abuse from cross-examination by their ex-partner might be retained. It is a sad thing that the prison and courts Bill has been dropped.

I am not quite as negative as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was about the open letter written by the new Justice Secretary because I felt it nailed some important things. The big question is—I think this is what the noble Lord was chasing after—whether an open letter will make any difference. It is a good thing that his predecessor secured £100 million of funding to secure more prison officers, but then there is the problem of the profile and experience among prison officers, given that a lot of experienced officers have moved on. Just to replace them with newly trained people seems to leave something of a deficit. We want to see a crackdown on drugs, drones sorted out and mobile phones curtailed.

I close by reminding noble Lords what the Justice Secretary said in his letter—that,

“prisons don’t work in isolation. They work within their local communities and with other services—with Probation, Jobcentres, housing, health and drug services, local businesses and charities to provide innovative schemes and initiatives to prepare prisoners for a life after release … Only by building on this work to reform offenders and support ex-offenders will we stop the vicious and costly cycle of reoffending”.

He says that, “This is my priority”. I hope that it is. I hope, no doubt with noble Lords, that what is expressed in his letter may at some point come before us in the form of a Bill that we can get behind to sort out the disgraceful situation in many of our prisons.

These are difficult times. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, reminded us at the beginning of the debate, Her Majesty’s Opposition and all of us want to apply careful scrutiny to what comes before us and, where we can, work together to eradicate the anxiety in our culture, the inequality that dogs our inner culture, and so forth. These are huge challenges and we can only face them together.

17:25

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister has been very generous to the Democratic Unionist Party to the point where she is open to criticism. I suggest that the DUP shows its appreciation and reduces the Prime Minister’s exposure by doing everything it possibly can to restore the Assembly. It should sort out all the issues that Adams is using as an excuse. If he still prevaricates, which I suspect he will, we should get behind plan B, which is a corporate assembly, which could be up and running quite soon and avoid direct rule .

As a result of the success of the pro-union parties in Scotland, a second independence referendum is off the table for now, so we can reflect on the experience, which was messy in the absence of a legislative framework. The solution would be to extend the provisions of the 1998 Belfast agreement, which regulate the holding of a border poll to Scotland. Schedule 1 to the 1998 Act has two important provisions. The first provides that the Secretary of State shall hold a poll,

“if it appears likely to him that a majority of those voting would express a wish that Northern Ireland should cease to be part of the United Kingdom”.

The key words are “Secretary of State”, “likely” and “majority”. The power to hold a referendum rests with the Secretary of State, who can act only if an independence majority is likely. You cannot have a poll just because you want one, because you hope it might produce a change or that it possibly might produce a change. There has to be something more concrete. Obtaining a majority in an election could not trigger a poll because votes in an election rest on a variety of matters and words in a manifesto do not bind the voter. We should remember that part of the reason for having referenda was to take constitutional issues out of day-to-day bread-and-butter politics.

The second point of interest in the 1998 Act is that there cannot be a poll earlier than seven years after a previous poll, which ensures that there will be at least three elections between one referendum and another, which is a reasonable safeguard. That brings us back to Northern Ireland, where the electorate are regularly told that if a certain unionist party does not have more votes than a certain nationalist party the constitution is in peril. That is rubbish. Only a border poll can produce constitutional change. A general election or an Assembly election are irrelevant on that point. In two of our recent elections Sinn Fein have made significant gains. I came across a comment by a nationalist blogger who was anxious to show that these gains had had an effect on the likelihood of a border poll. He said that in a recent Northern Ireland life and times survey there was an indication of increased support for a united Ireland. In looking more closely, he cited an increase only from 31% to 34% and that was the percentage of Catholics supporting a united Ireland, which left out a lot of others. That shows the scare- mongering was far from the truth.

Finally, there is the point also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Empey—the issue of devolve and forget. The three regional Secretaries of State are really now redundant. Their job was to represent their region to the centre. That is now done by the Assemblies and their Ministers. We need a higher profile, centrally based Secretary of State for constitutional issues and the regions. His function should be to be the guardian of the national interest and to promote co-operation among the devolved bodies and between them and the centre. There will then be no forgetting and there will be an avenue for matters to be considered by this Parliament through having that Secretary of State accountable to it.

17:30

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, but I hope that on this occasion he and the House will forgive me if I do not rise to the bait and talk about the issues he has just covered. I want to talk about child refugees, who have not yet been mentioned in our discussions today.

I recall that just before we went away for the election we spent some time discussing child refugees, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I refer to some of those issues. We have two schemes: Section 67 of the Immigration Act and what are called the Dublin III regulations. Under Section 67 for unaccompanied child refugees with no family here, I understand that so far we have taken 200. The Government made a commitment to take another 150 and then, just before the election, said that there had been an error and that there were places for a further 130, making 480 in total. I have tabled a Question on Thursday to confirm the figures—so if the Minister is looking a little askance, she has a chance today or on Thursday to get them right.

Dublin III gives child refugees the right to join their family. I understand that we have taken some 800, almost all from France—although there are other children who qualify and who are in Greece, Italy and elsewhere. In addition, we have the voluntary vulnerable persons refugee scheme from the region, and so far we have taken more than 5,700 to be resettled in this country—just a handful of whom have been children at risk.

I will raise one specific point. As regards the vulnerable persons scheme, I understand that we do not take children who are mentally ill—or at least that UNHCR finds vulnerable children in the camps and has tended not to identify mentally ill children as appropriate for coming to the UK, which has caused some concern. This may not be true and I am not even sure whether UNHCR is the body that is making these decisions; I am simply repeating what I have been told. Nor am I aware of whether this country has any direct input into the criteria applied by UNHCR. So I will move on.

When the Government accepted Section 67 of the Immigration Act, I was assured that they would accept the letter and the spirit of the amendment. They then brought the scheme to a halt, principally on the grounds that there were not enough local authority foster places available. I am afraid that putting that proposition to the test indicated that quite a lot of local authorities were willing to find more foster places for children. Indeed, the Scottish Government also said that they had more places—so I do not think that the Government’s reasoning was other than flawed.

I understand that very few unaccompanied child refugees have gone to Northern Ireland. Given that Northern Ireland now has a financial bonus from the Government—I have tried to use a more tactful word—it seems to me that this is exactly the time when Northern Ireland can do what the rest of the United Kingdom has done and take some child refugees, because it now has the money to do it. I know that there is a willingness on the part of the people of Northern Ireland to do it, so they should get on with it.

A judicial review is taking place in the High Court and I have spent a couple of days listening to it. A decision will be made before too long to test the proposition as to whether local authorities have been properly consulted and whether they are willing to put forward foster places.

All the people involved, including faith groups, community groups and so on, are very keen on this issue and have urged me and others to keep up the pressure on the Government. The situation has been exacerbated by the fact that, since the closure of the Jungle in Calais and the dispersal of children across France, some of them have made their way back to the Channel coast and are living in pretty awful conditions, as are children in Greece and Italy. An agreed approach by the French and British authorities as regards the children in northern France would be helpful. I am not sure that all the children know what their rights are, so, together with the French authorities, we should make clear those rights and explain how they can stay in France or come to this country.

I turn now to difficulties in the Balkans, because quite a few children have fled there from Greece, where they are now trapped. We should look at the possibility that at least some unaccompanied child refugees in the Balkans could find their way to this country. I will refer briefly to refer to family reunion claims. The success rate is low, partly because, say, a Syrian boy in Greece may not be able to identify properly the name and address of an uncle living in Birmingham. That needs to be sorted out.

Briefly, the Government should reopen Section 67 and reconsult local authorities. We should look at children in the Balkans. We should consider scrapping the 20 March cut-off date for eligible children because there are some very vulnerable ones who have been caught by it. We should be more proactive in investigating claims to family reunion. We should support more fully the embassies in France, Greece and Italy, and now in the Balkans, with staff to do this, and we should expand the scheme from the region.

Above all, we should share the responsibility for refugees with other countries. We are doing more than some but less than others, as I am sure the Minister will say when he comes to wind up the debate. We can do better than we are doing.

17:35

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that I speak for everybody when I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his sheer persistence on the issue of child refugees, which we all admire—but I am afraid that I, too, will move on to another topic.

As many of your Lordships will recall, I am probably the only person living who has arranged a confidence and supply arrangement in the House of Commons—which is why I look on the present one with considerable misgiving. In 1977 I led just 14 MPs; the DUP has 10. The first thing that we should note is that such an arrangement is far from being a coalition: the tail should not expect to wag the dog.

We have a Prime Minister who is, to coin a phrase, “just about managing”—but at a huge price. I am not referring just to the pork barrel aspect of the deal with the DUP. The photographs in front of No. 10 are more reminiscent of the rose garden coalition of 2010. You will not find a single photograph of the then Prime Minister with the leader of the Liberal Party in 1977—except at the Cenotaph when we had Margaret Thatcher safely separating us.

A confidence and supply agreement is just that. The DUP said immediately after the election that it would support the Government in the national interest. That should have been the end of the story, and the Conservative journalist Simon Heffer has written that Mrs May’s colleagues are,

“alarmed by the meal she has made of doing what was supposed to be a straightforward deal with the DUP”.

In 1977 I talked with the Prime Minister on a Monday evening and the Lib-Lab pact, as it became known, was agreed by the Cabinet on the Wednesday morning. Today, as then, we were faced with the stark choice of inflicting on the country a third general election in three years or supporting the Government in the national interest in the midst of what was then a financial crisis and now is a Brexit crisis. It worked: the pound immediately rose substantially and over the next 16 months we greatly reduced the destructive rate of inflation. Sadly, James Callaghan decided not to go to the country in the autumn of 1978 after the end of our agreement and soldiered on into the “winter of discontent”.

Today’s long drawn-out and unnecessary negotiations are what the former Conservative Party chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has rightly called “toxic”. That is not just because of the extra money which Scotland and Wales will regard with justified anger, remembering that per head of population Northern Ireland already receives 21% more public expenditure than the rest of the UK—rightly so—and not even because of the DUP’s prehistoric views on gay rights, abortion and climate change. However, in common with the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Reid, I am concerned about the peace process in Northern Ireland, which is so precious to all of us in the UK. Sir John Major has warned of the dangers to it. I have great respect for the Northern Ireland Secretary, James Brokenshire, but he has been put in an impossible position as a supposedly honest broker. If the restoration of devolved government to the Province mentioned by the Minister in her opening speech is not achieved by the deadline this week, he may have to step aside to allow perhaps yet another Senator Mitchell to act as an impartial referee instead. Furthermore, the Government of the Irish Republic must now be wondering what the chances are of maintaining a barrier-free border post Brexit.

The present cobbled-together, extorted and extortionate arrangement reflects badly on the Prime Minister. She will get her programme through the Commons in the short run, but at a terribly damaging price. Strong and stable it is not.

17:40

[Lord Dunlop (Con)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech recognises the importance of strengthening the bonds of our union of four nations. Whatever message the recent elections delivered nationally, the message from Scotland could not have been clearer: overwhelmingly, Scots want the threat of a second independence referendum removed. In the general election, 62% in Scotland voted for parties that support the union, and in a recent poll after the election, 60% of people in Scotland want a second independence referendum taken off the table. Nicola Sturgeon promised to listen and reflect—a novel experience, no doubt—and she needs to. School attainment levels in Scotland are falling, NHS targets are routinely missed, the reorganisation of Police Scotland is a mess and, for a second year running, Scottish farmers are not receiving their payments on time. It begs the question posed recently by the Scottish Government’s former chief economic adviser: are Scots getting value for the extra £1,400 per head of public spending Scotland gets compared to the UK average?

The reality is that today the biggest and most urgent issue facing Scotland is not constitutional but the current fragility of its economy. In the final quarter of last year, economic output in Scotland fell and the performance of the Scottish economy is diverging worryingly from that of the UK as a whole. Throughout 2016 the Scottish economy flatlined when the UK economy as whole grew by nearly 2%. This matters hugely. Fiscal devolution delivered by the Scotland Act 2016 means that public services in Scotland depend on the Scottish economy’s performance as never before, with 50% of its budget funded by revenues raised in Scotland by the end of the decade. If the SNP election slogan, “Stronger for Scotland”, means anything at all, Nicola Sturgeon should have made clear this week that she is removing completely the threat of another independence referendum. Because the very threat itself is adding uncertainty and blighting investment and job creation in Scotland. That is the almost universal view of Scotland’s business community, so despite what has been said this afternoon, I find it regrettable that the First Minister’s statement in the Scottish Parliament this afternoon merely fudges the timetable and does not remove completely the threat of another independence referendum in this Scottish parliamentary term. Removing this threat would create better conditions to reset relations between the UK and Scottish Governments at this critical time. It is right that intergovernmental relations should be conducted with respect, but respect is a two-way street.

My experience as a Minister was that Scottish Government Ministers sometimes approached bilateral and multilateral meetings as if they were show trials with UK Ministers in the dock. I hope that, going forward, there will be a fresh, more constructive approach, with less grandstanding by the Scottish Government, because there is important work that the two Governments need to do together to secure Scotland’s interests, as the gracious Speech makes clear: to get the best deal as we exit the EU; but also ensuring that Scottish legislation is fully operable on departure day as we import EU law into our own domestic law, and that the powers repatriated from Europe are devolved effectively and in a way which strengthens our UK home market. I hope, therefore, that despite some current sabre rattling, the Scottish Government will, in time, be supportive of the great repeal Bill. A second independence referendum seems more remote today than it did a few weeks ago. We would, however, be wise to remember that the separatist risk has not gone away. We need to work tirelessly to remove the threat completely by continuing to build trust and confidence in Britain and in British institutions within Scotland, so that in 2021 we can reclaim the Scottish Parliament as the unionist institution it was always intended to be.

In conclusion, I should like to say a very short word about Northern Ireland. It was my great privilege to serve for two years in the Northern Ireland Office. I had the pleasure to see what a wonderful place Northern Ireland is and the great progress it has made in the last decade. People in Northern Ireland want and deserve the re-establishment of fully functioning devolved institutions, ensuring that Northern Ireland’s voice is heard loud and clear as the EU negotiations proceed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and others, I hope that the current talks bear fruit before Thursday’s deadline and that we see a continuation of the longest unbroken period of devolved government for 45 years.

17:45

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to speak today about housing and support for the most vulnerable in our society. I declare an interest as chair of the National Housing Federation, the trade body which represents England’s housing associations. We were all deeply moved by the tragic news from Grenfell Tower. The level of devastation affecting this community is unimaginable. In the midst of this tragedy, the light in the darkness has been the overwhelming response of the local community and emergency services. The people of Kensington and beyond worked tirelessly to support those affected, offering shelter, supplies and kindness. Our incredible emergency services bravely walked into a scene of incomprehensible horror and danger to save the people of Grenfell Tower. It is truly humbling to see the response to this tragedy and how this community has come together.

The first priority of housing associations is the safety and security of their residents. Since the fire, associations across the country have been completing safety checks, have kept residents up to date on whether their home will need to undergo further testing and have made sure they are aware of all fire safety procedures. Indeed, in the days immediately after the fire, social housing providers offered more than 100 properties from a number of London boroughs to help house those who have been displaced. The National Housing Federation is working alongside the Local Government Association and other sector bodies to deliver the Government’s audit of high-rise blocks. Housing associations are treating this with the utmost urgency, sending samples of cladding to be tested as quickly as possible to ensure that any risks to tenants’ safety are identified and acted on immediately. Housing associations will continue to treat the Government’s audit with the highest priority to ensure that their tenants are safe and that such a tragedy can never happen again.

Turning to the gracious Speech, I welcome the Government’s reiterated commitment to build more homes to address the housing crisis. A report by the charity Shelter, released on Monday, predicted that more than a million households living in private rented accommodation are at risk of becoming homeless by 2020 as a result of rising rents, benefit freezes and lack of social housing. This must not happen: action is needed now. Housing associations will play a critical role in delivering this. In England alone, they provide 2.5 million homes for more than 5 million people. They build a third of all new homes every year and aim to increase this to 127,000 homes annually by 2033. The Government say they want to create fairness and transparency in the housing market. With recent events on our minds and in our hearts, it is important that we build the future of the housing market with compassion and understanding. We must be firm in making sure that all are protected. A truly fair housing market needs to recognise and respect the diversity of the people it serves and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

That leads me to supported housing. Supported housing provides a secure, safe home for people with support needs, housing older people or those with long-term disabilities. The housing association sector is the largest provider of supported and sheltered housing in the country, helping more than 500,000 people across England to live independently and with dignity. England already has a shortfall of nearly 17,000 supported housing places for working-age people. On current trends, this will rise to more than 35,000 places by 2021; the resulting pressure on other services will cost the taxpayer £668 million.

Developing new schemes needs long-term funding. Making a decision that puts the funding of supported housing on a stable footing for the long term cannot wait any longer. Two cross-party committees of MPs, as well as the federation, have supported a proposal for a different level of allowance for supported housing which reflects the actual costs and which should be paid through the benefits system. It is wrong and inappropriate to base the funding of homes for vulnerable and older people on the lowest rent levels in the private rented sector, as the Government propose, albeit with a local top-up. Supply will simply dry up.

So I ask the Minister to urge his colleagues in government to reflect on the current funding model and amend it to reassure those who rely on this housing for independent living and to give the sector the certainty needed to continue delivering and developing new homes. Will the Minister arrange a meeting between the Secretary of State and housing associations so that they can work together to get this system right? This partnership working is the only sustainable way we can tackle the problems affecting housing in this country and deliver safe, affordable and aspirational homes. As we learn from the tragedy at Grenfell Tower, I urge this House to make sure that the housing of our most vulnerable remains our key concern.

17:50

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, I will use the few minutes at my disposal to address the equalities aspects of the gracious Speech, which come against the background of what many of us consider a potentially disastrous arrangement with a party that denies the right of a woman to have autonomy over her own body and denies the rights of the LGBT community. I hope the Government are not prepared to consider giving anything else to the DUP that would threaten our hard-won freedoms on this side of the Irish Sea. Perhaps we can in a small way do something for the people of Ireland. In the Commons, there is an amendment asking the Health Secretary to exercise his right to grant Irish citizens the ability to be considered for free abortions on the NHS in England. I ask the Minister, if such an amendment is tabled in the Lords, to give it favourable consideration.

So to the gracious Speech. First, I welcome what is not in the Speech. I am happy not to have to be considering ending the pensions triple lock, cutting winter fuel payments, the dementia tax, more grammar schools, restricting free school lunches, and of course the Trump state visit. Now to what is there. On what is termed enhancing,

“rights and protections in the modern workplace”,

we would welcome anything that helps individuals to achieve a better work/life balance and fulfil caring responsibilities. We would particularly welcome better protections for those in the workplace with mental health issues.

On the Armed Forces Bill, the proposals to make the Armed Forces a more attractive prospect for women, and the recognition that more flexibility in considering family circumstances will make for a more effective workforce, are welcome.

On the domestic violence and abuse Bill, we welcome any measures that can help eradicate domestic violence and abuse. Many of our laws are outdated and leave victims without the support and protections that they need. But legislation is only half the story. Those implementing that legislation need resources, and services that offer support to victims are being cut by local authorities because of a continually decreasing pot of money from the Government. So my question is: will legislation on domestic violence be matched with the resources to carry out the job?

Finally, my favourite sentence in the gracious Speech is:

“My government will make further progress to tackle the gender pay gap and discrimination against people on the basis of their race, faith, gender, disability or sexual orientation”.


The Liberal Democrats in government passed the equal marriage Act, and drove legislation on gender pay gap reporting. We will now push for further measures in both these areas. Will the Government please look at equal civil partnerships? It is nonsensical that same-sex partners can enjoy the legal and financial protections of a civil partnership while over 2 million mixed-sex couples and 3 million children are denied the same protections. Will the Government develop the good work already started on gender pay gap reporting and extend this requirement to include ethnicity and to companies with more than 250 employees, and extend the target for women on boards to 40%?

My last ask requires no legislation, just a bit of compassion. Will the Government please address the plight of schoolgirls whose “period poverty” prevents them attending school during their period for want of sanitary wear? This is easily fixable, cheap to implement and would enable all girls to attend school all month round. I am sure this measure would find favour in every part of the House.

17:55

[Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)]

My Lords, I start by welcoming the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Reid. He was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for a few years and was held in high regard. He came to know Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland. I also see the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, in his place, and of course the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. Those have been wise words. For far too long, sometimes in this Chamber and the other House, people have spoken about Northern Ireland who have never been to Northern Ireland. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Steel, that he should not get too upset about new money coming to Northern Ireland—to another part of this United Kingdom.

No one could have predicted the outcome of this general election, which of course has left the Democratic Unionist Party in a very influential position, working very much at the heart of government. It is a position of huge responsibility. It is a challenge to represent the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland in a positive and constructive manner. It is a tremendous opportunity, in working with the Government in the national interest, to strengthen the union and deliver the success and wealth that benefit all the nations of this United Kingdom.

I very much welcome what the gracious Speech says about implementing the Armed Forces covenant throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in Northern Ireland, where there have been problems implementing it. We owe a great debt of gratitude to our Armed Forces—our veterans and those serving today.

Brexit has dominated the Queen’s Speech. The country as a whole has voted for Brexit and we must deliver on it. Any attempt to undermine that decision made in the referendum would be totally and absolutely wrong. Of course, Brexit throws up some major problems for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK that has a land border with the Republic of Ireland. Her Majesty’s Government, along with the Irish Government and all the political parties, want the Common Travel Area to remain between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. I know that is very much on the agenda of all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the two Governments. That is welcome. I know that it is also high on the agenda in Europe.

At a time of great change, it is important for Northern Ireland to have a working Assembly and for the Executive to address the needs of the people of Northern Ireland on health issues, education, the economy and the delivery of public services. Those are the people’s priorities and they should be the politicians’ priorities, too.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, I welcome the new money that is coming to Northern Ireland, which I make no apology for. If any other political party had been in the same position as we ended up in after the general election, it would have done exactly the same thing. We have seen that in the past, so we make no apology for the deal that we have struck with the Conservative Party, and it is important to continue to put that on the record. I welcome the new money, which is for the whole of Northern Ireland. The impression has been given that the money is for the Democratic Unionist Party, but it is for the whole of Northern Ireland and it will benefit every community there. There will be investment in schools, infrastructure, roads, housing and jobs. What other part of the United Kingdom would not welcome such investment?

The critical issue now—I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, who raised it—is getting the Assembly up and running so that it has a hand in spending the money. It would be a tragedy if direct rule Ministers had to spend the money that is coming to Northern Ireland. There is a huge challenge, and the agreement that the Conservative Party has reached will encourage the Executive and the Assembly to get up and running sooner rather than later. This is a good deal for Northern Ireland, for Government and for the people of Northern Ireland.

18:01

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I think that all parts of the House wish Northern Ireland well. A number of speeches today have been made by politicians from Northern Ireland and those with experience of it.

The electorate’s decision not to give the Prime Minister the parliamentary equivalent of a blank cheque means that the Government need to make a genuine attempt to make a success of cross-party co-operation across a range of the policies under discussion today. Leaving the EU will require not only the great reform Bill but an estimated 10 to 15 other Bills to create new policy frameworks in areas that are currently governed by EU law. That will not be achieved by the Government sanctimoniously invoking parliamentary conventions or trying to bully or intimidate this House.

My noble friend Lord Tyler will deal with these matters in more detail but, like him, I was a member of the Cunningham committee on conventions, which reported in 2006. For me, the committee’s most important finding was that, in rare and exceptional circumstances, this House must retain the right to say no. Without that right, although it has been rarely used over the past 70 years, we become a debating society and the House of Commons becomes what the late Lord Hailsham described as an elective dictatorship. I urge the Government really to address the problem and the need for co-operation between the parties to get this massive amount of legislation through properly. The Hansard Society says in a briefing note that it sent today that it is about to publish a range of proposals on how the matter may be dealt with properly and in an orderly fashion. I urge the Government to grab with both hands the initiative by that society and to involve all parties in taking it forward; otherwise, we will have a car crash.

Like others, I regret the omission of the prisons and courts Bill from the gracious Speech. I have great admiration for the new Justice Secretary, David Lidington. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, I think that the Justice Secretary’s open letter on the matter, published on 21 June, was a welcome assurance that penal reform has not disappeared from his radar. I hope that he will note the great wave of positive good will that greeted Michael Gove when, as Secretary of State, he positioned himself as an out-and-out prison reformer. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, indicated, legislation is not always required to take forward penal reform.

Fortunately, Mr Lidington does not have to look far for good ideas. There is the Corston report on women in the criminal justice system; the Laming report on looked-after children; Dame Sally Coates’s suggestions on education in adult prisons, which my friend Lord Dholakia mentioned; and the parallel report about education in the youth justice system by Charlie Taylor, my successor as chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. There is the report by the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Hornsey, on the experiences of young black and Muslim men in our criminal justice system, with a further report from David Lammy MP expected in the autumn. There is the report by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, on deaths in custody and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on mental health provision in prisons and the criminal justice system. All those excellent reports are brimming with good ideas, many of which do not require legislation. What is needed is a Secretary of State to give impetus, direction and leadership, and I hope that David Lidington will provide that.

There are also areas where the House can give that impetus and leadership. I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has already tabled a Question on the backlog of IPP prisoners. I look forward to supporting my noble friend Lord Dholakia in the passage of his Bill to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14.

I welcome the announcement in the gracious Speech that a commission for countering extremism and a counterterrorism strategy review will be established. I was pleased to see the news that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, had been involved in discussions on those matters. It is absolutely essential to hear the communities’ voices in mapping the way forward in both areas and to avoid undermining the counterextremism work by creating counterterrorism powers that act as recruiting sergeants for extremism because things are being done to, and not with, the communities involved. My noble friend Lord Paddick gave that warning.

A hung Parliament is not a disaster; a disaster is when the election result produces a Government that, while claiming to be strong and stable, are simply arrogant and unwilling to listen. That is the bullet that we dodged on 8 June.

18:07

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

My Lords, I am very glad indeed to see the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, in her place and with the same responsibilities. Working with her on what became the Criminal Finances Act 2017 was very rewarding. That Act received Royal Assent on 27 April—absolutely in the nick of time—and is now on the statute book, thanks almost entirely to her hard work and determination. It is the implications of that Act that I will address in my brief remarks.

The Act is about exposing money laundering, attacking corruption, trying to ensure that less of the world’s wealth finds its way illegitimately into the offshore anonymous bank accounts of highly placed persons who have misappropriated it or evaded taxes on it and instead ensuring that more of the world’s wealth goes to enabling millions of people to live healthy and fulfilling lives. The Act is a substantial step in that direction, but there is still much to do to ensure that the Act lives up to its promise and to take further the previous Government’s excellent anti-corruption work. I fear that much of the impetus will be lost as Brexit swallows up many of our ambitions.

The Conservative manifesto promised that the Government would,

“strengthen Britain’s response to white collar crime”,

which was a welcome statement. Less welcome was the manifesto promise to incorporate the Serious Fraud Office into the National Crime Agency. This is not mentioned in the gracious Speech; it is perhaps a good thing if it does not surface again. It was widely opposed and, just this week, the Serious Fraud Office has taken action against a major British bank for fraud and unlawful financial assistance. It has charged the bank itself, a former boss of Barclays Bank and three ex-directors. This is the first time that a UK bank has faced criminal charges directly related to the financial crisis of 2008. The Serious Fraud Office will, I hope, be left to carry on with its important work.

I turn to the Criminal Finances Act and its potential impact. Unexplained wealth orders brought in by the Act are a new mechanism for dealing with individuals who it is suspected have acquired their assets illicitly. Their introduction was warmly welcomed by all those concerned to see more powers to deal with the huge amount of illicit money finding its way to the UK. These orders now need to be well used. A draft code of practice in relation to them was produced at the very end of the previous Session. Can the Minister tell us when the public consultation on this code is likely to take place and when we can expect to see the first unexplained wealth order made?

Much useful discussion took place about the need for more transparency in the British Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies and about the companies that are registered there. So it is gratifying to see that, on 30 June, the Beneficial Ownership Secure Search System Act will come into force in the British Virgin Islands. This will allow the sharing of information about the ownership of the 417,000 companies registered there. I hope that the Minister can give some assurances that this matter remains on the Government’s agenda.

Finally, I come to the question of what the noble Baroness called the clear abuse of the London property market and high-value properties across the country. She said:

“We must not allow this city”—


that is, London—

“to be a haven for kleptocrats hiding their ill-gotten gains”.—[Official Report, 25/4/17; col. 1333.]

Many people would agree with her. In April, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy published a call for evidence about a public register of beneficial ownership of foreign companies that own property in the UK. The House was told on 25 April that, subject to the outcome of the general election, it remained the Government’s intention to introduce the legislation to create such a register. This was not, however, in the gracious Speech. Can the Minister tell us whether this remains the Government’s intention and, if so, when there is likely to be progress in producing one?

18:13

[Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)]

My Lords, I want to focus my remarks on the gracious Speech on the strengthening of our United Kingdom and its prioritisation in that speech, and to talk specifically about Scotland. When I signed up for the debate today, I did not realise how topical the situation of Scotland would be, thanks to the First Minister’s statement of this afternoon. I would like to cover the context of the constitutional debate in Scotland, the general election result there and the response of the First Minister and, finally, how I think the union can be strengthened.

We must not forget that the context of the existential debate that has taken place in Scotland since 2012 as to whether it should remain part of the United Kingdom was based on a premise that, in 2012, 90% of Scots supported a referendum. Whether they intended to vote yes or no, 90% of Scots believed that the Edinburgh agreement signed by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, and the then First Minister, Alex Salmond, was the correct way forward. There was public consent for a referendum in 2014. That is a very important premise for any future discussion of referenda.

In September 2014, as everyone knows, Scotland voted decisively to remain part of the UK. I should say that the issue of a potential Brexit had been fully campaigned upon by those supporting a yes vote at that referendum. It is incredible now to reflect on the assertion from the SNP and Nicola Sturgeon that when Scots voted in that 2014 referendum, they did not recognise that there was a potential risk of Brexit. At that time, it was also made clear by Mr Salmond and Ms Sturgeon that the result of the referendum would be respected and that it was a once-in-a-generation opportunity for Scots to make the decision on their constitutional future.

There is no doubt that, thereafter, the politics in Scotland were decisively reshaped around that constitutional issue. Suddenly, all politics—as well as cultural and social views—were shaped around whether individuals had supported a yes or no vote in that referendum. This split of the electorate, along with a honeymoon period for Nicola Sturgeon, resulted in the SNP’s 2015 general election triumph. It took 50% of the popular vote and 56 out of 59 MPs. Then hubris set in. Suddenly, independence for nationalists became a matter of when, not if—one more heave and Scotland would be free, they cried. A heavy remain vote in Scotland in 2016 gave them, they thought, the excuse for another referendum on Scotland’s place within our United Kingdom. However, Ms Sturgeon had reckoned without two things: first, that most Scots did not want another referendum and, secondly, that Her Majesty’s Government were able to represent public opinion in Scotland better than she by saying that now was not the time for a second referendum. On Ms Sturgeon ploughed, avoiding for a year within the Scottish Parliament all legislation to deal with the significant domestic crisis that we have heard about today. She focused rather on a desire for an immediate referendum.

Earlier this month, we saw the result of that. The Scottish nationalists lost 21 of their Members of Parliament and 500,000 votes in a general election which, in Scotland, was widely framed around the issue of a second referendum. The people of Scotland do not want another referendum. I am very disappointed that today, as my noble friend Lord Dunlop said, the First Minister did not take the opportunity to take that off the agenda. The Prime Minister, supported by the leaders of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats, made the point forcefully that Scotland did not want a referendum now; the people responded to that, as your Lordships would expect them to.

As unionists, though, we cannot in any way be complacent about the future of our United Kingdom. We have seen the work it is necessary for the UK Government to do to represent Scottish public opinion, working with the devolved Administration to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland out of Brexit, along with the rest of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State and my noble friend Lord Dunlop have spent hours, days and weeks working with Scottish stakeholders to ensure that Scots are fully engaged in that Brexit process. It is very important that Her Majesty’s Government play their full and legitimate part in the governance of Scotland as we move forward.

18:18

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much agree with the comments about Scotland that have just been made but I would like to turn the House’s attention again to Northern Ireland, and to Wales.

I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Reid and the noble Lords, Lord Hay and Lord Browne, with regard to the money needed in Northern Ireland. I do not begrudge the people of Northern Ireland the money that has come their way through this deal. I spent five years of my life, either as Finance Minister for Northern Ireland or as Secretary of State, trying to persuade successive Treasury Ministers and Chancellors of the Exchequer of the importance of extra spending in Northern Ireland. After all, the Troubles visited decades of misery and destruction on Northern Ireland. People lost their jobs, the economy was very slow, the infrastructure was destroyed in some parts and many people fled to come to work here in Great Britain, so the need for the money is unquestionable. Similarly, Brexit means that streams of funding for Northern Ireland, such as the peace money, are going to disappear completely, and if the border situation is not resolved, the economies of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland could be adversely affected. Of that I have no doubt, so the money is needed, but there are implications. As my noble friend Lord Reid said, the implications for the negotiations that are going on across the Irish Sea for the next three days are hugely significant. We could be three days away from direct rule in Northern Ireland, and that would be calamitous.

The Government have to take into account the point my noble friend made about perception with regard to the chairmanship of the talks. There is no doubt that the British Government, like the Irish Government, are seen as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement and as impartial, neutral, honest brokers. If the very survival of the present Government in Westminster rests upon a deal with one of the parties in Northern Ireland then unquestionably there is a problem. That is exacerbated by the fact that there is no longer a single nationalist representative in either House of Parliament. All three SDLP Members lost their seats at the general election, tragically in my view, so only one point of view is heard here and in another place. I also agree that there is a case, if these talks are successful, and indeed if they are not, for an independent chair, like George Mitchell, coming to oversee any discussions in future.

The other implication is with regard to the funding arrangements for Scotland and Wales. They are based upon the Barnett formula. It is not an easy formula, and some people do not like it very much, but at least it is a formula that is used across all three countries and nations of the United Kingdom. Increasingly, Governments are now using other ways of giving money to those three countries, bypassing the Barnett system. That is not necessarily a good thing because it means that people can feel unfairly treated. There is now a case for the devolved Administrations and the Government to get together as soon as possible to try to ensure that the funding arrangements are regularised for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Of course, there is the issue of Wales. Had the same formula been used as in the deal with the DUP, Wales would have received something like £2 billion. It has not had it. Naturally it feels aggrieved. There is no question that so far as the people of Wales are concerned Brexit will be financially difficult, indeed disastrous. Seventy per cent of Welsh exports go to Europe, and there are streams of funding for agriculture, industry and economic development in Wales that will disappear overnight. Therefore Wales too needs money, and the sooner the Government get their act together on funding for the devolved Administrations, the better.

Finally, what of the Conservative Party’s promises in its manifesto with regard to Wales? It promised a growth deal for north Wales, new rail infrastructure for south Wales, the abolition of the Severn Bridge tolls and other things too. What happens now? Is the money going to be available for those promises to be made into reality or is the money gone because it has gone to Northern Ireland? Who knows? I look forward to the Minister replying later this evening.

18:23

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, we have a new Lord Chancellor. He is somebody I know and respect, but we should remind him of two challenges that he faces. The first is that he must uphold and promote the rule of law and the independence and quality of the judiciary. I believe that he intends to do this. However, as well as being ready publicly to defend the judiciary, he has got to be ready to address the problem of morale and recruitment which currently exists in the senior judiciary such that it is becoming difficult to fill some of the vacancies that arise while maintaining, as it is right to do and as we must do, the high-quality standard that we insist on for the judiciary. We may have to look at the retirement age again. It is becoming more illogical to enforce the retirement age of 70 if we are to deal with the situation in the short term—but, in the longer term, there are many more things to be done. When referring to the rule of law, he also has to recognise his responsibility to the integrity and quality of the law. When the Brexit process really gets under way, I hope that he will play a role in insisting that it is done properly and that Parliament scrutinises properly and adequately the vast corpus of law that will be transferred.

His second major challenge has been referred to by my noble friends Lord Dholakia and Lord McNally and by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in powerful speeches. It is the situation in the prisons, where the level of violence, suicide and self-harm is appalling, where prison officers are being put at far too high a level of risk from violence and where reoffending levels are far too high—yet Ministers pretend that prison numbers are not an issue. The gracious Speech at one point hints at further intervention to lengthen sentences. Prison is a very expensive resource, and the more it is overused, the less effective it is, because conditions inside prisons are not then rehabilitative. The absence of the prisons element of the former Prisons and Courts Bill is an unfortunate signal to have given. There is a lot that can be done without legislation, but it would have been better to have had a positive signal that that Bill was still on the road.

I can create some space for the Lord Chancellor to do these things because there are a number of things that he does not need to do. He does not need to mess around with the civil rights of British citizens by making changes in our adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights. He is going to have to lock Mr Dominic Raab in a room somewhere in the Ministry of Justice for further extensive study of the matter, but no proposals need to come forward.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, pointed out, the Lord Chancellor should not abolish the Serious Fraud Office. That proposal was not in the Queen’s Speech, and I hope it has been buried. It is an improved organisation, not a perfect one. It is a prosecuting agency in a field where successful prosecution is extremely difficult. It would not fit in the National Crime Agency, which is a police-led investigating body—so I hope that this proposal is a dead parrot, to quote an old phrase. However, it might be an opportunity to look again at the funding model of the Serious Fraud Office which is frankly bizarre. More than half of its spending does not come from its annual budget because the Treasury approves its major prosecutions on a one-off basis. It is not an ideal arrangement and it leads to short-term decisions about the recruitment of legal support for the prosecutions that it undertakes.

Finally, looking beyond the MoJ, and with the welcome presence of the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, who I know will try to answer my question—and if he cannot do it tonight will do it by letter—I want to refer to growth deals. The Conservative manifesto contained an interesting commitment to bring forward a borderlands growth deal, including all councils on both sides of the border, to help secure prosperity in southern Scotland. Since the early 1970s, I have been arguing for cross-border working of this kind. Does that fall within the commitment in the gracious Speech that it will be a priority,

“to build a more united country, strengthening the social, economic and cultural bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales”?

I presume that that phrase was not written to refer to the £1 billion deal that so many noble Lords have referred to—but that is the only deal that has emerged over recent days. Is there any substance or serious commitment to a borderlands growth deal, which would be quite complex to bring into existence? What discussions are planned between the authorities involved on both sides of the border—in the Scottish Borders, Northumberland and Cumbria for example? I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, will seek to find an answer to that question.

18:29

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I will address a matter which risks getting lost in the battle for Brexit but which urgently needs Home Office attention. I refer to the hundreds of thousands of severely and chronically ill patients whose symptoms are currently not controlled. These patients are enduring years or whole lives with appalling symptoms and side-effects of prescribed medications. Tens of thousands of patients are risking arrest every day in order to obtain from illegal drug dealers the one medicine—cannabis—which they say controls their pain or other symptoms with minimal side effects. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug—the schedule for dangerous drugs with no medicinal properties. This is outrageous, frankly: contrary to the evidence and cruel to patients.

Ministers have shied away from reform in fear of the Daily Mail. Well, the Daily Mail has become enlightened on this issue—although I cannot believe it, frankly. Ministers would do well to read the excellent article by Jonathan Gornall in the Daily Mail on Tuesday 2 May. The article focuses on Faye—this is where we become a bit more sombre—who woke up one morning, poor girl, with crippling rheumatoid arthritis, aged 27. A life sentence. Every joint from her jaw to her toes was swollen, stiff and incredibly painful. The drugs prescribed for Faye, she says,

“became more disruptive to daily life than the disease itself”—

difficult to imagine. They left her constantly sick, in a brain fog, and suffering panic attacks and from low blood sugar—this is all in the Daily Mail. Faye was determined to work but obviously she could not if she remained on the prescribed drugs. She heard about cannabis—nervously, I am sure—and, for the first time in her life, tried it using a vaporizer. Faye now also takes a nightly pill of cannabis oil, but no other medication, and claims that her quality of life is now 98% of what it was before she was diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. I have to say that I am staggered. The Daily Mail asks whether Faye should be prosecuted for using cannabis oil to ease her chronic pain—obviously not.

The Minister could resolve this scandalous position by signing an order to reschedule cannabis to schedule 2 or 4—a little stroke of the pen. There is international research to support such a reform. Professor Mike Barnes, in his research review, shows that the human brain and other organs contain an endocannabinoid system. This system modulates pain, controls movement, protects nerve cells and plays a role in other key brain processes. It is not then surprising that the plant cannabis, with umpteen cannabinoids, can benefit us by mimicking the effects of our own endocannabinoid system.

Barnes finds good evidence for cannabis in the management of chronic pain, including neuropathic pain; spasticity; nausea and vomiting, particularly in the context of chemotherapy; and anxiety. There is also moderate evidence of medicinal benefit for sleep disorders; appetite stimulation, again in the context of chemotherapy; fibromyalgia; PTSD; and some symptoms of Parkinson’s disease. I could go on, but would no doubt bore your Lordships. Eleven countries in Europe, including Germany and the majority of US states, recognise cannabis as a legitimate medicine. The UN now recognises the need for reform within the UN conventions and that drug policy should finally, after 50 to 60 years, become evidence based. Last October, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, declared one of the two major ingredients of cannabis, CBD, a medicine. It is difficult to argue that this plant has no medical value.

Police officers are refusing to arrest patients found with cannabis. Of course, if people overdose drastically on cannabis, or children take it regularly, this will not be good for them. But, of course, the same applies to aspirin, does it not? I simply want to get across to Ministers and to Members of your Lordships’ House that a civilised country can no longer justify treating this precious plant as a dangerous drug with no medicinal value. No one has ever been killed by cannabis; people die every day as a result of taking alcohol, tobacco and prescribed medicines.

There is no possible justification for our laws as they stand. It is time for the Government to act. Will the Minister give an assurance to your Lordships’ House that this matter will be referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for advice?

18:34

[Lord German (LD)]

Like the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Faulks, and my noble friends Lord Dholakia, Lord Beith and Lord McNally, I am also trying to understand why the Government have failed to bring back the prisons element of the Prisons and Courts Bill, which fell at the general election. Noble Lords will know there was broad support for the prisons element in that Bill, and although it had its flaws, in its rationale, it had the potential to be a milestone for the rehabilitation of offenders.

That milestone was a recognition of the importance of rehabilitation as a principle. In bringing forward the legislation, the Government said:

“The Prisons and Courts Bill paves the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation”,


and,

“sets out a new framework and clear system of accountability for prisons”.

These are the important words:

“It will enshrine into law that a key purpose of prison is to reform and rehabilitate offenders, as well as punish them for the crimes they have committed”.


That important objective has now been dropped from the Government’s legislative programme. The failure to include prison reform in that programme damages the social and financial fabric of our society and our country as we seek to reduce reoffending.

The Government have just received the second of two highly critical inspection reports of their handling of the reduction of reoffending issue, the most recent of which was earlier this month. So a cynic might be drawn to the conclusion that this matter has been dropped because the approach taken thus far is failing. Previous debates in your Lordships’ House indicated that the previous Bill had two main areas where there was broad support: first, the proposal to recognise in law that the main purpose of prisons is rehabilitating offenders; and, secondly, that devolution of decision-making within an overarching strategy of reform was both essential and appropriate.

However, the practice and delivery which sit behind the principle are woeful. Like many others in your Lordships’ House, I am used to reading critical reports, but I have never read one as strongly critical as the joint inspection report on rehabilitation released earlier this month by Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Probation. This single sentence from both HM Chief Inspectors gives you the flavour:

“If Through the Gate services were removed tomorrow, in our view the impact on the resettlement of prisoners would be negligible”.


In other words, the millions of pounds being spent by the Government on their rehabilitation of offenders programme is having no effect. The inspectors further state:

“The gap between aspiration and reality is so great, that we wonder whether there is any prospect that these services will deliver the desired impact on rates of reoffending”.


Is this why the relevant section on the Government’s website relating to the Prison and Courts Bill was declared obsolete just 24 hours before the Queen’s Speech?

There is a second question I must ask the Government. Since they have already put in place a structure for delivery which has a big stamp on it now saying “failing”, is it the Government’s intention to pursue some of their additional delivery mechanisms through secondary legislation? Secondary legislation would be seen as an escape route for the Government from proper scrutiny by Parliament. Like other noble Lords, I will continue to test the Government against their delivery, but the big loss will be that of enshrining in legislation that one of the prime purposes of our prisons is the rehabilitation of offenders. This was a fundamental move which would have altered the way in which we view our justice system—a change in the foundation of our justice system which would have underpinned all our actions.

The second inspection report bears out what I have observed when visiting rehabilitation companies: poor integration into mainstream prison activity; poor contract design; a lack of joined-up government thinking, particularly between the MoJ and the DWP; and a concentration on writing rehabilitation plans rather than simply helping people with their difficulties. That is a triumph of bureaucracy over action. Your Lordships’ House is entitled to ask why the Government have not put their legislative underpinning in place. I very much hope for a satisfactory answer when the Minister sums up later tonight.

18:39

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

There are so many issues in the gracious Speech that I would like to tackle. I would like to talk about nuclear safeguards, agriculture and fisheries and the folly of HS2. However, I will try to contain my enthusiasm—or my fury—and talk about only two or possibly three issues.

First, I want to speak about counterterrorism. I would welcome any legislation being brought forward that kept the police and the security services focused on the real problem of terrorism and serious crime rather than their wasting time and our money monitoring green campaigners, anti-fracking protesters, journalists and elected politicians. The Government’s manifesto said that they would consider what new offences or aggravated offences might be needed, but I recommend that your Lordships’ House block any legislation that does not include a clear definition of an extremist.

Some noble Lords may be aware that I was on the domestic extremism database for more than 10 years. At the time I was an elected politician, I was on the oversight body for the Metropolitan Police Authority and I was successfully working with the police on all sorts of issues, including road crime, FGM and protecting their National Wildlife Crime Unit. Just to be clear, the wildlife crime unit deals with things like the import of exotic, threatened and endangered species, rather than naughty squirrels. It is likely that my personal emails were hacked by police officers, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission is currently investigating the reasons for the hasty destruction of my file and any evidence of hacking that it might have contained, a file that was destroyed despite the Met commissioner specifically ordering that such files should not be deleted.

There is also a proposal for a commission on extremism. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Max Hill QC, has said that we do not need new laws to tackle the current terrorist threat; we need to use the laws that we have and resource the agencies responsible for upholding them. Despite that, the Government appear keen to legislate, not for terrorism but for what they call “non-violent extremism”. So the new statutory commission for countering extremism will,

“identify examples of extremism and expose them”.

The simple fact is that it is impossible at the moment to agree a definition of what constitutes an extremist—a terrorist, yes; an extremist, no. One person’s non-violent extremist is another’s political hero. We have to be very careful with these terms.

The Met police currently use a very clear definition of “domestic extremists”, which restricts it to those involved in terrorism or serious crime, but they regard this as guidance only, which means that they can use it or not as they please—and, of course, they please to use it on people like me. In the past the police have wasted large amounts of their time on monitoring Greenpeace campaigners or people like me, and one can imagine all sorts of people being labelled “extremists”, particularly in the current political climate. Why should I be a domestic extremist but not the DUP? I would argue that I threaten fewer of our national values than it does. We especially do not want our own distinctively British brand of McCarthyism. That is incredibly important.

The second issue that I want to tackle is climate change, particularly in view of Brexit. I think everyone will agree that the gracious Speech was rather light on any reference to the environment. It was in there—it came right at the end, just before the mention of the royal visit of the King and Queen of Spain—but it is in fact the greatest global threat that we face, and it deserves a little more prominence in our Government’s thinking. We need an environmental protection Act. Such an Act would cut through all the political ideology of left and right that often sidelines the environment. It would be an evidence-based long-term approach to the problem, and it would infiltrate every aspect, so that when we talked about economics or business we would be thinking about the environment at the same time. Crucially, it would have to be via primary legislation, which would guarantee a proper level of parliamentary scrutiny and oversight.

We also need a clean air Act. It is obvious that at the moment we have a huge public health problem with dirty air, especially in our urban centres, and it is time that we dealt with it. A lot of the regulation on the environment needs primary legislation, including, for example, an independent agency similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States. We need to take climate change seriously, and if we do not it will be the worse for all of us.

18:45

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I want to use the short time available to speak on two issues that have been touched upon in the gracious Speech and to highlight one issue that, sadly, has not been.

As Victims Commissioner for England and Wales, I very much welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an independent public advocate who will act for bereaved families following a public disaster and support them at public inquests. Bereaved families and victims need to be kept informed and assisted in their understanding of the often complex processes leading up to and during an inquest. In certain cases, they also deserve to have their voices heard at the inquest. I believe an independent public advocate provides the appropriate means to do so.

However, I want to see that proposal extended beyond victims of a public disaster. I am only too aware from my role as Victims Commissioner that there are many families suffering bereavement following homicide who face these complex proceedings and inquest hearings without any support. In particular, I am thinking of those who face what are termed Article 2 inquests: those who have lost loved ones and it is alleged that the state or a statutory agency has some culpability. This might include cases where domestic homicide reviews identify failings from agencies or where alleged perpetrators were, for example, subject to probation or medical supervision. Many such cases will attract very little political or media interest. However, bereaved families are not legally represented at inquest hearings unless they are able to fund representation themselves. The statutory agencies, on the other hand, may well have publicly funded representation or may be able to afford the best representation to fight their corner. How can this be fair and described as a level playing field? As much as the proposal is to be welcomed, I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the Government consider extending their proposal to ensure that the offer of a public advocate is made to all bereaved victims who may need it.

I was pleased to see the Government include a commitment to tackling domestic violence as one of their legislative priorities. I know the Prime Minister has taken a close personal interest in this issue, and I welcome that commitment. In principle, I broadly welcome the proposal to appoint a domestic violence and abuse commissioner, but I am afraid that I must add a caveat to that welcome. Appointing a commissioner must not be simply ticking the box. She or he needs to be given the tools to make a real difference. By that, I mean that they must be given appropriate statutory powers, including ensuring that key agencies have a duty to co-operate with the commissioner, who in turn should have the power to make recommendations that require a formal response. The new commissioner will also need to be properly resourced, with a multidisciplinary team and the ability to recruit from outside government to ensure that they have people with the skills needed as well as the practical experience of supporting victims of domestic violence. Without such powers and resources, little could be achieved and victims would simply feel that it was window dressing.

As Victims Commissioner, I look forward to working with the Home Office on the new role, and I hope that this discussion will happen soon. In the meantime, I would like to clarify my understanding of the remit of the role. Domestic violence can cover certain types of child abuse, sexual violence and honour-based violence, but only if those crimes are committed within the Government’s definition of domestic abuse. So are we saying that if a domestic violence commissioner identifies good practice in any of these areas, their recommendations may apply only to domestic scenarios? To some, that distinction may seem artificial. I therefore ask the Minister whether further consideration might be given to whether the role should be expanded to cover all forms of sexual violence.

Finally, for the second year running, I put on record my huge disappointment that the gracious Speech makes no reference to a victims’ law. The Government’s manifesto made an encouraging reference to victims:

“We will enshrine victims’ entitlements in law, making clear what level of service they should expect from the police, courts and criminal justice system”.


This commitment echoed the commitment given in 2015 to a victims’ law. Victims have waited patiently for Governments to place their entitlements in statute. Whereas offenders have rights within the criminal justice system, currently victims have a code, which lawyers tactfully describe as persuasive guidance. Introducing a victims’ law is a real opportunity for the Government to ensure that victims receive the entitlements they deserve and that they are treated with dignity and respect. It is an opportunity to ensure that these entitlements are enforceable and that victims have a clear means of redress when they failed to receive the support that they are entitled to expect.

Sadly, victims do not feel that their voice has been heard, so I ask the Government to take steps to show that they are truly listening to victims and are prepared to act. After all, justice cannot be for one side alone. It must be for both.

18:51

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, today’s debate overlaps to some extent with tomorrow’s, and some of my observations, while constitutional and on devolution affairs, also affect our exiting the European Union. My first point is on the cost of our divorce from the EU. Many large and varied figures have been bandied about. Will the Government demand full transparency of all EU assets and expenditure, given that the EU accounts have not been given the all-clear for 19 years? While the Court of Auditors found them “reliable”, whatever that may mean, they were also materially affected by errors, for example, to the tune of €109 billion out of €117 billion spent in 2014. These errors may be only a small part of the problem, but the point is the general application of full transparency. We have an old legal adage: “He who seeks equity must come with clean hands”.

Secondly, I seek an assurance that when the responsibility for a subject is repatriated to the UK on exiting, there will be no attempt to claw it back by Westminster. Agriculture, and the necessary finance to replace the funding from Brussels with that from Westminster, is one example that I have in mind. A subject, once devolved, remains devolved and cannot be clawed back.

Thirdly, under the Sewel convention, the Westminster Government do not normally legislate on devolved matters without getting legislative consent from the relevant devolved legislatures. This is reflected in the Scotland Act 2016 and the Wales Act 2017. According to the Supreme Court in Miller, the convention is political and does not give rise to obligations. The Prime Minister said in the Commons on 21 June:

“There is a possibility that a legislative consent motion may be required in the Scottish Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/6/17; col. 62.]


The Leader of the Commons kicked that into touch on 22 June, when she said that a decision will be taken on whether a legislative consent Motion is needed at that point.

If I heard correctly, the Minister said today that legislative consent Motions will be necessary, where required. If I am right, could that be confirmed? I would be grateful for confirmation of what I thought I heard today. If I am right, we have moved substantially forward in recent days.

My fourth and last point concerns the triggering of another general election. Brenda from Bristol would be aghast that I am even mentioning it. The Times was good enough to publish last week my views on the law regarding any request for a second Dissolution. As a matter of history, the then leader of the Opposition asked me in 1992 about the position of a Prime Minister who had failed to obtain a Commons majority in a general election requesting a second Dissolution. I consulted widely eminent constitutional lawyers, such as Sir William Wade and Sir David Williams, and we believed that such a request then would be improper, as it would,

“smack of an attempt to get a recount of the electorate’s first decision”.

The machinery of a request under the royal prerogative has now been superseded by the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. In April this year, the Prime Minister moved under Section 2(2) of that Act:

“That there shall be an early parliamentary general election”,


and got the required majority for a Dissolution, the result of that Division being 522 to 13. Parliament cannot now otherwise be dissolved.

As we know, in the election, the Prime Minister failed to get the Commons majority that she expected. In the Act, there is nothing to prevent the Prime Minister trying to get the House of Commons to pass a Motion for yet another Dissolution. This is an unintended consequence of the Act. It must be strictly interpreted and is confined to dissolving Parliament, and dissolving Parliament only. Choosing a Prime Minister, from whatever party, remains a matter for the royal prerogative. The convention on precedent before the Act, rather than then having a second Dissolution, was for the leader of the Opposition commanding the support of a substantial number of Members of the House of Commons, to be given the opportunity to form a Government. Rather than further Dissolutions, reverting to the convention, which is unaffected by the Act, should be the first port of call. I commend it.

18:57

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the White Paper on Brexit of 2 February stated that,

“the UK will continue to participate fully in EU security and criminal justice measures while we remain a member of the EU”,

and continued:

“As we exit, we will therefore look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism”.


That was the promise.

The House of Commons Justice Committee published an important report on 22 March, Implications of Brexit for the Justice System. Written evidence was received from the Ministry of Justice which highlighted the significance of our membership of Europol, the European arrest warrant, Eurojust, which maintains joint investigative teams on individual cases, the European Criminal Records Information System, which gives access to EU data-sharing platforms and agreements, and the EU prisoner transfer agreement. The Ministry of Justice further stated in its evidence:

“We are exploring options for cooperation arrangements once the UK has left the EU … it would be wrong to set out unilateral positions on specific measures in advance of negotiations”.


We have 19 months to go before we fall off the cliff.

In a written memorandum of 6 March, Professor Tim Wilson, an expert in this field, the chair of the Criminal Bar Association and the chair of the Criminal Law Solicitors’ Association jointly set out their concerns. They stated that,

“nowhere is there such a comprehensive, integrated and efficient multinational system for co-operation as within the EU”.

After Brexit, there will have to be in place UK law sufficiently well grounded to work in a manner that is not damaging to the UK legal system.

Take the European arrest warrant, available only to members of the EU. Norway and Iceland have spent 15 years trying to join. Theresa May herself, when Home Secretary, pointed out that without the EAW we fall back on the Council of Europe convention of 1957. She said that the length of time that extradition procedures would take could undermine public safety. Further, she said that 22 member states of the EU, including France, Germany and Spain could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK.

The National Crime Agency, in evidence to the Justice Committee also said that the EAW system is,

“quick, effective, and an excellent example of co-operation and mutual recognition in criminal matters”.

This is what we are about to throw away, along with a long and valuable history of co-operation in combating terrorism and crime.

For example, the EU Council framework decision of 2009 on the exchange of information from criminal records resulted in the UK adding 478 individuals convicted of sex offences overseas to our own violent and sexual offenders database, adding their fingerprints and DNA profiles. The UK, as a financial centre, must always be on its guard against money laundering, tax evasion, bribery and similar white collar crime in cross-border financial activities. We will lose the existing data sharing and co-operation.

Ironically, we have just signed up to the new Europol regime, starting last month. During this Parliament, we will leave that organisation and there is nothing envisaged to replace it. We have also been heavily involved in creating the new Prüm system for the exchange of fingerprints, DNA and vehicle data. It is currently at a pilot stage, but will by 2020 introduce a fully automated and quick system for the exchange in Europe of fingerprint, DNA and vehicle records. We, of course, will be outside it. All these tools depend on our membership of the EU, and the data protection regime developed under European directives. The chairman of the Criminal Bar Association put it this way:

“I understand that at the moment we are just about compliant, and the European Union is willing to forgive any potential lapses in our data protection regime; but if we drift away from compliance when outside the European Union, it will not share data”.


The gracious Speech, which sets out the Government’s programme for two years—beyond the point where, under Article 50, we will leave the EU—says nothing about the complex legislation that will be required in all these fields. Without robust legal arrangements for extradition, we in this country are in danger of being a safe haven for criminals. Without the close co-operation we have developed with our European partners, the Government will fail in their primary duty: to keep this country safe and secure.

“Negotiating the best deal we can”,


the White Paper says. Where do the Government start, and where will they finish?

19:03

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I had the privilege for some two or three years to be a member of a committee that dealt with the likely consequences of European developments on our law. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has advanced. This is a situation where narrow British chauvinism—Daily Mail chauvinism—is putting so much that is invaluable at risk. However, that is not the topic on which I want to address the House tonight.

I wish to say a few words about the constitutional situation of Wales in consequence of the Wales Act 2017. Following that legislation, the position of Wales is far less satisfactory and far less certain—and indeed, far less authoritative constitutionally—than it was previous to the legislation. That is a massive piece of irony, for the Government trumpeted it to be a considerable achievement.

I believe that the answer lies in the fact that the Government are rather reluctant performers in this connection. I have raised this matter before and I raise it again in this place. Two decisions were made in the Divisional Court: on the agricultural workers case in 2014 and the medical costs case the following year in 2015. The consequence of those two cases was quite alarming for the Government. They discovered suddenly that the range, scale and depth of devolution was entirely different from what they had conceived. There were huge areas of dubiety and it was very much more than the Government had anticipated in those days, and they reacted immediately. That is the heart, core and kernel of the problem that we now face, with a piece of very unsatisfactory legislation in the Wales Act 2017.

It is axiomatic in relation to the creation of a reserved constitution, which is what the Act set out to do, that the reservations should be fairly limited. They are limited to massive cogent matters that are so relevant to the mother Parliament, and indeed are not the proper and appropriate realm for the devolved authority—but on the other hand, all other matters, which cry out for domestic jurisdiction, should be dealt with in that particular way. In other words, there is a clear concept of where there is a watershed. That is totally lacking in this legislation.

First, the reservations are massive—there are 197 altogether. Secondly, their very nature shows that scores of them are extremely trivial. They are matters that are relatively inconsequential in a constitutional sense, such as dangerous dogs, sharp knives and axes, the organisation of charitable collections, and licensing, which seems to have been a Welsh prerogative since 1871. There are dozens of other cases that give the lie to the fact that this was a genuine attempt to give Wales a proper reserved constitution. When is a reserved constitution not a reserved constitution? When the reservations are utterly ridiculous. That is the situation here.

In addition, there is of course the point that many of the powers—this was mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Aberavon—were never there for the British Government to consider; they were in Brussels, and have been there since 1 January 1973. They are still there.

What do we do? We must set up jointly a constitutional convention that will deal first of all with the dozens of small matters that have been reserved and examine each in detail to see whether reservation is properly justified. Furthermore, that body should make it clear that it will examine each and every item of what is now in Brussels with the presumption that that item should return not to this Parliament but to Wales. That is the only way forward—a constitutional convention of that nature. Devolution is not a matter of dainty sympathies and dilettante political practices for dreamers. Devolution is an acid test of the trusteeship that mutually exists between a mother Parliament and a devolved Parliament. It works both ways. It is the cement that keeps the United Kingdom together through these perilous, difficult and uncertain days.

19:09

[Lord Rana (Con)]

My Lords, the problems of terrorism and extremism were mentioned more than once in the gracious Speech, and I will speak on this subject. Unfortunately, I have suffered civil strife and terrorism most of my life, first as a young child in 1947, when killing and carnage followed partition of India, then in Belfast where I have been living since 1966. There were some 16 bomb attacks on my businesses; I have been held at gunpoint and robbed while my family was held hostage. I believe that such experiences qualify me to speak on this subject.

Against this background in Belfast, I sought, over a long time, to work for peace, through facilitating dialogue in my own home between people from opposing sides when it was considered impossible or too dangerous to do this. We are, essentially, facing a global conflict. We know that it has an ever-widening international reach and today it comes with various name tags. Sadly, the current international crisis is based on the actions of a limited few from Islamic communities. I recognize that Islam’s core message is one of peace and harmony, but that message has been distorted so that those seeking to radicalise others use a version of Islam to brainwash vulnerable people, even to the extent of them becoming suicide bombers.

We should concentrate our efforts to mobilise opinion internationally to counter this threat. This should include international conferences in an attempt to settle on a common agenda to defeat the scourge. We must also explore whether there are any deep-seated reasons and genuine grievances being exploited to radicalise young people who are born and brought up in otherwise peaceful European cities. Why are they prepared to join these extreme groups? What is the trigger leading these young people to the extreme of killing innocent people and being willing to kill themselves in the process?

Dialogue with Islamic countries and communities will be essential, and they too need to acknowledge their role and to put their own house in order to combat extremism wherever it is being nurtured and supported in their midst. In the case of people in Islamic communities who have influence and are willing to discuss the issues peacefully, we must facilitate genuine and respectful dialogue with them. As to those who have passed the point of no return, their actions must be resisted with great force and their message constantly challenged. It is a long struggle. There are no easy answers, nor any early solutions. The international community must work together, and without any ifs and buts, when condemning such terrorism. We need to fight a war on many fronts but ultimately we must do so based upon the same principles on which the world fought against Nazism. I am convinced that Islamic communities are aware that they will need to develop, as a priority, their own means of condemning violence and promoting peaceful dialogue.

It may be of interest that in Northern Ireland it was ultimately the local communities, including women’s organisations, which proved particularly effective in condemning violence and denouncing those who offered succour to the violent. Comparative valuable efforts were also made by churches of various denominations. The terrorists will not win but they will not be readily defeated. This requires international commitment and effort at every level. This war is likely to prove a long haul, but terrorism can ultimately be isolated and defeated.

Are the Government convinced that the Prevent strategy, in its current form, is working? What are they going to do to ensure that the many hundreds who we know pose a threat are properly monitored? How can communities work with the Government to stamp out the evil of terrorism?

19:15

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my vice-presidency of the Local Government Association. I have found it surprising that the gracious Speech says virtually nothing about housing, the financial problems of local government, the funding of adult social care, or the future of business rates and the Local Government Finance Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to give some greater clarity on each of those matters.

It does not help to promote the case for more house building when housing is not seen by the Government as requiring a Minister of Cabinet rank—I think it does. Despite the very good work being done by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and other colleagues, it needs a Cabinet Minister in the lead. Despite the commitment of the Prime Minister to stand up for social tenants in the face of the appalling tragedy at Grenfell Tower, there is no indication in the gracious Speech of what this amounts to. The Speech simply says:

“Proposals will be brought forward to … help ensure more homes are built”.


It does not say how many or what their tenure will be. Does the commitment of the last Minister for Housing to build a net 1 million new homes by 2020 still stand, or has the commitment altered to building 1.5 million by 2022, as outlined in the Conservative Party’s manifesto? I ask because consultation on the housing White Paper ended several weeks ago, but it would help to know when the Government will set out their plans as a consequence of that consultation. They know that there is broad support for getting more homes built, using every financial lever available, including permitting local authorities to borrow using the prudential code.

The housing crisis is getting worse. New house sales dropped 7% in 2016 in England and Wales. Government-funded homes built for social rent fell to just 1,102 in 2016-17. Shelter recently reported that 1 million households face their housing benefit not covering their rent. The problem is that we have been building around 100,000 new homes too few every year for at least 20 years. That failure to build more has resulted in high prices and high rents with 20% of households now dependent on the private rented sector. Most of them are in no position to buy, because an average home now costs eight times average annual earnings.

In our own manifesto, and elsewhere, we have made a number of suggestions. I will remind the Minister of something I have said previously in this Chamber. The Government need to change the balance of their housing investment. Only 16% of their planned housing investment will directly support the building of new affordable homes: it should be higher. The Government should take action to stop unnecessary land banking. They should permit much higher levels of taxation on properties that are bought to leave empty as investment properties. I hope they will take action to help leaseholders buy out spiralling ground rent contracts. Leasehold purchases represented 22% of all sales 20 years ago; today it is 43% and in London it is much higher. Will the Government increase funding for supported housing which, if provided, could pay for itself through reducing public spending overall? Do they have plans to abandon the policy of selling off high-value council housing? This is rumoured but not confirmed. Will the Government directly commission the building of homes on unwanted public land? All these proposals would help. Having said that, I welcome the draft tenant fees Bill to ban unfair tenant fees imposed by private landlords. I hope that it will include a cap on deposits.

I wish to say something further about the shocking tragedy of Grenfell Tower. The public inquiry is being set up, but it needs to report speedily on building regulations and safety checks. Immediate action is needed—probably as a consequence of an interim report by the public inquiry, but action needs to be taken very quickly. All councils will have to review the speed of their reaction in terms of their emergency plans. The Government should look at annual electricity safety checks. At present, these are not required; in my view, they should be. I hope that the Government will listen much more to tenants to ensure tenant participation works effectively.

I propose that the Government should adopt the following value—that someone in work on the living wage should be able to afford to live reasonably close to where they work. Might the Government share that aim?

19:20

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass (Ind UU)]

My Lords, before I begin, I apologise to everyone, and specifically to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, for failing to turn up for the opening address, as I should have done. It was to do with the cyber problem that we had and the fact that when I arrived in my office the speech that I had transmitted was not there and I had to travel back to my flat; hence, I was late. I apologise and thank those responsible for the discipline of this House for their understanding.

During my 34 years in Parliament, and subsequent to 12 years’ service as an officer in the Ulster Defence Regiment, I have never been as anxious about the state of our nation as I am today. I had looked forward to Brexit, hopeful that we would restore our Britishness and free our nation from the gross bureaucratic diktat that undermines our parliamentary democracy, and which has eroded our nation’s sense of commitment and loyalty to whom and to what we are, and to what we could and should be.

Sadly, we have become victim to catchphrases—can I call them that?—that are being perverted on a daily basis: terms such as “liberal” and “equality”. I was never ashamed to be labelled a “liberal unionist”, even when that was not fashionable, or to argue for equal opportunity. Those who worked with me since pre-1970 know my record over almost 50 years. However, we are now witnessing equality being relegated to little more than a cliché. It becomes “inequality”, where every small faction or clique can demand, collectively, virtual control over traditional resources and rights that are totally out of proportion to their numbers. I refer to those who seek privilege calling it equality, while ignoring any responsibility obligation. We see it in Northern Ireland, where our public services, not least health, are being held to ransom by those who will prevent the Northern Ireland Assembly getting up and running unless their dictated brand of democracy is delivered as they wish. I urge that if and when Secretary of State Brokenshire is forced to reintroduce direct rule, he does not allow that to become but a variation of the ongoing week-by-week chaos, but that it is firmly established on the basis of potential for productivity, be that for at least 12 months at a time, perhaps even for the lifetime of this Parliament at Westminster.

One thing in particular worried me over the course of the general election campaign, and that was the outrageous hectoring and bullying by BBC commentators. From when I was a lad during the Second World War, I had come to expect an informative output from our national news medium, but that has changed beyond recognition. A stranger could now be excused for concluding that the BBC was a party-political participant and, bluntly, was openly hostile to our Prime Minister. Just in case anyone should think that they gain from this, it is a tactic, perhaps a strategy, that will come back to bite us if we do not deal with it now. It is based on provocation and confrontation rather than sound analysis. We have experienced it over the past weeks in the most tragic circumstances, with our broadcasters openly provoking and promoting an antagonistic backlash. The simple deceit is that Prime Minister May was no more responsible than any of us here for the cladding on the Grenfell tower block—no more than she or any of us could be deemed responsible for the Flood or the black plague. So catch yourself on, BBC; your role is to inform, not to outrageously, unfairly and provocatively incite mob reaction, as you now clearly seek to do. Be clear, BBC, as to what this nation expects, demands and pays for.

Should noble Lords think that I am being too critical of the BBC, be assured that I have not missed those crude indiscretions nearer to home—the crass rudeness and envy of George Osborne or the exaggerated onus of corporate murder that John McDonnell MP sees fit to lay at the feet of society as a whole. Grenfell Tower dates back to 1974. There are somewhere in the region of 4,000 such structures in existence here in the United Kingdom. Those awful recent problems did not simply spring up during the premiership of Mrs May.

My allocated time is fast running out, so I will sum up by making the following points. While we need a principled and intelligent approach to Brexit, we cannot negotiate effectively if we pre-empt every tactic and strategy with superficial, bad-mannered public debate. The nation’s interest lies with the necessity for the Government to properly execute their business through protocols that are well established, if sometimes neglected, within this place.

Finally, we must as a nation grasp and exploit the opportunity to devise and implement what has been missing since the 1980s, if not longer—a coherent and strategic United Kingdom foreign and commonwealth policy. Why has one seen us abandon our erstwhile allies in the TRNC to the wiles of the inheritors and successors of EOKA and EOKA-B—an attitude that has recently inspired new and petty UK flight restrictions and controls on those who wish to travel to and from Ercan airport in the north of Cyprus? Let us prioritise our democratic responsibility. Let us implement our moral strategies. Let us, simply, “get a grip”.

19:28

[Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)]

My Lords, I want to raise an issue of great concern to many, that of victims of modern-day slavery. I welcome the commitments in the gracious Speech to continuing to work at an international level to tackle this terrible crime. However, I believe we must also continue to look for improvements in how we address this appalling abuse here in the United Kingdom. At the end of March, the National Crime Agency published figures for the number of potential victims referred to the National Referral Mechanism in 2016. There were 3,805 potential victims in total, an increase of 17% compared with the year before.

Such an increase is, I believe, a clear indication that the police, front-line services and even the general public are becoming more aware of the signs of trafficking and exploitation, and more aware of how they can help people to access emergency support. I was particularly encouraged to hear of NGOs training flight attendants around the world how to spot the signs of their passengers who might be being trafficked. I encourage the Government to look into how we can encourage such training for all airline staff who fly into the United Kingdom.

However, we cannot afford to rest on our laurels. The number of potential victims identified in 2016 is still less than half, and possibly only a third, of the 10,000 to 13,000 potential victims estimated by the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser in the year 2014. This suggests that many more people are suffering extraordinary exploitation and abuse, who are not being offered help. Some, of course, will receive assistance from charities, and others may even be treated in the National Health Service or encountered by immigration officials or by the police. However, they may be either not recognised as possible victims of modern-day slavery or may be too afraid to come forward.

In April, just at the end of the last Session, a report was published by the Work and Pensions Committee which highlighted another key problem. What happens to victims after the initial period of emergency support while their victim status is assessed by the NRM? The report found:

“There is very little structured support for confirmed victims once they have been given a ‘Conclusive Grounds’ decision from the NRM that they are a modern slavery victim”.


It is simply unacceptable that our authorities can send someone a letter confirming that we recognise that they have been trafficked, yet from that point on they may be homeless. They may not even be eligible for benefits and they may be told that they have no right to remain in the UK. We can, and must, do better.

The gracious Speech reaffirmed the Prime Minister’s commitment to lead the fight against modern slavery. However, as the Minister knows, addressing modern slavery must go beyond just battling criminals who commit these terrible crimes. Leading this fight must also take seriously the need to support victims. Vulnerable victims are at risk of retrafficking, entering an ongoing cycle of exploitation. Moreover, victims who are supported on a pathway to recovery are much better placed to assist the police with investigations, which can only increase the chances of convicting the perpetrators. I echo the call of the Work and Pensions Committee report that,

“the Government must introduce a system that will help victims to start piecing their lives back together. Not only is there a moral case for doing this but it can help to bring the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes to justice”.

I was disappointed that the gracious Speech did not contain reference to plans to address the longer-term support and recovery of victims of modern slavery. I reassure the Minister that help is on the way, in that yesterday was the first reading of the Modern Slavery (Victims Support) Bill that I have brought forward to address this very issue. I hope that the Government will give it their support.

I was pleased to hear that the Scottish Government announced two weeks ago that they will be doubling the basic period of support provided to adult victims of trafficking, from 45 days to 90 days. I urge the Government to consider the need for victims in England and Wales to receive support for a longer period to prepare them better for their continued rehabilitation.

I close my remarks by seeking an assurance from the Minister that supporting victims of modern slavery will be a priority for the Government in the coming year.

19:34

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am pleased to be speaking in this debate on the gracious Speech. It will not surprise your Lordships to know that, as a former police officer of some 35 years’ experience, I intend to concentrate on that area in this important debate today.

This has been a difficult time for the policing family—for that is what it is—and, as with any family, it produces best results if it is happy, content and, most of all, valued. Over the decades, I have seen the process of policing change, with the advent of modern technology, improved transport, scientific advancement, DNA, biometrics and the like. But the basics tenets of policing have not changed from the days of that great parliamentarian, Sir Robert Peel, who founded the Metropolitan Police in 1829. In shorthand, it is the concept of policing by consent. Without the respect and the support of the vast majority of the British public, a largely unarmed body of men and women could not perform the tasks which we have asked of them recently in the United Kingdom. Have they not performed magnificently?

So why do we hear murmurs of discontent from the men and women in blue? We have heard of complaints of reduced funding, which of course the Government have denied. However, no one can deny or refute the falling police numbers, and when the money is stretched it affects personnel, which is the largest cost, and therefore the numbers of officers are, naturally, reduced. It is argued that the amount allocated has not been reduced, but as any household knows, with costs increasing and demands for service rocketing, the thin blue line is stretched as never before.

What is to be done? There have been requests for a sensible, objective look at what policing requirements will be in the coming years, and I urge the Government, of whatever colour, to heed these pleas. We hear demands for all police to be armed, but you rarely hear this demand from the police themselves. Many surveys have shown that there is no appetite by police officers to routinely carry guns. This has not solved the problem in other countries.

In my time as a young superintendent, I had the honour of attending a training course for three months at the FBI academy at Quantico in the United States of America. If I had been asked for advice—I was not—I would have said to President Trump, “Don’t mess with the FBI!”. In my judgment, they are a professional, dedicated organisation with investigators of the utmost integrity.

So what did I learn on the course? We know that the police in America are routinely armed, and many of them are very poorly trained to use their guns. We see the results. When I studied the subject in those days, I found that roughly 15% of police officers who were fatally shot were killed with a police firearm. This was because the weapon was taken from them by the perpetrator, because of inaccurate fire by other officers, or careless handling of guns during practice or exercises. Tasers, of course, are perfect for a less-than-lethal response, such as against knives, but we are talking here about firearms. This is the danger—it illustrates it well—of putting more guns on the streets in the hands of the police or anyone else. We should be proud of our record on firearms control in this country and should not be provoked into taking rash decisions to change it.

When I started on the beat in Jarrow on Tyneside in the 1960s, all I had was a truncheon and a whistle, with few vehicles and no radio to call for back-up. It certainly increased your ability to think on your feet and not make rash decisions. A police officer is not like a soldier. He does not respond to orders barked at him or her. The officer exercises discretion and judgment, and I believe those early years of learning are crucial to the officer’s development and experience as he or she rises in rank to positions of specialisation or command in an increasingly complex service. That is why I am very cautious indeed about direct entry into the CID, where I spent many years. In my judgment, these positions are far better filled by existing officers with a grounding in general policing on the streets, rubbing shoulders with the great British public, and having been assessed as possessing the attributes, personality and ability to investigate crime, child abuse, terrorism and the like.

Finally, I simply say this, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Good policing starts with the community acting as its eyes and ears, and if, because of cuts, there is any continued reduction in the number of community beat officers, who garner, collect and share information and intelligence with the specialist departments, this will reduce the ability of a proud and successful police service to protect the great British public—a responsibility, of course, which is the core duty of every Government.

19:40

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I noticed that the gracious Speech was very clear about something to do with fairness, which the Minister raised. It said that the Government,

“will make further progress to tackle … discrimination against people on the basis of their race, faith, gender, disability or sexual orientation”.

We have made much progress on equality for people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual. There is still a way to go but great progress has been made. In fact, on Saturday I was very lucky to be able to marry David, my new husband and partner of 21 years. That was thanks in particular to my noble friend Lady Featherstone and Nick Clegg, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former MP for Sheffield Hallam, who were in the coalition. It gave me great happiness to be able to reaffirm our love and commitment of 21 years.

However, yesterday my happiness turned to some concern due to the deal that the Government had done with the DUP, not in terms of trying to get stable and strong government but because of some of the social attitudes that that party has. It is particularly galling that in its last vote on equal marriage, the devolved Assembly of Northern Ireland having narrowly passed that people like me in Northern Ireland should be able to cement their love, it was stopped by a petition of concern. It was even more galling to read the BBC story about somebody called Josh, who cannot marry and cement his relationship in his home town simply because he lives in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I wondered how the deal that I saw progressed equality, particularly in relation to sexual orientation, and I will tell the Government why.

That deal sends a very strong signal to many LGBT people in Northern Ireland that this Government believe that the right of thousands of people in Northern Ireland can be sidelined or ignored so that the right of Theresa May to hold the key to No. 10 is upheld. That sends a very worrying signal. This is guilt by association and the Government need to understand that. They need to understand that it is not just what they say but what they do that sends strong signals about equality across the whole United Kingdom. It is really important that we do not just say things but that strong action is taken through legislation. Even though those words are in the gracious Speech, I have seen no mention of legislation to further the rights of LGBT citizens across the United Kingdom. I make that point particularly in the light of the Stonewall report, published today, which has found that nearly half of LGBT pupils are still bullied at school. I ask the Ministers what kind of legislation will be coming forward to further the rights of those pupils and tackle their discrimination.

I want to move on not just to domestic issues relating to LGBT citizens but to immigration issues relating to those who seek asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation. Great work has been done by an organisation called the UK Lesbian & Gay Immigration Group, which supports people seeking asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation or identity. However, one issue that comes back time and again is the number of LGBT asylum seekers who can be held in detention for as long as those holding them see fit. The Government have been asked for about four years—particularly by Anderson—when they are going to stop detaining people who flee persecution because of whom they love here in the UK. As the Anderson report showed, they are fleeing persecution only to be held in situations of great danger, with prejudice and potential threats to their safety within detention.

I hope that the Government will take heed of these issues. Rhetoric and words are good but they do not solve the problems of many LGBT people, whether they are here in the UK living in Northern Ireland or fleeing persecution. Therefore, I ask the Government what specific legislation will be coming forward to meet that commitment to ensuring that further progress is made on tackling discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I respectfully remind your Lordships that the advisory speaking time is five minutes. The previous speaker was most obedient of that, but we are running quite significantly behind time and your Lordships’ co-operation in adhering to the advisory time limit would be very much appreciated. When the clock shows “5”, the time is up.

19:46

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak about national security. I suggest that the greatest threat to our national security comes from political Islam and, in particular, its military wing, Islamic State, which has in fact subsumed earlier jihadist organisations such as al-Qaeda. Since ISIS announced its arrival in Raqqa three years ago with the aim of creating a worldwide caliphate, we have seen enough of its brutal methods to be able to classify it as a fundamentally fascist movement wearing the cloak of Islam. The political motivation is clear. In this, it is remarkably similar to Soviet Bolshevism, but of course with Islamist theocracy taking the place of communism as the monopoly form of government.

This morning I visited the British Library exhibition on the Russian Revolution. I would like to quote one full paragraph from the catalogue which makes the point with elegance:

“Inaugurating the next stage of history, the proletarian revolution would, in their view, accelerate, extend and transform these globalising dynamics”—


the world moving to ever closer integration—

“further dissolving national territorial distinctions of class, ethnicity, religion and culture. The revolution would lead to the creation of a unified socialist world-state, and ultimately to world-wide stateless communism”.

I have nine specific proposals to make to the Government. First, HMG should always make an independent assessment of the greater national good where the interests of national security clash with civil or human rights.

Secondly, British jihadists who have travelled to take part in IS operations anywhere in the world should not be allowed back into this country, whether they be British citizens by birth or naturalisation. Their passports should be cancelled and their citizenship revoked. They have made their free choice and, if they have not died from it, they should live with it. We cannot afford to take the risk or pay the price of doing otherwise.

Thirdly, we need greatly to tighten our borders. This must mean that the Passport Office is aware of any other passports held by a British passport holder.

Fourthly, the Passport Office should temporarily invalidate electronically a British passport held by someone who is serving a custodial sentence or is on bail under charge of a security offence. I note that it was reported that one of the London Bridge killers was on bail at the time of the attack. This will involve automatic notification of such instances by the courts and the police to the passport authorities.

Fifthly, there must also be automatic electronic cancellation of passports on death as soon as notified by the registrar of births and deaths.

Sixthly, it is most urgent that there be automatic recording, for a period of at least five years, of all departures from or arrivals in the UK. It is absurd that there is scant recording of departures, with the wholly inadequate excuse that closer scrutiny is “intelligence led”.

Seventhly, we do not necessarily need national identity cards, but we need national identity numbers with individual biometrics centrally held, but not just on any document held by the individual. Documents containing biometrics—although necessary for many purposes—can be dangerously misleading if the biometrics of the holder cannot be compared with a central record. At present there are a plethora of government numbers allocated to the individual: national insurance, NHS, passports, driving licences, HMRC and criminal records to mention half a dozen obvious ones.

Eighthly, new standards of positive vetting must be introduced to help ensure that terrorists, of whom we know there are now many in the UK, are not able to get into sensitive positions.

Finally, there should be a fresh appraisal of the role and legitimacy of the Muslim Brotherhood in Britain, whose links with jihad are not unlike those that Sinn Fein once had with the IRA.

None of these proposals is new. I have made them all before, but with scant response from the Home Office—although sometimes Ministers have privately told me that they agree with me. Perhaps the time has come for a department of homeland security on the basis and lines of that constructed in the United States.

19:51

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, I raise an issue faced by many councils around the country. They have faced massive cuts in their expenditure over the last few years. They have been forced to privatise services, been stripped of powers and in some cases been forced to cut services altogether. Those services that are left have been cut to the bone.

How did we get to such a state in our local government? Before I arrived in the other place I was leader of my local authority. When I first became a councillor 40 years ago, my authority could set its own council tax and decide the level of services it wanted to provide. It could also decide whether it wanted to provide those services directly or contract them out. Voters could then decide whether the services they received were the services they wanted and whether they were cost-effective.

But then it all changed. The Conservative Government of the day decided that public was bad and private was good. No real assessment was ever done to see whether this was true. The policy was driven by dogma rather than any sort of research. To make things worse, the Government moved away from a needs-based funding system to a political system based on the whim of the Minister. The new funding system moved funding from some of the poorer areas to the richer areas. That can be seen today, when some local authorities face bankruptcy while others are awash with cash. We have been talking about Westminster Council and Kensington and Chelsea. They have loads of money, while other local authorities have none and face bankruptcy.

When I was a council leader, I asked my finance staff to do an assessment of what it would mean if we had the same level of grant as Westminster. I was amazed to find out, when my officers told me, that we would have to levy no council tax whatsoever. We would be able to improve council services and send all our residents on a Spanish holiday at the end of the year. That shows noble Lords the level of fix that went in at the time. That system is still in place. Our funding system is corrupt. Our council services are less accountable and less transparent than they were. Our services are far more expensive than they need to be.

How can we rebuild our council services and support for our public sector workers in local government? Our funding system should be set by an independent academic body. It should move back to a needs-based system. We should stop the enforced privatisation of our council services. We should once again give our councillors direct, democratic control over the services. Unless we do so, we shall face a growing divide between rich and poorer areas. Some councils will not even be able to provide basic services in the future. Our councils will continue to be more expensive than they need to be. They will be less accountable, less transparent and less democratic than they are at present.

I hope the Prime Minister will not just say but do the right thing and make our country less divided than it is now. Had I had the time to make the point, I could address the same issues on health, police and fire funding, and for many other services. We need to have a fundamental review of the way we fund public services in the UK. Quite frankly, it is a terrible indictment that the richest areas are getting the most and the poorest areas are getting the least.

19:55

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Scriven will forgive me if I simply congratulate him on his marriage and move swiftly on.

One litmus test of public concern is a storyline in “The Archers”. Other noble Lords may be aware that Adam Macy is worried about engaging strawberry pickers in the future and the administration involved if there is a seasonal worker scheme. The Federation of Small Businesses has asked for, to use their term, an employer-responsive immigration policy. That is a widespread demand or plea. I urge the Government to consult widely not only on their immigration policy following Brexit—the Minister referred to consultation—but on processes.

With regard to EU citizens, the Leader of the House yesterday promised,

“a streamlined and high-quality service”.—[Official Report, 26/6/17; col. 190.]

Currently, our processes and services do not meet that description; they are very expensive, by way of fees, to boot. I suspect that this is in large part because of the huge overload on Home Office staff. I believe that, because of the demands of Brexit, no additional staff are heading the Home Office’s way.

It would be logical, too, to take the opportunity to simplify our immigration law. Who in the Chamber is confident of finding their way round the non-statutory Immigration Rules, which change so frequently and, if they were printed out in hard copy—which generally they are not—I suspect might be about the size of all the Harry Potter books in aggregate?

What was never logical was the aspiration—or ambition or policy or whatever it was—to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, so I welcome that this has slipped off the agenda. David Davis now talks about “sustainable levels”. I noted that the Minister used this phrase herself this afternoon. What are the criteria for sustainability? We know the role played by immigrants in sustaining our economy, our NHS and our care services—one could go on—and, of course, that many do not feel valued in the current situation.

Our regard for people is reflected in our language. My noble friend Lord Paddick referred to the Home Office’s use of the words “hostile environment”—do they ever blush when they use them? I shall say a word about language and Refugee Action’s campaign Let Refugees Learn, a campaign to improve language provision to refugees. Being able to understand and make oneself understood is fundamental to integration. A young woman from the DRC has said:

“One thing I’ve realised, when you can’t talk to people, it’s really very hard. They smile but can’t talk to you and you can’t talk to them”.


There are English language classes with waiting lists of two years and close to 1,000 people, reductions in learning hours and the doubling of class sizes. Teaching English should be regarded as an investment in the often highly skilled and highly motivated people who seek asylum here. Words are our tools, so we should understand the need.

It is frustrating not to be able to respond to so many points made this afternoon. I simply wonder aloud whether other noble Lords had the experience that I did of being lobbied extremely hard during the election—in our constituency headquarters while trying to match a deliverer with a delivery round which was convenient to him and also sort out a whole load of canvas cards—about the incorporation of the Serious Fraud Office into the NCA. The constituent who was lobbying me was rather surprised that I knew anything about the subject at all, but he lobbied me at length.

I have one last thought on how we describe things. Human rights do not “get in the way” of dealing with the issues that I and other noble Lords have discussed this afternoon. They are what we are about, and human rights and the rule of law must be one of the building bricks of our post-Brexit policy.

20:01

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I have lived in this country most of my life. In fact, I do not call it “this country” now; I call it “my country”. It has been good to me. I have done well and things have happened, but of course some effort has to be made by the person who comes. That is a separate story. The country has been good to me and I have enjoyed living here.

I want to remind noble Lords of a couple of things from the gracious Speech. It talks about discrimination against anybody on the basis of,

“race, faith, gender, disability or sexual orientation”.

It goes on to say:

“Legislation will be brought forward to protect the victims of domestic violence and abuse”.


I read that because there is a group, particularly of women, who are victims of abuse, discrimination and domestic violence. These are Muslim women who, under sharia, have no rights whatever to do anything about their situation. They cannot get a divorce. Men can get a divorce in five minutes, sometimes by email. Women cannot get a divorce. Noble Lords may ask why they need a sharia divorce, if they can have a divorce under British law. They need a divorce because, if they visit their families in Pakistan, the husband can take their children away. After the age of seven, the husband can always take the children away. Every aspect of sharia is discriminatory.

I do not know whether noble Lords remember the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, who has retired. He studied sharia and said that not one thing in sharia is non-discriminatory against women. We are allowing this to go on in this country. No system such as sharia should have been allowed to take root in this country, but we have allowed it because we do not like to be nasty to anybody. It does not matter if half the Muslim population has no rights, because we must not be nasty to them. Well, we should be. It is time for us to protect our values.

Our values are about equal treatment for women. Women did not get equality in this country by sitting about and waiting for it. They fought for it. They really did fight for it, and it took them a long time to get equality. It is time that British women, whatever their faith or background, are treated the same. If these were white British women, would we accept that treatment? We would not. It is time that we looked at this more clearly.

People may say, “Let’s not do anything: it is about their religion and culture”. But if religion and culture hit at the most fundamental values of this country, the loss will be ours. We will lose our own values, by which we have lived and that we have fought for for so long. We have to do something about stopping this erosion, because it is completely wrong.

Nazir Afzal was the chief crown prosecutor in Manchester and became head of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. He said this so well that I do not want to get it wrong. He said:

“We all have a responsibility to stand up for British values and the rule of law”,


and by that I mean democracy, women’s rights and the rights of other minorities. That is a cornerstone of our values, and we should not forget it. It should always be there in our minds.

The time is so short, but I want to say that sharia is not really a proper law as such. It is not a law in the Koran, although it is based on Koranic principles. It may have been acceptable in the 7th century, but we are now in 21st-century Britain. Should it be acceptable today? It should not.

I end with a word from Sara Khan in the Times. She said that we need to fret less about religious sensitivities and become more intolerant of intolerance. We should keep that in mind.

20:06

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, more than 200 years after the abolition of slavery, there are still an estimated 45.8 million men, women and children trapped in modern slavery, and up to 11,700 potential victims in the UK alone. It is unacceptable that in our society there are vulnerable people who find that they have been duped, forced into hard labour, locked up and abused. Therefore, I am pleased to note that in the gracious Speech tackling human trafficking and modern slavery remains a priority for this Government and that we are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime.

Much has been achieved by the Government in the relatively short two years since the Modern Slavery Act was enacted in 2015. An Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner whose office is working in partnership to tackle modern slavery in all its forms is now fully established, and the Government made available a £33.5 million package to support victims from countries where they are regularly trafficked to the UK. Part of this was £11 million invested to tackle modern slavery in the community. But more needs to be done, as we heard earlier from my noble friend Lord McColl in relation to victims.

An independent review in 2015 alone found that there was a 40% rise in the number of victims identified and hundreds prosecuted for this crime—and, as we heard from my noble friend Lord McColl, this number continues to rise. But we need to further strengthen our law—and I mean our company law. To that end, it is right that the debate now moves to the question of what should be the legal obligations on business to ensure that there is respect for human rights throughout company activities and business relationships, including their supply chains. Evidence from the European Coalition for Corporate Justice shows a welcome increase in initiatives to improve corporate accountability at national, European and international level. But more still needs to be done. It is interesting to note that the French have gone further. They have been bold and made new company law. The new French corporate duty of vigilance law, applicable only to the largest French companies, shows that respect for human rights and the environment can be legally mandated into business activities. This is a first.

The French law establishes a legally binding obligation for parent companies to identify and prevent adverse human rights and environmental impacts resulting from their own activities, from the activities of companies they control and from the activities of the subcontractors and suppliers with whom they have a commercial relationship. This is a great enhancement of French company law, bringing a greater focus and clarity of responsibility to company directors and their shareholders in a key priority area.

In my view, UK company law could likewise be amended to reflect this kind of law in relation to Section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act. Currently, directors of UK public companies have to report on “human rights” matters in the directors’ strategic report, but under Section 54 of the MSA they have a separate obligation to report on supply chains via a website. This makes little sense. How can the issue of human rights be separated from the supply chains of the companies? Regrettably, in my view, when the human rights reporting requirements were put into UK company law, an opportunity was missed to include five small words: “including in its supply chain”. The Government now have an excellent opportunity to correct and strengthen this in UK company law.

There are very few good companies or consumers who would wish to provide or receive goods and services made on the backs of the most vulnerable people in the world. No one needs to turn a blind eye. Despite modern slavery and trafficking being illegal in many countries, sadly it remains very profitable, especially if the fruits can be sold into the legitimate business sector unwittingly through its supply chains and subcontractors. It will not escape noble Lords that many countries do not have a modern slavery Act, but that every country does have a company Act, which is the best vehicle to strengthen and amend the law to prevent modern slavery.

I will conclude by asking my noble friend the Minister two questions. First, what further action are the Government taking and what resources are they making available to ensure that they continue to tackle modern slavery? Secondly, will the Minister give consideration to the French duty of vigilance law and/or incorporate or link Section 54 of the MSA into UK company law?

20:12

[Viscount Simon (Lab)]

My Lords, over the past few years a number of financial cuts have been required of various bodies, such as education, the NHS and policing. It seems as though no one in government takes responsibility for the reduced levels of roads policing. The Department for Transport says the decline is not a problem but that if it is, it is a Home Office matter. The Home Office says that it is down to police and crime commissioners, who in turn pass it down to chief constables, who blame government cuts—a fine merry-go-round.

However, if the reason for the delay in publishing this year’s road casualty figures turns out to be operational difficulties within police forces, it is important that the Home Office should acknowledge this and reaffirm the instruction that the data, known as STATS 19, are collected in a timely and conscientious manner. There has been no explanation from the Home Office of why these figures, which usually come out in June, have been delayed until September. I wonder why has there been such a delay.

This is no mere quibble about statistics. The provisional figures published in February showed a rise in total road deaths in Great Britain in each of the past three years. The trend is in the wrong direction and we badly need good information on which to base policy. The number of specialised roads policing officers fell from 7,104 in 2005 to 4,356 in 2014. Unfortunately, I do not have more recent figures, but I am led to believe that the numbers have fallen even further. It is interesting to note that the Transport Select Committee concluded that the reduction in overall road traffic offences recorded does not represent a reduction in the offences actually committed. There simply are not enough police officers out there to take appropriate action regarding many offences in many circumstances due to the various obligations placed on them.

At present there is a lack of investment and recognition of the role that roads policing plays in protecting our communities from harm. It is one area of policing that can disrupt and detect transient criminality before it brings harm. This covers all areas, from fly-tipping to the most serious forms of harm such as terrorism, where the roads are arteries of harm. Should the benefits of roads policing be better understood, there is a real opportunity to strengthen this area, which could have a positive impact on road safety and safer communities if supported at government level.

We can make our roads policing officers much more effective and efficient if we equip them with the best technology. The UK leads the world in the development of traffic safety technology, yet we are not making progress nearly as quickly as we could and should be. We need a much faster and more proactive approach from the Government. We should be harnessing the private sector’s ingenuity and investment to make roads safer and our police more efficient. We should be doing more to support these cutting-edge businesses which provide high-skilled jobs and valuable export earnings.

When the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act was passed more than 10 years ago, I had an amendment accepted that permits the use of evidential roadside breath testing instruments. After all this time, however, the Home Office has still not provided type approval for any such equipment. A number of target dates for achieving type approval have been missed and, as far as I am aware, there is now no target date whatsoever. This means that the equipment is not available to our police officers, who have to take suspected offenders to a police station for an evidential sample.

Yet it seems that type approval can sometimes be achieved quickly. The so-called “drugalyser”, which tests a driver’s saliva for certain drugs, was passed for police use by the Home Office in a relatively short time, despite the technical challenges involved. Could it be that this was due to a commitment made by the former Prime Minister, David Cameron?

Then there is the thought that the police could have multi-function cameras to serve a number of purposes: security, safety, licensing, insurance requirements and more. Equipment exists that can detect unlicensed or uninsured drivers, speeding, red light running and so on, but type approval for each camera is generally limited to a single purpose. As a result, the police are required to buy two or more cameras to do the same job, thereby adding to the costs, or simply failing to enforce. It is interesting that the University of Hertfordshire has some PhD people working on some very interesting improvements in ANPR and two of them are police officers.

One must acknowledge that the number of vehicles on our roads has increased considerably and the safety features of modern vehicles have greatly improved. We must also acknowledge that the standard of driving has fallen for various reasons, including poor driving test standards in many countries, which are legal there but not accepted here. Then we must acknowledge the improved safety devices in modern cars, which can effectively prevent road deaths in certain circumstances. However, we must also remember that in a serious collision, where the vehicle stops in less than one second, the human body is not designed to stop from high speed in that time.

Finally, there are lots of excellent specialist collision investigation units within the police. These units look for evidence that may support a prosecution—for speeding or dangerous driving, for example—but they do not look for wider causation factors, such as pressure from an employer to complete a delivery, or how the design of the car or road contributed to the collision. It has been suggested, somewhat strongly, that a road collision investigation unit should be formed and there should be an overhaul of how collision information is gathered and analysed. This would complement, not replace, the work of the police. We have separate investigation branches for rail, air and maritime accidents, so why not for people who die on the roads? At the moment roads policing operations tend to be swept under the carpet whenever possible and it is not generally acknowledged that many more people die on our roads than are murdered.

20:18

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak this afternoon and to say how inspiring so many of the speeches have been. I was particularly inspired by three prominent Welsh lawyers, one after another: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Elystan-Morgan. We would have had to pay a massive fee, I think, if we had to see them in any other place. In the wide-ranging speeches, we had one great disappointment, and I am sure the Minister involved will know exactly what I am referring to; there has been no commitment at all to receiving the 20,000 Syrian refugees as promised by David Cameron. It is not there in the Queen’s Speech. Nor is there a commitment to increase the number of unaccompanied child refugees. When you think that in Europe there are still about 88,000 of these children by themselves, we have met no commitment whatever in the Speech that we are discussing this afternoon. It has been a great disappointment in that direction.

We are probably going to get another immigration Bill; we get one every Session. I am not sure what we are going to do in a two-year Session: will we get two or just one and a half? We are going to get new legislation, and every time we do it makes it more difficult for those who are vulnerable and those who wish to escape from total austerity to come here. We can promote many amendments when that new Bill comes. We can ask why asylum seekers are still refused permission to work for the first 12 months of their time in the United Kingdom. Is there any reason whatever? I cannot see any. Why, also, do we have legislation that permits 18 year-olds to be deported? Those who are deported are largely those who have had no access to legal advice. The Government could, quite easily I think, make a commitment that everyone who approaches 18 years of age shall at least have the benefit of top-rate legal advice.

There is one other thing I would like to see in the new immigration Bill. Do you know how much people get every week when they are applying? It is £36.95, and this has not increased at all in the past five or six years. Anything that we can do to uprate that to the present cost of living would be very welcome.

I have come across a poem by Warsan Shire of Somalia that describes the circumstances, and I shall quote part of it:

“You have to understand/that no one puts their children in a boat/unless the water is safer than the land

No one burns their palms/under trains/beneath carriages

No one spends days and nights in the stomach of a truck/feeding on newspaper/unless the miles travelled meant something more than journey.

No one crawls under fences.

No one wants to be beaten/pitied

No one chooses refugee camps/or strip searches where your/body is left aching/or prison/because prison is safer/than a city of fire … ”.

The accusation is that they have:

“messed up their country and now they want to mess ours up”.

I could go on but I had better not. In the United Kingdom, there are many victims of the harshest circumstances.

We in the House of Lords can lead the way in defining the character of the United Kingdom. Is it be one of which we are proud, that we are delighted to be part of, or do we have to say, “This is not in my name”? Years ago, I dreamed of a country that could be a model of moral leadership, and so on, in the world. I thought of India when Mahatma Gandhi was there. I thought of the victims of the Holocaust, who had been through so much trauma themselves that they could surely lead, but that was not so. Now, who do we choose? Which is that nation? Now we are four nations: Wales—let us put Wales first—England, Scotland and Ireland. Could we not be the nation that leads morally in this ruptured world? I am proud to be a Welshman—your Lordships might have gathered that over the years—and I want my kids and grandchildren to have even more reason to be proud than I do.

20:23

[Lord Laird (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I offer sincere apologies to the Government Front Bench for not being here at the opening of the debate. I am having a difficult day. I have not spoken here for two years, deliberately, because over that period and before I have had a number of difficulties with a heart condition, including arrhythmia, which place me in a rather difficult position. I have had a very difficult day today, to be quite honest. A bit like my colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, I had my notes for today neatly typed out on my machine at home, but I am here and everything has been hacked into so I have been trying to recreate what I have to say. I would like your Lordships’ indulgence and understanding this evening. Earlier today, I nearly scratched from speaking because I felt that bad. I am not quite in the position that I would like to be in, but I want to talk about a topic that is of interest to me.

One of the important organisations in Northern Ireland, which leaves a tremendous impression—whether it is a good impression or another thing—is the Northern Ireland Parades Commission. It is wholly unaccountable to either the courts or to Parliament, yet it is publicly funded, making quasi-judicial decisions enforceable by the courts and police. It is under no obligation to give reasons for its decisions or even to explain how they were made. It is under no obligation to keep or maintain records of decisions. Attendance of commissioners at decision-making and other meetings is not recorded or published. A body applying for permission to parade is not allowed to know the reason for the complaint made against it. Consequently, a defendant cannot defend themselves because they do not know what the complaint against them is.

I will look at a few well-documented cases. Police reports indicate that during the Ardoyne difficulties in Belfast, which we have all heard of, the paraders did not cause any of the violence in any year and they conformed to all the rules, regulations and restrictions put upon them by the Parades Commission. It would appear that the commission, in banning the peaceful parades for a number of years, is not only giving in to violent protest but even condoning or rewarding such violence. One could claim that it is criminally aiding and abetting the use of violence to prevent a lawful peaceful assembly. This would constitute a criminal conspiracy in itself by being in violation of the state’s duty to uphold the right of peaceful assembly, which is in the European Convention on Human Rights.

To underline, we in Northern Ireland have, funded by the taxpayer, a quasi-judicial body that is not answerable to the courts, Parliament or our Assembly, yet it can have a considerable impact on day-to-day affairs. What is urgently required is a reconstruction of the commission to take account of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, both of which the United Kingdom has signed up to. The Belfast agreement is supposed to uphold these rights. Instead, we find that one section of the community has had its fundamental rights taken away. I thank your Lordships for your brief and kind attention.

20:29

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as a member of the independent advisory group of Marston Holdings, which is a judicial services company, and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

I welcome the announcement in the gracious Speech that legislation will be introduced to modernise the courts system. As noble Lords who have some experience of that system will recognise, investment in its services is much needed, and I hope that that will improve the situation, particularly for those who find themselves with no other route of redress. Civil court users include many small businesses and individual creditors who resort to the civil court to regain money that is owed to them and which is often the life-blood of their businesses or vital to their needs in some other way. Such creditors use the civil court to obtain a county court judgment that orders the individual or entity named to pay money that they owe. At present, county court judgments for debts of less than £600 or debts regulated under the Consumer Credit Act may be enforced only by county court bailiffs—directly employed staff of Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service. Creditors report waiting times of more than 10 months in some cases for a court order to be enforced by a county court bailiff. Such delays can have serious consequences for cash flow and are all the more difficult to bear when it is considered that it is civil creditors who subsidise the courts system for other users.

In the review of the civil court structure that Lord Justice Briggs conducted, which was published in July last year, he described a “serious blight” on the county court bailiff service and noted that criticisms of it had gone “entirely unchallenged.” It could be concluded that the underperformance of county court bailiffs results from long-standing underinvestment in the service, but Lord Justice Briggs expressed the view that investment at this stage would be unlikely to resolve the service’s shortcomings. Industry associations have long called for access to private sector enforcement for such debts, and Lord Justice Briggs recommended that a “detailed bespoke review” of civil enforcement processes be undertaken. The coalition Government had committed to reviewing the restrictions on private sector enforcement following a review of enforcement regulations that were introduced in 2014. No such review has yet been published, which has left civil creditors without clarity as to whether they can hope for greater choice in enforcement. I hope that your Lordships will agree that access to justice for civil creditors should be considered as part of the Government’s programme of court reform, so that those who subsidise the courts are better assured of achieving the remedy that they seek.

We know that Brexit casts its shadow across much that this Parliament will do. Whatever shape Brexit takes, local government will still be there, delivering local leadership and serving our communities and businesses. Driving local and regional economic growth will require investment in infrastructure, skills and enterprise and an ongoing willingness on the part of central government to trust its local and regional partners and to continue with the job of devolving powers and resources. Delivering local growth will be critical in reducing demand for council and other public services and in putting councils on a sustained financial footing. For too long, regional economies have underperformed in comparison with London and the south-east. It is estimated that, if the northern economy could just halve the gap between its productivity and the national average, that would add £34 billion to the value of the national economy. If the local economy in my home city of Bradford performed at a level that was commensurate with the city’s scale, it would be worth at least £13 billion, in comparison with the £9.5 billion that it is worth today.

To secure a sustainable future for local services, inclusive and balanced national and regional economies, and safe, vibrant and cohesive communities, we cannot afford to let devolution die or to let it flourish for some and lie fallow for others. That was the case before Brexit and it will continue to be the case beyond Brexit.

20:34

[Lord Smith of Leigh (Lab)]

My Lords, I need to begin by declaring my interests in local government: I am the leader of Wigan Council, a vice-president of the LGA, a vice-chair of SIGOMA, chairman of the Greater Manchester health partnership board and a member of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority.

The Queen’s Speech was a huge disappointment for local government. We understand the need to be exercised with Brexit in this Parliament, but the fact is that there is not a lot of substance for local government over the next two years in this gracious Speech. The first issue I want to raise, following my noble friend Lord Watts, is the finances of local government. Perhaps I may ask the Minister a simple question: has austerity ended yet? It clearly has in Northern Ireland—if you are there, you have £1 billion in your back pocket and can spend quite a lot—but what about those deprived communities in the north of England that my noble friend talked about? They already have much less per head in public spending and that will get even worse, so has austerity ended?

Secondly, following the terrible events over the last few weeks, what are the Government going to do about public services? We have heard police chief after police chief argue that they need more funding. In Greater Manchester, they have had to cope with the situation after the Manchester Arena bomb with 2,000 fewer police than we had in 2011. There clearly needs to be an increase; even this Government cannot resist that. There have been hints by the Secretary of State that in health, the public pay freeze may go beyond the 1%, which is unsustainable while inflation is beginning to rise. Again, the question for the Government is: if public pay begins to rise beyond the 1% that is in the forecast, who will pay the bill? Will it be local authorities or local taxpayers, who would really be a substitute for more cuts as it would be the only way they could pay those bills?

I am particularly concerned about the lack of clarity in the Government’s promise to allow local authorities to keep more of their business rate revenue. We thought that this was to happen over the course of the Parliament which started in 2015. There is nothing in this gracious Speech to indicate when or whether it will happen. I also want to know what the Government’s attitude is towards the pilots. A number of authorities, including Greater Manchester, have been piloting the issues around business rates collection and all we have been told by officials is that it will probably go on until the end of this year—although when we signed up to the deal, it was to continue over the next 12 months and to the end of 2019-20.

I turn to devolution because it is about not just the nations of this country but the regions of England as well. Since the departure of the former Chancellor to edit the Evening Standard, the commitment of the Government to devolution has been less than solid. We have not really understood where they are coming from. If we remember the northern powerhouse, there are arguments in favour of driving it up—the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, made clear what we still need to do—but does that still mean anything to anybody there? Coming on to Brexit, we need to make sure that the powers that are devolved back to this country from Brussels do not stop in the sticky fingers of Whitehall but can go down into the regions and local authorities. We need a voice to make sure that point is heard.

Given my health hat, I need to mention social care. It is promised that we will have a consultation on that but it is clearly a matter of urgency. The Government have tried to fix it on a number of occasions and the last Budget put a bit more cash in the system. But there is really a long-term problem with the ageing population and the impact it has on not just local authorities but the health service as well, creating bed-blocking and other issues in the NHS. The King’s Fund is predicting a further gap of more than £2 billion by 2019-20, so we need a solution early and it needs to be consensual if it is to work properly.

Finally, I turn to the awful events of the tragedy around Grenfell Tower. In the past, national and local government have really not taken fire safety seriously in all our buildings. Whatever the outcome of the inquiry—I hope it is a quick inquiry—we need to take that on board. For example, we cannot still have schools deciding on the whim of a head teacher whether or not to impose sprinklers. It has to be done and we have to say, “If we want to keep our buildings and schools safe, it should be done properly”.

20:40

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech this year was conspicuous by what it left out and not only for the issues that made headlines. I want to know where corporate governance and responsibility have gone. In the previous Parliament, we had a Green Paper on corporate governance, and there were interesting things all over pages 17 and 18 of the Conservative manifesto, from criminal offences for directors putting pension schemes at risk and boards taking proper account of employees, suppliers and the wider community, to legal enforcement of takeover promises and much more. These are issues at the heart of public concern and trust and, through that, productivity, and I hope they are not abandoned.

Some of these topics sit better in yesterday’s debate, but there are overlaps with the Ministry of Justice when it comes to the real nitty-gritty of making things stick legally, especially when criminal sanctions are required. The noble Baroness the Minister, who unfortunately is not in her place, will recall my submissions during the passage of the then Criminal Finances Bill about how the identification doctrine has restricted the ability to hold companies to account. The Ministry of Justice has shied away from this issue, last Session issuing a call for evidence instead of the consultation promised at the anti-corruption summit and delaying serious preparation for legislation.

Transparency International, among others, summarised the situation in its evidence. As long ago as 2010, the Law Commission called UK corporate liability laws “inappropriate and ineffective”. In 2012, the Government recognised in introducing deferred prosecution agreements that:

“Options for dealing with offending by commercial organisations are currently limited and the number of outcomes each year, through both criminal and civil proceedings, is relatively low”.


More recently, the Government stated in their July 2015 consultation on a new corporate offence of failure to prevent tax evasion:

“Under the existing law it can be extremely difficult to hold ... corporations to account for the criminal actions of their agents.”


The fact is that the criminal liability test and corporate governance do not align. We could go on introducing more individual “failure to prevent” offences, and it would be better than nothing, but the need to do that begs the question of why we go on piecemeal, always behind the curve, missing culprits.

Two recent events put corporate behaviour in focus: first, the SFO, which is an organisation worth keeping, bringing charges against Barclays and individuals and, secondly, potential criminal charges as a result of the Grenfell fire, on which I welcome a full public inquiry and associate myself with the sympathy and gratitude expressed to victims and rescue workers by other noble Lords. I do not want to probe those cases now, other than the general lessons that they point to yet again.

Many ordinary folk felt gratified that the SFO was bringing charges against a bank and senior bank executives, not because of the particulars of the case but rather from frustration that the identification doctrine and the directing mind and deliberate intent tests had conspired to make companies and directors immune as regards the financial crisis. When it comes to the Grenfell fire, issues of corporate manslaughter may be raised, and that legislation was made specifically to overcome the identification doctrine that had previously thwarted prosecutions. That legislation was yet another admission of previous failure. Is it not about time there was a universal solution to the immunity that the identification doctrine has perpetuated?

It is not better regulation to do things piecemeal. This is one issue—corporate responsibility and liability—and it needs to be fixed universally. It does not work to have permissive, comply-or-explain and self-certification regimes coupled together with an inability to prosecute for egregious failures. The more Government go light touch on regulation and corporate governance, the greater the need to plug the gaping hole in justice. Will the Government publish the responses to the call for evidence and will they take further steps towards implementing a strict liability regime?

20:45

[Lord Eames (CB)]

My Lords, this has been a very wide-ranging and in-depth discussions this evening on the Queen’s Speech. I make no apology for bringing to your Lordships’ attention, as we come to the end of the debate, a theme which has reared its head at almost every juncture of today’s work: the question of devolution. I do it for this reason. Although much reference has been made to Northern Ireland and its problems, its hopes and its failures, there has been little reference to the theory of devolution, which lies constitutionally, legally and politically at the root of many of the relationships of a country that faces Brexit. I believe that some of the lessons that come from my part of the United Kingdom are worth remembering as we approach that crucial stage of our history.

People say the Troubles are over. There were those of us in this House and in the other place who, when we saw the ending of the obvious elements of strife, turned away and said, “It’s over—it’s now history and we can move on”. But those of us who dedicated so much of our active lives to building bridges, healing wounds and trying to bring communities together know that it is still a tender plant when we talk of the peace process. For that reason, when I hear people talking about the question of the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland, and the fact that it will soon become the frontier between the United Kingdom and the European Union, I wonder: do we pause to think of the significance of that other word which has to be linked to the theory of devolution—the word “relationships”? Relationships not only within the devolved nations but between the devolved nations and between those nations and central government will be tested as never before when Brexit becomes a reality.

I do not speak as a party politician or to represent a political party, but as one who has seen where relationships can break down, where harm can be done and where injury can be caused when this tender plant called relationships is allowed to flounder. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, reminded us earlier on in this debate of the importance of looking at the whole theory of devolution —what is happening in Northern Ireland with the collapse of the Administration and with the questions being asked about how Brexit will affect the United Kingdom as a whole. But remember, it will first and foremost affect the people of Northern Ireland. The border is not just a question of north/south but a question of east/west. Those relationships go to make up the community from which I come, and it is a question which we cannot allow to founder in the happenings of Brussels.

The Queen’s Speech rightly reminded us that the Government will attempt to work closely with the devolved nations in the years ahead, particularly through the Brexit process. However, they must go further than that in the case of Northern Ireland. It must be recognised that before, during and after Brexit the relationships that have been so carefully built up in the peace process could be fractured. Those of us who live there, and who know it is a tender plant, know that the slightest wavering of purpose or outside pressure could quite easily take us back. I am ashamed to say it, but I have to admit that sometimes I believe we are only a gasp away from seeing some of the darkness of that period return.

I beg the Government, as they approach Brexit and all its complications, and as they look at the theory of devolution, to remember that we are talking not just about laws or the constitution but about ordinary human beings who have been through a great deal and who have the right to expect, from this place and the other, a sensitivity that will ensure that Brexit is as much about people as it is about things.

20:51

[Baroness Seccombe (Con)]

My Lords, my few words are about broken relationships. I was pleased to hear in the gracious Speech that a draft Bill on domestic violence and abuse is to be introduced later in this Session. When I was a new, raw, young and inexperienced magistrate, crimes of this nature were few and far between, the reason being that they were rarely reported. It seemed to me at that time that if a case came before the court there was a reluctance by magistrates to get involved. Such delicate issues were private matters between husband and wife, and in any case very difficult to prove. I could never accept that, and said so.

Women at that time often believed that if they were attacked and severely bruised by their husband it must be their fault, and that to seek any outside assistance was not the answer as they would pay for it later. Men very rarely sought relief from the courts; they saw it as rather shameful as it showed a sign of weakness, and felt that they and they alone should be able to resolve the problem. Thank goodness we have come a very long way since then. There has been a mammoth change in the attitude of society, which will no longer accept such cruel treatment being committed under the radar. People, both male and female, have come forward, and since 2015 police forces have centrally collected recorded offences.

Publicity and numerous passionate campaigns have meant that there has been a dramatic rise in recorded crime. Based on the latest figures, in 2015, 7% of women and 4.5% of men experienced domestic abuse. In other words, over 1 million women and two-thirds of a million men were victims and suffered in this perfectly sickening way. These distressing statistics caused concern and demanded action. Since then the Government have made stopping violence against women and girls a priority, as no one should live in fear of violence. Everyone has the right to feel safe in their home.

As a result, new laws have been introduced. For example, protection orders stop the offender from returning to the house. There is a new offence of coercive behaviour, with a maximum of five years’ imprisonment. Forced marriage is now a criminal offence, and there is protection for victims of stalking. The law on female genital mutilation has been strengthened, so now it is a criminal offence to fail to protect a young girl from this hideous practice. More funding for advisers, rape crisis centres and women’s refuges has also been committed. Much of this has been done, so now is the right time for extensive consultation so that a Bill can come before the House which will make our citizens able to live without the dread of such repulsive behaviour.

We think and talk a lot about care in society today. In my mind, nothing is more important than caring for people who have suffered for generations at the hands of bullies, and all behind closed doors. I hope that the legislation that will be brought before the House will protect victims and punish those who commit crimes in an appropriate manner. That, for me, is at the heart of the caring agenda.

20:55

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, it is difficult to see much in the gracious Speech that will address the social division, injustice, unfairness and inequality identified as “abhorrent” in the Conservative manifesto. Even welcome measures, such as those on domestic abuse, discussed so powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, just now, will be brought forward only in draft form. That is the more disappointing, as this is an opportunity to put into law the Government’s stated intention in its manifesto that survivors of domestic violence will retain the right to an automatic lifetime tenancy under the Housing and Planning Act 2016. As this is not mentioned in the background briefing on the draft Bill, it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm this intention on the record tonight. I would also welcome an assurance that there will be no further delay in ratifying the Istanbul convention.

Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, I would say that the thought of a third Conservative immigration Bill in as many years does not inspire hope after the last two, particularly as the manifesto appeared to suggest that asylum seekers who manage to make their own way to the UK are not deserving of help. Even when they achieve refugee status, this group is already profoundly disadvantaged through a two-tier system that has developed for refugees, identified by the inquiry into the experience of new refugees conducted by the APPG on Refugees, of which I was a member, and published just before the election. Our report, Refugees Welcome?, observed that while many local communities indeed make refugees welcome, in too many areas we identified barriers to integration and lack of support for refugees that undermine those positive examples and take away from the protection that refugee status should entail.

These barriers are very much of the Government’s making, and they include: the far-too-short 28-day move-on period between the ending of Home Office support and the provision of mainstream social security and housing, which leaves many destitute, and will be even more problematic under universal credit, paid only after six weeks; inadequate support to learn English, other than for resettled Syrians; and restrictive family reunion rules, identified by the UN refugee representative as one of the biggest obstacles to integration. The inquiry also warned that the recent announcement of automatic use of safe return reviews will undermine refugee integration still further.

Acceptance of our recommendations, including for a cross-departmental national refugee integration strategy overseen by a Minister for Refugees, could make a valuable contribution to the wider “new integration strategy” promised in the manifesto. It was proposed under the rubric of,

“A country that comes together”,

and “Integrating divided communities” in the context of immigration, ethnic diversity and extremism. But, as the shameful and tragic Grenfell Tower fire underlined, communities are also divided by social class and socioeconomic inequality.

All the predictions are that, on current government policies, especially the benefits freeze, the socioeconomic divide will worsen markedly during this Parliament, as will homelessness, according to Shelter. Despite the manifesto’s vague aspiration to,

“reduce levels of child poverty”,

independent estimates indicate the opposite is all too likely.

One of the Grenfell Tower residents was quoted as saying, “They don’t care about us. They don’t listen to us”. For too long, people in social housing and people living in poverty have been treated with contempt, their lives and their views counting for nothing. Along with an end to prioritising cutting spending and so- called red tape over safety and housing needs, one of the most fundamental lessons for public authorities has to be that people on benefits and/or in low-paid and insecure work must be treated as citizens of equal worth, with equal voice and equal rights.

I have one final point. Following yesterday’s helpful briefing, can the Minister give an assurance that any Grenfell Tower residents rehoused in larger and/or more expensive accommodation will not be subject to the bedroom tax or benefit cap? The suggestion that they can in any case be protected through discretionary housing payments is not good enough. The clue is in the name—discretionary. Any diminution of the tenants’ social security rights would mean they are not being,

“guaranteed a new home on the same terms as the one they lost”—[Official Report, 22/6/17; col.71]—

as promised by the Prime Minister in last week’s Statement to Parliament. Anything less would surely be too cruel for people who have gone through such trauma.

21:01

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, over the last few days the constantly muddled and largely misleading comments on the proper constitutional role of your Lordships’ House have persuaded me that I should spend a few minutes on that this evening, because obviously it affects every single proposal in the gracious Speech.

Last week, my noble friend Lord Purvis reminded the House that we are all minorities now. The Prime Minister’s Faustian pact with the DUP yesterday does not change that. It follows, therefore, that not only is the Salisbury-Addison convention irrelevant—indeed, it was declared dead and buried by the 2006 Select Committee on parliamentary conventions, on which I served—but all the other conventions do not really apply either, except, of course, that which relates to the primacy of the elected other place.

Let me explain. This is not a coalition. It has no fully agreed programme of government, supported by a majority of MPs elected in the previous general election. It therefore has no manifesto mandate. With many others, I permitted myself a hollow laugh when the noble Lord, Lord Barker, said on television that he would have preferred a repeat of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat “strong and stable coalition”. Alone of all the Governments in my political lifetime, the 2010 coalition was a true majority Government. They were supported by a clear majority of those who voted. They could legitimately claim that the conventions redefined by the Select Committee report and approved by both Houses did apply. This Government cannot so claim.

In short, the committee briefly examined the circumstances of a minority Government but could reach no agreement and made no recommendations for the role of your Lordships’ House whatsoever in such circumstances, as referred to by my noble friend Lord McNally. We are now in a completely new situation.

Many in the House served in the short Parliament of 1974, as I did as an MP. Indeed, my noble friends Lord Beith and Lord Steel were very active Members, as we had to be in that Parliament. Even that short Parliament does not provide a firm precedent for our situation now, because there was then the presence of a large number of Conservative hereditary Peers in this House, and it was still largely a bilateral House in the other place, so of course the Salisbury-Addison agreement was thought to be generally applicable.

In any case, Prime Minister Wilson craftily avoided any controversial or contentious legislation for the whole of that summer, and simply waited for his opportunity to achieve a working majority. Anyone who thinks that is the situation now is well away in a fool’s paradise. Brexit is clearly very contentious, and I do not think the Prime Minister is going back to the polls.

This has urgent and vital lessons for all parts of this House, but especially for those of us who believe that Mrs May’s appeal to the country to back her approach on Brexit manifestly failed. In particular, those who have resolutely argued for a very different approach—on the Conservative, Labour and Cross Benches, as well as my colleagues here—have a constitutional duty, as well as a right, to stick to our judgment of what is in the country’s best interests in these circumstances. I trust that the Labour Front Bench will no longer simply roll over at the first whiff of pong in ping-pong.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, has a fully justified reputation for personal integrity, but she should bear in mind that the majority of Labour voters, particularly younger ones, have now twice said that they have a more positive view of the relationship with the EU than Messrs Corbyn and McDonnell. The Labour leadership in the Commons may still regard the single market as a capitalist conspiracy, but most of their voters do not. She and her colleagues really do not have to just suspend their own judgment, or desert those Labour voters. We should all take note of the copious signs of opinion, in the country as a whole, calling for a fresh approach. Some 69% now record support for continuing in the customs union and 53% want the public to decide, in a referendum, whether or not to accept the Brexit deal, rather than politicians.

With a minority Administration, not a coalition, this House has an overriding obligation to examine everything put before us with “extra special care”—I quote the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the Conventions Committee on this issue. And, yes, that applies as much to the flood of secondary Brexit-related legislation that we are told to expect as to the Bills themselves. How ironic: this process could end up with Parliament taking back control, with your Lordships’ House in the vanguard.

21:07

[Baroness Cavendish of Little Venice (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there are many aspects of the gracious Speech that I would have liked to speak on, but I decided to choose Islamist extremism, which many other noble Lords have already addressed. I worked on this in the Policy Unit in Downing Street and I hope that I can make a few brief and constructive points on it. In her excellent opening speech the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, rightly said that the Government’s counter- extremism strategy must ensure that our pluralistic values flourish. The noble Lord, Lord Rana, gave a very eloquent testimony of his own experiences of terror in various parts of the world. The noble Baroness also pointed to the very welcome increase in CT spend over the last few years. However, we all know that the number of subjects of interest to the security services is growing at an exponential rate. That creates an enormous challenge, as we have seen in recent tragic events.

I believe that the battle against Islamist extremism is the battle of my generation. We are up against an ideology that is as brutal as fascism—and unlike fascism it cloaks itself in religion. That is one of the reasons why it has been particularly difficult to challenge it in this country. As we all know, this ideology seeks to persuade Muslims that it represents the purest form of Islam, and is utterly incompatible with our values in the West. There are a number of organisations in this country which seek to convince normal, law-abiding people that the West seeks to destroy the Muslim ummah. That is believed by far too many people in some of our communities.

As many other noble Lords have said, this is not, of course, the Islam which the majority of law-abiding people in this country follow and practise. However, when the terrorists self-identify as Muslims and cloak themselves in ideology and theology at the same time, I have to slightly disagree with the point made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, as I think that we need to be very careful about denying all links. To do that is to disempower the moderate reformers who are campaigning every day against the fusing of this religion and politics, and who are challenging the scriptural basis that the extremists claim. Theirs will be the most important voices in providing an alternative narrative to our British teenagers, some of whom are attracted by this potent combination of, if you like, an eighth-century world view with 21st-century technology. Many of those moderate campaigners, whom only a few in this House will have heard of and very few of the public will know of, are precisely the people who would like us all to be perhaps a little more honest and back them more strongly in confronting the sources of the ideology, because there are some very plausible voices—make no mistake—on the other side. There are some very plausible organisations that are just inside the law but which we perhaps need to do more to confront.

This brings me to the commission for countering extremism that was mentioned in the gracious Speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this commission will be powerful. I hope that it will be powerful in the right way. We do not yet know, of course, whether it will be a full-scale legislative vehicle. We do not know whether it will be based in the Home Office or DCLG. I am slightly disappointed to hear that its work is not expected to start until next April: I hope that that can be accelerated. It is clearly worth taking time, though, to get the terms of reference right. Members of this House know probably better than anyone that commissions can have impact only if they draw on relatively narrow terms of reference.

I will make only one point about the terms of reference. This commission could encompass a million things and there will be many views about what it should do. However, I would take as my starting point the speech made by the Prime Minister on 4 June. I was struck by her saying that civil society needed to have some difficult and embarrassing conversations to root out extremism. I do not think that that was something she said lightly. For when I look back on the last six years of government trying to tackle Islamist extremism—successive Governments have gradually tried to grip this issue—it strikes me that the most successful initiatives which have most empowered the moderates have been those which have not shirked the difficult conversation.

The review of Prevent undertaken by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in 2011, when he challenged the Federation of Student Islamic Societies, is one example. Peter Clarke’s report on Birmingham will be another. The Ian Acheson review into extremism in prisons will be another. Finally, I mention Louise Casey’s 2016 review into integration, with which I was involved. I strongly recommend that its recommendations, particularly on schools and women’s rights, are looked at very seriously, I hope by the commission and if not in some other way, because we do not have the luxury of time to get on with some recommendations which I think would command cross-party support.

The Government need to challenge themselves, too. We need to know why Muslims who warned about Salman Abedi in Manchester apparently were not heeded. In asking difficult questions and engendering difficult conversations, a commission should ask itself why other people do not report to the authorities. That is actually not always for the reasons one might assume. It can also be because they fear that they will not be listened to.

I thank noble Lords for listening. I hope that this commission can be accelerated, as I said—but, more fundamentally, that it will do its best to have an honest debate.

21:14

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, this evening I add my voice to those who would speak in support of the gracious Speech. As time is limited, I will focus on one aspect only: a united Britain.

As stated in the Speech:

“A priority will be to build a more united country, strengthening the social, economic and cultural bonds between England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales”.


Rarely in my lifetime have we witnessed such forces at work to drive wedges of division through every part of our society: between young and old, north and south, employer and employee, black and white, Christian and Muslim, home owner and renter, leaver and remainer. As I have talked with people on all sides of this House and as we have all watched the events of the last few weeks unfolding, we all seem to recognise the need to build a more united country, where the social, economic and cultural bonds are strengthened. We must refuse to be divided. Last week I walked across London Bridge and saw the small altars and flowers to those who had died. Across the internet are campaigns such as Not In My Name—ordinary members of the public standing with their neighbour, no matter who they are, refusing to be divided.

The referendum result itself has given a voice to many of those who felt disfranchised, and seeing their will enacted by leaving the EU can bring them hope of a stake in the future. But if we are to truly change how people’s lives feel, we must also trigger wider social reform and a better and clearer vision of social justice, by stabilising employment, making home ownership a reality for the many, and providing greater access to good schools and healthcare. This is the only real and long-term way to heal a divided nation, and these are some of the social, economic and cultural bonds that need to be strengthened. As the Prime Minister has said:

“That means fighting against the burning injustice that, if you’re born poor, you will die on average 9 years earlier than others. If you’re black, you’re treated more harshly by the criminal justice system than if you’re white. If you’re a white, working-class boy, you’re less likely than anybody else in Britain to go to university. If you’re at a state school, you’re less likely to reach the top professions than if you’re educated privately. If you’re a woman, you will earn less than a man. If you suffer from mental health problems, there’s not enough help to hand. If you’re young, you’ll find it harder than ever before to own your own home”.


While many of these things require more action than legislation, they need to be central to the focus of the Government’s approach to bringing unity. This is the work that now needs to be done if we are to unify this amazing nation.

We need to unite by strengthening our social bonds. When many individuals and communities feel so alienated, we must address ways of rebuilding relationships. For years I have been saying that a lack of social capital and life chances characterise our most divided communities. There has rarely been a more important time to act. We must unite by strengthening our economic bonds. From schools that prepare people for work, to the training and development that help people on in their careers, we need to look at how individuals do not just remain employed but thrive in their work. We must also strengthen the cultural bonds.

This moment is an unfrozen moment, where change at every level of society is possible. It should not be reduced to moments of conflict, or pitting people against one another, or of international negotiation only, but rather to an opportunity to bring this nation back together and bring healing. Now is the moment to offer a better, new and inclusive vision for our society.

Unity in this country is something that is built with millions of small decisions: an imam standing in the gap to protect an aggressor, a neighbour providing accommodation for a stranger at Grenfell Tower, or decisions of community members to reach across divisions, as we have seen in Manchester and London. It could be the unity of the young serving the older generation and the older generation sharing their stories with the young so that wisdom goes down through the ages, or the unity of purpose around a challenge the size of Brexit that we need to get right to protect this nation for future generations.

Many quote Jo Cox—we have more that unites us than divides us—but then immediately reach for points of division. Unity comes when we choose not to point-score politically even though one could, and to fix one’s eyes on the bigger picture and the bigger challenge. Unity comes when we reach across artificial barriers of background, race and creed. Unity comes when we say no to days of rage and say “Not in my name”. And unity comes when we are responsible with the power and influence we have and use it to build confidence and not to tear down. The bonds of common humanity have to be stronger than the divisiveness of our fears and prejudice. The Brexit negotiations are critical for the prosperity of this nation but the social negotiations are crucial for the reuniting of this nation.

21:20

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, there are references in the Queen’s Speech to keeping the population safe and safeguarding national security—words of comfort—yet over the past two weeks the UK media have been astonished by investigatory reports published by buzzfeed.com about more than a dozen suspicious “non-suspicious” deaths in the UK. BuzzFeed published the reports, which are extensive and detailed, on 12, 15, 19 and 20 June, and I invite noble Lords to access them. According to BuzzFeed, the Government have declined to comment on any of the deaths due to “national security concerns”.

I do not propose to go into any detail but I think it would be useful if I read out the names of the people whose deaths are the focus of the reports: Scot Young, Boris Berezovsky, Stephen Moss, Badri Patarkatsishvili, Stephen Curtis, Yuri Golubev, Paul Castle, Robert Curtis, Johnny Elichaoff, Alexander Litvinenko, Matthew Puncher, Igor Ponomarev, Daniel McGrory, Gareth Williams and Alexander Perepilichnyy.

In all but one case, the police have found the deaths to be non-suspicious. They have been classified as due to natural causes, accidents or suicide. One of them is subject to a current inquest in London, during which the Government have withheld information and refused to co-operate with the French police regarding a French connection to the death. One case involves a suicide decision, as a result of the person stabbing themselves to death with two separate knives.

Certainly, the death of Mr Litvinenko in 2006 cannot be held to be non-suspicious, given the result of the inquiry by Sir Robert Owen in January 2016. The evidence was so blatant that action had to be taken, but it caused a severe rift with Russia to the extent that high-ranking US intelligence officials fear that the UK is failing to get to grips with the threat. They claim, as do officials cited in the BuzzFeed reports, that it has caused a 10-year stand-off with the Kremlin, but several officials quoted in the reports claim that the UK Government have been particularly keen to preserve the flow of Russian money into London banks and properties.

Nine of the deaths related to one circle of people. The police declared them non-suspicious, yet the BuzzFeed report reveals that MI6 asked its US counterparts for information about each of them in the “context of assassinations”.

Examples are given in the report of the UK Government refusing to fully co-operate with some of the inquests, citing “international relations” or “national security”. Named former UK senior counterterrorism officers make it clear that investigating such cases is “very, very dangerous territory” and,

“completely out of the scope of local police”,

and that,

“the government withholds evidence from coroners ‘quite a lot’… because it’s ‘diplomatically easier’”,

and,

“the UK is soft on such things”,

as,

“‘brazen’ Russian assassinations in Britain ‘right out in the daylight’”.

Eleven of the deaths occurred after the murder of Mr Litvinenko. Some of those who died had been UK public sector employees where the employer needs to be tested on the duty of care. Public Health England is in the frame, as are the security services. Either we no longer have the capacity to investigate such deaths or someone has told the police not to fully investigate them. The police are not stupid, but it has been shown that UK public bodies find it very difficult to change decisions once made.

What do Ministers say about these reports, which have been very negatively received on the other side of the Atlantic? Quite clearly, some members of our population have not been kept safe. Notwithstanding what the Minister might say, I believe that there is a strong case for the relevant House of Commons committees to start examining these reports and to start asking some very searching questions.

21:24

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate today in response to the devolved issues raised in the gracious Speech. From the outset, I express profound disappointment at the lack of detail about future policies relating to our communities, families and economy in Wales. This is a Brexit programme for government following the Brexit general election, which produced no mandate in Wales for the Conservative manifesto. Although the manifesto made no specific legislative proposals for Wales, it made some specific commitments. Would the Minister care to comment on these?

Little has been heard since the election on the general principle of improving infrastructure in Wales. For many there will be dismay that projects such as the Swansea Bay tidal lagoon did not even appear in the manifesto, and the electrification of main lines appears to have slipped off the Government’s priority list. The worry for many of us is that the lack of reference to Wales in the Queen’s Speech engenders a feeling that Wales is continuing to be ignored and that important decisions for Wales are likely to be kicked into the long grass.

The Conservative manifesto committed to investing in an improved infrastructure for Wales, in particular to modernising our railways. Will the Minister assure me that this commitment has not been dropped and that we can be assured that it will go ahead? The Welsh Government have already developed business cases for major rail infrastructure investments, including Cardiff valleys electrification and, more recently, north Wales main line electrification, and has submitted these to the Department for Transport. On behalf of my fellow users of the north Wales main line and all other routes in Wales, I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the present status of these projects and the level of UK funding available for them.

The Welsh Liberal Democrats have campaigned for many years for the abolishment of tolls for vehicles using the Severn crossings. We are pleased to see this committed to in the Conservative manifesto. I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm that this is still the case.

The Minister will also be aware of the strong support across Wales for the Welsh language broadcaster S4C. There is widespread appreciation for the success it and Radio Cymru have achieved in meeting the demands of providing Welsh language broadcasting to satisfy a wide variety of viewers and listeners. I would appreciate an indication from the Minister of present government thinking on future funding.

On a related matter, I was interested to read recently that the DUP’s Arlene Foster is reported to have said on the possibility of an Irish language Act:

“If you feed a crocodile, it will keep coming back … for more”.


With plans for an Irish language Act apparently on the table at Stormont, I now suspect that the prospect of a £1 billion inducement will soon convince Mrs Foster that this particular crocodile has a pretty harmless appetite. Experience in Wales has shown that bilingualism brings many benefits in its wake and that there is nothing to fear.

As I said, the gracious Speech is a Brexit programme of work, but it does little to clarify what Brexit means, particularly in Wales. It leaves farmers in Wales still unclear about funding after 2020—funding that would enable them to plan investment in their businesses. It perpetuates their concerns about loss of access to the single market and the customs union, the importance of which to Wales has already been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. As their understanding of World Trade Organization rules increases, so farmers’ concerns in Wales about the imposition of average tariffs of 22% on their produce also grows. However, I welcome the inclusion in the gracious Speech of an agriculture Bill to set up a system to replace the common agricultural policy.

The gracious Speech leaves councils in west Wales and the valleys unclear about funding, too. With a GDP at 75% per capita of the EU average, on a par with Estonia and Lithuania, this part of Wales has qualified for EU structural funds since 2000. As with our farmers, 2020 looms as a cliff edge for structural funding. In two and a half years’ time, farmers will need security to continue their businesses. Councils need to be able to plan to continue to build the infrastructure to enable us to grow our economy, but still there appear to be no guarantees from the Government. However, now that we know that the magic money tree has been found and it really does exist, perhaps all my funding fears for Wales are unfounded.

21:30

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, in this wide-ranging debate, I will focus my remarks on the need for good and competent government. I start with one example where I believe government failed to rise to the occasion, the implications of which we are seeing today. I am referring to last year’s European referendum.

In a general election, the voters elect a Parliament and Government and so delegate to politicians the responsibility for taking complicated decisions. In a referendum, it is the other way round. Politicians delegate to the voters the responsibility for taking a complicated decision. Let me be clear that I am not for a moment criticising the decision to hold the referendum, but I am criticising the failure of the then Government to set out for the voters in a clear way the practical implications and challenges of remaining in the EU and of leaving the EU. More lamentable still was the failure of the Government to undertake any contingency planning, even though the option of leave was put on the table as a deliberate act of government policy, so there was a 50:50 chance of the country voting leave. Towards the end of a Parliament, the Cabinet Secretary initiates discussions with the main Opposition party to carry out preparatory work on that party’s programme were it to form the next Government. That is rightly done in the interests of good government. In the case of the EU referendum, no such work was done for leave.

Last Thursday, my noble friend the Leader of the House and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister both spoke of the need for government to consult and listen. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister winds up he will complete the sentence and assure us that, having consulted and listened, the Government will then respond and act. I welcome that there will be more Green Papers and discussion papers on, for example, the thorny question of social care. One positive by-product of so much Brexit legislation in this two-year session of Parliament is that it provides the Government with plenty of time for thinking and consulting, ready for well-developed policies to be introduced in year three of what I hope and expect to be a full five-year Parliament.

I make one short plea about consultation. It should be more than a box-ticking exercise. What matters is the quality of the responses and getting input from people with the relevant expertise. That brings me to how the Government could benefit more from the expertise in this House. I am thinking in particular of the many excellent reports produced by committees here. These are often debated on the Floor of the House and the Minister will of course be unfailingly courteous, but the substance of the speech will often be formal and formulaic. I have always thought that it would be far better for the relevant Minister, whether from the Commons or the Lords, to appear before the committee and be asked which proposals have been followed and which have been ignored. A little bit of pressing and prodding would be good because it is, after all, to Parliament that Ministers are responsible.

I want to say a final word about the role that special advisers can play in creating good government. Their job is to oil the wheels of government and to be a lubricant in the system, not grit. A good special adviser can help officials better understand and achieve the Minister’s policy objectives, but special advisers should never overreach themselves. The dictum should always be this: advisers advise and Ministers decide.

I believe that the gracious Speech is honest and straightforward. It sets out practical and achievable objectives, and I welcome it.

21:35

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to be speaking in the debate on the gracious Speech and to have the opportunity to raise an issue that I believe has been seriously neglected. Before I do that, I start on a positive note. I was pleased to see the inclusion of a number of reforms, including mental health legislation and on domestic violence and abuse—and, of course, the proposed consultation on social care which this time I hope will give social care charities and service users the opportunity to be heard.

I particularly welcome the focus on delivering on the Armed Forces covenant across the United Kingdom. I declare an interest having just completed a UK-wide report on veterans’ mental health needs. That report, alongside four detailed reports covering England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, were all commissioned by the Forces in Mind Trust. In fact the trust has just published an important second report on the community covenant which highlights issues of real concern. For example, there are mixed expectations about what the covenant means, especially in relation to the prioritisation of housing needs, and more worryingly, adult social care has been identified as an area where the covenant is least likely to be reflected in local policies and strategies. I hope that these and other issues will be considered in detail during the passage of the Armed Forces Bill.

However, I am confused by the proposed courts Bill. While of course I welcome a Bill to reform and modernise the courts and tribunal system, as many noble Lords have asked, what happened to the Prisons and Courts Bill that had been making its way through Parliament prior to the election? It had made good progress and was well supported across Parliament. Can the Minister say why this important work has been omitted from the Government’s legislative programme, particularly in light of the urgent and much-needed reforms of our prisons, including devolving greater powers to prison governors? By focusing almost exclusively on Brexit, are the Government failing to do their day job and ignoring a number of growing crises in public services?

I do not use the term lightly, but our prisons are in crisis. What else can you call a situation where we see soaring prison suicides, major staff shortages and rising drug use and violence among inmates? The 2016 figures from the Ministry of Justice paint a desperate picture. A record number of people killed themselves in prisons in England and Wales. There were 354 deaths in custody, including 119 self-inflicted deaths. That is only a little short of one person dying every single day. Self-harm incidents jumped by 23% to just under 38,000, which is nearly 7,000 more than were recorded in the previous year. There were more than 25,000 assaults in the 12 months to September 2016, representing a 31% rise. Of those, more than 18,000 were prisoner-on-prisoner assaults, up 28% from the previous year. Assaults on staff also rose 40% to around 6,500, and 761 of those were serious assaults. This Government cannot deny that people in prison, both prisoners and staff, are less safe than they have been at any time since records began.

Yet some of the most vulnerable people in our communities end up in prisons, including people with mental health problems and learning disabilities, people from black and ethnic minority groups, lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender people and women, many of whom are also victims themselves of domestic abuse. In terms of racial discrimination, there is greater disproportion in the number of black people in prisons in the UK than there is in the United States. The most shocking figures are found in the youth estate. Around 43%—nearly half—of 15 to 17 year-olds come from black and Asian minority ethnic backgrounds, and this is against a background of youth offending dropping for the population as a whole. In 2016, the Prime Minister ordered a review into how ethnic minorities and white working class people are treated by public services; but now it appears that no action will be taken to address the “burning injustices” described by the Prime Minister and to tackle discrimination against black and ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.

The overall situation in prisons is on a cliff edge. So I am calling on this Government to make a clear commitment to take action within this parliamentary Session to tackle these urgent issues. Without such action, I believe that we are heading towards a dangerous crisis point and placing some of the most vulnerable people in our communities at real risk.

21:40

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, as he undertakes the responsibility for speaking for Her Majesty’s Government on Northern Ireland issues in your Lordships’ House. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. During his time at the Dispatch Box, he was energetic and conscientious in keeping us involved and informed, and we appreciated that very much.

In February, in March, in April—not in May, because of the election—I spoke on issues of Northern Ireland, its political crisis and Brexit. I return today to speak again about Northern Ireland, not to repeat anything I said before, but to point up one or two issues on the politics of Northern Ireland, the problem of Brexit and also, perhaps briefly, about countering extremism.

I have heard a number of criticisms of the Government for their confidence and supply arrangement with the Democratic Unionist Party. I am no supporter of the Democratic Unionist Party. However, I draw to the attention of noble Lords that, with the honourable exception of Lady Sylvia Hermon, the only representatives of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons are the Democratic Unionist Party, voted for by the substantial majority of Protestant people in Northern Ireland. If the message is to go out that the only representatives of Northern Ireland will not be welcome, not only in a coalition but even in a confidence and supply arrangement, what does that say to the people of Northern Ireland? It does not say that they are very welcome in the affairs of the United Kingdom. Oh, we were all congratulated for going into power-sharing arrangements with each other, but do not expect anybody this side of the water to have anything to do with these people from that funny place.

Of course, I think it is important to draw attention to the fact that it is almost inevitable that Sinn Fein will be in coalition government in the Republic of Ireland before long, having massively overtaken the Labour Party. Unless Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil were to go into coalition—not entirely likely—the only other party for them would be Sinn Fein, and if they were to go into coalition, the negotiation would probably not be over £1 billion but over speaking rights for Westminster MPs from Sinn Fein to speak in the Dáil in Dublin; they have no intention of coming to Westminster at any stage in the future. Would that be a threat to the peace process?

I do not think any of these things are a threat to the peace process. Why? Because what Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and others demonstrated is that political progress is much more possible for them through the democratic political arrangements than through the barrel of a gun or through bombing. They are much more successful now than they ever were while using terrorist violence. So the likelihood of going back to terrorism is very modest. The peace process, in that sense, is largely over. We are now in a political process. The fact that it is in a bit of a mess does not make it entirely different from what is happening on this side of the water. Nor is the fact that there is deep polarisation in politics, with only two large parties, a major difference between Northern Ireland and England. We need to be a little bit more reasonable and honest about these things.

The parties there are in negotiation. They have been since 2 pm today. They need to reach an agreement by Thursday, and the Assembly has been called to meet at 12 pm. My question for the Minister is: if there is no agreement, whatever the Government do, will they ensure that the Assembly survives and we do not have direct rule without elected representatives from Northern Ireland being involved in an Assembly? Without that, we are in serious difficulty and there is the possibility of destroying a whole generation of Northern Ireland politicians.

That brings me to Brexit. There has been much talk about north-south difficulties. In economic terms, the problem for the Republic of Ireland is not north-south; it is east-west. The vast majority of the Irish economy is dependent on the relationship with England and Wales, not the relationship with Northern Ireland. I wish it were different, but it is not. The major thing in the economy in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland is co-operation over agriculture and agri-food business. That is where much of the economy is involved. That is where much of the north-south cross-border traffic is. I ask the Minister: would it be possible for the Government to lobby Brussels that, on the issue of agriculture and agribusiness, there should be an approach to the island as a whole and free movement of animals and agri-food business? That would deal with a lot of the practical issues of free movement of goods and services in Ireland. Of course, as far as the people are concerned, the common travel area is the important thing.

Finally, I will speak briefly about extremism. Nobody would doubt that what happened in Northern Ireland involved violent extremism. I am just back from Colombia. Nobody would doubt that what happened there was countering violent extremism. But the Government’s policy—from the war on terror to countering violent extremism to trying to produce a law that defined extremism, which did not work, now to a commission on countering extremism—will not work if it is based on the notion that this is all about extreme thinking. It is not. It is about extreme feelings that drive people to do things. People can believe all sorts of things, but they do not drive them to risk their lives. If I asked many noble Lords if they believed in heaven, they would probably say yes. If I said, “Would you like to go there?”, they would say yes. If I said, “Would you like to go this evening?”, they would say, “I am not in such a marvellous hurry”, because you can believe all sorts of things, but it takes passionate commitment to want to risk your life and your family for them. I hope that the commission will consult with those of us who have spent our lives working with violent extremism in order to understand what it is really about, not what people sitting in offices in peaceful parts of the world think it is about.

21:47

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, my contribution to this debate considers those aspects of the gracious Speech that relate to the nation’s housing. Of course, I begin by saying how deeply distressed everyone concerned with social housing has been by the terrifying, horrifying tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire. I join the many others stressing that robust building regulations clearly must come before cost-cutting and deregulation and, equally clearly, must be better enforced. In addition, I have three practical questions for the Minister.

First, in terms of the resources to make a number of other tower blocks safe, particularly in relation to external cladding, I know the Secretary of State has said that central government’s help and support to local authorities will include funding for remedial works. Am I right in assuming that the housing associations, a number of which have taken on the ownership and management of previously council-owned properties, can also expect to receive this new financial support?

Secondly, can we be assured that the resources for this important task will not be taken from the funding previously announced for the building of desperately needed new homes? Will the funds instead be additional, from new grants and/or from raising the cap on council borrowing for housing purposes and/or from ending the current compulsory 1% real reductions each year in rents, which have hampered spending on property maintenance and renovation?

Thirdly, was there a special accountability problem for Grenfell Tower because of the unusual governance structure adopted by Kensington and Chelsea, with ownership by the council and management by a separate tenant management organisation? Although a TMO should give greater opportunities for the voice of the tenant to be heard and heeded, this seems to have broken down completely in Kensington. Is the current inquiry considering whether the ownership and management framework in this case might have meant that decisions—to prevent a disaster as well as to deal with one—fell, catastrophically, between two parties, providing lessons for this particular governance model elsewhere?

To turn to other issues in the gracious Speech, I support in principle the Government’s plans to prohibit landlords and letting agents from charging fees to tenants, and I look forward to consideration of the details in the promised Bill. I also greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to improving the position of leaseholders, on which they will consult. Selling houses on a leasehold basis, with rapidly escalating ground rents, is only one of the scams that must be addressed.

The Government have also committed to seeing through their proposals to ensure that sufficient land is available for the building of their new target of 1.5 million homes by 2022. That is entirely right, but my anxiety is that too few of those new homes will be affordable to those who are on average and below-average earnings. That problem—exacerbated by disjointed policies on rents and housing benefit—will have to await debate on another day.

I conclude with some thoughts on the impact of Brexit on the Government’s plans for increased housebuilding. Housing depends on borrowing, so house buyers and housing developers are extremely vulnerable to economic instability and changes in interest rates. Housing is hit by a fall in the value of the pound because that means rising costs of imported building materials and imported labour. Could untoward economic effects of Brexit on housing be offset by reductions in EU inward migration? Of the household growth on which the Government’s housebuilding targets are predicated, 37% is attributable to immigration, so would less immigration from the EU enable the Government to lower its targets for new housebuilding? The Department for Communities and Local Government’s projections for the number of new homes that will be needed already assume a huge fall in net immigration—from 385,000 last year to just 170,500 by 2021. It seems most improbable that the total drop in migration overall will mean that the figures fall below those on which the current housing targets are calculated. Moreover, depending on the deal struck for Brits who live in the rest of the EU, and depending on the exchange rate, housing pressures may arise from some of those million-plus citizens returning to the UK.

Curbs on EU inward migration could affect the construction industry because of its abysmal record in recruiting and training an indigenous skilled workforce. The Construction Industry Training Board forecasts a deficit of 200,000 workers by 2020, following the retirement of 430,000 workers from 2010 to 2020. Any additional loss at this time from the 194,000 building workers who come from other EU countries—notably Poland—would certainly create serious difficulties. New apprenticeship schemes and even the prefabrication of homes in factories will not overcome the skills shortages any time soon. A transitional period for any limits on building workers from the EU will be essential if the housing that we need is not to take a serious hit. I trust that the Government will keep the nation’s vital housing requirements in mind as the great Brexit challenge moves on.

21:53

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, the debate has been broad and fascinating, but it has been set against a background of tragedy and widespread national uncertainty. From the Liberal Democrat Benches, my noble friends Lord Paddick, Lady Hamwee and Lord Roberts spoke on home affairs and covered policing, security and migration; my noble friends Lord Steel, Lord McNally, Lord Tyler, Lady Humphreys and Lord Alderdice spoke on devolved and constitutional affairs; and my noble friends Lady Pinnock and Lord Shipley spoke on communities and local government issues. I will restrict what I say to justice issues.

In the Queen’s Speech debate last year, I welcomed the Government’s proposed legislation on prison reform and suggested that its implementation would act as a litmus test of the Government’s commitment to spreading life chances to everyone. One year and two changes of Secretary of State for Justice later, the prisons and courts Bill has been stripped of all prison reform and all we have now is an open letter from the new Secretary of State promising “continuing improvement”.

This debate, however, with powerful and moving speeches from noble Lords across the House, including the noble Lords, Lord Faulks, Lord Dholakia, Lord Ramsbotham, Lord McNally, Lord Beith, Lord German and Lord Patel, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, has demonstrated not just a broad consensus but, I suggest, an overwhelming demand for urgent legislation on prison reform. Time and again, noble Lords have drawn attention to the appalling levels of violence, suicides and self-harm. Peter Clarke, in his first annual report as Chief Inspector of Prisons, graphically described the “upsurge in violence” and equally shocking prevalence of self-harm and suicide, the dangers faced by staff, and the tragic death of a court officer killed by a prisoner. He wrote of meeting,

“prisoners who have ‘self-segregated’ in order to escape the violence caused by”,

psychoactive substances, and members of staff who had described to him,

“the terrifying effects they can have”.

This is not a picture of continuing improvement but of a crisis that disgraces our national life and shames us with squalid conditions, chronic overcrowding, pitiful understaffing, inadequate education and training, too little opportunity to work and prisoners locked in cells for 22 hours a day. A new prisons Bill should introduce a new and purposeful approach to imprisonment directed at rehabilitation and reform, education and training, cutting reoffending and reducing prisoner numbers, together with a comprehensive set of statutory minimum standards for welfare applicable to all institutions across the prison estate. As a Liberal Home Secretary said as long ago as 1910:

“The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/7/1910; col. 1354.]


That Home Secretary was Winston Churchill. Will the Minister please explain why prison reform is off the legislative agenda? What kind of message does he think that sends to prisoners, staff and their families?

We are, however, to have a courts Bill and we welcome proposals for modernising the court system and the more effective use of technology. The Government propose straightforward and efficient access to justice for people and targeted support and care for those who need it. Central to that will be the LASPO Act review, scheduled for completion by April 2018. Will the Minister confirm that that timetable is still on track? Will the review address the damage caused by reductions in legal aid, particularly in housing and social welfare law? Will he support more exceptional case funding and simplified access to legal aid for domestic violence victims?

On domestic violence, I, along with my noble friend Lady Burt of Solihull and others, welcome the proposals to end direct cross-examination of victims by defendants and to keep victims and defendants apart in court. However, we all recognise that more than legislation is required to reduce the pain of domestic violence. My noble friends Lady Burt and Lord Scriven also emphasised the commitment of our party to further progress on equalities. In that regard, I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, urge the Government to implement the Law Commission’s proposals on cohabitation rights, as my Private Member’s Bill, shortly to be introduced, would do. We are also hugely relieved on these Benches—and I think other noble Lords around the House are so relieved—that the Government no longer plan to scrap the Human Rights Act or undermine the European Convention on Human Rights.

I turn to the proposed Brexit legislation. In doing so, I propose to challenge the Government’s almost obsessive determination to end the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The Government propose to convert EU law into UK law as we leave the EU, ensuring that the same rules apply after exit as applied before. That is supposed to provide a smooth and orderly transition while achieving the stated aim of ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU, yet the Government are committed by the White Paper to a withdrawal treaty that involves an agreement on EU citizens in the UK and our citizens in the rest of the EU, a new strategic partnership with the EU on trade and continued close collaboration on science and innovation, security and terrorism and justice, of which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford spoke so persuasively. Just how are any of these things to be agreed without the CJEU? Our European partners point out that these relationships involve not just the UK and the EU but all 27 remaining member states, which are all signed up to dispute resolution by the CJEU, and they are right.

British companies exporting to the EU must meet EU standards and will continue to have to do so. Those standards are monitored by the CJEU, as are environmental standards and all the arrangements for collaboration in the fields in which we seek it. The Government’s curious proposition seems to be that the law will be preserved in aspic as at our leaving date. They propose neither policy nor principle nor mechanism for handling changes in EU law. How will we deal with new directives and regulations? How will we deal with differing decisions of the CJEU and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom? If the answer is that we will adopt all new EU law for the sake of consistency and good sense, then why commit to ending the jurisdiction of the CJEU in the first place? If the answer is that we will diverge at will, there is no meaningful future for co-operation. To take one example, on data retention, the European court ruled last year, on the application originally brought by David Davis, that blanket retention of citizens’ data communications is unlawful. Where then do we go on security co-operation if the UK Government take a different view and legislate inconsistently with the ruling so that the Supreme Court is bound to implement that UK legislation?

These issues have simply not been properly addressed. Nor has the whole area of maintaining our arrangements for applicable law under Rome Regulations I and II or for jurisdiction recognition and enforcement of judgments under the Brussels regime and Brussels II, which are all administered under the jurisdiction of the CJEU. The Government appear not even to have begun to appreciate the complexity of dismantling the whole edifice of European co-operation on justice issues.

On these Benches, we believe that the decision to leave the EU was a dreadful mistake. We will seek to retain membership of the single market and the customs union. We will put international co-operation and prosperity first. We will not be cowed by claims that the referendum authorised the Government to undermine Britain’s prosperity and security and to damage the interests of the United Kingdom with a self-destructive mishmash of dogmatic but mutually inconsistent and intellectually incoherent ambitions. Democracy does not demand that, following the referendum, we simply get on with Brexit whatever the social and financial cost, and on these Benches we will not stand by and agree to the Government so doing.

22:04

[Lord Beecham (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin by referring to my interests in the register—my local government interests and my unpaid consultancy with my former solicitors’ firm—but also by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who has chosen to celebrate his birthday with us today.

Portraits of Lord Eldon, the reactionary Tory Lord Chancellor who held office for 25 years, have followed me all my life, from school in Newcastle, to the Oxford college where I studied law and finally to this House. The last seven years have seen no fewer than five Lord Chancellors appointed, only one of whom has been a lawyer. If we have to have a Conservative Lord Chancellor, many Members of your Lordships’ House will wonder why neither the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, nor the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was appointed. Had either featured in the recent reshuffle, the justice section of the Government’s programme would perhaps have been less of a disappointment.

Faced, as we have heard from no fewer than seven noble Lords, with a prolonged and growing crisis in the prison service, the Queen’s Speech has nothing to say about staffing or prisoner numbers—the latter reflecting the fourth-highest incarceration rates among the 28 countries in Europe. Time after time, we are confronted with stories of violence, drug abuse, overcrowding and serious criticisms of the management of prisons, which are all too frequently managed—or mismanaged—by oligopolies which purport to be able to deliver any service the Government wish to outsource.

Despite concerns regularly voiced around the House, noticeably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, we continue to have large numbers of prisoners—some 3,000—serving indeterminate sentences long beyond the tariff of their offences. I acknowledge that the problem arose under a Labour Government, but we are now in the eighth year of Conservative Lord Chancellors—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has clearly taken that point.

Just last week, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman reported that the number of prisoners over 60 has tripled in 15 years and that by 2020 it will be 15,000. The Chief Inspector of Prisons has called for purpose-built, older-prisoner jails, and the prisons ombudsman has stated that he remains,

“astonished that there is still no properly resourced older-prisoner strategy”,

such that he fears we,

“will simply continue to expose unacceptable examples of poor care of the elderly and dying in hospital”.

His predecessor points out that:

“Prisons are the largest providers of residential care for frail elderly men in the country”.


The Prison Reform Trust, which fully endorses these criticisms, called for additional action to cancel plans for new women’s prisons and provide a network of women’s centres, to review the arrangements for supervising short-sentence prisoners on licence under which 1,000 prisoners have been recalled since 2015, and to improve the support into employment on release.

Serious though these problems are, they are not the only ones with which the Government need to engage in their management of the justice system. The Law Society, although welcoming the ending of cross-examination of victims of domestic violence by their partners, seeks provision in the new courts Bill for qualified legal representatives to cross-examine the victim. Can the relevant Minister indicate how this will be arranged? We join the society in commending proposals to strengthen the law relating to domestic violence and abuse, and in particular its extension to child abuse.

On a different tack, will the Minister acknowledge that technology is not always the appropriate medium for criminal proceedings to be pursued? Indeed, the assumption that everybody is capable of mastering the techniques of this increasingly digitalised world, which is reflected in a number of areas of the proposed Bill, is perhaps too optimistic. I suspect I am not the only Member of your Lordships’ House who from time to time struggles with this new technology, as indeed we all have, not least in the light of the last few days.

The courts Bill promises,

“a better working environment for judges”,

with what it describes as,

“more leadership positions in the judiciary to be offered on a fixed term basis”.

Can the Minister explain, if not tonight then subsequently, what the Government have in mind? We have part-time district judges—I declare a paternal interest, as my daughter is a part-time deputy district judge—but do the Government envisage part-time High Court judges or merely term-limited service allowing judges to return to legal practice? What consultations have they held, or will they hold, about such matters? What do the Government intend to do in response to the concerns about recruitment to the higher courts, given the significant disparity in remuneration between such positions and practice, especially at the highest levels?

I turn to a matter touched on by the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Beith. The proposed civil liability Bill will resurrect proposals to deal with whiplash claims by banning offers to settle without medical evidence, which seems reasonable, but also by fixing a tariff for claims,

“with a duration of two years”.

Perhaps the Minister could explain that wording. Why should there be a fixed tariff? And why on earth should we believe that insurance companies will indeed pass on the estimated £35 a year savings to their insured in the form of reduced premiums? They have shown no disposition to do so in the last few years despite making very large profits. The real problem here is the parasitic and effectively underregulated claims industry, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, referred. We welcome signs that the Government intend to tackle this issue in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, but will that also include oversight of paid McKenzie friends?

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the issue of the discount rate, and we certainly share his views about that. The Government also propose to increase the small claims limit, under which costs cannot be recovered, to £2,000. While that is much better than the original proposal to increase it to £5,000, it will still have an impact, with people being deterred from making a claim or, if they do without legal assistance, the potential clogging of the courts in much the same way as we have seen resulting from the loss of legal aid. The increase in the limit is estimated to mean that 90% of claimants will be denied affordable or free assistance.

While we are in the area of compensation claims, why are the Government reviving proposals to weaken recourse to employment tribunals when the number of claims has already fallen by 70% as a result of the fees required? Moreover, why do they propose to reduce further the role of lay members of tribunals, representing both employers and workers; to delegate judicial functions to case officers; and to allow changes to tribunal rules and procedures to be determined by the tribunal procedures committee without requiring any consultation with trades unions and employer organisations?

There are no references in the Queen’s Speech to access to justice either geographically, where court closures have had a serious impact on the system and where the role of lay magistrates and the convenience to parties, witnesses and advocates seem to be in decline, or, more importantly, with regard to the problems occasioned by the massive reductions in legal aid and advice. What would it take for the Government to review the provision of legal aid in the particularly sensitive areas of family law and housing law? For that matter, is it not time, as the Labour manifesto suggested, to provide for no-fault divorce, and to remove the requirement for domestic violence victims to pay perhaps as much as £200 for a medical report in order to make their case? While I am mentioning the Labour manifesto, which deals with this issue, will the Government review their negative position on the funding of judicial review cases, in which, by definition, they have an interest?

The Prime Minister has produced a couple of phrases that have been endlessly repeated. One of course was “strong and stable”—which has gone missing. The other was “just about managing”. It is our view, which I suspect others may endorse, that government policy should be about managing justice in ways that reflect the need to protect and foster access to justice for all who need it, and to ensure that our custodial system is humane and capable of facilitating rehabilitation as well as securing the safety of the public.

I turn now to other issues. I have to say that, during the 50 years in which I have served as a councillor in Newcastle, local government has never suffered such draconian cuts as are now in progress—something referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. In my own city the budget has taken a £270 million cut, and it is proving impossible to maintain the level of services that people and communities need. In this, of course, we are by no means unique. In particular, the pressures on the social care budget are severe. Newcastle’s audit committee, on which I serve, last week discussed a depressing report on the current situation in children and adult services.

Interestingly, our auditors, Ernst & Young, reported that the National Audit Office had declared, in relation to the financial and service targets of the Government’s better care fund, that not only is the fund missing its targets for reducing emergency admissions but it is exceeding them, with a planned reduction of 106,000 emergency admissions turning into an increase of 87,000, while delayed transfers increased by 185,000 instead of reducing by 203,000 as planned. Of course, these figures illustrate difficulties in the National Health Service, but they necessarily have a knock-on effect on local council services up and down the country. Moreover, there appears to be a growing decline in the number of suppliers of residential care and support services, on which councils have, regrettably, increasingly relied.

What comfort can councils and communities hope for from a Government who have steadfastly refused to fund the soaring costs of deprivation of liberty safeguard cases, which they have refused to recognise as a new burden—albeit making small, one-off grants in 2016? I illustrate the position by again relating Newcastle’s experience. In 2015-16, under this new responsibility, we received a one-off grant of £160,000. The number of cases has risen from 100 in 2013-14 to 2,226 in one authority last year, at a cost of £1.2 million. Multiply that across the country and it is a significant amount of money lost from the provision of basic social services. The Government need to get real about the unrelenting pressure on councils endeavouring to meet the palpable need for these and other services.

I conclude by asking whether the Minister can respond to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Smith about business rates, and how far the Government have got in working out how devolved business rates will operate. It is entirely unclear at the moment. I understand that a phased introduction is intended. How will that work between different authorities?

We have had a long debate tonight. I have contributed somewhat excessively to it, but only by a minute or two. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response and the follow-up, which will no doubt be directed in correspondence with Members, which will obviously be produced in the Chamber.

22:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for the build-up. I undertake that I will write fully on all the points raised in a very wide-ranging debate. I think that noble Lords will appreciate that I do not necessarily have all the facts at my fingertips, nor necessarily all the time, after 66 excellent contributions—well, 67, but I do not have to write to my noble friend Lady Williams; but I have to take account of what the other 66 noble Lords have said. I also wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a happy birthday. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He referred tangentially to reaching 50 years as a councillor, which I think occurred during the election campaign. He must have been very young when he first took office. I am sure that we all wish him much more service both there and here. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, on his marriage on behalf of the House—that is very good news—and wish the noble Lord, Lord Laird, all the best and thank him for coming today after two years’ absence; it is much appreciated.

It is a great pleasure to close such a wide-ranging debate on a number of topics that are very close to my heart. I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have contributed, sharing their past experience and reflections on issues close to their own hearts. I say in opening, perhaps by way of reassurance, that there seems to be an assumption that this Parliament will be only two years long. It is not; it is five years long, so there will be many opportunities for some of the legislative adventures being suggested.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords opposite, but it will be five years. Some of the legislative adventures, many of which I very much identify with, will be brought in henceforth.

Before I turn to some of the specific comments made, I should like to make a few personal remarks. First, the Prime Minister has been very clear, and noble Lords have appreciated that, that this Queen’s Speech is about recognising and grasping opportunities that lie ahead for the United Kingdom as we negotiate withdrawal from the European Union. It is very important that we do that in a pragmatic way, bringing in many of the views that have been expressed today. Of course, this is a negotiation. What we are seeing at the moment is not necessarily how things will end up, but we cannot expect anybody in negotiations to show all their cards, or to say, “This is our bottom line”. That is clearly not in the country’s interests, the people’s interests or in the interests of anybody here. Certainly there will be challenges, but I want to assure noble Lords today that the Government are determined to work hard to achieve withdrawal from the EU on the best terms available for the United Kingdom, but at the same time to ensure enduring relationships with friends and allies in Europe. It is a new relationship at which we are working, and I believe that we can and must all work together to achieve it. I say that to all noble Lords, some of whom have perhaps indulged in a little bit of sabre rattling against all the other parties here. We cannot ignore what happened in the referendum; it would be unwise to do that—but I appreciate that within that result there are different ways of achieving the withdrawal. That is clearly what we need to work on.

Events in the past few weeks have shown that now is indeed a time for us to work together and focus on what unites rather than divides us. Many noble Lords have referred to that. As Minister for Faith, I have had the privilege over the past few weeks to speak to leaders of different faiths from across the country. I have heard and seen first-hand how communities from all sorts of different backgrounds have responded to recent terror incidents, supporting each other in the face of cruel and unspeakable terror. That was referred to by my noble friend Lady Williams, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the Liberal Democrats, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. We have seen selfless acts from countless people. We have seen charities, the voluntary sector and individuals working hard. Others have spoken about the emergency services. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, spoke about the role of the police, but it is true of the other emergency services—the ambulance service and the fire service, certainly, as seen in the context of Grenfell.

When I went down to speak with faith leaders after the atrocious terrorist attack on Muslims in Finsbury Park, there were Rabbi Gluck and Rabbi Pinter of the Haredi Jewish community in Stamford Hill. They were not just there at that moment; they had been there all night, standing alongside their Muslim brothers and sisters—in particular Mohammed Kozbar and Mohammed Mahmoud of the Finsbury Park mosque. There were members of the Christian community there too. It was truly inspiring.

We have spoken today of many issues facing us as we negotiate withdrawal from the European Union and how we must work constructively with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, that is the case. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, for his welcome. I also thank my noble friend Lord Dunlop for the massive work, as I am finding out, that he has done in Northern Ireland, and indeed, in Scotland. I will come back to Northern Ireland shortly.

On the repeal Bill, the Government have been clear that this piece of legislation establishes the mechanism through which we can ensure the decision-making powers returning from the EU are allocated within the UK in a way that works. The guiding principle behind this Bill has been, and will continue to be, that no new barriers to living and doing business within our union are created. Many noble Lords have referred to particular areas that will need attention, and I accept that. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to vulnerable children. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred to some of the criminal and arrest procedures, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I share their concerns and that of the noble Lord, Lord Marks. These are discussions that we need to have. No doubt there will be fierce debates— that has been indicated, certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others.

I take very much on board what my noble friend Lord Sherbourne said about listening and consultation. That is extremely important. There is also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Best, about construction workers in the EU. That too we must take on board. I accept that, and in areas where there will be shortages of labour, we need to take that into account as we move forward. This guiding principle will apply to the immigration Bill, which will repeal EU rules on free movement. We will then consult on what is put in place as the UK’s policy. As my noble friend Lady Williams has said, our objective is to put in place an immigration system which is right for the UK economy and right for the country as a whole. We will be very much in listening mode as we consult on and discuss that. EU citizens have made and continue to make significant contributions to economic, cultural and social life in the United Kingdom. The Government have made clear that we want to provide as much certainty as possible to the 3 million EU citizens living in the UK and the discussion on that goes on.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made points on the specific issue of asylum. Lest anybody thinks otherwise—and I can understand that this is an issue where emotions rightly run high—I say that we have done a significant amount. In 2016, the United Kingdom granted asylum or other forms of leave to over 8,000 people and it has been over 42,000 since 2010. That is not to say we cannot do more. The noble Lord has rightly focused attention on this and put a terrific case for action: we are moving towards that 480. I can confirm that we have checked and there is no bar at all for children who are mentally ill. I would like that message to go out very clearly. We are happy to continue to engage with the noble Lord, who always puts his case politely but forcefully. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, also raised some points on that and I hope this is helpful to her too.

We have taken action to help victims of domestic abuse, but we can and should go further. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Goschen, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, have contributed on this, welcoming this action and raising issues. My noble friend Lady Newlove asked whether we are consulting on the scope of this. We are and are very happy to engage on it. My noble friend Lady Seccombe gave a particularly powerful speech with a historical view on the issue. I thank her for her forceful and moving contribution. It is important that we act in this area. We will be coming forward with a statutory definition of domestic violence. Questions were asked about how much we have committed to this. We have committed £100 million in this Parliament to violence against women and girls and, in addition, we are supporting 76 projects through the DCLG with a £20 million fund for domestic abuse. Some of these issues may also feature in the racial disparity audit. This has not really been touched upon, but we are going forward with it, as we committed to do before the election. There will be a bit of slippage because of the election period but we will be moving forward with it.

I will say something about the devolved Administrations and turn first to Scotland. There were notable contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and my noble friends Lord Dunlop and Lord McInnes. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I can confirm that we are taking forward the issue of the border lands area. It is very much in process and is being led by the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the port of call for more details. We hope and believe that will help with the Scottish economy, which my noble friend Lord Dunlop said, quite rightly, was central to progress. As was said, it appears that Nicola Sturgeon has been listening. The Government welcome that—as did all noble Lords who spoke on this issue—and the fact that she has responded and the referendum will at least be postponed. That will make relations easier in terms of discussing Brexit with Scotland, which of course we want to do. We are very happy to engage but we do not want the megaphone diplomacy which there sometimes can be. I hope we can go forward and engage meaningfully.

I turn next to Wales. We had a very powerful contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who has great distinction in both Wales and Northern Ireland. I thank him for that. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, was uncharacteristically somewhat unfair in his caricature of the Wales Act 2017. It is worth noting that this was the subject of a legislative consent Motion in Cardiff. I think that it was passed with the support of all the political parties there—albeit that some in Plaid Cymru did not vote for it, but some of them did, and all the other political parties did vote for it. There were only two votes in this Chamber on the Wales Act 2017, one of which was won by a decisive majority by the Government and the other of which was a tied vote. I am very happy to give way to the noble Lord.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I absolve the noble Lord of all faults. I have on many occasions said kind things about him. I shall not embarrass him further in case I damage his distinguished career.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I think the noble Lord already has—but I thank him, as always, for his courtesy. We can perhaps disagree on some of the interpretation of that issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked questions about the tolls. We are working on how we intend to deliver that, and on matters in relation to the main line north and south as well. I will cover in a letter the more detailed point on S4C funding as I do not have that to hand.

I will turn swiftly to Northern Ireland. Many noble Lords rightly focused on the importance of delivering on power sharing. I can confirm that the Government are very much committed to the Assembly. That is central to everything that we are doing in terms of policy in Northern Ireland, along with other parties here. I thank many noble Lords for the kind and accurate things they said about the Secretary of State, who is working in Belfast on the power-sharing position as we speak.

I understand that views will differ on the agreement with the DUP, but I should say first of all that it does not cover any of the social conservative issues that people understandably would raise if it did. However, it does not. I think in practice that is helping with the position in Northern Ireland. It is worth noting that Gerry Adams said, “Well done, Arlene”—so perhaps that is an indication that it is helping rather than otherwise. I hope we can all agree that power sharing is important. It is central to what happens in Northern Ireland.

The other issue I would like to cover on Northern Ireland—I cannot claim to be in any way an expert, but I was there last week and I will be there again tomorrow—is that you do not have to be there long to see that it is very different from England, Scotland and Wales. Different considerations apply and we have to recognise that. There is a legacy in all sorts of ways. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said that we now have peace, which is essentially true. However, there are fragilities there in terms of many aspects of life in Northern Ireland, as he will know. Now we have a generation of people who have known nothing but peace. We have to work to ensure that that continues to be the case, and that before too long we will have two generations who have known nothing but peace.

I thank those noble Lords who have contributed on Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Reid, speaks with massive experience and is rightly listened to with great respect. Along with other noble Lords here— for example, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy—he is remembered with fondness in Northern Ireland for what he has contributed. They obviously speak with great experience.

I also listened with great interest to my noble friend Lord Empey, the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, my noble friend Lord Trimble, the noble Lord, Lord Hay, my noble friend Lord Dunlop and many others, including the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, who spoke with great passion about how we must deliver for Northern Ireland, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, the noble Lord, Lord Rana, and many others, including the noble Lord, Lord Laird. It is a pivotal moment and I repeat that the Government are truly committed to power sharing and to the Assembly. It is the way forward, as is ensuring that we have travel to work across the border.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who spoke about the importance of confidence and supply and the way that is delivered and advertised; I listened to that with great interest.

Many points were raised today on the situation of our housing market. We remain committed to the White Paper—many noble Lords raised that issue. Much or probably most of that can be delivered without legislation. However, as I say, at the moment we are talking about only two of the five years, and obviously, when legislation is needed, we will look at that. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, who I know speaks with great authority on housing, for her welcome of much of what is in the White Paper. We are very happy to work across the aisle, as it were, with other political parties to ensure that we deliver not just on affordable homes but also on social housing, which has for understandable reasons been the focus of our attention recently.

The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, put many important points, which I will cover in the letter, on housing, land banking, and so on. Those were addressed in the housing White Paper and are very much still in play. As noble Lords appreciate, we will deliver on the tenant fees Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about guaranteeing the position of people who are subject to domestic abuse and therefore need that guarantee. That is still on the table, as we discussed previously, so if she wants another chat about how we will do that, I will be happy to meet her.

On Grenfell Tower, briefly, this was another dreadful situation. Once again, I pay tribute to all those people who helped there—certainly the emergency services, voluntary organisations, individuals on the ground, faith organisations and people from all sorts of backgrounds. Yes, there was a slow start there in dealing with what was pretty much, thank goodness, an unprecedented situation. Now we are garnering resources and moving forward with the testing, and doing what is necessary on a national basis, because this demands a national response. I am grateful for the way that noble Lords have dealt with this rather than the more emotive way others have, characterising it as murder, which was grossly irresponsible. I thank noble Lords and I am grateful that noble Lords in this House have treated it very differently.

I will quickly deal with some other issues if noble Lords indulge me—I am moving through this. The independent advocate is important—the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and my noble friend Lady Newlove referred to it.

On the courts Bill, I will deal with the detailed points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and others, as I will on prisons legislation. I thank noble Lords who have given a welcome to the role of David Lidington, who regards prison reform as important; it is on his radar. Much of this—not all of it—can be delivered without legislation. However, I take very seriously the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who speaks with massive experience. I am sure that this debate will be picked up by the Lord Chancellor anyway, but I will make sure that he is aware of what was said; points were made by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord German, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, the noble Lord, Lord McNally, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and other noble Lords.

I will deal with some individual points, some of which were a little bit left-field. However, I will make sure that they are picked up. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about the content filter and extreme pornography; I will certainly make sure that we get a response on that.

My noble friend Lord Empey spoke about House of Lords reform. It was very courageous of him to mention that in the body of this Chamber. I think that the Lord Speaker is taking that forward, but I will make sure that my noble friend gets a response.

My noble friend Lord Goschen spoke about motorbike crime. My noble friends Lord McColl and Lady Manzoor raised issues concerning modern slavery. I know that my noble friend Lady Williams will be very happy to meet them to discuss how that issue can be taken forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Flather, along with others, mentioned the Casey review, which is still very much a live issue.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, made a very powerful speech, if I may say so. Again, I shall be very happy to meet her, along with my noble friend Lady Williams. I think that there are issues worthy of being looked at, and I say, “Well done on getting the Daily Mail on side”.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, asked a specific question, but I cannot remember what it was.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

It was about legislative consent Motions.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am grateful. I can confirm that they are needed and we will be seeking them from all three devolved bodies—in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland.

On tackling corruption, I will get a response for the noble Baroness, Lady Stern.

Corporate governance was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and we will cover that. It is not something that I saw coming, but I can say that I think that the legislation on corporate manslaughter is acting quite effectively, as is that on corporate governance. It is updated from time to time, usually in line with recommendations from bodies that look at those issues.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked about cohabiting couples, and we are looking at that matter. We have not come to a conclusion on it but, again, we will be very happy to engage on it to see how to move it forward.

I apologise if I have missed any of the points that were mentioned. I was completely blind-sided by the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, apart from recognising one or two of the names, but I will ensure that he receives a full response. I hope he does not think that that is part of the conspiracy—I really was blind-sided by it. As I said, I will make sure that he gets a full response, but I am not in a position to say more than that at the moment.

The points that I have not covered I will pick up in correspondence. As ever, I thank noble Lords for a very full and helpful debate.

Debate adjourned until Wednesday 28 June.

House adjourned at 10.42 pm.