House of Commons

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

Monday 3 July 2017

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[Mr Speaker]

Colleagues, we are pleased to be joined today by Speaker Carme Forcadell, the Speaker of the Parliament of Catalonia, who is visiting London, and whom we are delighted to see. Welcome to you.

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

1. Whether she has held discussions with the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse since the withdrawal of the charity Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse from that inquiry.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

May I take the opportunity, first, to welcome the new shadow Front-Bench team—the hon. Members for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), for Derby North (Chris Williamson), for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan)? They are welcome indeed.

I agree that it is regrettable that Survivors of Organised and Institutional Abuse has withdrawn from the inquiry. The inquiry is making good progress, in line with the plan it published last year. This is evidenced through public hearings and other events with victims and survivors. I retain my confidence in this independent inquiry to deliver its important work, to get the truth and to learn lessons for the future.

[Lisa Nandy]

I thank the Home Secretary for that, but this is now really serious: this is the fourth victims’ group that has left, and today we have had the Sutton review, which reads like a total whitewash and suggests that no lessons have been learned by the inquiry or by the Government that set it up. What message does she think that sends to everybody in this country who is currently relying on a public inquiry to deliver justice for them?

[Amber Rudd]

I ask the hon. Lady to reconsider her view. The inquiry has said that the group can always come back if it wants to, and I ask her to think again about the people who are already being helped by the inquiry. There are 60 to 80 people whose experiences and attacks have been referred to the police, which may lead to prosecutions, and there are up to 1,000 people whose lives have been changed and who are getting the answers that they want. Those are real differences, which I ask the hon. Lady not to underestimate.

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

Last year, the inquiry attracted some unhelpful headlines on the back of its internal workings and certain personalities, since when, I am glad to say, it has been getting on with its important work. But we were promised an interim report and greater transparency, particularly after the Home Affairs Committee sittings, so when might we expect those?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I remember well giving evidence about this very matter when he was the acting Chair of that Committee. Like him, I have confidence in the new inquiry chair, Alexis Jay; she is getting on with the job, and as I said to the hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), we are seeing real action and real results from the progress that is being made. I have been told that we will get an interim report during 2018.

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

Does the Home Secretary have any concerns about the fact that the police have announced that they are going to curtail annual checks on people who are on the sex offender register, when it is growing year on year?

[Amber Rudd]

I refer the hon. Lady to the fact that different police chiefs are taking different positions on this, depending on their experience in their particular communities. If she has a particular concern about the situation in her community, I encourage her to come and talk to myself or the police Minister in due course.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Does the independent inquiry have a role to play in considering the outcome of the £1 million, two-year Operation Conifer—the inquiry into the allegations against the late Sir Edward Heath? If it does not, who does?

[Amber Rudd]

That is a matter for local policing. It is up to local operations to decide how they will proceed with that matter; it is not for the inquiry. The inquiry is making its inquiries, having the truth sessions and then referring, where appropriate, to the police.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

2. What financial support is in place for special constables.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

Since 1831, special constables have made a genuinely valuable contribution to local policing. That is why we should keep under regular review what the Government do to support that work.

[Robert Halfon]

Will my hon. Friend congratulate the 358 special constables in Essex, and congratulate Essex police on their push to encourage even more people to become special constables? Will he consider making it easier for councils to offer council tax rebates to special constables so that we can give something back to those who serve in our communities?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. He has been a tireless champion for volunteering, and for special constables in particular. He represents a county that, through the leadership of police and crime commissioner Roger Hirst, is showing real leadership in trying to encourage more special constables. At the moment, we provide access to insurance for legal expenses. There is provision for out-of-allowance expenses, and there is provision in law for discretionary benefits such as discounts on council tax, but I am happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss how we can go further.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

In welcoming back the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew), I am informed that during his enforced and involuntary absence he has become a doctor of philosophy, upon which the House wishes to congratulate him, I am sure.

[Dr Drew]

I had to do something with my wasted years.

I welcome the police Minister to his place. We all congratulate the specials on the work they do, which is of course first-rate, but it seems to me from my experience—I am going out with the specials on Friday, so I am sure they will tell me in no uncertain terms whether I am right—that being in the specials is no longer an entrance point to the full-time constabulary. Is there a reason for that? If it is because of problems of release or of financial support, will the Minister look into that and do something about it?

[Mr Hurd]

I add my voice to the congratulations to the hon. Gentleman, with whom I used to serve on the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it seems like 1,000 years ago. I would be concerned if what he says were true. It is not what I hear and not what the data tell me about the number of specials who go on to become regular police officers, but I will keep it under regular review.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

As a former special constable—I am sure that will not be the last time that is mentioned from this Dispatch Box—I saw at first hand the dedication and bravery of our frontline officers, but I also witnessed a collapse in morale as the Government ignored warnings over jobs, pay and resources, and this has only gotten worse. Only last month at the Police Federation conference, the Home Secretary dismissed the concerns of an officer who told her how pay cuts had left him struggling to put food on his table. Does the Minister agree with the Home Secretary or the Foreign Secretary on whether our bravest and best should continue to experience a real-terms pay cut until 2020?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank and congratulate the hon. Lady on the contribution that she has made as a special constable. In relation to police pay, let me be very clear: we want to make sure that frontline public service workers, including the police, are paid fairly for their work, not least because of the contribution that they have made over the years to reducing the deficit that we inherited from Labour, and, in that context, the work they have done to safeguard hundreds of thousands of jobs. How we do that in a sustainable and affordable way is under active discussion.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

3. What steps she is taking to tackle extremism in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

We will establish a commission for countering extremism to reinforce current efforts to tackle extremist ideology in all its forms wherever it occurs. Already, through the 2015 counter-extremism strategy, we have taken steps to protect children from the threat of extremism, taken action on hate crime, and provided protective support for places of worship. We are also supporting civil society groups to tackle extremism in their communities.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Ten years ago last week we saw the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport, and since then we have sadly seen instances of extremism and terrorism in Walsall, Exeter, Manchester, Yorkshire, and of course here in London. What is being done with the devolved Administrations, as well the combined authorities and regions, to ensure that extremism, and therefore terrorism, has no place in the United Kingdom?

[Sarah Newton]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend to his place. I am sure he is going to make a significant contribution here at Home Office questions, as well as serving his constituents. He is quite right to point out that there is simply no place in our society for extremism or terrorism. In launching the counter-extremism strategy in 2015, the Government agreed with the devolved Administrations that they were not going to be part of the strategy at the time, but we continue to work with them. As we carry on working with them on setting up the commission for countering extremism, we will consult them widely. It is very important that we work together and learn together to keep the whole of the United Kingdom safe.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Last year, Twitter suspended 125,000 accounts that were linked to global terrorism, but millions of videos of such material remain on the internet. In Germany, companies can be fined up to £43 million for failing to take down illegal videos. When do the Government intend to introduce legislation of that kind?

[Sarah Newton]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point out the vile hatred that is being spread on the internet. I am pleased to report that the action we are taking is regularly enabling thousands of images to be taken down. We leave no stone unturned, and the Home Secretary is working closely with all the bodies responsible for the internet to make sure that we take more action to remove every vile piece of hatred from it.

[Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)]

Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to tackle anti-Semitism on campus, where the activities of hard-line groups often create an intolerant and intimidatory atmosphere for Jewish students?

[Sarah Newton]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of anti-Semitism. There is no room at all in our society for hatred of anyone based on their faith, race or ideology. The Government have put a safeguarding responsibility on universities and schools to make sure that they protect young people from being exposed to vile hatred and radicalisation.

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

May I press the Minister on the answer she gave to the former Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)? Social media giants remain the command and control platform of choice for extremists. I wrote to the Home Secretary on 29 March to ask whether she was considering similar laws to those in Germany and in Ireland, where a new watchdog is being created to police social media giants, or indeed proposals similar to those in the US Senate, such as the Feinstein Bill, which would require social media giants to report terrorism content. Governments around the world are taking action; when will this Government follow suit?

[Sarah Newton]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Government are taking action by leading the international efforts to make sure that internet platforms take their responsibilities seriously. The Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that nothing is off the table. We are considering all options to make sure that the vile ideology and hatred that is pumped around the internet is stopped as soon as possible.

[Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

18. Maajid Nawaz is a former constituent of mine whom I once visited in prison in Cairo, where he was being held because of alleged terrorist activities. Is my hon. Friend aware that he has completely turned his life around and is the founder of Quilliam, an organisation dedicated to tackling extremism in the UK?

[Sarah Newton]

That is really good news. Of course, the Government want to work with the Quilliam Foundation and any other organisation that seeks to stand up to extremism and terrorism and fight against evil ideology, to keep us all safe in our country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her welcome.

A working and workable definition of what extremism means is central to any effective strategy for tackling extremism. Can the Minister assure me that the new commission set up to tackle extremism will construct a definition that is not only statutorily robust but will be able to withstand the scrutiny of the courts?

[Sarah Newton]

I not only welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place but very much welcome his views. The whole purpose of setting up the counter-extremism commission is to see what more we can do and what further steps we can take. I think we all understand what our shared British values are, and our strategy is making good progress. Of course, one of the commission’s actions will be to look at the definition that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

[Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

4. What steps her Department is taking to encourage greater collaboration between the police and fire services.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to encourage greater collaboration between the police and fire services.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

The Policing and Crime Act 2017 introduced a raft of new measures to drive greater collaboration between emergency services, including a new duty to collaborate and enable police and crime commissioners to take on governance of fire and rescue services where a case is made. The Government continue to expect the pace and ambition of emergency services’ collaboration to increase.

[Amanda Milling]

Staffordshire’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, has identified savings of at least £3.6 million a year from the integration of police and fire services, and he has committed them to bolstering frontline services in each of those two areas, as well as to investment in preventive measures, especially relating to fire. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such integration should progress where there is a strong local business case for it?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right. Where there is a strong business case and collaboration can improve outcomes and save money, which can then be used for the frontline, it should be encouraged. I welcome the good work that she has been doing with Matthew Ellis to deliver just that.

[James Duddridge]

Roger Hirst, the Essex police and crime commissioner, has moved himself and his staff into fire HQ, saving £1.5 million, and has identified a further £23 million of potential savings in governance. What more can be done to encourage such excellent work in Essex and across the country?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me another great example of the sort of collaboration that we are trying to encourage to improve outcomes and save money that can be used on the frontline. I congratulate him on his good work with his PCC, Roger Hirst, and wish them well in that new endeavour.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Both police officers and firefighters have told me that they are increasingly called to assist residents experiencing a mental health crisis, so I was very concerned when the collaboration in Nottinghamshire, which saw a mental health nurse based in the police control room, was axed in May because of a lack of funding, even though the scheme was described as successful and valuable. What discussions has the Home Secretary had with chief constables and chief fire officers about how best to support their staff who are dealing with members of the public experiencing mental health problems of that sort?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Lady’s view about how important it is to ensure that people with mental health crises or difficulties are treated differently. If she wants to write to me about the particular example she has set out, I will certainly look at it, but I am proud of the work that the Government have done to reduce the number—I think by nearly 80%—of young people with a mental health crisis ending up in police cells. The more we can do to address that, the better.

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

The Merseyside police and fire services already collaborate closely and are looking at ways of collaborating further. Does the Home Secretary accept that the scale of her Department’s financial cuts to the police service and the fire and rescue service in Merseyside makes that job much more difficult?

[Amber Rudd]

It is a good thing that we have protected police funding from 2015 to 2020. I admire enormously the work that the police and fire services do, and we will continue to look at how better we can support them. One of the ways that we have heard about today—I know that Merseyside has led on this too—is through collaboration, which will allow stronger working, better outcomes and money saved for the frontline.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking to ensure the recruitment to the police force of people with the skills required to tackle modern crime.

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

11. What steps she is taking to ensure the recruitment to the police force of people with the skills required to tackle modern crime.

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

The Government’s programme of reforms is aimed at ensuring that the police workforce is flexible, capable and professional, agile enough to adapt to changes in crime and society. We established the College of Policing as the professional body for policing, and its new policing education qualification framework is designed to ensure that policing is fit for the future. In addition, innovative recruitment schemes are widening the talent pool, bringing in people from a diverse range of backgrounds.

[Peter Aldous]

Tim Passmore, the police and crime commissioner for Suffolk, is recruiting more officers. To help Suffolk police with that task, will the Minister consider expanding the direct entry scheme and introducing more flexibility in salaries and promotion within ranks, so that officers are better able to progress their careers and are not continually moving into new roles when promoted?

[Mr Wallace]

We are already encouraging more police chiefs to take advantage of the direct entry scheme. There are a range of innovative examples around the country, including the chief constable in Durham, who is going direct to Sheffield University. As my hon. Friend says, it is also important to recognise police who are already serving, and that is why we fully support the advanced practitioner programme, which is being piloted in eight forces and encourages police to continue to specialise for a longer career, and rewards that effort.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Will the Minister join me in commending Hampshire constabulary on its great specialist entry detective programme, which is helping people find jobs that they want to do in the police service, bringing new people in and keeping the people of North East Hampshire, their property and their families safe?

[Mr Wallace]

I am delighted to join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to his force. It is really important that in the 21st century we recognise that policing has changed and that people who can contribute to delivering safe streets and investigations come from all over—from education opportunities in universities and from within forces and other public sector bodies. That is why direct entry is one key and enhancing careers is another.

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

Given the falling numbers of uniformed police officers in Lancashire—down 700 since 2010—what reassurance can the Minister give to my Muslim constituents, who are fearful for their own safety and that of their families in the light of recent attacks on mosques and the horrendous recent acid attacks?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady who, like me, is a Lancashire MP. I speak regularly with the chief constable of Lancashire and his officers. They have put in place lots of measures to ensure that hate crimes do not impact on the community. It is important to note that since 2010 crime has fallen in Lancashire. It is not simply that crime has remained high and police numbers have been cut. The police are doing an amazing job facing today’s challenges with the resources they receive. We have to remember that we have to live within our means.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given the fact that 21,000 police officers have been lost in the past seven years, whether it is modern crime or traditional crime, and given the pressures that police chiefs recognise, how many police officers does the Minister intend the Government to recruit this year?

[Mr Wallace]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the number of police required in each force is down to the chief constable of each force. He should recognise, because in 2009-10 he was doing a similar job to me, that, owing to the changing nature of policing, we have seen an increase in funding for the National Crime Agency and specialist policing to tackle those areas. That goes alongside normal day-to-day policing. Back in 2015, in recognition of the importance of the beat constable, we on the Government Benches protected police spending. We were able to deliver that because we had a firm economy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

6. What plans she has to increase the number of police officers in the community.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The hon. Gentleman will know, I am sure, that direct resource funding for the South Wales police force, which covers his constituency, will be up 3% in 2017-18. He will also know that decisions on the size, composition and deployment of the police workforce are operational matters for individual chief officers and police and crime commissioners.

[Kevin Brennan]

Ministers should be given credit for making sure that they leave no cliché left unsaid in their attempt to defend their actions in relation to the police force. Can the Minister remember a time when a Conservative Government have been so unpopular with police officers—apart from when the current Prime Minister was Home Secretary?

[Mr Hurd]

I know from my time shadowing the hon. Gentleman that he defers to no one in his admiration of a good cliché. What I would say to him is what I hope any Policing Minister for any Government of any colour would say, which is that public safety is the No.1 priority for any Government. As he heard from the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), we have protected police spending in real terms since 2015 and increased spending in areas of specialisation. Now, in the light of the terrible events that have shocked us all, it is quite right that we go through a process of reviewing, with police and crime commissioners and colleagues from all parts of the House, what resources are needed to be absolutely sure that the police have the resources to keep us safe.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware that motorbike and moped crime in London is on the increase. We need community officers who can deal with this problem directly, as it is an increasing issue. What are the Government doing about it? Can we please make our communities safer in this respect?

[Mr Hurd]

As a fellow London MP, I totally agree. In fact, I heard it directly the other day from a sergeant with whom I was walking the beat in London Bridge. As my hon. Friend knows, it is a requirement of local police chiefs to set the operational priorities. It is our responsibility to make sure they have the resources they need to meet all the risks they see.

[Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)]

19. The Minister will agree with me that community policing is the bedrock on which all policing operates, but following the bomb in Greater Manchester the whole of the police service has been working 12-hour days and there is no capacity to draw people in for overtime. Does the Minister not understand that policing is stretched beyond any capacity to deliver?

[Mr Hurd]

I hope the hon. Gentleman knows that we are extremely sensitive to that point. As I said in my remarks, we are very aware that the pressure put on the police as a result of recent terrible events, not least the one in Manchester, has required a surge of police effort and fantastic collaboration between forces, but we now have to sit down rationally with police and crime commissioners and police chiefs, to really understand and test assertions about pressure on police forces and to make sure that they have the resources they need to keep us safe.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Our west midlands police have done a fantastic job in cutting crime and doing more with less. Will the Minister ensure that the police funding formula is reformed to deliver a fair deal for the west midlands?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I hope I can reassure him that a lot of work is being done to ensure not only that the police have the resources they need, but that they are allocated fairly across all forces. No final decision has been taken on the fair funding formula, but I am happy to sit down with my hon. Friend and colleagues from all parts of the House who have concerns about the resource allocation for their forces.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

During the Queen’s Speech debate on security last week, the Home Secretary said she was more worried about outcomes than police numbers, so will the Minister tell the House how the Home Office measures and values the outcomes of community police officers?

[Mr Hurd]

Ultimately, what matters most is the trend in crime, which the right hon. Gentleman knows from experience is what unsettles our constituents most. Public safety is the No. 1 priority, so the ultimate outcome is the crime statistics, and I am sure that he will join me in welcoming the long-term decline that we have seen since 2010.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

7. If she will discuss with Cabinet colleagues reviewing fire prevention and safety regulations, banning the use of flammable material in cladding and ensuring that fire inspections are not outsourced to private firms.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

The Secretary of State, who I believe is making a statement on Grenfell Tower this afternoon, has established an expert advisory panel to provide independent advice on any immediate measures that may need to be put in place to make buildings safe for residents following the Grenfell Tower tragedy.

[Bill Esterson]

Survivors and relatives of the victims of the Grenfell disaster are concerned at the proposed scope of the public inquiry, as the Minister knows, but does he agree that Departments, including his own, should act now to address many of the concerns raised? They include the safety of building materials, the resilience of the fire service across the country, the enforcement of regulations and a lack of trained professionals to carry out fire inspections as thoroughly and often as are needed.

[Mr Hurd]

The Grenfell tragedy, which should never have happened, and subsequent events, in terms of what we are learning about the fire safety of buildings, mean that there is a system failure, which has been allowed to build up over too many years. It is imperative that we do not just wait for a public inquiry, but that we get on with the work of reviewing not just regulation, but the whole system of enforcement and management of risk, and that we lead on that and are informed by an inquiry.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

I, like all Members, have been inundated with emails from constituents demanding immediate changes to fire regulations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that we look at what changes are needed to the fire regulations, but also at what changes are needed in the implementation of existing regulations, so that tragedies such as Grenfell do not happen again?

[Mr Hurd]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and his question allows me to build on what I was saying before. There has been a system failure, built up over many years, and we need to address it as a matter of urgency and with rigorous analysis underpinned by evidence. As part of that we will of course look at whether the regulations are effective, but my instinct is that the biggest failure has been in the system of enforcement, inspection and risk management.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

Detective Superintendent Fiona McCormack, who is conducting some of the inquiries, has said that the insulation has proved

“more flammable than the cladding”.

Has the Home Office had representations from the police or the fire service on this? Does the Minister sit on the Government’s taskforce and, if not, has whichever Home Office Minister does raised the testing of the insulation with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government? If not, will they do so urgently and call for testing of insulation to be done?

[Mr Hurd]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that both the Home Secretary and I have sat on the regular Cobra meetings that have addressed this, and I sit regularly on the sub-group as well. The right hon. Lady is right; of course, testing the cladding was the priority, but it is becoming increasingly clear that this is not just about the cladding. There is a significant issue with insulation and fitting, and there are considerable questions to be answered about safeguarding and risk inside buildings. That is what we have to understand better, informed by the police investigation and the public inquiry about what exactly what has happened, but we also have to get on with the business of stress testing our current systems.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

Banning flammable cladding is clearly a no-brainer. It should never have been used in those buildings, and nor, indeed, should any other flammable materials. As we start to beef up the rules and regulations, will my hon. Friend ensure not only that best guidance is spread around all local authorities in the United Kingdom and action is followed, but that we work with other Governments in other countries that contain tower blocks, so that the tragedy that has befallen the people of the United Kingdom will never befall another country?

[Mr Hurd]

I entirely agree with that sentiment, which was expressed very powerfully. The materials, particularly the panels, were not compliant, and should not have been used on those buildings. We must now re-examine systematically, using all the best evidence available, the landscape of policy and regulation—both the regulation itself, and what is meant to happen in respect of building inspection.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The concerns about fire prevention and safety are vital issues, but does the Minister agree that we should not lose sight of the immediate plight of the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire, their families and their community? Does he understand that one of the factors preventing people from coming forward, either to obtain the help that they need or to provide the information that we need, is concern about their immigration status? I know he has said that their papers will not be checked, but will he consider announcing an immigration amnesty for the survivors of Grenfell Tower? Otherwise there will be people who have died whom we will never know about, and too many people who need help will not receive it.

[Mr Hurd]

The right hon. Lady is right. That is an issue, as I know from conversations that I have had and will continue to have with survivors. One of our big problems is not being able to identify fully who was in the building on that night, and concerns about immigration status are part of that. We have communicated some advice which was meant to reassure, and we are reviewing with people closer to the community whether that advice is sufficient.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

9. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding for Avon fire and rescue service.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I hope the hon. Lady will welcome, as I do, the fact that fire incidents in Avon have fallen by a quarter since 2010. Avon fire and rescue service will receive stable funding for 2019-20, and the Government consider that to be a fair settlement.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The service has lost £5 million of funding in recent years, and 200 frontline firefighting jobs have gone. Meanwhile, the police and crime commissioner is saying that the police are being pushed to their limit and have been asked to cut a further £20 million, which simply cannot be done. Must we wait until an incident in Bristol—an incident like the Grenfell Tower fire, or a terrorist attack—brings home to the Government just how much pressure those services are under?

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the point that the hon. Lady has made, but resources must be allocated in the light of risk, and, as I have said, risk has fallen in Avon since 2010. Obviously we cannot be complacent about that, and I have clearly signalled that there will be a profound re-examination of fire safety and risk, but I return to the point that I made about police resources. I am very committed to engaging with police authorities and police and crime commissioners, so that I can really understand their concerns about resources and ensure that any decisions are based on evidence rather than assertion.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

10. What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the effect of immigration rules on the seasonal agricultural workforce.

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about this issue only last week. I know that he is engaging with the National Farmers Union, and I shall meet NFU representatives and my right hon. Friend shortly to discuss it further.

[Helen Whately]

Every summer farmers in my constituency require thousands of workers to pick their delicious fruit, but only 705 people in the constituency are unemployed and claiming jobseeker’s allowance, so it is very difficult for the farmers to recruit enough workers locally. Will my right hon. Friend consider a permit scheme for seasonal agricultural workers?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the excellent fruit that those workers pick in Kent. In terms of quality, it is almost up there with the blackcurrants in Great Yarmouth. While we are still full members of the European Union farmers can benefit from the free movement of labour, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I will continue to discuss with the sector what will be done after we leave the EU.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As the Minister knows, agriculture is devolved and stringent immigration rules could have a particular impact on the Welsh food production sector. Does he agree that, if there is to be, regrettably, a Brexit outside the single market, there would need to be a geographical visa system to protect key sectors of the Welsh economy?

[Brandon Lewis]

We are determined to ensure that we have an immigration system that continues to encourage the brightest and the best, and to ensure that all our sectors are able to flourish and thrive. However, I am not going to predict the outcome, or what we will be doing once we leave the European Union, after those negotiations.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

12. What steps she is taking to reassure non-UK EU citizens resident in the UK about their legal status after the UK leaves the EU.

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

On 26 June, we published and laid in Parliament, and the Prime Minister outlined, a paper that outlines our offer for EU citizens. We want to ensure that they have certainty about the future. We have a fair and serious offer that we are confident will lead to a good agreement with our colleagues and partners across the EU.

[Alan Brown]

As someone who is married to an EU national, I can assure the Minister that right now EU nationals do not feel any certainty from this Government. Does he agree with the organisations British in Europe and the3million that the Prime Minister’s offer will severely reduce the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens living in the EU? Can he also explain why the Prime Minister made no reference to the far superior, detailed and comprehensive offer set out by the EU on 12 June?

[Brandon Lewis]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me and colleagues in making it very clear that anyone from the EU who is working and living here at the moment can have confidence about the future. The offer we have made about settled status gives them that certainty. I hope that he will encourage not just his other half but all others on the matter. We ask him to bear it in mind that the offer we have made will mean that anyone from the EU who is settled here will have the same rights as any UK citizen. That is a fair and serious proposal.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Prime Minister has made a very sensible offer and that this matter could be settled tomorrow if it were not for the EU’s intransigence?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very good point. The Prime Minister has made a fair, full and serious offer that gives European citizens, once they have settled status, the same rights as a UK citizen. I am hopeful that we and our partners across the EU will be able to reach an early agreement on that.

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

The Minister talked about giving confidence to EU citizens. Given that just under 30% of applications currently being made for EU permanent residence cards are being turned down, what assurance can he give the House that the new application process set out in the White Paper will not lead to the same outcome? Will those EU citizens who are refused under that new process be required then to leave the UK?

[Brandon Lewis]

What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we outlined just last week in laying the paper that we want to ensure that, when we announce the system next year, it will be a simple, clear system, probably making use of digital technology, so that the 3 million Europeans who are living and working here, contributing fantastically well to our culture and economy, are able to go through that process as swiftly as possible.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has highlighted, it is bizarre that the Prime Minister expects the EU to reciprocate an offer that falls short of the offer that the EU made on 12 June. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister expects the EU to water down its offer? If so, how does he think that will reassure British nationals living abroad, never mind EU nationals living in the UK?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will say two things to the hon. and learned Lady. First, just last week, I met one of the Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union and representatives of British citizens living abroad to go through with them the position we have taken. Secondly, the Prime Minister is right to ensure that the people who are living in the UK who gain settled status have the same rights as a UK citizen. I do not think any UK citizen would expect any more or less from the British Government.

[Joanna Cherry]

The point is that the EU offer would give EU nationals living in the UK and British nationals living abroad more rights than the Prime Minister’s offer. One thing the Minister could do to reassure EU nationals living in the UK is to state that access to the national health service will be considered sufficient by the Home Office to fulfil the requirements for comprehensive sickness insurance. That was the cross-party recommendation of the Exiting the European Union Committee in the previous Parliament. What or who is stopping the Home Office from implementing that recommendation now?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is the EU that is stopping that, and if the hon. and learned Lady has a proper read through of our proposals, she will see that that is an issue we are looking forward to dealing with as we leave the European Union. It is right that we as the UK Government are saying that people have the same rights as UK citizens.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s recent remarks on the status of EU nationals were too little, too late. The Government have failed to reassure long-standing EU nationals living here and have failed to prevent the brain drain of much needed staff in high-value industries and academia, and of students. Will the Minister clarify the position of EU students studying in the UK who will be part-way through their courses when we leave the EU?

[Brandon Lewis]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position.

This offer applies to all EU residents. If they are in this country and want to take settled status, they will be able to do that. That is an offer that will be open to everybody across the European Union, so in that sense it makes no change to the position of students.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

14. What steps she is taking to protect the family rights of UK citizens married to non-EU citizens.

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

The requirements we have in place promote not just family values but integration, while also striking the right balance to ensure that we take into account the burden on the taxpayer as well, so we have a fair balance between family, integration and the taxpayers’ position.

[Ronnie Cowan]

My constituent Paul McMillan, a medical student from Port Glasgow, is unable to be with his American partner because of the minimum income requirement on spousal visas, which stands at £18,600 and is due to rise. He has decided that because of the UK Government’s increasingly hostile attitude towards immigrants, on completing his studies he will emigrate from Scotland to be with his partner. Scotland will lose not only his future medical expertise but the expertise of his partner, a qualified social worker. Considering Paul’s situation, will the Home Secretary abandon plans to increase the minimum income requirement?

[Brandon Lewis]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about any specific case, I will be happy to have a look at it. As a general point, however, it is right that we look at making sure that everybody across the UK has the same position to deal with, so that the system is fair and that it is also fair to taxpayers, so that someone bringing a member of their family to this country can afford for them to be here. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that the figure of £18,600 is several thousand pounds below the median wage in Scotland.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Under the freedom of movement rules, EU citizens are currently not obliged to meet that minimum income threshold if they wish to bring in family members. However, UK citizens do have to meet a minimum income threshold, which the Supreme Court has said causes hardship and ignores the rights of children. Is it not therefore fair to say that this new regime proposed by the Government means that EU citizens will lose their current rights to family life and that it represents a levelling down?

[Brandon Lewis]

I think the right hon. Lady has slightly misunderstood the situation. If somebody from the European Union and their family are here, they will have that ability to have settled status. If they have not been here for five years but they stay for five years, they will be able to attain that right. I also point out to her that family life cannot be established here at the taxpayers’ expense. That is perfectly right; family migrants must be able to integrate. That is what our family immigration rules achieve, and it is an approach that the Supreme Court has endorsed.

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

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

There is substantial interest in the House about this Government’s policy about removing counter-terrorism online, and I want to update the House briefly.

Last week in Ottawa, we secured support from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US for the Government campaign to take terrorist material offline. Together, we announced that companies including Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Twitter would form a new global industry forum to tackle terrorist use of the internet. We made it clear that hateful content used to recruit and radicalise should not be allowed on their platforms and must be removed faster and more proactively. The commitment from fellow “Five Eyes” members to a shared approach and their backing of a new industry group is a vital step forward. I plan to travel to the west coast of America to continue discussions with major technology companies and to see what progress they are making on the forum, and I will share these findings. The key to successful action here is to make sure that we have a truly global initiative engaging other countries and the international headquarters of these businesses.

[Martyn Day]

The Scottish Affairs Select Committee, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and the Institute of Directors have all said that Scotland requires a different immigration policy for its unique demographic needs. Will the Home Secretary consider the report by Professor Christina Boswell of the University of Edinburgh that evaluates the options for a differentiated approach to immigration policy in Scotland?

[Amber Rudd]

I do not think that we should have a different immigration policy for different parts of the United Kingdom, but I do think that we should have a fair, open and inclusive immigration system that will attract the brightest and the best, the right students and the people who are legitimately coming here to join their families. We will ensure that when we consult stakeholders and businesses over the summer, we have Scotland and other parts of the country in mind.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

T3. In the light of the recent cyber-attack on Parliament and the National Crime Agency’s announcement that, because of under-reporting, the scale of cyber-crime is significantly underestimated, will the Secretary of State outline the specific steps that the Government are taking to tackle this threat?

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

Through the national cyber-security programme, we are investing £1.9 billion in cyber-security. We are investing in the National Crime Agency, the National Cyber Crime Unit and the National Cyber Security Centre, as well as the regional organised crime units at local level to ensure that there is a regional response. We have also given an extra £10 million to improve Action Fraud’s response to constituents. At the same time, the Government are trying to consolidate and ensure that there is a consistent message in Cyber Aware so that all colleagues and members of the public understand what they need to do to keep themselves safe online.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Following the wholly avoidable tragedy at Grenfell Tower, will the Home Secretary tell us why the review of the building regulations, which was promised by Gavin Barwell in the wake of the deadly Lakanal House fire, has failed to materialise? Mr Barwell was the Housing Minister at the time; did he suppress the review?

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I do not think there is any evidence that our former colleague suppressed any review. There was plenty of work ongoing into the simplification of regulations. I say to the hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, that the Grenfell tragedy should never have happened, and what we have found out since about the fire safety of the building means that we have to do a root and branch review not only of the regulations but of inspection and risk management.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

T4. When I was a district councillor in West Oxfordshire, I helped to settle six Syrian refugee families in the area. I have seen those families regularly, and one of the most heartening things is how they have integrated in our society in terms of school places and employment. Will the Minister please tell us what steps the Government are taking to ensure that such integration takes place swiftly and efficiently?

[Amber Rudd]

I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency area has generously welcomed a number of families. So far, we have accepted 7,000 under this scheme. Today, additionally, I can confirm that we are taking advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on widening the eligibility for the scheme for vulnerable refugees so that we can include people of any nationality who are affected by the Syrian crisis. This will be good for families and good for ensuring that we truly help the most vulnerable in the region.

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

Merseyside police have had to cut £87 million and more than 1,000 officers and staff since 2010 and, notwithstanding the Home Secretary’s bizarre claim earlier that police budgets had been protected, they are now being expected to cut a further £18 million over the next three years, leading to 540 staff and officers being placed under threat while tackling a gun crime wave that has involved 100 shootings in the past 18 months. Will the Home Secretary agree to meet me and a delegation of Merseyside MPs to discuss why her Department has just turned down a bid for extra resources to deal with this, which she and her Ministers themselves invited?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this question. We did meet; I met her and the other Merseyside MPs, and I have met the chief constable, Andy Cooke. I can absolutely confirm that the National Crime Agency and the regional organised and serious crime units are giving a great deal of support to help to tackle the appalling increase in gun crime in Merseyside. We will continue do everything we can to support the police there.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

When I spent some time on the night shift with the local police, they told me that when they arrest a person they spend most of the remainder of the shift filling in forms relating to that arrest. The police obviously have to be accountable when depriving somebody of their liberty, but that system can surely be speeded up.

[Mr Hurd]

As my hon. Friend knows, we have done a lot to cut police targets and bureaucracy so that they can focus on what really matters. Post-arrest administration has not been raised to date in my meetings with the police, but I will ensure that I raise it in any future meetings.

[Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

T5. Under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, 480 unaccompanied refugee children were expected to come to the United Kingdom. We learned in the House of Lords last week that only 200 have arrived. What are the Government doing to ensure that the other 280 vulnerable children at risk of exploitation are able to come to the safety of our shores promptly?

[Amber Rudd]

It is a very good question. I am aware of those numbers. We have made it clear to the countries that currently provide a home to those children—largely Italy and Greece, but some are in France—that we are ready and stand able to take those additional children. We will continue to engage with those countries to try to do that. Part of the issue is that some of those children have already settled in the country where they are, but we remain engaged with those countries to see what else we can do to help those children. Where we can, we would like to bring over those who have not settled and whose interests are truly best served by coming here.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Kent continues to be one of the main points of entry to the UK for illegal workers. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on what steps the Government are taking to make it easier for businesses in Kent and elsewhere to identify whether someone is working here illegally?

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

We implemented the Immigration Act 2016 to make illegal working a criminal offence so that the profits can be seized as the proceeds of crime. The Act also introduces new, stronger sanctions against employers of illegal workers. There is a balance to be struck in ensuring that people are checking whether someone has a passport, if they are from the EU, or has leave or the right to work here, if they are not from the EU. If businesses have done those checks, they are in a position to defend themselves against any action, which is appropriate.

[Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)]

T6. Ann Jones, the Welsh Assembly Member for Vale of Clwyd, successfully steered through Welsh Government legislation to make it compulsory to have sprinklers in new-builds and to retrofit them in refurbished residential buildings. Will the Home Secretary follow the Welsh Government’s example and work with her Cabinet colleagues towards making that a UK-wide policy?

[Mr Hurd]

I refer the hon. Lady to what I said before. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is making a statement this afternoon, and the Prime Minister has made several statements about the way forward in reviewing regulations, guidance and the whole inspection and risk-monitoring regime, which will include guidance on sprinklers. As the hon. Lady will know, sprinklers have different applications in different locations; there is no one-size-fits-all approach.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Yesterday evening, Gatwick airport had to close its runway on several occasions, leading to the cancellation of quite a few flights, owing to the irresponsible use of a drone. Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider reviewing the use of unmanned aerial vehicles around airports?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the dangers that drones can pose to aircraft, but drones are also used illegally to supply drugs to prisons and they are used by terrorists and criminals further afield. That is why this Government set up a group chaired by me and the Ministry of Defence about a year ago to look at measures that we can put in place not only to deal with the technological challenge that drones present, but to ensure that we counter drones in a way that fits with the idea of an open society in which law-abiding citizens can continue to use drones for their pleasure or for their work.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

T7. The prohibitive cost of testing for novel psychoactive substances is causing considerable expense to police forces in enforcing the current law. The present law on novel psychoactive substances simply is not working, so will the Home Office team please initiate an immediate review of it?

[Sarah Newton]

I simply do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 has proved to be an incredibly useful tool for police officers to identify really harmful substances and keep people safe.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Following the very tragic and fatal stabbing the weekend before last in my constituency, will the Home Secretary update the House on the plans being undertaken to tackle knife crime?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the very, very tragic case of James Brindley, who was so brutally knifed and killed in her constituency. The local police force’s investigations are well under way, and a huge amount of work is being done to tackle knife crime. The local police force, West Midlands police, often takes part in Operation Sceptre, with the next operation happening in July. Every Member has an important role to play in going out there to tell young people in their communities about the real dangers they are presenting to themselves by carrying knives.

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

Having lost more than 800 police officers and almost a quarter of its funding, Northumbria police have just announced that they are closing every single Newcastle police station front desk outside working hours. Given all the reassurances we have heard today, why is Northumbria police still being obliged to make operational decisions based on cost cutting, and not on preventing and detecting crime?

[Amber Rudd]

I say to all colleagues on both sides of the House that we have protected police spending—[Interruption.] Hon. Members can have their own views; they cannot have their own facts. These are the cases. As long as individual councils use the maximum precept of 2%, they can raise the money. Additional support is available from the police transformation fund, and we will always make sure that we use it to keep communities safe and to provide the best policing available.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

In Northamptonshire our excellent police and crime commissioner, Stephen Mold, is dramatically investing in police buildings by, for example, opening the new command centre in north Northamptonshire. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, it is the investment in buildings that are fit for purpose for operational policing and the modernisation that are so important for driving outcomes?

[Mr Hurd]

Through my hon. Friend, may I congratulate Stephen Mold on the impressive leadership and innovation that he is showing? I look forward to visiting him.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

West Yorkshire police are still reeling from cuts dating back to 2010, when they lost 20% of their force. Will we look again at budgets so that they can restore the number of police officers on our streets and give them a fighting chance of dealing with demand?

[Amber Rudd]

I take this opportunity to clarify once more the situation with regard to police funding. From 2010 to 2015 there were indeed cuts, but what was so remarkable is that the good work of local policing and the good work of local communities meant that crime came down by a third. Between 2015 and 2020 we will continue to protect police money to ensure that crime continues to come down and that policing and communities get the necessary support.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

What progress has been made to improve the co-operation between Action Fraud and individual police forces to ensure that, as in the case of a couple of my constituents, people are not passed from pillar to post when they seek information from one of those organisations?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend is right, and he has raised the issue before. That is why we have given some extra funding to Action Fraud to improve the process of managing the triage. At the same time, through the national cyber strategy, we are starting to see money going into the investments we require. Working with senior police leadership, whom I met last week, we are also trying to make sure that the response from forces to cyber-crime is consistent because, as he knows, it is very inconsistent at the moment. For too long, some forces have thought that cyber does not belong to them while other forces have done a very good job. We want to make sure that there is a consistent response right across the board.

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

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) pointed out that 30% of applications for permanent residence are turned down, to a large extent because of the complexities of the process. Would it not be sensible to simplify the process now, instead of waiting until next year for the new system?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is correct that the system we are currently using is not the one that was designed for leaving the European Union and for allowing EU members here to apply for settled status. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we will be providing a new system, which will be available by the end of next year; we are allowing people to make sure that they get additional information as it comes along and that their name is registered so that they get sent that information, but we need the time to build that system. We are confident it will be ready by the end of next year and provide a streamlined, effective online system for those applications to go through.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

In last month’s birthday honours list, Alex Murray, who until very recently was Solihull’s police commander, received an OBE for his work. Will the Minister join me not only in congratulating Alex, and indeed all police in Solihull, who do such a tremendous job, but in recognising the need for a fair funding settlement for West Midlands police?

[Amber Rudd]

I am delighted to congratulate Alex Murray on his well-earned OBE—and all the other police officers and constables whose work was so rightly recognised. Perhaps we could also, from this House, recognise the good work that has been done by all police and emergency services, particularly over the past three and a half months, given the tremendous strains there have been on the work they have been having to do.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

The provision of accommodation for asylum seekers is the responsibility of the Home Office and its contractors. What recent discussions have they had to ensure that such accommodation complies with fire prevention and safety regulations?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I visited some of those centres just last week, when I raised that very issue. I am writing to all suppliers across the country to raise that point, to make sure that they are fully aware of their duty of care and work to make sure that fire safety is of paramount importance for them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry but we must move on; demand has exceeded supply, as is very often the case in this place.

Energy Price Cap

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

15:36

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement on the Government’s intention for an energy price cap.

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

Following a two-year inquiry, the Competition and Markets Authority found that energy customers on standard variable tariffs were paying on average £1.4 billion a year more than would be the case in a competitive market. That is completely unacceptable, so my party’s manifesto committed to introduce a safeguard tariff to extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers—those on pre-payment meters—to more customers on the poorest-value tariffs. The energy regulator, Ofgem, has the powers necessary to impose such a price cap without delay, and I wrote to its chief executive on 21 June to ask it to use its powers to do so. Today, the regulator has replied and announced that it will work with consumer groups to take measures, including extending the current safeguard tariff for those on pre-payment meters to a wider group of consumers, and move urgently to implement these changes.

I welcome this initial proposal—it is a step in the right direction—but I will wait to see the actual proposals turned into action to cut bills, as the test of whether the regulator’s changes go far enough is whether they move sufficiently to eradicate the detriment to consumers that the CMA identified. I remain prepared to legislate if they do not, and I hope that such legislation would command wide support across the House.

[Dr Whitehead]

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he recall that during the election his party placed the promise of an overall cap on energy prices at the centre of its manifesto? Indeed, does he recall the Prime Minister stating:

“I am making this promise: if I am re-elected on 8 June, I will take action to end this injustice by introducing a cap on unfair energy price rises. It will protect around 17 million families on standard variable tariffs from being exploited with sudden and unjustified increases in bills”?

Does the Secretary of State accept that Ofgem’s response to his letter of 21 June on energy prices falls far short of implementing that promise and that, although there are welcome suggestions on safeguarding tariffs and capping warrant charges for the installation of pre-pay meters, those measures would affect only 2.5 million customers, leaving more than 14 million SVT customers completely unprotected from price rises over the next period? Will he confirm that his letter did not ask Ofgem to consider introducing a general price cap? Will he tell the House why it did not, even though the chief executive officer of Ofgem confirmed earlier this year that it would have the discretionary power to implement an energy price cap?

Does the Secretary of State intend to pass legislation to require Ofgem to introduce a price cap, or is he now content to let his firm election promise of a cap fall by the wayside? If so, what does he have to say to the 17 million people on standard variable tariffs who thought that relief from rip-off price rises was on its way but will now feel completely betrayed by this policy U-turn?

[Greg Clark]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I hope he will see that I answered many of his points in my initial response to the urgent question. He will share my view—indeed, I think it is his view, too—that we should act as soon as possible to provide relief to consumers. That will require Ofgem to use its powers. It has powers that it can use immediately, and I have encouraged it to do so.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned my letter. I am sure that, as he was hoping to come into government, he studied the prospective use of the powers, so he will know that legislation requires me to ask Ofgem for advice. I did so under exactly those terms and Ofgem has responded by saying that it will work with consumer groups to identify how far the protection should go. I have been clear that I want the detriment of £1.4 billion a year to be eradicated. It is a test of Ofgem’s responsiveness that it should use its powers to that end. The constituents of Government and Opposition Members will look to the regulator to make use of its powers to prevent the continuation of such an unacceptable situation, which involves more than £1 billion a year.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

To build on my right hon. Friend’s most recent answer, some 17 million families are being ripped off by expensive standard variable tariff deals. Ofgem’s proposals will deal with at most 3 million of them, leaving 14 million still being preyed on by the big six energy firms. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofgem’s proposals will be viewed as a great betrayal of those 14 million households? If we are going to create an economy that works for everyone, will he distance himself from this big six stitch-up and pledge to help the millions of households that Ofgem seems set to ignore?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend has done great work with many Members from various parties to establish that there is an appetite and need to tackle the problem exposed by the CMA, which has been going on for too long. In response to my letter, Ofgem has said today that it will work with consumer groups and come forward with a range of responses. I will look at them closely, as I know my hon. Friend will, and I am sure that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee will, too. I have said clearly that the test of the adequacy of the responses is that they address the clear detriment that the authorities have identified.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The UK Government really lack strategy right across the energy sector. The £20 billion Hinkley Point C project will add to future household bills, mention of energy was sadly lacking in the Green Paper that was published before the election, and now there is this lack of a joined-up approach to an energy cap. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Government’s plans to protect the 14 million people who will not be covered by the current proposals? Of the £1.4 billion that the CMA has said is going to the big companies instead of staying in consumers’ pockets, how much will be returned to consumers under the measures that are being introduced? He said that he might consider legislation, but what is his timescale for reviewing what is happening and deciding whether there is a need to act? Will he ask Ofgem to determine what the true level of a cap should be?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman talks about energy strategy, and it is right that the Government have taken a decision—this was ducked by previous Governments for decades—to renew our nuclear power stations that are coming to the end of their lives. He will know that the SNP Government in Scotland agreed to extend the lives of nuclear power stations there, and he will also know about the impact of our success on renewable energy, specifically offshore wind, in Scotland. I have had fruitful discussions with colleagues throughout Scotland, especially in the remote islands, about the future possibilities for that.

On Ofgem’s response to my letter, I have set out clearly that it has said it will work with and consult consumer groups, and come up with a range of options. The £1.4 billion detriment has to be eradicated, and that is the test of whether the proposals are acceptable. I am sure that the House wants to scrutinise them as much as I do.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend inherited a system that relies increasingly on dear energy, which drives up household bills. Is there anything that he can do to bring a greater amount of cheaper energy into the mix so that bills reduce in five or 10 years’ time?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that we meet our important climate change commitments at a competitive cost—for consumers and for businesses—and that we obtain the industrial benefits from having a supply chain in this country. That is exactly why we devote a chapter of the industrial strategy Green Paper to future plans to make the most of the clean energy transition in all respects.

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

Having seen the recent report, surely it is safe to say that wind and solar will be the future for low-cost energy, but there was a Duke Ellington song called “How long has this been going on?” The fact is that this has been going on too long—this exploitation of people who cannot avoid paying above the price. Is it not about time that we moved away from botched privatisation and inadequate regulation to an answer that puts money back in people’s pockets, rather than taking it out?

[Greg Clark]

In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I welcome, as he does, the huge progress that has been made not just in the deployment of renewables, but in the cost reductions that we have seen. That process has created jobs across the UK, especially in coastal towns. I had the pleasure of opening the Siemens wind blade factory in Hull, which created 1,000 good jobs. However, he is right that the detriment has been going on too long, which was why the Government asked the CMA to investigate the industry root and branch. It has identified £1.4 billion of detriment, and I have made it absolutely clear that that detriment needs to be returned to the pockets of consumers.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

May I tell the Secretary of State that the latest data show that 2,687 households in my constituency are estimated to be in fuel poverty? That is 6.6% of all households. What more can be done to identify these vulnerable groups and ensure that they have the best advice and information about switching tariffs? The suggestion that people search online is not the way forward. Perhaps it would be more helpful to have a better dialogue between the consumer and the energy provider.

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. One feature of the energy market is that the poorer someone is, the larger the proportion of their income that they spend on energy. That is why it is imperative that vulnerable consumers should not be required go on the internet every few months to check that their tariff has not defaulted to a much higher one. That was the reason for my letter to Ofgem, and it is why I want its response to be vigorous. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that an aspect of the wider set of policies is to make it easier for consumers to know the price of energy and how much they consume, and smart meters are being introduced to help more people to do that.

[Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)]

Has the Secretary of State seen the analysis and evidence of former independent energy regulators who say that the consumer detriment pointed to by the CMA in this market was based on seriously flawed methodology? If he has not, will he look at that and report back to the House?

[Greg Clark]

I have seen that. This two-year inquiry conducted by the CMA identified £1.4 billion of detriment, which is a huge amount of money. When our constituents see the difference—it can be up to £100 a year—that they pay for a dual fuel bill by being on a dual fuel tariff, they know that that is significant amount.

The CMA said that suppliers have “unilateral market power” over their inactive customer base and could exploit their position by pricing their SVTs above a level that could be justified. That cannot go on.

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it will take more than easier switching to encourage a fairer energy market in this country?

[Greg Clark]

A response is required from the regulator; this is a regulated industry. The development of modern markets means that it is possible for suppliers, especially dominant ones, to identify the customers who are the least likely to switch. As my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) said, they are often among the most vulnerable. It is unacceptable to use that information to sting them, and regulation has to catch up with that.

[Mr Speaker]

I think it is time that we heard again from the good doctor—Dr David Drew.

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is my lucky day today, but I am sure it will not continue. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

As much as we welcome the attempt to deal with fuel poverty, the Secretary of State must realise that there is an adverse effect on renewables at the margins, which will now not come forward because of this fairly blunt pricing structure. Will he look into that and ensure that there is still a drive forward for renewables?

[Greg Clark]

We are seeing a big increase in the deployment of renewables as the price comes down, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said. The effect of the overcharging—the abuse—is not a return to consumers, and this is not about the increased deployment of renewables. In the analysis of the CMA, the practice results in profits that are higher than they would be in a competitive market and relative inefficiency on the part of the suppliers. Consumers should not be paying for either of those.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Many energy consumers, particularly those on low incomes, do not pay their energy bills by direct debit, but they get huge increased charges from many of the energy companies when they do pay, even when they do so on time. Will my right hon. Friend look into this and make sure that people who do not pay their energy bills by direct debit get a fair energy bill?

[Greg Clark]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As I said, the poorest 10% of households spend 10% of their household expenditure on energy, whereas the richest 10% spend 3% of theirs on it. We need to look particularly at the conditions of more vulnerable consumers to ensure that they are not disadvantaged. My right hon. Friend mentioned one of the ways in which they are.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Are we not tinkering at the edges and doing a little bit of window dressing? I think that we all agree that the energy market appears to be dysfunctional. We saw that best at the beginning of this year when there was an increase in tariffs across the board that bore no relation to wholesale prices, but had everything to do with the exchange rate, particularly that with the euro, as most of our domestic companies are actually based in France or Germany. The big six are essentially operating as a cartel, not in the interests of the consumer.

[Greg Clark]

I am not sure that I would give them the excuse of exchange rate movements. The Competition and Markets Authority has said that suppliers have unilateral market power over this part of their customer base. This is a regulated market. Ofgem has the powers to introduce and extend the price gap, and my view is that it should use those powers now.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Going back to switching, does the Secretary of State think that more needs to be done to make it much easier to switch, particularly for our more vulnerable constituents?

[Greg Clark]

I agree with my hon. Friend. While there should certainly not be barriers in the way, it also should not be necessary for people to spend every evening on the internet checking whether their bill has gone up by an outrageous margin. If people are loyal to a brand, it is not unreasonable for them to expect to be treated reasonably, especially as that brand may be a trusted brand. The regulator should enforce that.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

We produce far more electricity in Wales than we use, yet we pay the highest electricity prices in the British state. More than a third of our households are in fuel poverty. Does that not suggest that Westminster control over Welsh energy policy is not working?

[Greg Clark]

No, it is one of the reasons why this investigation was commissioned and why what I have asked Ofgem to consider and enact will be particularly important to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Wales.

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Ofgem’s proposal to consult on more measures to help microbusinesses?

[Greg Clark]

I do welcome that. We have talked about household consumers, and for many very small businesses, their energy bill is also an important component of their costs. In my request for advice, which it was technically necessary to make to Ofgem, I asked for that advice to apply to microbusinesses as well.

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

The usual vested interests—the big six—were on the airwaves this morning advising consumers to switch their energy supplier, but if consumers really want to see a change to this rip-off of energy prices, do they not have to switch Governments?

[Greg Clark]

No, it was this Government who referred the whole industry to the Competition and Markets Authority. When the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) was Energy Secretary, I urged this measure on him, and he rejected it flat, so it is this Government who have exposed the level of the detriment, and it is this Government who are acting to put a cap in place to prevent this abuse—that did not happen under Labour.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

As welcome as a price cap will undoubtedly be, does the Secretary of State agree that the real key to bringing down prices for consumers is the liberalisation of the energy market through the digitisation of the energy system, storage in front of and behind the meter, and a demand-side response?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend, who is well informed about such issues, is absolutely right. The opportunity that smart meters bring is that people can have much more knowledge and control of their energy use, and use that to get the best deals available. That is why the roll-out of smart meters is such an important part of our reforms to the energy market.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

But does the outcome of the CMA inquiry not tell the Secretary of State, as a reasonable man, that this is the end of the road for the system? Privatisation did not work, the regulatory system has not worked, and we have had to have a CMA inquiry. What is needed is a fundamental reappraisal and change of this whole energy edifice?

[Greg Clark]

I am surprised to hear implicit support from the hon. Gentleman for the programme of nationalisation of this sector that the Labour party stood on. The billions of pounds that that would cost would not be the most important use of funds. This has been a regulated industry since privatisation many years ago, and the regulation needs to function better than it has.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s answers. Am I right to understand that he would not be satisfied with a final solution from Ofgem that continued to cross-subsidise some customers out of a kind of loyalty premium paid by those who, even if not vulnerable, did not switch?

[Greg Clark]

This is a wake-up call for the industry. A model in which consumers who are known not to switch can be milked to pay a subsidy for other consumers in an unfair way—the CMA identified “unilateral market power”, which enables firms to exploit their position—has to come to an end.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

While I welcome proposals to make it easier to switch away from poor deals, does my right hon. Friend agree that Ofgem needs to go much further than it suggested in its letter to him this morning to protect consumers from exploitation?

[Greg Clark]

There is a clear expectation that I want the detriment that the CMA has identified to be tackled once and for all. Ofgem has said that it will consult consumer groups, and I hope and expect that those consumer groups will share my hon. Friend’s analysis.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Ofgem’s acknowledgment regarding the ability to put a cap in place? Should we not urge it to use the power fully?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is right, and the proposal to consult consumer groups and to go beyond the CMA’s remedies—at least what the majority report of the CMA recommended—is welcome. As I said, that is a step in the right direction, but I would want to see this put out in detail and implemented before I would be satisfied with it.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

Speaking as someone who represents an industrial town, has my right hon. Friend, as part of the wider debate on these issues, had the opportunity to assess what impact nationalising the energy companies would have on household and commercial energy bills?

[Greg Clark]

I have indeed. The impact of finding the billions of pounds necessary to take these industries into public ownership would not only be a disaster for our public finances, but the destruction of investor confidence in a whole range of industries that we need investment in.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Julian Smith. I mean Julian Knight.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

I did not think that I could have been behind someone else, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

You are not a senior Government Whip, Sir, but at least you are a Knight.

[Julian Knight]

I was a BBC News consumer affairs reporter for five years, and during that time I saw the havoc that can be wrought by pre-payment metering. Does my right hon. Friend agree that practices such as rip-off emergency credit, which makes a payday loan look reasonable, need to be brought to heel, and that we should welcome Ofgem’s proposal to extend the current safeguard tariff for consumers on pre-payment meters?

[Greg Clark]

It can only be a matter of time before my hon. Friend enjoys the position to which you referred, Mr Speaker.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been the practice of this Government to intervene when there are abuses, especially of vulnerable people in the way in which he describes. That has happened with pre-payment meters, but the approach needs to go much further.

[Mr Speaker]

We are most grateful to the Secretary of State and to colleagues.

Northern Ireland: Political Situation

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

16:01

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland.

As the House will recall, following the resignation of Martin McGuinness, the then Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland in January, an election took place to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 March. Despite intensive discussions in the three weeks following the election, the Northern Ireland parties were unable to reach agreement on the formation of a new Executive. In order to facilitate further discussions between the parties, Parliament passed legislation immediately prior to Dissolution extending the period in which an Executive could be formed until 29 June. Last Thursday—29 June—I made a statement in Belfast setting out that while differences remain between the parties, progress had been made and that it was still possible for a resolution to be achieved. I urged the parties to continue focusing their efforts on this, with the full support of the UK Government and, as appropriate, the Irish Government. In that regard, I want to recognise the contribution of the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and his predecessor, Charlie Flanagan.

In the past few days since the passing of the deadline, some progress has continued to be made, including on the most challenging issues, such as language, culture and identity, but gaps remain between the parties on a defined number of issues. The Government remain committed to working with the parties and the Irish Government to find a way to close these gaps quickly in order to reach an agreement that will pave the way for the restoration of devolved government. The Prime Minister has been actively involved, following on from her meeting with each of the parties, including speaking to Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill on Friday night. I continue to believe that a deal remains achievable, and if agreement is reached, I will bring forward legislation to enable an Executive to be formed, possibly as early as this week.

But time is short. It has been six months since a full Executive were in place to represent the people of Northern Ireland. In that time, it has been civil servants, not politicians, who have made decisions on spending. Without political direction, it has not been possible for strategic decisions to be made about priorities in areas such as education and health. This has created pressures that need to be addressed, and it has led to understandable concern and uncertainty among businesses and those relying on public services alike, as well as the community and voluntary sector. This hiatus cannot simply continue for much longer.

There is no doubt that the best outcome is for a new Executive to make those strategic decisions in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. It should be for a new Executive to make swift decisions on their budget and make use of the considerable spending power available to them. While engagement between the parties continues and there is prospect of an agreement, it is right that those discussions remain our focus. At the same time, we will not forget our ultimate responsibility as a Government to uphold political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland.

I made a written statement in April that sought to provide clarity for those civil servants charged with allocating cash in Northern Ireland, to assist them in the discharge of their responsibilities. Some £42 million in resources flowing from the spring Budget and budget transfers from the last financial year remain unallocated, and they are intended to provide an incoming Executive with the room to decide how they should best be spent.

If we do not see resolution in the coming days, however, it will become urgent that we reflect further on whether clarity is required for Northern Ireland permanent secretaries about the allocation of those resources. In that situation we would also need to reflect carefully on how we might allocate funding made available to address immediate health and education pressures, as set out in last Monday’s statement on UK Government financial support for Northern Ireland, recognising Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. If no agreement is reached, legislation in Westminster may then be required to give authority for the expenditure of Northern Ireland Departments through an appropriations Bill.

From my conversations with the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, I know that we have not quite reached that critical point yet. But that point is coming and the lack of a formal budget cannot be sustained indefinitely. Similarly, decisions on capital expenditure and infrastructure and public service reform in key sectors such as the health service cannot be deferred for much longer.

One area on which there is much consensus, however, is the need for greater transparency on political donations. In line with the commitment set out in the Conservative party’s Northern Ireland manifesto at the general election, I can confirm that I intend to propose legislation that will provide for the publication of all donations and loans received by Northern Ireland parties on or after 1 July 2017.

All of that reinforces further the importance of the parties coming together and reaching an agreement. It sets out, too, some of the hard choices we face if uncertainty persists. I am also conscious that, with the deadline now passed, I am under a duty to set a date for a new election. I will continue to keep that duty under review, but it seems unlikely that that would of itself resolve the current political impasse or address the ultimate need for political decision making, however we proceed.

As the Government for the whole United Kingdom, we will always govern in the interests of all those in the United Kingdom. Therefore, if resolution were to prove intractable and an Executive could not be restored, we would of course be ready to do what is needed to provide that political decision making in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

I am clear, however, that the return of inclusive, devolved government by a power-sharing Executive is what would be profoundly in the best interests of Northern Ireland, and that will remain our overriding focus in the crucial days ahead.

The UK Government will continue to govern in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland by providing political stability and keeping an open and sustained dialogue with the parties and with the Irish Government, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach.

I stand ready to do what is necessary to facilitate the quick formation of an Executive once an agreement is reached, and that is where our focus should lie. I commend this statement to the House.

[Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement and for his welcome efforts to keep me regularly updated on progress in the talks. I know that the Secretary of State, the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and all the parties have been working hard to try to narrow the gap on the outstanding issues, in particular on languages, culture and identity. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has not come here today to say that the shutters are coming down on the talks and I admire his sustained—if slightly surprising—optimism that a deal might be done this week.

People in Belfast and across Northern Ireland will have heard his contention that there remains the prospect of a deal. If that is achieved, he will enjoy the Opposition’s full support in putting in place whatever legislation is necessary to enable the Executive to reform and the Assembly to meet. But there will be legitimate frustration among many Northern Ireland citizens that fully six months after the Executive broke down, and little more than a week before the marching season reaches its apogee on 12 July, we remain at this impasse. There will also be some scepticism about the likelihood of his surmounting it in a few short days.

Hard questions must now be asked about what more the Government can do to assist the parties in moving forward. It is encouraging that the Prime Minister picked up the phone on Friday night to the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein. But I invite the Secretary of State, in the new spirit of free speech that seems to be abroad in the Conservative party, to agree with me that the Prime Minister could do a bit more. He could tell her to get on a plane to Belfast herself. I am sure that Arlene Foster would not mind lending the Prime Minister her plane for the weekend.

History tells us, on both sides of the House, that the direct involvement of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach can sometimes help to bridge the divide in Northern Ireland and move things forward. It is a surprise to me that the Prime Minister continues to seem reluctant to take personal responsibility to break the deadlock. In fact, I think many in Northern Ireland would feel that the current Prime Minister has a particular duty to take some personal responsibility and get more involved because it was her decision to call an election in April that lengthened the hiatus and has taken us so close to 12 July, and her reliance on the DUP—a legitimate reliance, given the arithmetic of the House—that is being cited by other interlocutors in the talks as part of the reason for the impasse.

I agree with the Secretary of State that the hiatus simply cannot continue for much longer, but I would like to hear more from him about what he will do to resolve it. If it is not with greater hands on involvement by the Prime Minster and the Taoiseach, as I and others have suggested, does he think there is a role for a new independent—and perhaps international—chair for the talks, with fresh eyes and a new mandate? That too has been an important means of shifting things in the past.

I noted the coded warning that the Secretary of State gave, rightly, that if a way forward cannot be found, he will have to bring forward further budgetary transfers to give extra clarity and certainty to the Northern Ireland civil service. That may well be necessary and, if so, he would again enjoy our support, but I am not sure that it would provide much of a spur to the parties, because they are used to this limbo land after the last six months. I know he agrees with me that it is profoundly unsatisfactory for strategic decisions to be put off and for Northern Ireland to be in the hands of unelected civil servants, no matter how competent and well intentioned they are. An appropriations Bill may prove to be a bigger spur, but some—as the Secretary of State knows—will see that effectively as a return to direct rule. I am sure that that will be a position that he will wish to avoid and I would urge him to take all possible steps to avoid it.

I welcome the decision that the Secretary of State has taken today to legislate for publication of all political loans and donations received by parties in Northern Ireland after 1 July. That is an important step in normalising the politics of Northern Ireland, although it may strike some as ironic in the light of the recent deal with the DUP. Does he intend that the thresholds that will apply to that legislation will be the same as apply to donations and loans in the rest of the UK? Will the same requirement apply that all donors are registered voters in the UK?

Finally, I am sure the Secretary of State agrees that Northern Ireland needs its Assembly and Executive up and running as soon as possible. There is no greater illustration of that than the fact that we are now entering the Brexit negotiations in earnest. Northern Ireland effectively has no voice at that negotiating table; certainly not one that reflects all the traditions, culture and heritage of Northern Ireland. There is an absolute imperative to get the Executive back on their feet and to restore Northern Ireland’s voice. I am sure he will join me in urging all Members to urge all parties to make sure that that happens as soon as possible.

[James Brokenshire]

I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in underlining that core message. I appreciate and welcome the support he has given to the Government in trying to reach a point where agreement is concluded and we are able to move swiftly in this House. I appreciate the opportunity we have had to discuss these issues over the last few days and I will certainly maintain that dialogue with him.

The hon. Gentleman raises a number of points. He highlights the frustration of many people in Northern Ireland that no deal has been concluded thus far. A theme that I know binds us together is how we can achieve that conclusion, with an inclusive power-sharing Executive of locally elected politicians getting on and making decisions in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the engagement of the Prime Minister. She has been involved throughout the process. She met all the leaders of the political parties in London and has maintained contact throughout this time. As I indicated, in recent days she has, as she has previously, spoken to the leaders of the two main parties. He will recognise that particular interventions may not necessarily have the desired outcome. From his previous involvement in Northern Ireland he will know of occasions that did not lead to the outcome he wished for at the time, in places such as Leeds Castle, for example. Different solutions and scenarios present themselves in different cases. A defined number of issues remain outstanding and we need to give them our focus and attention, rather than extending out and changing the whole dynamic. We will continue to keep matters under careful review. Resolution is possible if the willingness is there. It is with that urgency that we must approach the days ahead.

There is opportunity here. I spoke about the additional funding that could be available to an incoming Executive to enable them to act and to take strategic decisions. It is profoundly in Northern Ireland’s interest for locally elected politicians to do that.

I will write to the hon. Gentleman and set out further details on transparency issues relating to political donations—I think that is probably the best way to do it—and I will put a letter in the House of Commons Library. I will also introduce legislation spelling that out so that everyone will be able to see the next steps very clearly.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Consistent with what I said to the House last week, I am keen to uphold the tradition that Members wishing to take part in exchanges on a statement should be those, and only those, who were here at its start. I do not wish to embarrass individuals. A couple of Members who came in late are, very graciously, not standing, but that is not uniform. Those who came in late and are standing should not be doing so. It is quite wrong to wander in halfway through a statement and then expect to be called. Some people might even think it a tad arrogant, but there we go.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

Regardless of the difficulties or disagreements among the parties in Northern Ireland, should not those issues be sorted out within the Assembly and the Executive, and not in this place? Or is it the case that one party, or maybe more, is actually looking for a rewriting of the rules?

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his continued focus on Northern Ireland, following his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs in the last Parliament. I think all parties are focused on seeking an outcome and ensuring a functioning Executive, rather than fundamental changes to the rules. That is where we should focus our attention, because as he suggested, that is where I think he realises that decision making should happen—within Northern Ireland, within the Assembly and within the Executive, acting in the best interests of Northern Ireland.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

It is disappointing to say the least that a deal has not been made and that the proper governance of Northern Ireland cannot restart. Does the Secretary of State accept that his party’s deal with the DUP makes reaching a deal more difficult? Does he consider the link between his ministerial colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), and the Constitutional Research Council, which made the questionable Brexit donation to the DUP, to be an additional and unwelcome complication? Why did it take three years from the consultation on increasing the transparency of political donations in Northern Ireland to get to a position where the Government are now announcing that they will be introducing legislation? The murk that surrounds this whole affair at times makes it increasingly difficult to trust that there is true impartiality on the part of the Government. What can the Secretary of State do to clear up the questions around the Constitutional Research Council and its donations, and restore confidence in the Government’s impartiality?

Lastly, the devolved Administrations are supposed to be involved in the Brexit negotiations. Can the Secretary of State tell us who has been providing the input from Stormont and whether it is less or more than the input from the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government? Very lastly—[Interruption]—what representations were made to him by the Secretary of State for Scotland about the deal done between the Government and the DUP?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There was a certain amount of harrumphing from a sedentary position at the continuation of the hon. Lady’s line of interrogation, but I can confirm, in defence of her, that she was fully 36 seconds within her time.

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

It’s the way she says it.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That is a matter of stylistic objection—or even, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman, aesthetic objection—but it cannot be said to be a matter of order.

[James Brokenshire]

It may not surprise the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) to know that I do not agree with the analysis that she set out in her questions. We stand four-square by our undertakings under the Belfast agreement and its successors, and the agreement relating to decision making here at Westminster does not contravene those important elements—something that is specifically spelled out in that agreement.

The hon. Lady highlights the issue of political donations and transparency. We conducted a consultation with all the political parties in Northern Ireland to seek their views first, and that was the reason for the decision we have taken today, reflecting those views and that input and the commitment in my party’s manifesto.

The hon. Lady highlights the issue of Brexit and contact with the Northern Ireland Executive. Obviously there are not elected politicians there, so we have sought to engage with the Northern Ireland civil service within the Executive, but that takes us only so far. That is why I profoundly believe that we need to see an Executive in place, to be an additional voice for Northern Ireland, strongly making those points, and to ensure that, alongside them, we get the best possible deal for Northern Ireland through EU exit.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What an extraordinary state of affairs: I was planning to call the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), but he now seems a little disengaged from our proceedings. He toddled up to the Chair and I thought he was interested. He can speak—go on Mr Paterson, let’s hear it.

[Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)]

I came to apologise for missing the first two minutes, but you have called me, Mr Speaker, and I am grateful.

Can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State confirm that unless we have a fully up-and-running Executive, we cannot implement the devolution of corporation tax, which will benefit every single citizen in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Speaker]

And there I was thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had come up to the Chair and just muttered some prosaic pleasantry, which I readily greeted. It is very honest of him to say that he was late, but I had not known that he was, and therefore as far as I am concerned he was not.

[James Brokenshire]

Regrettably, the answer to my right hon. Friend’s question is that without an Executive in place, the devolution of corporation tax cannot happen. That underlines one of many reasons why an Executive is needed to get on and ensure that that vision of prosperity and further investment can take place, and an Executive would absolutely aid that.

[Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

We welcome the statement, and let me say, for the record, that the Democratic Unionist party was ready last Thursday to form a Government and to appoint our Ministers. There is no question of any reticence in our party about forming an Executive, and we have been encouraged by the Government to do so.

Will the Government proceed to publish the legacy proposals in the event that an Executive is not formed? We welcome what the Secretary of State has said about donations, but will that be extended to include donations to political parties operating in Northern Ireland that are routed via the Republic of Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

As the right hon. Gentleman may know, our consultation about political transparency concerned the narrow elements that were contained within that, but I know that other issues and other points had been raised, including the matter to which he has referred, and they will remain under consideration. As for the legacy issue, I think there is a growing consensus that we need to get the consultation out there, and show everyone the work that has been done on the implementation of the Stormont House bodies so that we begin to see that coming into effect. I earnestly hope that we will be able to move forward, and that it will take place following the establishment of an Executive.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

Is not the simple truth that, whereas the Democratic Unionist party has managed to obtain £1 billion from the Treasury to spend on the people of Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin—Gerry Adams and those at Connolly House who are refusing to re-form the Executive—will be in no position to ensure that their constituents receive an equal share of that money, because there will be no Sinn Féin Minister in the Executive, and the money will be spent either by Ministers in this place or by civil servants in Northern Ireland?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the simple point is that an Executive consisting of a First Minister, a Deputy First Minister and other Ministers will be able to make decisions on budgets and all other issues throughout the community. The funds that have been outlined—to be spent on, for example, health, education, mental health, infrastructure and broadband—will be, profoundly, for everyone in Northern Ireland. All communities will benefit from those funds. I think that that underlines the need for the Executive, and the need to ensure that locally elected politicians are the ones who make the decisions.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

We are pleased that the Secretary of State has told us that it will still be possible for the two sides in Northern Ireland to reach a deal within the next few days. He will know as well as I do that trust is imperative in the current talks. Will he explain a little more fully why he is so reluctant to try to seal that deal by asking the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to go to Belfast and attempt to bring the parties together so that the final measures that are necessary to secure a deal can be taken?

[James Brokenshire]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I stress that the Prime Minister has been actively involved throughout the process, and has been having meetings with all the party leaders. She had a further conversation with the Taoiseach last week about how matters were progressing, and received updates from me and from Simon Coveney, the Irish Foreign Minister, that were received by the Taoiseach as well. There is that continued active engagement, but if further interventions are required we will, of course, keep matters under review in order to establish what will bring about an effective resolution and produce the Executive whom the hon. Gentleman and I want to see in place.

[Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)]

Of course I understand the points my right hon. Friend has made about the fact that the present situation cannot go on forever. However, one of the virtues that is required, and one of the many virtues that are involved in his arduous post, is patience. I hope he will be able to assure the House that he will be exhibiting that virtue even beyond the level of the proverbial saint, in order to put a power-sharing agreement and a new Executive in place.

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support, and for his indication that some patience is needed. Let me underline to him, however, that a great deal of patience has been exhibited up to now, and that there is a great deal of frustration among the public in Northern Ireland. They want services to work for them in the way that is necessary; they want to see the transformation that needs to take place in certain key services. That is why an Executive is so desperately needed at the earliest opportunity, so that we can see politics performing in the best interests of Northern Ireland. That change needs to happen.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

You know, Mr Speaker, that I do not often hanker after the days of Tony Blair, but if we had reached this state of affairs under his premiership, we would have seen not just involvement by the Prime Minister, but active leadership, and he would probably have made the statement to the House. With all due respect to the Secretary of State, it is a matter of regret that the Prime Minister is not here today.

The Secretary of State is right when he says that we need greater transparency on political donations, but he must be aware that the House has already expressed its view on that matter. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2014 set the relevant date as being 1 January 2014. Why is he now seeking to change that?

[James Brokenshire]

The simple point on that is that it is about compliance with the regulations and seeing that those making donations are able to make those determinations based on the law that is in existence, rather than looking at retrospection. Obviously, there will be further opportunity for the House to debate that issue. However, I think that that is the clearest way of doing it.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

While the political situation remains in limbo in Northern Ireland, elderly and frail British former soldiers are even now being brought before the courts on serious charges, while multiple terrorist murderers walk free, having served either derisory sentences or no sentences at all. Can the Secretary of State assure us that the Government remain focused on rectifying that inequality of treatment?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that this is an issue that my right hon. Friend and others have raised consistently in the House. I commend them for the focus they have provided. The Government remain committed to implementing the Stormont House institutions and that reform which is about fair, balanced and proportionate efforts in respect of the investigations of the past. That is what the agreement sets out clearly in applying the rule of law but, as I have said on a number of occasions in the House, I and others across Government will never tire of recognising the tireless contribution that so many in our security and armed forces made to ensure that we have peace today. Without their contribution, that simply would not have been possible.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

It is not easy to establish devolved government. We achieved that in 2006-07 because the Prime Minister of the day spent 80 hours in St Andrews hands-on, dealing with all parties with the Taoiseach of Ireland. That is just advice to the Secretary of State; it is not a disservice to him and his colleagues to have the Prime Minister engaged heavily.

Given the £1 billion that has been committed by the Government, could the Secretary of State assure the House that in the absence of devolved government no expenditure decisions will be taken by civil servants on priorities for the expenditure of that money?

[James Brokenshire]

There are clear needs in Northern Ireland, which is why I made the point that I did on the potential need for further clarification for the Northern Ireland civil service in respect of budgetary issues. I also underline that last week’s statement recognised the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland and that there are some urgent and pressing priorities. That is why I think an Executive needs to be put into place, but clearly, in acting in Northern Ireland’s best interests, we will keep that very closely under review if it is not possible to form an Executive in the coming days.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I would like to ask my right hon. Friend about the situation on the border, especially regarding the Brexit negotiations. As a Member of this House who was born in Northern Ireland, I know how important it is not to go back to the hard border that I remember from my childhood. Given that both the British and EU negotiators have said that they do not wish to see a hard border, how soon can we ensure that the situation is resolved to make sure that the people of Northern Ireland know that their future is more certain?

[James Brokenshire]

As my hon. Friend will know from her experience, the issue of Northern Ireland is a priority item in the Brexit negotiations. Discussions have commenced. We continue to work on that to provide assurance on the border and other issues. As a Government, we believe that a solution can be found and that there is good will on all sides in relation to finding that solution, reaching that agreement through the common travel area and looking at the issue of the movement of goods across the border to ensure that it remains invisible and seamless. It is a clear and firm priority of the Government to achieve that.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

My party is also disappointed that the Executive have not been re-established after being brought down by Sinn Féin earlier this year, but will the Secretary of State confirm that only one party in Northern Ireland is insisting on any preconditions on the setting up of the Executive, and if those preconditions are unreasonable––including the prosecution of soldiers and policemen, the establishment of an Irish language Act which would cost tens of millions of pounds, the commitment by that party to overthrow its manifesto commitments, and a refusal to sit with Arlene Foster, who won the last election—they will amount to blackmail, and the establishment of any Executive on that basis would be fragile and could not possibly exist? Will he also confirm this to us today: has he given into Sinn Féin’s demand that there be no transparency on the funds it receives through the Irish Republic from foreign countries to its own party coffers?

[James Brokenshire]

I know that there are strong views on a number of issues. The hon. Gentleman’s party and Sinn Féin continue in discussions to find a resolution to these issues and differences, and they have even been continuing today, shortly before this sitting started. The focus needs to be on that. We must have an Executive performing in the best interests of Northern Ireland; I know the hon. Gentleman’s party has strongly indicated that it wants to see that. We will continue to support all the parties involved in this process to find that resolution, and to look beyond the differences between parties. We recognise also that the political process in Northern Ireland is very special, and that so many people have worked so hard to get us to this point. I think that the hon. Gentleman and others all want to see that progressing into the future, and to see that positive bright future for Northern Ireland across all communities.

[James Heappey (Wells) (Con)]

The additional funds committed to Northern Ireland in recent weeks continue to be wrongly labelled as money for a single party in the Province. Will the Secretary of State reaffirm that this is in fact money for the whole Province, to be spent by all parties, and that it represents a billion more reasons for political leadership to be restored at Stormont?

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes a clear and important point: the funding package announced last week was firmly for the benefit of all communities, so that we see investment in infrastructure, which has not kept pace with other parts of the UK, and to deal with issues such as employment rates, which are behind those of other nations of the United Kingdom, and also to deal with reform in certain key public services. That is to the benefit of all communities in Northern Ireland. We want to see the Executive able to make decisions and feeling the real benefit of that; that provides that real potential and real opportunity which we want to see seized.

[Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)]

This crisis has meandered across six months, two elections and, as of today, two and a half missed deadlines, but I still do not get any sense of urgency from the Secretary of State. There is a time for passive observation and there is a time for intensive intervention; why will the Prime Minister not go to Belfast with the Taoiseach and find a resolution to this that we all want to see?

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we do want to see that resolution. Interventions have been made by the UK and Irish Governments and others seeking supportive voices to assist in the community and elsewhere to get the parties focused on seeing that bigger picture, looking beyond difference, and being able to get an Executive formed. We will use all interventions appropriately to get that outcome. That is why I make the point about the work the Prime Minister has done, the work that I have done, the work the Irish Government have done and the work the Taoiseach and Irish Foreign Minister have done, but I also agree with the hon. Gentleman that time is progressing and we do not want to see the sort of interventions I have highlighted in this statement. Time is moving on, and if we do not see resolution quickly, there will be a need to take various steps around the budget and other areas. We are still working hard to support the parties, but ultimately it is for the parties to reach that agreement, to see those divides crossed so an Executive are formed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman of the urgency, attention, time and effort that continues to be made in that regard.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

As the only Member on this side of the Chamber who voted for transparency of donations three years ago, I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision to bring that forward. In relation to resolving the impasse, can he confirm that the £1 billion announced last week will be sufficient, and that there will be no need for more money from Westminster to get this deal over the line?

[James Brokenshire]

The funds that were announced last week should provide a sense of opportunity and potential for issues that are clearly of relevance to Northern Ireland, such as the lack of transport infrastructure compared with other parts of the United Kingdom and the digital and broadband issue, which has lagged behind other parts of the United Kingdom. The funds should give a sense of incentive and opportunity for an Executive to deliver and get on with so many of the things they want to see.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that this impasse in Northern Ireland has been complicated by the fact that the result of the general election has meant the Government getting involved in a protection money racketing system of about £1 billion? As a suggestion, may I say that the only way to get rid of that is for the Prime Minister to call another general election? We know that she is frightened to death of doing it, because she knows that the Labour party would win. We would form a Government and get rid of this almighty mess. There would be no protection racket money, and we would have a decent Labour Government that would get rid of austerity. Get on with it!

[James Brokenshire]

It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman has still not recognised the result of the last election. The House will be interested in his comments, but I do not think that they will make a difference to solving the real problems that we are wrestling with in Northern Ireland.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

If the impasse is not broken, and if direct rule is imposed, can the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations perform its role without the participation of one of the constituent parts of the British state?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have already indicated in my statement, we are firmly not looking at interventions that even get close to the point that the hon. Gentleman alludes to. It would profoundly not be in Northern Ireland’s best interests to head down that way, which is why I have made my points about the Executive. The best way to address his point is to have an Executive in place with a First Minister and Deputy First Minister who are able to represent Northern Ireland and argue firmly in Northern Ireland’s best interests on Brexit and many other issues.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

This is an unusual Parliament, in that, because of the loss of Social Democratic and Labour party seats and the unwelcome continuing refusal of Sinn Féin Members to take their seats in this Chamber, there is no representation here of Irish nationalist opinion from the island of Ireland for the first time in many decades. Given what the Secretary of State has said in his statement about the possibility of having to introduce legislation in the near future, how will he ensure that that strain of opinion from Northern Ireland is fully taken into account in any consideration of that legislation?

[James Brokenshire]

I am certainly conscious, in my role as Secretary of State, of listening to voices from all parts of the community. Obviously the voices of the nationalist community are no longer represented in this House, and I will therefore continue to engage intensively with all parties in Northern Ireland. I will continue to listen and to hear the specific points that they make, and I will ensure that that is reflected in my own considerations and those of the Government more broadly as we look at the legislative programme ahead.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State will know my utter commitment to devolution, but at some point there has to be a realisation that the parrot could possibly be dead, that it is deceased of life, that it is no more. If that is the case with devolution, will the Secretary of State put a timeframe on the life expectancy that is ultimately left in this dead bird? Will appropriations be moved before the summer recess?

[James Brokenshire]

The head of the Northern Ireland civil service has indicated that we have not yet reached the point at which an appropriation Bill needs to be passed. We are still a little way away from that. None the less, urgent issues need to be addressed about the financial position in Northern Ireland, which is why I made points in my statement about the potential need for further assurance to be granted. I firmly think that there is still life there, and the engagement that we continue to see underlines that. Having locally elected politicians serving the community in Northern Ireland is profoundly what is in Northern Ireland’s best interests. I know that the hon. Gentleman strongly believes in that, and the Government will certainly not be giving up on it. We are working tirelessly to ensure that we see reconciliation and the outcome that he and I know is what Northern Ireland needs. With the efforts that continue to be made, I earnestly hope that we will see that progress and see the implementation of a power-sharing Executive in a very short time.

Grenfell Tower

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

16:46

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Sajid Javid)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy and our safety inspections of cladding in other buildings.

Almost three weeks have passed since the catastrophe that hit Grenfell Tower. Progress has been made to help the survivors and people in the surrounding buildings who were affected. Landlords across the country have been taking measures to make their buildings safe. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been appointed to lead a full public inquiry, and an independent expert panel is now advising my Department on any immediate action on fire safety that is required.

The disaster at Grenfell Tower should never have happened. The police investigation and public inquiry will find out why it did. Right now, the Government’s immediate priority is to provide every assistance to those who were affected and to take every precaution to avoid another tragedy in buildings with similar cladding. The Grenfell Tower victims unit is operating from my Department and providing a single point of access into Government. Staff from across Government continue to offer support at the Westway assistance centre and at a separate family bereavement centre. Almost £2.5 million has been distributed from the £5 million Grenfell Tower residents’ discretionary fund. Each affected household is receiving £5,500 to provide immediate assistance, and payments have been made to 112 households so far.

There has been much speculation about who was in Grenfell Tower on the night of the fire, and it is vital that we find out. As I announced yesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that there will be no prosecution of tenants at Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk who may have been illegally sub-letting their property, so all tenants can be confident about coming forward with information for the authorities. There may have been people living in flats that were illegally sub-let who had no idea about the true status of their tenancy. Their families want to know if they perished in the fire. These are their sons, their daughters, their brothers, and their sisters. They need closure, and that is the least that they deserve. However, that cannot happen unless we have the information we need, so we are urging anyone with that information to come forward and to do so as quickly as they can.

The immediate response to the Grenfell disaster is being co-ordinated by the Grenfell response team, led by John Barradell. He is being supported by colleagues drawn from London Councils, the wider local government sector, the voluntary sector, police, health, and fire services, as well as central Government. Their expertise and hard work is making a huge difference, but it is only a temporary measure. It is also vital that we put in place long-term support for the longer-term recovery. It was right that the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea took the decision to move on. I look forward to working with the new leader of the council, and I will look at every option to ensure that everyone affected by this tragedy has the long-term support they need.

The Prime Minister promised that every family who lost their home because of the fire will be offered a good-quality temporary home within three weeks, and the deadline is this Wednesday. I have been monitoring the progress of rehousing, and we will honour that commitment. Every home offered will be appropriate and of good quality. What we will not do is compel anyone to accept an offer of temporary accommodation that they do not want. Some families indicated that they wanted to remain as close as possible to their former home but, when they received their offer, took a look at the property and decided that it would be easier to deal with their bereavement if they moved further away. Some families have decided that, for the same reasons, they would prefer to remain in hotels for the time being. Other households have indicated that they would prefer to wait until permanent accommodation becomes available. Every household will receive an offer of temporary accommodation by this Wednesday, but every household will also be given the space to make this transition at their own pace and in a way that helps them recover from this tragedy.

The people affected by the disaster at Grenfell Tower need our assistance and are receiving it, but they also want answers. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been appointed to lead a full public inquiry. He has visited Kensington and has met victims and survivors, as well as members of the local community who have done so much to help. After consulting the community, Sir Martin will then advise on the terms of the inquiry, and we will ensure there is legal support for victims so that they can play their full part.

We must allow that inquiry and the criminal investigation to run their course. Each must have the space to follow the evidence wherever it takes them. We must all be careful not to prejudge or prejudice either of them, but what we can do right now is take sensible precautions to avoid another tragedy. The Building Research Establishment is continuing to test the combustibility of cladding from councils and housing associations, as well as from private landlords. So far, all the samples of cladding tested have failed—that is 181 out of 181. It is obviously disturbing that there is such a large number of buildings with combustible cladding, and the priority now is to make those buildings safe. Where appropriate mitigating measures cannot be implemented quickly, landlords must provide alternative accommodation while the remedial work is carried out, and that is exactly what happened with the four tower blocks in Camden. Our primary concern has been buildings over 18 metres or six storeys in which people stay at night. Hospitals and schools are also being assessed.

We ourselves have asked questions about the testing regime after discovering the 100% failure rate so far. Last week I asked for the test process itself to be independently reviewed. That was done by the Research Institutes of Sweden, which confirmed that they believe the process to be sound. A full explanatory briefing note on the testing process has been made available on gov.uk. As the note explains, every failed test means that the panels are “unlikely to be compliant” with the limited combustibility requirement of the building regulations guidance. That has been confirmed by legal advice and by the advice of the independent expert panel, which was established last week. For use of the panels to be safe, landlords need to be confident that the whole wall system has been tested and shown to be safe. We are not aware of any such system having passed the necessary tests, but I have asked the expert advisory panel to look into it further.

Almost three weeks have passed since the catastrophe that hit Grenfell Tower, and I know I speak for every Member of this House when I say that we are still all in shock. It is not just the terrible scale of the suffering; it is that it happened in 21st-century Britain in London’s richest borough. I will continue to direct the full resources of my Department to assist the Grenfell response team, and I will be working closely with the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Borough Council to make sure there are plans in place for a longer-term recovery. I will return to the House regularly to update hon. Members on progress.

16:54

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the prior copy of his statement. He struck an appropriate tone today. These are complex challenges for government, both national and local, but Ministers have been off the pace at every stage since this terrible fire. They have been too slow to grasp the scale of the problems people are facing and too slow to act. For the Grenfell Tower survivors, for the victims’ families and for the local community in north Kensington, underlying everything is the question of trust: that those in positions of power mean what they say, do what they promise and do not drag their feet before acting to deal with problems. That powerful message must be understood by Ministers, Kensington and Chelsea Council and the chair of the public inquiry, Sir Martin Moore-Bick.

The Grenfell Tower residents understood what the Prime Minister meant when she said:

“I have fixed a deadline of three weeks for everybody affected to be found a home nearby.”

It is three weeks on Wednesday since the fire. How many people are still in hotels? The Secretary of State gave the latest version of the promise today: “a good-quality temporary home within three weeks”. Does that include hotel rooms? How temporary is “temporary”? By what date will all residents affected by the fire be in permanent new homes? While we are trying to get the numbers clear: how many survivors are there from Grenfell Tower? How many have not received the Government’s immediate assistance payments of £5,500?

Let me turn to the wider fears of those living in 4,000 other tower blocks around the country. The Government say that 600 tower blocks with cladding need safety checks, but nearly three weeks on the Secretary of State confirms today that only 181 have been tested so far—and all have failed. Will he accept that these tests are too slow and too narrow? Will he confirm that the Government are testing only one component of the cladding—not the panels, adhesives and insulation; not the cladding as a composite system; and not the installation method or impact on the buildings? All those things can affect fire-safety qualities. Importantly, will he confirm that cladding is not the whole story? We know that from the two coroners’ reports after the previous fires at Shirley Towers and Lakanal House, four years ago. So will he act now—not wait for the public inquiry—to reassure residents in all other tower blocks by starting the overhaul of building regulations; by retrofitting sprinkler systems, starting with the highest-risk blocks; and by making it very clear that the Government will fund, up front, the full costs of any necessary remedial works?

Turning to the public inquiry, which the Secretary of State mentioned, the Prime Minister has rightly set up this inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong at Grenfell Tower and help make sure this can never happen again. She said:

“No stone will be left unturned”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2017; Vol. 626, c. 168.]

Yet Sir Martin Moore-Bick has said:

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development”.

So I say to the Secretary of State that I recognise the importance of the independence of the inquiry, but will he make it clear to the House today what brief Sir Martin has been given by the Prime Minister for this inquiry? As the Secretary of State said, John Barradell is leading the strategic co-ordination group at present, providing the emergency response, relief and leadership that Kensington and Chelsea Council failed to do after the fire. How long will it be running these council operations? What is the hand-back plan? Who will it hand back to?

There are deeper flaws in this council, beyond the very serious failings in response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and every public statement from the ruling politicians confirms that they are in denial. These are exactly the deeper problems that commissioners and a full corporate governance inspection would help put right. The Government are still off the pace. If this council were a school, it would be in special measures, fresh leadership would be needed and fresh confidence would be built, as it must be built in this council. Actions speak louder than words, and actions count most in helping the Grenfell Tower survivors, and in rebuilding their confidence in the future and the wider public trust that must be there for the residents who live in our tower blocks and make them their homes right across the country.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. He asked several questions, and I shall start with the first, on temporary housing. Our commitment has been clear and it is unchanged from day one: all residents of Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk will be offered temporary accommodation in Kensington and Chelsea or a neighbouring borough within three weeks. I just explained in my statement what that offer means. I want to make sure people are offered high-quality accommodation that is appropriate for their family type and size, but they should not and will not be forced to accept accommodation that they do not want to move into at this point.

I was at the Westway centre again on Saturday, and my hon. Friend the Housing Minister was there on Sunday. I met many of the residents and talked to them, mainly about their needs. I wanted to listen to them, because when officials have come back to me and said they are finding that a lot of people are saying, for example, “I’d rather stay in hotels for now and perhaps then exercise an opportunity to move into some of the permanent accommodation that has already been identified, especially the 68 units at Kensington Row,” that is something we should take into account. It would be absolutely wrong for us to say, “No, you cannot stay in the hotels. You have to move, and then you’re going to have to move again.” We should be led by the residents.

I have also met residents who have said, “I thought I wanted something close to where I lived before,” but when they went to one of the available properties, despite it being of high quality and appropriate in many ways, when they looked out the window they saw the tower, were clearly reminded of things they would rather not be reminded of, and changed their minds. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is not saying that in those circumstances we should force families to accept the accommodation, no matter what. We will be led by the families and their needs. Our commitment is clear: come Wednesday, every single family and every household from Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk that has so far come forward to us will have been offered high-quality temporary accommodation.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether temporary accommodation includes hotels. Hotels are emergency accommodation; temporary accommodation—I went to see some examples myself in a neighbouring borough on Saturday—is high-quality accommodation. It may be houses or flats—whatever the residents choose. There is also permanent social housing, which it will take more time to identify, especially if the family desires that it is in the borough. As I have said, it is well known that we have already identified 68 units, and we are very close to adding a number of other units to that availability. That will be permanent housing that we will offer to the families, and they will be able to decide whether it is appropriate for them.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the testing process; it can move only as fast as the samples come in. Since I made my previous statement, there has been a sharp pick-up in the number of samples coming in from local authorities and housing associations. We are turning those around within hours of their coming in, with the results going immediately to the landlord. The test itself is on a component—the core—of each of the cladding panels. A sample of the core is taken, then categorised for its limited combustibility as either category 3, 2 or 1, with categories 3 and 2 being deemed not to meet the building regulation guidance.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the whole system is being tested. As I said, the core of the panel is being tested. It is possible to conduct whole-system tests. That is not the test that is currently being conducted by the BRE, but the expert panel is meeting again today to advise how things can be done appropriately so that we are convinced that a whole-system test actually works and leads to a positive result. So far though, as I said in my statement, we have yet to see any evidence showing that any builder has passed the whole-system test.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about funding. We have made it clear that whatever measures need to be taken—any remedial measures to make buildings safe—local authorities and housing associations should get on with them. If local authorities or housing associations need help with funding, we are ready to discuss that with them and we will work with them.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly reminded the House that the public inquiry is independent. We have to be careful what we say about it in the House or elsewhere, but we should remember that Sir Martin started immediately, meeting victims, volunteers and others, as he should. He will set out the terms of the inquiry. He is not there yet—he should take the right amount of time that is necessary and make sure that the inquiry is broad and to the satisfaction of the victims, their families and friends, and that they feel that the terms of reference are appropriate.

Lastly, the right hon. Gentleman asked about Kensington and Chelsea. Clearly, the Grenfell response team—what has been referred to as the gold team led by John Barradell—is being led appropriately with tremendous resource, both from the local government and voluntary sectors and from central Government. At some point, the process of recovery for the longer term will transfer to the council. We are not at that point yet. When we are, we need to make sure that the council is property resourced with expertise as well as money and any other help that it needs. We will make sure that when that happens it is properly resourced.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he is working with devolved Governments to ensure that every tower block around the country is going through the same fire safety tests?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I can confirm that to my hon. Friend. So far, the Welsh Government have identified 13 tower blocks with aluminium composite material, and they are all being tested.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House to make a statement on the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and I appreciate the chance to have advance sight of the statement, which was very useful. I also welcome the announcement about the 112 households that have received payments. I am not certain whether he has said this already, but I would appreciate knowing how many households still need to receive payment and the timescales for those payments—how long are they likely to take?

Along with many Members in the House, I have been approached by residents in my constituency who live in multi-storey blocks. I commend the work that local authorities have done to take action to test buildings and to reassure tenants who live in those buildings. I used to live in a local authority multi-storey, and I well understand the access issues that concern people. I appreciate the moves that have been made by a number of organisations working together to provide reassurance.

I restate the position of the Scottish National party that the public inquiry should be as wide-ranging as possible. At every stage, the views of the Grenfell Tower survivors should be taken into account. I would also ask a couple of things. I would like reassurance that residents are being helped as far as possible to replace documentation that they lost in the fire, and about residents whose families want to take part in the inquiry and who live abroad. What financial help is available for them to ensure that they can come and take an active part in the inquiry?

Lastly, I would welcome confirmation that there will be no prosecution of the tenants. It is really important that those tenants, and anyone who has been living there, come forward, and I would welcome the Government’s views about that.

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. First, on payments so far from the discretionary fund, there is £5 million available from that fund; £2.44 million has been paid out so far. Of the grants, 249 £500 cash payments have been made, amounting to £124,500, and there have been 112 payments of the £5,000 grant. I should also remind people listening to the statement that that has no impact on benefits or any other compensation that individuals might receive.

I agree absolutely with the hon. Lady’s comments about the public inquiry. It should be as wide-ranging as possible, and should absolutely have the input of victims, their families and friends. Those victims must get the legal support that they need to make proper and full representations.

On lost documentation, I can confirm that since soon after the tragedy, in the Westway centre but also in the victim unit support in my Department in Westminster, almost every Government Department necessary has been represented. In fact, I saw a fantastic example on Saturday, when I met a team from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency from Swansea. They turned up at the Westway centre within a couple of days of the disaster, and they brought with them driving licences that they had printed out. Residents turned up saying, “I need a driving licence”, fully expecting to make an application, and the DVLA team handed it to them in the envelope once an identity check had been done. That is the extent of the efforts many Government Departments have gone to, and that is what we expect as we continue to help these people—the victims—with their recovery.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has described the tests taking place in housing association and local authority housing, schools and hospitals. What conversations has he had with the insurance industry regarding totally private tower blocks? Leeds has seen much regeneration and there are lots of tall tower buildings with cladding. It strikes me that insurance companies have a vested interest in ensuring that such blocks are dealt with before new regulations come into place.

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend is right to point that out. The insurance industry has been taking a great interest in the work that is happening, especially in the testing. The Chancellor had a meeting with the insurance industry just last week.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the statement from the new independent chair that the scope of the inquiry might be limited to the start of the fire and how it spread has caused some alarm among survivors. Will he say a little bit more about that? Will he also confirm that all survivors will get proper legal aid so that they can have proper, independent solicitors and barristers representing their interests?

[Sajid Javid]

Yes, I can confirm that. I was there again on Saturday, soon after Sir Martin’s first visit, and a number of survivors and their families made the same point to me. It is worth reiterating and making clear that although the judge will rightly ultimately determine the scope of the inquiry, we all expect it to be as broad and wide-ranging as possible. We absolutely want to ensure that all victims, survivors, families and friends feel that they are properly represented and get the proper financial support.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has sadly informed the House that, so far, 100% of all 181 samples taken from buildings have failed the combustion tests. I do not wish to prejudice the public inquiry or any future criminal action, but will he tell the House whether the cladding originates from one source or whether it is from multiple sources, which would hint at a more systemic failure across the industry?

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell my hon. Friend that there are multiple sources.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) is a most estimable fellow, but I think he is probably still enjoying his honeymoon, which we hope that he celebrated with great joy. But I gently point out to him that he beetled into the Chamber 17 minutes after the statement started and that, therefore, it is a trifle saucy to expect to be called on this occasion. We will store him up for another occasion on which he can give the House the benefit of his wisdom.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

A week ago, the Secretary of State told us that the Government were capable of processing 100 tests a day. We now know that there is a backlog of 419 tower blocks that have not yet been tested. Can he tell us about that backlog? How many samples are currently in the laboratory, how many have failed to be provided and what is he doing to ensure that they are all supplied?

[Sajid Javid]

There is no backlog. We can only process the tests as soon as the samples come in. When they do come in, they are processed within hours and the landlord is informed along with the local fire and rescue service. I can update the House on numbers. Before we received the information back from the local authorities and housing associations, the original estimate was that they could own up to 600 similarly clad buildings. We now think that figure is around 530.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

I commend the Secretary of State for the speed of cladding testing to which he just referred. When interim recommendations are made, what processes are in place to ensure that landlords actually comply and carry them out?

[Sajid Javid]

In the immediate term, we have made sure that the landlord is informed immediately when a piece of cladding fails the test. The local fire and rescue service will carry out the fire safety check, and we expect all those recommendations to be followed. The involvement of the local fire and rescue services, which will report back to my Department, means that we are able to monitor progress.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I do not think that the Secretary of State made reference to the review of building regulations and to the fire guidance contained in Approved Document B, which officers of the all-party group on fire safety rescue had the opportunity to raise with the Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government—we were grateful for that opportunity. The review was recommended by the coroner’s inquiry from Lakanal House; it is 11 years since the last review. Does the independent panel of experts have the power or authority to recommend a recall of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee working party on Approved Document B so that this work can begin now, rather than waiting till the end of the public inquiry?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about building regulations and the guidance on them. It is already clear to us all that there will need to be changes, and that we need to look carefully at the causes and at the fact that so many buildings are failing the guidance test. The expert panel has a wide remit, which is broadly to recommend to the Government immediately any action it thinks we should take that will improve public safety. For the longer term, we will set out in due course how we intend to tackle the much wider review I think will be necessary.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Some media outlets have suggested that Grenfell survivors have been forced to move to cities in the north of England. Can the Secretary of State reassure the House that nobody who chooses to not move out of London will be deemed intentionally homeless?

[Sajid Javid]

I, too, have heard these rumours, yet no one has come forward with any evidence of any such thing taking place—of someone being moved outside London. I can also give my hon. Friend a reassurance on the intentionally homeless point; in fact, I wrote to every resident last Thursday to make that point very clear to them.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

The safety of domestic appliances is a vital element of fire safety in tower blocks—and, indeed, in all homes. This horrendous fire started with a fault in a fridge, so will the Government revisit the decision of March last year to dismiss or delay many of the recommendations of the Lynn Faulds Wood review into product recall, which I commissioned in 2014? In particular, will the Secretary of State recognise that funding for the enforcement of safety regulations through trading standards is inadequate and must be urgently addressed?

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking at this issue very seriously. He is a member of the taskforce that has been discussing this and many other issues. He is speaking to many manufacturers about what can be done to make sure that, when products are recalled, that happens much more quickly and much more safely.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I am sorry to say this, but I find the sophistry of the Secretary of State today quite sickening. The reason why people are refusing offers of accommodation is that they are not suitable, sometimes by reason of people’s age or disability, and not because these are fussy people. The units of social housing being offered are existing social housing, so what happens to the people who would have gone into them? We are going to have a net reduction in the amount of social housing. It is an open secret in west London that the administration in Kensington and Chelsea could not run a bath. That is why the residents of north Ken have had such a raw deal for so long. So when will the Secretary of State put country before party and send in the commissioners?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman is a local London MP, and he has an opportunity now to put party politics aside and just do the right thing for his constituents. His constituents are watching him.

[Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)]

On Friday afternoon, I met the chief executive and the leader of Corby Borough Council, who assured me that the council has complied with all the requests the Department has made, and I shall ask the same questions of East Northamptonshire Council this Friday. However, is there anything more that individual Members can do to support Ministers and the Government, working across party lines and with local authorities, in the review process ahead?

[Sajid Javid]

One role that many individual Members, including my hon. Friend, have been playing well is making sure that their constituents are well informed about what the testing process is and what the results actually mean. That was one of the reasons why we published the explanatory note last Friday, and many Members have used it to inform their constituents.

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

Let us come back to the issue of the commissioners whom the Mayor of London, among others, has asked to be put into Kensington and Chelsea. Of course they need not be put in to manage the whole council, but just its social housing responsibilities. As a localist, I believe that commissioners should be put in only in extremis—in cases such as Rotherham or Tower Hamlets—but surely this is an extreme example of a failure of governance. What consideration has the Secretary of State given to this request and what factors has he taken into account? If he rejects it, does that mean that he has full confidence in Kensington and Chelsea’s ability to manage its social housing stock?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights that when control of the recovery effort transfers to Kensington and Chelsea for the longer term, we need to make sure that the right resources are there, including the right expertise and good leadership, but that is not about to happen. Before it happens, the Government will rightly consider all options that will bring that about.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The Secretary of State talks about having a broad and wide-ranging public inquiry, yet Sir Martin describes his remit as very narrow. Will the Secretary of State explain this conflict? How he will clarify the situation, because this process has to get us the answers in the end?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that in an independent inquiry, and rightly so, it is important that the judge ultimately sets the terms of reference. This is just the beginning of the process. I urge her and all hon. Members to give the judge time to speak to victims and their supporters, the families, the volunteers and others, and then to come to the final judgment on how wide the terms of reference should be.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

This terrible disaster obviously raises questions about the effectiveness of local emergency planning. What steps are being taken here and elsewhere to ensure that other local authorities have good emergency responses should disasters befall them?

[Sajid Javid]

One of the lessons that has already come from this tragedy is about trying to make sure, across the country, that we take a fresh look at planning for civil emergencies. That work has already begun, led by the Cabinet Office.

[Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)]

Based on the intelligence of survivors, it appears that a number of the flats were severely overcrowded. We have to assume that those flats were being sub-let illegally and inhabited by people with unstable immigration status, and possibly even those who had been trafficked, as that has been identified as a problem in the borough of Kensington and Chelsea. What are Ministers doing to ensure that private landlords, legal or otherwise, are properly declaring vulnerable people who were in the building on the night of the fire, and not potentially profiteering from any properties or finances being offered to survivors?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Lady will know that one of the steps that we have taken to recognise this picture, which absolutely may well have been happening where there was illegal sub-letting, was yesterday’s announcement by the Director of Public Prosecutions that we want everyone with any piece of information to come forward. That was why the guarantee that they will not be prosecuted was offered, and I think that that will help and make a big difference.

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

Over the past few weeks, I have been visiting tower blocks across my constituency with fire officers and housing officers. Residents remain very, very concerned. Frankly, they do not understand why the Government and successive Ministers appear to have ignored the recommendations of the coroner’s report on sprinklers following the Lakanal House fire. I would suggest that Ministers who are shaking their heads try visiting my constituents, standing on the 15th floor, and explaining in person to those residents why there are no sprinklers.

[Sajid Javid]

It is good that the hon. Lady has been visiting tower blocks in Bristol and I hope that she has been able to reassure some of her constituents. It is good to have MPs’ involvement. However, she is wrong about the recommendations on sprinklers in the coroner’s report on Lakanal House because they were implemented fully.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Given what the Grenfell Tower fire has exposed about the combustibility of external cladding in the UK, can the Secretary of State confirm that appropriate tests are being conducted at non-high-rise as well as high-rise buildings?

[Sajid Javid]

Our priority has been buildings that are taller than 18 metres—typically more than six storeys—and residential buildings, as that is where one would expect the highest risk, because naturally people would be there overnight. That is the starting point and the priority. We expect that after we have dealt with the priority cases, we can make the testing facility available for all other types of buildings.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that many other public buildings, including hospitals, use tower blocks for accommodation and that they might have vulnerable cladding on them. Will he confirm how many hospitals have been tested so far and how many have failed those tests?

[Sajid Javid]

As I said in my statement, I can confirm that hospitals, schools and other buildings in the public sector are being looked at. That work is being led, through the Government Property Unit, by the Cabinet Office. The process of testing is ongoing. Even before the cladding can be tested, we have made sure that local fire and rescue services have been informed and that any necessary mitigating measures have been taken.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that testing of the core of cladding had resulted in 181 failures and that that meant local authorities had breached building control regulations. Does that mean regulations at the time the cladding was put up, or regulations as they stand today?

[Sajid Javid]

The last time there was any significant change in building regulations guidance was in 2006 and much of the cladding was put up in the early 2000s. There has been no significant change in building regulations or building regulations guidance pertaining to fire safety for a number of years. I said in my statement that the samples had failed a limited combustibility test, and that test has been around for a number of years.

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

I want to take the Secretary of State back to the issue of hospitals, because my local hospital is a tower block with cladding that was put on in the past four years. The Hull royal infirmary management team has been very reluctant to tell the public what additional checks have been undertaken, but after being pressed several times by the local BBC, it has now admitted that the cladding has been sent for testing. Is it not about time that we had a statement from the Secretary of State for Health so that we can be clear about all our hospitals and other buildings with cladding, and so that the public can know what is happening?

[Sajid Javid]

I assure the hon. Lady that this is being taken very seriously. Where ACM or suspected ACM cladding has been found on any hospital, regardless of whether or not it is a tall building, it has been submitted for testing. Even before the results of those tests are back, the local health trusts have taken action to put in place mitigating measures. For example, many of them have put in place full-time fire wardens, 24 hours a day, to make sure that they provide maximum public safety.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

The lessons of Hillsborough are that survivors must be listened to at all times and that inquiries must be transparent and comprehensive. What assurances can the Secretary of State give in relation to Grenfell Tower?

[Sajid Javid]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Lady. Those are very important lessons to learn. I am confident that the judge, Sir Martin, will address them as he approaches his inquiry. I think that the first public sign of that will be when he sets his terms of interest.

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

Tenants in high-rise blocks in my constituency are often disabled or elderly, and in some cases they have poor or no English. Will the Government start to work with local authorities and housing providers to develop effective strategies to protect those most vulnerable tenants in the event of a fire or other disaster?

[Sajid Javid]

There are already many rules and regulations in place to do just that. As we learn all the lessons from this terrible tragedy, it is important that we ensure that we do everything we can to protect the most vulnerable.

[Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I understand the focus of the Secretary of State and his Department on cladding, but may I ask him about the insulation? Some reports say that the insulation caught fire and combusted three times quicker than the cladding. Industry experts say that we should consider a system of non-combustible insulation, which is available on the market. What is the Secretary of State doing to investigate the safety of insulation, including when buildings are uncladded and the insulation is exposed to the elements?

[Sajid Javid]

The police report on the Grenfell Tower tragedy rightly referred to the insulation. After that, our guidance to local authorities and housing associations was immediately publicly updated to say that there should be checks on insulation, too.

Points of Order

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

17:29

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have heard earlier the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers stating, in response to questions about reductions in police numbers in specific forces, that police funding has increased in real terms. It is the case that overall funding has been protected since 2015, but I would argue that it is misleading to suggest that that is relevant to numbers of police officers on the ground when it is in fact due to increases in funding for specific issues such as cybercrime and child sexual exploitation. As a result, some forces have not seen a single increase in resources since 2015. Only today, the chief constable of West Midlands police said that the Government need to offer real-terms protection and that policing is getting smaller and smaller. Will you advise me on how I may correct the record?

[Mr Speaker]

It is a pleasure to seek to advise the hon. Lady, in so far as it could in any way be said that she requires my advice. Let me begin by saying to her that she is an individual both sophisticated and wily. Notwithstanding what she regards as effectively—whether by intention or not—misleading statements, it is apparent from the very terms of her point of order that she, unsurprisingly, has not been hoodwinked in any way. She is on to the matter. She is seized of the issues. She is unpersuaded by the rhetorical blandishments of people opposite her.

I know that the hon. Lady is ferociously bright, but I am sure she will not suppose that others are automatically in every case less so, and therefore incapable of comprehending and seeing their way through the thickets in the way that she has so successfully done. In short, I say to her that these are matters of debate, and she has used the ruse—I use the word “ruse” advisedly—of an attempted but utterly bogus point of order to highlight her grave concern about this important matter. In that mission, she has been successful, for she has aired it and she has persuaded me to respond in terms.

We will leave it there for today but, knowing the hon. Lady as I do, I daresay that she will be at it again with vigour and ingenuity ere long.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Gosh! I just referred to the intelligence of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), and we now have no less a figure than a QC on her feet.

[Joanna Cherry]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance as to how I might put the record straight regarding an exchange that I had with the Prime Minister last week about the requirement for European Union citizens resident in the United Kingdom to have comprehensive sickness insurance. On Monday 26 June during the Prime Minister’s statement on the European Council, I raised the concern of my Lithuanian constituent who, despite having been resident in Scotland for more than five years, is unable to claim permanent residency because she does not have comprehensive sickness insurance. The Prime Minister’s answer gave the impression that her Government could do nothing about the predicament of such EU nationals in the UK until the UK leaves the EU, because comprehensive sickness insurance is a requirement in EU law. I fear that this inadvertently gave a misleading impression, and I am afraid that the matter was compounded by the Minister for Immigration repeating the same assertion in an answer to me earlier this afternoon.

While it is correct that comprehensive sickness insurance is a requirement of European Union law, there are steps that the Government could take immediately to state that access to the NHS in the UK satisfies that requirement. That is not just my view: it was the unanimous recommendation of the cross-party Exiting the European Union Committee in the last Parliament at paragraph 73 of its second report. I am sure that the Prime Minister is aware of the Committee’s recommendation and would, like me, not wish the record to stand uncorrected.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her point of order and for her courtesy in giving me advance notice of its gist. What I would say to her is that I am not psychic and therefore cannot say for sure what was, or was not, in the mind of the Prime Minister at the time she answered the hon. and learned Lady’s question. Whether the Prime Minister did know, as the hon. and learned Lady clearly does, the contents of paragraph 73 of the Exiting the European Union Committee’s second report of Session 2016-17 entitled “The Government’s Negotiating Objectives”, I do not know. The Prime Minister might have been aware of the said paragraph at that time, in which case she has a quite extraordinarily compendious memory and power of recall when answering questions. It is possible, to be fair, that the Prime Minister might not have been immediately conscious of that particular paragraph. What I think it is fair to say is that the Prime Minister was endeavouring to provide a succinct reply. In that mission she was successful—her answer to the hon. and learned Lady consisted of 34 words.

I have no reason to suppose that the Prime Minister was seeking deliberately to mislead the hon. and learned Lady, or indeed the House. That causes me to say to the hon. and learned Lady, in thanking her for raising this matter, that differences of interpretation are not infrequent occurrences in the Chamber of the House of Commons, a point with which I suspect she will concur. I have no doubt that she will want to return to this issue and I therefore have a little advice for her. “Erskine May”, with which the hon. and learned Lady is immensely familiar—I am referring of course to the 24th edition, as I feel sure she knows, and, as I feel equally sure she knows, to page 358—states:

“The purpose of a question is to obtain information or press for action”.

In this case I think that the hon. and learned Lady is seeking to press for action rather than simply to obtain information. This I think she has achieved, at least in so far as Ministers on the Treasury Bench have now heard what she has had to say. They may or may not take initiatives as a result. If they do, I hope they satisfy her; if they do not, I feel sure the hon. and learned Lady will require no further encouragement from the Chair to raise this matter on subsequent occasions.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of my interest in the estimates process. I was terribly excited to see estimates on the agenda for this week, but tomorrow estimates will be decided without debate. I understand that this is because the Liaison Committee is not in place, and it therefore cannot put forward reports for debate. On the following day, supply and appropriation will be on the agenda, but that will also be decided without debate. Being particularly keen, I went to the Vote Office to see if I could get some papers on the estimates, but I understand that no papers will be available until after we have taken tomorrow night’s motion—that was what I was told in the Vote Office just now. I understand the circumstances that mean there are no debates right now—I get that. However, my concern about the lack of information is one that I think the House should consider.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I was not aware of that matter. I feel modestly confident in suggesting that the estimates themselves will doubtless be available but, off the top of my head, I do not know how accessible they will be to the hon. Lady. Certainly the estimates—the figures—should be available. Whether there is other and better, more satisfactory, more discursive, more informative material available by way of commentary or assessment relating to those estimates, I do not know. If no material is available, the hon. Lady has identified quite a serious point. Rather than flannel and suggest to her that I have a comprehensive answer to that concern, I would say that I will make inquiries to Ministers in the relevant Department. If the position is as she describes, I will see whether anything can be done to offer her satisfaction before she is called upon to vote.

If there are no further points of order and Members’ palates have, at least for now, been satisfied, I suggest that the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister of State to move that the Bill be read a Second time, I warn new Members, large numbers of whom are seeking to make their maiden speeches, that they must remain for the opening speeches and that remaining for the Minister of State’s speech means that they not only are about to learn quite a lot about air travel organisation and licensing, but will probably benefit from a fair number of literary and possibly philosophical references in the course of his oration. I speak with some experience of these matters.

17:40

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Mr John Hayes)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

It is both fitting and humbling, as you will gladly acknowledge, Mr Speaker, that I should have been chosen to introduce the first piece of legislation of this new Parliament—fitting because of my status and popularity, and humbling because it does not pay to draw attention to either of them.

Hon. Members will recognise in taking a look at the Bill, as I am sure they have, that it reflects that this Government, like others before it, recognise the value of providing UK businesses with the best possible opportunities to grow and also ensuring that consumers are protected when and how they need to be in respect of, in this case, how and when they purchase their holidays. I am introducing the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill so that we can ensure that consumer protection for holidaymakers can keep pace with changes in the travel market.

The Bill has a long genesis in two ways. First, it builds on long established good practice. The arrangement in the Bill is born of the arrangement of a similar kind that began in the 1970s to protect the interests of travellers. Secondly, we have already debated these issues at some length. We had an earlier Bill, to which I will refer later, in which these measures were included. We gave that Bill a Second Reading and debated it in Committee in some detail. That was done in a convivial, consensual and helpful way, and I shall also refer to that later.

There is recognition across the House that the consumer protection measures in respect of holidays and holidaymakers need to keep pace with changing circumstances and conditions in the travel market. There may be those in the Chamber who, affected by the specious and pernicious appeal of liberalism—because it does appeal to some people—believe that the free market can sort all these things out for itself. That is not a view that I hold, and I know that there will be wise heads across the Chamber who recognise the efficacious role of Government in intervening where the market fails. It does not happen regularly in respect of holiday companies: anyone who looks at the history of this area of the Government’s work will recognise that it has been rare for the fund established by the air travel organisers’ licence to be called upon. None the less, it is an important fund and an important protection. It provides assurance and confidence to holidaymakers as they go about their lawful and regular business.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry that I am not able to continue to enjoy the right hon. Gentleman’s oratory, but that particular pleasure is now to be enjoyed by the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means. I have heard the first of the right hon. Gentleman’s philosophical references and I am sure that the Chamber will hear several more in the minutes to follow. New Members are probably somewhat befuddled by this state of affairs, but I think I can tell colleagues that the right hon. Gentleman is what might be called a one-off.

[Mr Hayes]

Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say—as the Speaker leaves the Chamber—that I was about to move to John Ruskin, who said:

“the first test of a truly great man is his humility.”

We present this legislation in that humble spirit, recognising that this is a changing market and the Government must act to reflect that change, but recognising, too, that the market will continue to change. Any Government who believed that this was the end of the story would, I think, be disregarding the further changes that are likely to result from technology, the way people organise their affairs, the way they book their holidays, the way the internet operates, and the fact that other technology will change the way we go about our business. I therefore have no doubt that there will be a need for further provision at some point in the future, but, at this stage, the Bill is an important step in bringing the ATOL provisions up to date and up to speed.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Hayes]

I will happily give way to the hon. Gentleman, who played a useful role in the Committee to which I referred a few moments ago.

[Alan Brown]

I thank the Minister for giving way, and for saying that I played a useful role. As he knows, this legislation was part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. What will happen to other measures that were in that Bill, particularly those relating to offences involving the use of lasers that affect pilots?

[Mr Hayes]

I would not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, or indeed your largesse, by ranging widely across the provisions of the other aspects of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, as I said earlier, these measures had their origin—their genesis—in that Bill. We will bring further measures to the House: the Queen’s Speech makes it clear, for example, that we will address the issues of autonomous and electric vehicles, which the hon. Gentleman debated, alongside the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), and others, in the Committee that I mentioned. Further measures will be presented, and—not wishing to test your generosity any further, Madam Deputy Speaker—I think I will leave it at that.

In this new Parliament, many of the measures that I described as essential will be introduced, and this ATOL reform is one of them. I hope that our debate today will match the convivial and consensual spirit of our discussions in the Bill Committee to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) alluded. We made progress on both sides of that Committee, and I hope that it continues. I think it fair to say that those discussions demonstrated that there was really

“no difference of principle between the Government and the Opposition on this matter.”—[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2017; c. 25.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who also played a useful role in the Committee.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I very much agreed with the Minister’s earlier philosophical comments about the appropriateness of Government regulation in matters such as this. I am sure that many holidaymakers will feel more secure when the Bill has been passed, knowing that they will not be left stranded abroad with no means of getting back. May I ask whether the Minister has consulted closely with the airlines, particularly those that fly planes from London Luton airport with holiday packages?

[Mr Hayes]

I will come to that later, because the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the role of the airlines in all this. As he will know, they are covered by other licensing arrangements, but I will address the specific points that he has made. As ever, he has made a case for his Luton constituents, and particularly for Luton airport, which I know is in his constituency.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

As the Minister knows, Cardiff International airport is owned by the Welsh people via our own Government. What discussions has he had with the Welsh Government about the Bill’s impact on operators working from Cardiff?

[Mr Hayes]

Prior to that first Bill, we had discussions with devolved Governments about its character and content, and I think that there is agreement across the kingdom about the necessity for these measures. I always enjoy my discussions with the devolved Governments, and will continue to do so in my role as Minister of State. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill will affect all parts of our kingdom, not least because of the travel that takes place to and from different parts of it by air. We will certainly want to continue to receive representations from those Governments as these matters roll out.

Before I go any further, let me say something that I should have said at the outset. As you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been some debate in the Chamber in recent days about sartorial standards. I ought to say, as a matter of courtesy, that I will not be taking interventions from any Member who is not wearing a tie, on whichever side of the House that Member may sit. However, I believe in generosity as well as in courtesy, and I will provide a tie, which I have here, for anyone who is sartorially challenged or inadequate. Of course, I exclude lady Members from that; I would hardly expect them to dress in my tie, their own or anyone else’s.

Let us move to the origins of the UK holiday market. This week will see one of the UK’s, and the world’s, leading travel brands celebrate 175 years of travel. It was on 5 July 1841 that Thomas Cook arranged the first excursion. That was a one-day train journey from Leicester to a temperance meeting in Loughborough. The train carried around 500 passengers a distance of 12 miles and back for a shilling. Contrary to popular belief, I was not the Transport Minister at the time, and I certainly was not one of the passengers, but those early excursions were significant. They helped to form the foundations of the travel and tourism sector in the UK. The growth of the railways meant that, for the first time, affordable travel could be combined with leisure activities or accommodation and offered to a growing population of consumers.

Of course, today’s holidays—today’s excursions—are quite different from those first ones. Society has changed, and the promise of sun, sea and sand means holidays are more likely to be driven by temperature than temperance. I personally choose to have my holidays on the east coast of England, largely, in Broadstairs, Northumberland and most places in between, but not everyone does, and those who want to travel further afield and those who wish to use technology to make those choices will want to know that they are protected in doing so.

The advancement of technology has continued to drive the biggest challenges facing the leisure travel sector. Affordable air travel and fuel-efficient planes mean that people are able to travel further, and for longer. The growth of the internet and mobile phone technologies have revolutionised the way people book holidays, creating greater opportunities for consumers and businesses.

We debated these issues on the Committee to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun referred. It was clear to us then, and I think to the whole House, that the UK has continued to lead the way. We have one of the most innovative and advanced leisure travel sectors in the world and one of the biggest markets in Europe. Overall, tourism contributes close to £121 billion to our economy annually, with outbound tourism contributing around £30 billion.

Strong consumer protection is vital to underpin confidence in that important sector. By its very nature, there are a number of risks in the holiday market which have existed ever since those first excursions. It is common for consumers to pay up front on the promise of a holiday, which may be many weeks or even months away. There can be a lack of awareness of the financial stability of holiday providers, particularly as services are often provided by third parties. In the rare event of a company failure—I mentioned at the outset that it is rare—consumers may experience a financial loss from a cancelled holiday, or significant difficulties from being stranded abroad. It was against that backdrop that the air travel organiser’s licence scheme, the ATOL scheme, was introduced in the 1970s for UK holidaymakers flying overseas.

I will not tire the House with a long, exhaustive history of the ATOL scheme. I see that that is disappointing to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to others, but I want to give all Members as much opportunity as possible to contribute to this important debate. Suffice it to say that the ATOL scheme protects consumers if their travel company fails. It does that in two ways.

First, travel firms that sell flight packages in the UK must hold an ATOL licence, issued by the Civil Aviation Authority. That helps to regulate entry into the market and to filter out companies that are not financially robust. Secondly, the scheme acts as a fund to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. The ATOL licensed company must pay a small levy, £2.50, for each person protected by ATOL. That money is then held in the air travel trust fund and used by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home or refunded when a company fails.

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister looks delighted to give way on that specific point; I am sure he will want to say more about it. First, a correction—Luton airport is in the constituency of Luton South. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and I have many a competitive conversation about it. On the £2.50 levy, I understand that there is a significant surplus in the fund now. Is the Minister confident that, under the new arrangements, where airlines may look around European member states in considering the best regime into which to pay, £2.50 is competitive and the right figure to charge?

[Mr Hayes]

First, I apologise for ascribing Luton airport to the constituency neighbour of the hon. Gentleman, and not to him. As he will know, in a previous ministerial job, I was able to visit Luton South and to enjoy his hospitality there alongside the local authority. Luton is playing a bigger part in this debate than we may have expected; both Luton Members have contributed to it. As he will know, the fund is administered by the CAA, with trustees appointed by the Secretary of State. It builds up and is invested accordingly.

As we speak, there is about £140 million in the fund. If a major holiday company collapsed, it would be essential that there were sufficient moneys in the fund to cover that collapse. That could happen more than once in a short period; that is not inconceivable. The critical thing is that the fund is never short of money. The guarantee is that we will protect consumers and get people home safely from perhaps far-flung destinations and that they will not lose out as a result of things that they could not have anticipated or affected.

If it is helpful, I will be more than happy to provide the whole House with a further note on how the fund has changed and grown over time. I have mentioned what it is comprised of. I think it would be helpful for me to make available to the Library, and therefore to the House, more details of the kind the hon. Gentleman has asked about. It will help to inform further consideration of these matters as we move from Second Reading.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The Minister is right to say that there is cross-party support for greater protection of consumers, but he also mentioned safety. Could he take this opportunity to tell us whether Transport Ministers intend to introduce legislation to deal not just with the dangers posed by laser pens, but with the dangers posed by drones, which we have heard about again today?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady will know that that, too, was raised in our discussions on what was originally known as the modern transport Bill—or at least apocryphally known as such—and became the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. She will also know—because of her keen interest in transport matters and her enthusiasm to take those matters further with an election, to which I will not refer more than obliquely—that we are consulting on those matters; the consultation has finished and we will bring our conclusions to the House and elsewhere very shortly. However, she is right to say—I am happy to put this on the record—that that is a matter of some concern. Existing legislation provides some protection. For example, if a drone were interfering with military aircraft or a secure site, existing legislation would cover that to some degree, but there is a case to do more, which is why we have consulted on the matter. I know that she will give the results of the consultation and our response to it her close attention, as she always does.

Let me move on; as I said, I do not want to prolong this exciting speech too much. As I said, the scheme also acts to compensate consumers who might be caught up in a failure. I have talked about the fund which is administered by the CAA to ensure that consumers are returned home, and since the 1990s the ATOL scheme has been the primary method by which the UK travel sector provides insolvency protection under the UK and Europe package travel regimes. Today the scheme protects over 20 million people each year, giving peace of mind to holidaymakers in Luton and elsewhere.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

It is reported in the notes that between 1998 and 2009 the proportion of ATOL sales fell from 90% of leisure flights to just 50%. That is a substantial drop in just 11 years. Were some passengers affected by not being covered during that period?

[Mr Hayes]

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, the purpose of this Bill is to ensure that ATOL remains fit for purpose. The hon. Gentleman is right that the way people travel, the means by which they book their holidays, and the organisations they use to do so are changing. That is why we must look again at ATOL: not because it has not worked or because its principles are not right, but because it needs to reflect those changes. This Bill is the first step in doing so. Anticipating—although not impertinently—what the shadow Secretary of State might ask me, it is also true to say that this Bill is just that: a first step that creates a framework that will allow us to update ATOL.

Further steps will be required, which might come through regulation or further review of the appropriateness of what we are putting into place today. The hon. Gentleman raised that point when we debated these matters briefly before, and I have no doubt that he will want to press me on it again today, but there is an absolute acknowledgement that this is a rapidly moving marketplace that will require rapidity in our response.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

Having also served on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill Committee, I have a sense of déjà vu here. I agree with the general nature of the measures the Minister wishes to introduce, because he is right that it is a fast-moving market, but there is also some concern in the industry, which plans typically 12 to 18 months ahead, that it will need some of the detail of the secondary legislation as soon as possible, to allow it to prepare effectively for that.

[Mr Hayes]

My hon. Friend might have raised that point in that Committee; my memory is good but not encyclopaedic, but I do seem to recall that he has made this point previously. He is both authoritative on matters regarding transport, having served with distinction on the Select Committee, and consistent in his line of argument. His is a perfectly fair question, and it is what the Opposition and the whole House would expect, so we will provide as much information as we can about what further steps we might take in terms of regulation. There is nothing to be hidden here; there is no unnecessary contention associated with this and certainly no desire not to get this right, and the best way of getting it right is to listen and learn—as is so often the case in politics, in Government and in life.

I have talked a little about the diversification of the market and the growth of the internet and smart technologies. That is not a bad thing: consumers now have many options at their fingertips to buy holidays and put together their own packages. Indeed, an ABTA survey estimates that about 75% of UK consumers now book their holidays over the internet. As methods of selling holidays modernise, we must adapt the schemes and regulations that protect them.

“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort”,

as Ruskin also said. That is why we took steps in 2012 to update the ATOL scheme; we introduced the ATOL certificate confirming the protection covered, and broadened the scope of protection to include “flight plus” holidays. These interventions have had a positive impact, extending consumer protection, levelling the playing field for businesses and improving clarity for all. The key here is that consumers know when and how they are protected: making sure the system is as comprehensible and comprehensive as possible is an important aim.

We now need to build upon the changes we made then, and make sure that ATOL keeps pace with the changing travel market. In particular, the new EU package travel directive was agreed in 2015 to bring similar, but further-reaching, improvements to consumer protection across the whole of Europe. I said earlier that the United Kingdom had led the way in this field. It is not unreasonable to say that Europe is now saying it wants similar provisions across other countries to the ones we have had here for some time. So that travel directive is both reflective of, and perhaps even, to some degree, inspired by, the success of our arrangements. This will need to be implemented into the UK package travel regulations by 1 January 2018.

The Government supported the rationale for updating the package travel directive. It will help to modernise and harmonise protection across Europe. Broadly, it will mean that the protection offered across Europe will be closer to the protection we have enjoyed from the beginning of ATOL, but most especially since the changes we put in place in 2012. It will ensure there is a consistent approach to the protection.

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

The Minister is giving an interesting and full explanation of the benefits of this Bill.

Will the Minister clarify that the point is that the ATOL regulations currently apply to first-leg flights out from the United Kingdom and a UK airport, but that under this Bill the intention will be that in future if a UK ATOL-regulated operator sells a package virtually anywhere in Europe, as long as they comply with the rules here, that will be covered by the ATOL scheme and the potential levy?

[Mr Hayes]

Yes, that is part of what we aim to do: the aim is to ensure that if a holiday is bought here, wherever the person goes they are protected in exactly the way my hon. Friend described. He is also right to say that part of the change is the way people book and make their holiday plans, and part is about how and where people travel. The package holidays people first enjoyed in the 1960s and ’70s are less routine now in that they are no longer the routine way people travel to the continent and further afield, and ATOL was of course born in that period when things were simpler—thus my point for the need for it to evolve, as it has to keep pace with these kinds of changes. That consistent protection of holidays across Europe will ensure that informal package holidays booked online will get the same protection as traditional package holidays booked on the high street—holidays of the kind that had their beginnings in the ’60s and ’70s.

For the first time, these measures will also bring protection to a new concept of “linked travel arrangements”, which I think is what my hon. Friend was referring to. This concept is designed to provide some protection to business models which are not packages, but which often compete closely with packages.

Overall, the new directive has the potential to provide a greater level of protection to UK consumers, whether they purchase from a company established in the UK or overseas. It will also help to level the playing field for companies whether they are in the UK or overseas, and whether they operate on the high street or online.

That point matters in itself. This is about protecting consumers, and about the clarity and comprehensibility that I described. It is also important for those in the travel sector and the industry to know where they stand. Creating a greater degree of consistency for them matters too, particularly for smaller businesses that really need to know, as well as to feel, that the regulations apply across the board in a consistent, fair, reasonable and implementable way.

In order to bring the new directive into force by July 2018, the four clauses simply enable the ATOL scheme to be aligned with the updated package travel regulations. The combined clauses will mean UK-established companies are able to sell holidays more easily. They will be able to protect these holidays through ATOL, and they will not need to comply with different schemes in each country. That is the essence of what we are trying to achieve today. The Bill will also extend the CAA’s information powers so that they are more able to regulate the scheme and this cross-border activity.

Finally, the Bill will allow the scheme to be able to adapt more effectively to changes in the travel market. I have said that I anticipate further change as time goes on, and the Bill paves the way for that. Overall, the updates we will make to the ATOL and package travel regulations will mean that consumer protection can extend to a broader range of holidays. This will mean that protection is provided for traditional and online package holidays, but also for looser combinations of travel, which have previously been out of scope.

Of course, we also need to be mindful that the regulatory landscape will need to be able to adapt to changes in our relationship with the European Union. The changes we are making are in keeping with this principle. They will help UK consumers, businesses and regulators to transition to the new package travel regulations in 2018 with minimal impact, but we will also retain flexibility in ATOL regulations to adapt to the changes in our relationship with the European Union, ensuring that we continue to have strong consumer protections in place as we leave the EU.

I hope that that has given a clear and reasonably concise picture of the Bill and the reasons for introducing it. As I have said, the UK has always been a leader in this field. We have led in so many ways and so many areas, and when it comes to providing protection for holiday makers, the Bill will ensure that the UK continues to lead, whether we are inside or outside the EU. It will provide UK businesses with the opportunity to expand and grow, and it will provide a framework to ensure that ATOL remains flexible enough to cope with future trends. The Bill is indicative of a Government who are willing to act to protect and preserve the people’s interests, and I stand here as a Minister ready to do that. It is a Bill for the people from a Government of the people.

18:09

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

It was all going so well until that last comment! The Minister has it right, however, when he says that the Bill is to be welcomed. The events of failure are rare, but it is imperative that this market and the response to it should develop so that people who experience those failures have recourse to a remedy. He will find a great deal of support on this side of the House for what he has said and for the Bill. I thank him for his summary and his account. He is right to say that matters in the related Bill were conducted with a great deal of conviviality, courtesy and humility, and he is to be credited with ensuring that that was so.

As the Minister said, it is with a sense of déjà vu that we are debating these changes to the air travel organisers’ licensing system. It has been only four months since these self-same clauses received their Second Reading when they made up part of the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill—or VTAB, as we liked to call it. It ought to be an Act by now—VTAA—but sadly we must still refer to it as VTAB. The Prime Minister’s decision to call an early election meant that VTAB, along with a whole host of other legislation, had to be dropped.

Given that we had wasted a great deal of parliamentary time and effort, it was quite a surprise to see that there was no reference to VTAB in the Queen’s Speech. Instead, the Government have decided to fragment the legislation, splitting it between the Bill we are debating today and the automated and electric vehicles Bill that will be introduced later in the Parliament. It is interesting to note that 50% of the legislative programme relating to transport for the next two years of this Parliament will merely be clauses that have been copied and pasted from VTAB, a Bill that should have already been passed into law. This surely highlights how this minority Government are out of ideas and have very little new to offer the country as they focus their attention on a desperate attempt to cling to power.

[Mr John Hayes]

With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Gentleman is underselling himself. The progress we made in Committee and on consideration of the previous Bill meant that, when the Government came to look at the model of what good legislation should look like, they needed to look no further than the work that he and I had done. I take most of the credit for that, but I think he should take some too.

[Andy McDonald]

As ever, the Minister is extremely generous in his praise. He is right, however, to say that we made a lot of progress. I just hope that we do not have to do it all over again. That is the point.

The Government do not have a plan to reintroduce VTAB in its entirety, even though it should already have been taken through. Madam Deputy Speaker, you could be forgiven for asking why the Government do not dare to try to pass legislation that has already passed through this place and received support from both sides of the House. Indeed, it is a matter of considerable concern that a number of important clauses from VTAB appear to have been left out of the Government’s forthcoming legislative programme. They include the clauses in part 4 of VTAB that related to vehicle testing, the shining of lasers—which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) mentioned earlier—and diversionary driving courses. The clauses in part 3 relating to air traffic services also appear to have been axed. Perhaps the Minister can offer some explanation of why he previously deemed it a necessity to legislate on those issues, as they are not being reintroduced now.

Moreover, during the progression of VTAB, Labour Members raised concerns over the absence of legislation to create a regulatory framework to deal with drones. With the proliferation of drones in recent years, we have seen a sharp increase in the number of near misses with planes. The latest figures show that there were 33 such incidents confirmed in the first five months of this year and 70 last year, compared with only 29 in 2015 and just 10 in the five years before that. Representatives of the aviation industry have expressed their concern over the Government’s failure to bring in legislation to tackle this worrying trend.

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way; I enjoyed our exchanges in the Committee stage of the previous Bill. I may be wrong, but given the intervention I made on the Minister earlier, I believe that it is important to get this Bill on to the statute book as early as possible so that the subsequent regulations can come into effect in an industry that has to plan 12 to 18 months in advance. The other measures that the hon. Gentleman mentioned are important, but they could be put into a different Bill. Perhaps that is the reason they are not in this one.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, but those matters were considered an important part of VTAB, as were the bits relating to ATOL. It is a gross omission for us to come this far and not deal with such important matters now. Certainly, if the roles were reversed, we would want to introduce legislation before a near miss turns into a catastrophic incident that could have been avoided. We have heard about an incident at Gatwick airport in the past 24 hours, and this matter should concern everyone in the House. I make a genuine offer to the Minister that we will be nothing other than wholly supportive if the Government wish to bring forward legislation and regulations better to protect our airports and other places of great sensitivity. This is a huge issue, and the drone industry and others who support such legislation believe that the freedom to indulge in this activity is coming ahead of safety at the moment. I put it gently to colleagues that we should really be looking closely at this.

[Mr John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman does the House a service in raising this matter. The hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) challenged me on it in an earlier intervention, and I made it clear that we had consulted on it—the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the consultation exercise that we have been engaged in—precisely because we agree that the matter requires further consideration. I am happy to engage directly in discussions with him so that we can find a way forward on drones. He is right to say that this a changing and potentially challenging matter, and we need to work not only as a Government but as a Parliament to address it, so I am happy to take up his offer of discussions on the back of that consultation and our response to it.

[Andy McDonald]

I am again grateful to the Minister for his consistent, collegiate attitude and for his co-operation. His approach to this Bill is exactly the same as it was with the previous Bill, and that should be acknowledged. The Labour party shares his objective of making this Bill and the forthcoming transport Bills relating to automated and electric vehicles and to the space industry the best possible pieces of legislation as they pass through the House. We only wish that the Government were prepared to respond to the rapid technological advances of recent years and to bring forward legislation in the areas that I outlined, which are in urgent need of a regulatory framework. It has become quite clear in recent weeks that inaction can risk lives.

As we stated when the measures in this Bill were first laid out in VTAB, the broad substance of the changes to ATOL are necessary and, for the most part, welcomed. The changes will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, leading to many benefits for UK consumers and UK travel operators. A wider range of operators, including more dynamic package providers, will likely be covered under the changes, bringing protection to many more UK holidaymakers not covered under existing ATOL provisions. The requirement for travel companies to be in line with standards at “place of establishment” instead of “place of sale” will now mean that UK companies can sell far more seamlessly across Europe by simply adhering to the widely respected ATOL flag.

However, the EU-level changes do bring about something that could have adverse effects for some UK consumers purchasing from EU-based travel companies. The changes made through the directive will now mean that EU-based companies selling in the UK have to adhere only to an ATOL-equivalent insolvency protection laid out in the member state where the business is based. In practice, that could have unintended consequences and, more significantly, costs for UK consumers. Processes and timescales for recompense may be distinctly different to what many travellers would expect under the gold standard of ATOL. The impact assessment warns:

“If consumers purchase a trip from a business established elsewhere in the EU and the company becomes insolvent there may be some costs to the consumer of processing a claim with a non-UK insolvency protector.”

Based on the latest CAA figures, that is not just something that will impact on a relatively small number of holidaymakers; it would currently compromise over 500,000 passengers. It is therefore important the Government take appropriate steps to anticipate and prepare for any negative impacts. As suggested by the Opposition when the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill was in Committee, making it a requirement for the Government to monitor the impact for UK consumers using EU-based companies would help inform the Government about whether they should consider further guidance or co-operation with consumers and EU member states to ensure that adequate protections are in place.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the existing legislation contains an obligation to review it after five years. He is making an argument that he has made previously, and it seems to have some weight. I am open-minded about how we consider such things, and I will certainly reflect on his point about our need to consider the impact of the changes that he describes. I am more than happy to include that in our discussions about drones.

[Andy McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

The Bill’s second clause is not directly relevant to harmonising UK with EU regulation, but it contains a dormant power that the Government will retain, enabling them to make considerable changes to ATOL with regard to air travel trusts. During an evidence session when VTAB was in Committee, we heard from Richard Moriarty of the CAA, a trustee of the current air travel trust, who recognised the possible merits of separating the trust to reflect the variations of products in the market. However, he explained that we simply are not there yet and that it would be wrong for the Government to use this Bill as a means of making wholesale changes without due consultation. The Minister made it clear in a letter to me that changes would be made only through the affirmative procedure, yet the Bill does not account for any further consultation as part of this measure. Labour will therefore be again seeking a commitment from the Minister, which he gave in Committee during the progress of VTAB, that the Government will conduct a thorough impact assessment and consultation before implementing the power. Mr Moriarty said at the evidence session that he hoped that the Government

“will follow the practice that they have followed today: consult with us, consult the industry, do the impact assessment, and so on.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 30, Q150.]

Accordingly, if the Government were to undertake a full impact assessment and consultation before bringing forward regulations to create any new air travel trusts through the affirmative procedure, that would be fair and reasonable and would guarantee scrutiny of any further changes to ATOL.

To conclude, while the Opposition are frustrated that the general election meant that the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill was dropped and, moreover, we are concerned with the Government’s decision to omit a large proportion of the legislation as it is reintroduced in this Parliament, Labour none the less broadly supports this Bill. We welcome the changes that will harmonise UK law with the latest EU package travel directive, which will have many benefits for UK consumers and UK travel operators. However, we have concerns about the levels of protection given by EU-based companies selling in the UK and about whether UK consumers could lose out following the change. We will be pressing Ministers for reassurances on that during the passage of the Bill. As we did with the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, the Opposition will seek further detail from Ministers on the assimilation of the directive, the impact of Brexit, and Government accountability as the Bill progresses through this House.

18:19

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

It is an honour to be called to speak in the debate on the first piece of substantive legislation in this Parliament, and to be the first Back Bencher to do so. The Bill brings back some traces of memory lane for me; I declare an interest in that I practised in consumer protection at the independent Bar before my election to Parliament. Indeed, I was involved in lecturing and cases in this very area. Somewhat optimistically, I called it “holiday law”, which makes it sound—I can hear one of my colleagues saying this—like rather good fun. Having spent years prosecuting trading standards legislation and defending criminal law, as well as working in the personal injury sphere, I must have been on my way back from holiday while looking for a new area to branch into, and then an opportunity came up. I obviously decided that if I could not actually be on holiday, I might as well at least talk about being on holiday. I therefore produced a lecture, which I covered with lots of rather attractive pictures of happy people on holiday, sun-dappled beaches and palm trees, but that of course rather missed the point, because when one goes to see a lawyer, one is telling them not how good a holiday was, but that something has gone wrong. That is the all-important point that I was addressing in my career and that the Government are seeking to address through this Bill.

Things occasionally go terribly wrong when people are on holiday and, from my experience at the Bar, that can be anything from simply poor quality through to a catastrophic failure of holiday, injury or, in some cases, even death. That is what we are seeking to address through the Bill.

I started my lecture to the Bar with the same story that the Minister told of the temperance campaigners—it is one of those throwaway anecdotes we tell at the beginning of what can sometimes be detailed lectures—and I thought for one moment that I was about to hear him repeat my lecture back to me. I am glad that he went on to more substantive matters.

In my constituency I have not only a great many places that people come to visit—I will refer to some of them in a moment—but, of course, many people who, as we all do, look for places to tour abroad. It is for the constituents of Witney and west Oxfordshire that I most strongly desire to see the Bill enacted.

I express my support for the Bill at the outset, because ATOL protection is a critical part of the protection that we all rely on when we book a tour. It is only right—and necessary—that we seek to extend that protection to a broader range of holidays. When ATOL protection started in 1973, the world was very different from the one that we inhabit now. It was a world with few airlines—a world of British Caledonian and nationalised airlines such as British European Airways and British Overseas Airways Corporation. One might even say that it was an era before the benefits of a free market were fully explained and realised in this country—we should perhaps remember that at all times in this debate. It was a day before the internet. It was a day when going abroad was full of uncertainty, and sometimes even danger. It was into that world that the package tours regulations came into being, and rightly so.

[Kevin Foster]

Does my hon. Friend agree that at that time it would have been unimaginable that someone could use a mobile phone to book a holiday with an operator in Germany, France or another country in Europe? At that time, walking into a travel agent on the high street was the only real way of booking this type of project.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend makes an outstanding point. We could be sitting in the Chamber now, if we were not paying attention to the debate—I am sure every Member is paying attention with alacrity—and booking ourselves a holiday on our mobile phone. Such a world was not even envisaged in 1973, but we did have the advent of the package tour, and British Airtours, a subsidiary of British Airways, was one of the leaders. People’s ability to have their package holiday protected, provided that they had a flight, was a major innovation, and it is something that we have now lost.

I say that from personal experience because, through my work, I have first-hand knowledge of how the package holiday industry now works. Not only do we have what is called “dynamic packaging”, in which a vast choice of providers, destinations and activities are available to members of the public, who can tailor bespoke packages for themselves, but those selling holidays can seek to step around some of the relevant legislation. A website might purport to be operating and offering a package but, when one actually looks, it turns out that the flight is offered by a subsidiary, the accommodation is operated and offered by another company, and other packages—perhaps excursions—are dealt with by someone else. It is quite easy in this day and age to step around the regulations that ATOL provides, which is why the Bill is so necessary. The travel market has changed significantly in recent years. In those days, and it was a romantic era—

[Mr John Hayes]

Talk of romance was not what drew me to my feet, although it might have done. My hon. Friend talks about the changing character of the industry and the need to ensure that the regulations are updated. Reflecting on the remarks made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), who speaks for the Opposition, I reaffirm my commitment to consult further before any regulations are brought before the House under the affirmative procedure. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Robert Courts) to section 71B of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, which already makes provision for consultation by the CAA in the light of any such changes.

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. The prospect of amendment has been ongoing for some time, so I am delighted that we are addressing it in the House today.

Although the image we all have of walking down the high street, flicking through a brochure and speaking to somebody behind a till still happens in many cases—many people avail themselves of the services that exist, including at the excellent travel agencies in my constituency—many people do not do that. It is now so easy to go on the internet to put together a bespoke package for ourselves. In a sense, we have become our own travel agents, but that brings challenges as well as opportunities for this new generation of travellers. In this House we embrace the opportunities that come with those challenges. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that we have seen the free market in action with the expansion of providers, destinations and activities. We have seen so many of the advantages that a free market can bring in the interest of consumers. Indeed, the online travel market has led to reduced costs for holidaymakers, as well as increased choice and flexibility.

Of course, we have to reassess protections at the same time as we reassess, and benefit from, those changes. The mix and match of lower prices and wider opportunities has to be seen alongside the protection. Many holidays now fall outside the scope of ATOL, which is very different from the situation in 1973. In 1998, approximately 90% of all leisure flights were covered by ATOL, but I understand that the figure has fallen to under 50% in recent years. I welcomed the Minister’s comment at the start of his speech. As much as I have praised the free market and its benefits in terms of opportunities, choice and reduced costs, I also understand that there is a role for Government. I agree with him that it is appropriate for the Government to step in and ensure that consumers in this field are protected.

That is why I welcome the measures in the Bill to address such changes. The Bill will ensure that the ATOL scheme keeps pace with innovation in the online travel market, while also ensuring that protections are in place, regardless of whether someone books online or on the high street. We will therefore ensure that more than 20 million holidaymakers each year continue to be protected.

[Kevin Foster]

Given my hon. Friend’s comments, will he say something more about clause 1, which extends ATOL to sales made by UK companies within the European economic area? Does he think that that provision is worth while?

[Robert Courts]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s timely intervention, as the next page of my notes deals with clause 1. Existing ATOL legislation applies only when the first leg of a relevant flight booking departs from a UK airport. The new legislation introduces a single-market approach to insolvency, whereby EU-established companies will be required to comply solely with the insolvency protection rules of the state in which they are established, as opposed to the place of sale, which is the current position. The legislation is therefore much wider, and the company will only have to be established.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and several consumer groups that £2.50 is a low price to pay for ATOL protection compared with the cost of standard travel insurance? In the longer term, we might see a decline in the cost of travel insurance as more holidays are covered by this enhanced ATOL protection.

[Robert Courts]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right that the ATOL scheme is funded by a levy of approximately £2.50 per protected passenger and that it would be extremely unwise of any holidaymaker to go abroad without adequate travel insurance. I encourage everyone always to have such insurance, although it can sometimes be pricey, especially if someone is looking to protect themselves against some of the more routine failures that are easily covered in the ATOL scheme. However, more serious misfortunes can occur when people are on holiday, which is why travel insurance is, of course, still advisable. As my hon. Friend suggests, the cost of insurance may come down in time as a result of this enhanced package.

Clause 1 will allow travel companies established in the UK that sell flight-inclusive packages to use their ATOL membership and protection to cover all EU-wide sales without needing to comply with the insolvency protection rules of any other member state. Clause 2 deals with funding and qualifying trusts within the ATOL trust management structures. The Department for Transport is alive to the fact that because we have seen significant changes to the travel industry—not only since 1973, but since 2004, as well as more recently—it might be necessary to enter into separate trust arrangements for the greater business model, such as linked travel arrangements, to give greater transparency to businesses and consumers. It might be necessary to introduce a new form of qualifying trust to ensure that the ATOL trust will still protect consumers in the all-important area of flight accommodation. The Bill allows the flexibility under trust arrangements so that we can increase funding and ensure that ATOL is adequately funded as time goes on.

Clause 3 addresses a slightly different point: the ability of the CAA—the House will realise that the authority is responsible for running the ATOL scheme—to require and request information from airlines selling ATOL-registrable products within the UK and more widely. Under the Bill, an important change would apply to airlines that have an air service operator’s licence from another EU member state and therefore would not need any of the licences that have been granted by the Civil Aviation Act 1982.

The House will be delighted that this is a short Bill, containing only four clauses. I have needed to deal with only three, so I do not need to go through the other one—I am sure everyone is delighted. [Interruption.] The Bill is short in terms of clauses, as the House will realise.

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend referred to clause 3. Those who have an air service operator’s licence from other European countries will not need a CAA licence. Is he satisfied that the measure will still give full consumer protection?

[Robert Courts]

I am indeed satisfied that it will give full consumer protection. I say so because the Government have consulted widely. Once again, my hon. Friend has somehow, with extraordinary prescience, managed to prompt me to move on to the next stage of my speech, which may have been his subtle intention.

The Government have consulted widely, and the industry’s response has been favourable. We have received broad support from a majority of respondents to the proposals to harmonise ATOL with the scope of the EU package travel regulations. I noticed that during proceedings on the Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill, evidence given by the group director of consumers and markets at the CAA stated:

“There are a number of important and welcome developments from”

the Bill

“which will be good for UK consumers. First, the directive makes it much clearer what the definition of a package is.”––[Official Report, Vehicle Technology and Aviation Public Bill Committee, 14 March 2017; c. 63, Q143.]

I hope that the House will forgive my mentioning that in detail. I do so simply because of my experience of having argued the concept of what a package is in the courts of this country throughout my career at the Bar. The Bill has wide support in the industry.

I wish to make one more point, which is simply to note the educating effect of tourism. We are of course leaving the EU, but we are not turning our back on Europe or ceasing to be a European country—I will not make more detailed comments. As all Members will appreciate, travelling to a new country and appreciating a new culture is one of the most educating and enlightening things an individual can undertake. We will want people from this country to be able to expand their horizons throughout the EU, as indeed we will want people from the EU to be able to come here. West Oxfordshire has a plethora of tourist attractions, such as Blenheim palace, the great stately house; Cotswold wildlife park; and Crocodiles of the World, which is an excellent attraction that I invite all hon. Members to visit—I have been. We have many picturesque villages throughout west Oxfordshire, including Bampton, of “Downton Abbey” fame.

I have gone on at some length. The House will probably realise by now that this Bill has my full support, and I urge Members to give it its Second Reading.

18:42

[Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to thank the Minister for his summary of the Bill’s provisions. The decision to update the ATOL scheme to provide more protection to travellers when they go on holiday, and to align it with enhancements to the EU and UK travel package regulations that predate people booking their holidays on the internet, is of course to be welcomed. We need to ensure that the public are protected by updating the UK’s financial protection scheme for holidaymakers. It is important to keep pace with the innovation in the online travel market and ensure that appropriate protection is in place, regardless of whether consumers choose to book online or on the high street. Of course we want to make it easier for UK companies when selling holidays across Europe, and they will be able to trade under the UK’s ATOL scheme as opposed to the regimes in each country they sell to. The measures in this Bill are important as we need it to cover new digital business models and modern consumer purchasing models.

We know that more than three quarters of consumers booked their holidays online last year. The EU package travel directive of 2015, applicable from 1 January 2018, extends the protections beyond traditional package holidays organised by tour operators and also gives clear protections to 120 million consumers across the EU who book other forms of combined travel. The directive is expected to reduce detriment to consumers by about €430 million per year across the EU, and reduce administrative costs and burdens on business.

Passenger rights have been enshrined in EU law, and consumers and businesses deserve to know, need to know and are keen to know how Brexit will affect them. They seek cast-iron assurances that the rights and protections of travellers will not be diminished after the UK leaves the EU, and I know that the Minister understands that.

Existing EU directives mean that UK passengers are currently entitled to a number of benefits if a journey is cancelled or delayed. Such protections give consumers some peace of mind when they are booking travel. Since the EU legislated to provide a comprehensive system of air passenger rights in 2004, the increased awareness of those rights and the chance to complain or appeal has led to a significant increase in the number of people doing so. That is a good thing, because it democratises the market and gives consumers proper routes of redress—the Minister mentioned the importance of intervening when the market has failed.

It should be noted that there are examples of court cases that have ruled on the circumstances in which airlines must pay compensation. Appeals against some of those judgments have demonstrated the reluctance of some airlines to pay out compensation unless the legal position is made absolutely clear. The rights of passengers must be clear and they must be upheld; otherwise, there will be a detrimental impact on passenger numbers and, ultimately, jobs will be put at risk.

Brexit clearly poses challenges in respect of passenger rights. It is essential that the UK develops its own system of passenger rights and compensation in the aviation sector, and there must be clarity on how such a system will affect non-UK airlines and passengers. Will we have such a system in the UK, post-Brexit? A system will clearly be required, but we, and non-UK airlines and passengers, need to know how similar it will be to current arrangements. In the post-Brexit world, what is to become of all the EU protections currently in place? Will they continue under the UK Government? What reassurances can UK passengers be given? The Minister referred to the “minimal impact” on consumers and business post-Brexit, but more detail is obviously needed, and it is keenly awaited.

The collapse of Lowcostholidays was a stark reminder of the importance of the EU package travel directive, which offers consumers protection in case of insolvency. Will the Minister give due consideration to the points I have raised and update the House as soon as it is practical to do so? He spoke of the need to revisit the relevant consumer protection as technology advances, but the question at the forefront of everybody’s mind is what will happen post-Brexit.

[Mr John Hayes]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The hon. Lady invited me to respond as quickly as possible, so I shall respond now. The reform of ATOL and the package directive will bring the arrangements throughout Europe more into line than they have ever been before. It is imperative that we protect consumers through regulation in the way I have described, so it is inconceivable that, post-Brexit, we will not want to reflect the protections that already exist here and that we see increasingly abroad.

[Patricia Gibson]

I thank the Minister for his response. The clear guarantees that businesses and consumers are looking for must not be eroded after Brexit. If we have guarantees and the Minister can give us further detail on them, passengers and businesses will be reassured.

Clause 2 will give the Secretary of State power to reform the ATOL scheme and the air travel trust fund, with only an affirmative resolution by each House of Parliament required. Any changes that the Secretary of State wishes to introduce to the scheme must be preceded by a full consultation and an impact assessment that allows for proper scrutiny of the proposals.

Although we absolutely welcome the move to update the ATOL scheme to ensure that a maximum number of travellers are protected when they go on holiday and to align it with the EU travel directive 2015, passenger rights have been enshrined in EU law and consumers and businesses deserve clarity on how Brexit will affect them. The UK Government must provide more flesh on the bones and explain how such rights will be written into our laws. The updating of the scheme is to be welcomed, but the post-Brexit world poses a range of challenges on which consumers and airline business require clarity. I forward to hearing more detail from the Secretary of State in due course.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Rachel Maclean to make her maiden speech.

18:54

[Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).

It is a great privilege to make my maiden speech in this debate as the representative of Redditch. Improving consumer rights is a priority for the Government, and the Bill is needed as a response to the change in how people book their holidays, as more and more people use the flexibility of the internet to book their breaks. I know that the hard-working people in Redditch will welcome the protections when they book their well-earned summer holidays.

The Redditch constituency that I am proud to represent has a proud tradition of returning women MPs to this place. If there is one woman to whom I owe the greatest debt, it is my daughter, Ruth, who at the age of 14 said to me, “Mum, why aren’t there more women MPs? You ought to stand!” I replied, “I will try to find a few moments in between running my own business, taking your three brothers to football and scouts, washing your school uniform and supervising your homework.” Nine years later, I am honoured to have been elected by the people of Redditch.

Redditch is a new town, originally built to accommodate people from a rapidly expanding Birmingham. As another Brummie newcomer to Redditch, I am following in their footsteps. Other hon. Members have extolled the virtues of their wonderful constituencies—the natural wonders up and down the country—and I only wish I had time to visit them all. However, most people in our nation live in towns, and we must remember that people need beauty in their lives, whether they live in the countryside or in towns. I am proud that in Redditch any student of town planning would find the best example in the country of a well laid out, modern urban landscape. Developments such as Church Hill, Matchborough, Winyates, Lodge Park and Woodrow have all been designed to allow maximum amounts of green space, quiet streets and traffic-free highways.

At the heart of the town is a lovely, natural oasis: the Arrow valley lake and country park, which comprises 900 acres of green space and is packed with wildlife rarely seen in an urban setting—although unfortunately no crocodiles—and also provides a focal point for our community events. To the west the modern shopping centre and the historical centre of the town exist harmoniously. One can understand why so many people wanted to move to Redditch to live, work and bring up their families.

Along with our excellence in town planning, we are not without sites of natural beauty. The constituency includes some beautiful areas of rural Worcestershire, such as the villages of Feckenham, Inkberrow, Hanbury and the Lenches. Hanbury church, which I visited this past weekend with the local ramblers group and my dog, is said to be where the bells on “The Archers” radio show are rung. I am mindful of the diverse challenges I face in representing the issues throughout the whole constituency, including a brownfield-first policy for new developments, broadband provision and farming.

Redditch is also a great centre of enterprise and business, with a wealth of manufacturing companies, although it is particularly famous for its needles. At one point, Redditch made 90% of the world’s needles, and needle-making still occurs there today. In preparing for this speech, I read a play that Members may have seen, “This House”, in which my predecessor Hal Miller features. In one scene, he complains that, despite his envisaging his constituency as one of

“meadows and steeples and farmyards and haystacks”

upon his election he found a somewhat different reality, angrily declaring to the Whips:

“You can’t find a haystack in Redditch because of all the needles!”

Redditch has been fortunate to have had a number of formidable MPs among its previous champions. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Karen Lumley, who sadly retired due to ill health after seven years of dedicated service. She was an MP who fought on behalf of her constituents for the Alexandra hospital, for apprenticeships, for mental health, and for fairer funding in schools. People will remember her for that and with great affection for her ability to bring additional colour to the House, with her varied and unique choices of hair colour. I promise Members that the next time they see me I will still have the same hair colour as I have today—we could not say that about Karen. I would also like to acknowledge Jacqui Smith from the Opposition—the Member for Redditch before Karen—for her great service to the country as our first female Home Secretary.

One issue dominated my general election campaign: our local hospital, the Alexandra hospital, known as the Alex. I want to reassure my constituents that the Alex and its service to patients and their families is my No. 1 priority as their Member of Parliament. I raised that and the issue of the Worcestershire acute trust that runs the hospital on my very first day in the Chamber, and I will continue, again and again and again, to fight to protect and strengthen local health services.

When I reflect on the challenges facing the Alex I am reminded of why I strove to enter Parliament for some years. The Alex hospital, like all our public services, depends on a strong economy. It relies on the taxes that ordinary people pay, and we should never forget that or where those taxes come from: the wages earned by people in jobs created by their employers—the small business owners who have created 2.9 million more jobs since 2010. For the very first time in my life, my wages are paid by the taxpayer. I do not take that lightly, because I know the sacrifice needed to create that money. Before I entered Parliament I spent my career working in teams that started and grew small businesses in the digital technology sector, as a small business owner and employer. One of those businesses started small, but is now medium-sized and is Britain’s leading publisher of technology content.

Over the years, I have created many jobs for people that enabled them to fulfil their potential and build a secure future for themselves and their families. It has not been easy. I have been through the devastating failures that many entrepreneurs face, losing my home and livelihood before picking myself up and starting again. Anyone who builds a business will recognise that journey. My four children learned at an early age not to ask their mum for pocket money. They learned that we could not go on holiday, that their clothes came from charity shops, that they could not have new toys, phones or trainers, and that their mum and dad did not sleep at night because they were worrying about how to pay the wages of their staff.

Businesses are not some abstract concept. They are built by people from all walks of life up and down this great nation of ours: people who differ from one another in many ways, but who have one thing in common—the desire to work hard, take a risk and create a better life for their children than the one that they had. I want everyone in Redditch to have that opportunity. There are people who feel overlooked and left behind where deprivation and poverty exist and where communities struggle with issues of physical and mental health. I therefore welcome the commitment in the Gracious Speech to mental health, to investment in our national health service and to affordable housing. I look forward to working across the local community in Redditch to tackle mental health issues proactively and make sure that there is help on the ground where it is needed. I shall work with organisations such as the Sandycroft Centre, which offers a wide range of services to support vulnerable families as well as many other people in the town.

Our Prime Minister said in the House that not every problem in society could be solved by an Act of Parliament. I agree, because many problems are solved by the diligence, commitment and sacrifice of ordinary citizens such as the people behind the 275 new businesses that have started in Redditch since 2010. It is our job in Parliament to provide a solid economic foundation so that those people can do what they do best: building businesses; creating jobs; changing our country. I am grateful for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. I look forward greatly to supporting the Second Reading of the Bill and other important pieces of legislation in the coming months. I will never forget the privilege of speaking up in this House for the wonderful people of Redditch.

19:05

[Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am extremely grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. May I begin by commending the new hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) on an erudite and passionate speech about the place that she represents? I am certain that if she finds a way to bring that passion to every issue that we debate in the House, while keeping in mind the constituents about whom she clearly cares a great deal, she will make an impressive impact on this Parliament. I noted the news about her predecessor, Karen Lumley. I have known Karen since she came to Parliament at the same time as me, and I am certain that the whole House sends her its best wishes. If the hon. Lady carries on in the vein of her immediate predecessor and her predecessor before that, Jacqui Smith, she will achieve great success in the House.

I served in the last Parliament as a member of the Women and Equalities Committee—a fantastic institution that we are rightly going to put on a statutory basis from tomorrow. The hon. Lady may wish to turn her attention to our most recent report, “Women in House of Commons after the 2020 election”. I hope that it is not entirely redundant, given the actions in 2017.

If it is in order, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I look forward to your guidance—may I welcome you to your position in the Chair? Opposition Members have benefited greatly from your wisdom, friendly arm around the shoulder and occasional quite straightforward direction in your previous role as Chief Whip. I note from those discussions that your leather whip has not made it to the Chamber, as it did to the Whips Office. I shall check the Chair to see if a new place has been installed to store it, but I wish you every success, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new role.

We are here to debate the measures introduced by the Minister. The changes are welcome. Given the various models for selling flights and package holidays, the divergence created by the internet and innovations in the market, it is right that we seek to comply with those changes and bring about better consumer protections. The irony that we have debated this in the previous Parliament is not something on which I seek to reflect at length. However, as a Member of Parliament who represents two FTSE 100 companies with direct links to the travel and tourism industry, easyJet and TUI in my constituency, where I also represent Luton airport, there is a great irony at the heart of the Bill, which could be misunderstood as a piece of legislation that is linked to our future relationships under Brexit and is about giving Ministers greater flexibility to handle that. That is one aspect, but the genesis of the Bill is as a piece of legislation that seeks to comply with EU directives, including the package travel directive, which seeks to standardise and give greater consumer protection to the 500 million or so people in the single market. Compliance with that is a welcome measure, and it is right that we should make parliamentary time available for it.

The measure must be complied with by 1 January 2018, and it will apply by 1 July 2018. However, the key date that is not discussed in the Chamber and which is the most important is 31 March 2019, only 15 months later, as that is the day on which we will leave the European Union. Despite the best intentions of the Minister, the Department and the Government, they cannot yet tell us the framework for the measure after that date, so everything we debate today is essentially on a temporary footing.

I raised my concerns directly in the last Parliament, as I was fortunate enough to be granted the Adjournment debate that first put on record in Hansard the concerns of the whole industry in the past year about aviation and leaving the European Union. We need a comprehensive air services agreement that not only allows for consumer protections, but which is the most basic starting point for the industry in the first place, allowing us to take off in one place and land in another, not just in the European Union. Even our relationship with the United States is governed through the European Union. This is a significant piece of work.

Britain is leaving the EU and it is incumbent on the Government to bring forward a Brexit deal for approval by this House. But, however people voted, they did not vote to weaken consumer protections, to add cost and complexity to UK operators or to find themselves in a situation where they cannot get the flights that they wish for. The directive being enacted today has significant advantages for UK aviation and consumers, and I very much hope that we will take that spirit forward by seeking a comprehensive air services agreement that includes the measures in the package travel directive. Our membership of the European Union has had other advantages that I hope we will replicate as closely as possible and enact. For example, the most recent changes to the ability to roam with a mobile phone will make a significant difference to many travellers over the summer.

The alternative is that laid out for airlines and travel agents inside the single market, whereby businesses outside the EU will be required to comply with the different rules of each member state to which they sell. That is opposed to the situation issued by this directive and the Bill, whereby each member state recognises the jurisdiction of the others. That reduces risk, complexity and cost. Will the Minister lay out the Government’s intentions regarding the measures being enacted today? It would be a great disservice to UK operators if they were bound by the different regimes across 27 member states having spent only 15 months covered by the protections given by the provisions in the Bill.

In answer to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), the Minister said that it was inconceivable that we would not want to uphold these consumer guarantees. But, with respect, the reciprocal is not within our gift and, therefore, any negotiations must seek to include this newly enacted settlement.

One further issue raised in the meat of the Bill is that of consumer protection. Will we transpose and adopt the promises of EU regulation 261, which provides compensation when flights are significantly delayed or cancelled? I would appreciate it if the Minister could say a word about that. On the comprehensive air services agreement, does he agree that the most important thing is to try to change as little as possible, given that UK airlines are planning and blocking flights that will take off—or not take off, dependent on the deal—to other EU member states after 31 March 2019? We should seek to get as much stability in the industry as quickly as possible.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an extraordinarily powerful point about the importance of aviation to our economy. Manchester airport is in my constituency. Does he agree that aviation is unique because it does not have World Trade Organisation rules to fall back on, and that it is imperative that the Government secure a deal quickly?

[Mr Shuker]

My hon. Friend pre-empts my point; we are working from the same page. As aviation is not covered by WTO rules, it would be quite conventional to have a separate stand-alone air services agreement with the European Union. It is my view that we should try to bring that about now before the meat of the major deal to come, not least because aviation is governed in a different way, but also because establishing those links is generally viewed as the prerequisite to any future trade deal.

In conclusion, the Bill is welcome and brings forward provisions that we all want for consumers and our constituents, but more must be said and done on the issue during this Parliament. The Minister will be acutely aware that he will be judged not on the passage of the Bill, but on the content of any future deal that covers these issues.

17:14

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton South (Mr Shuker), who cares passionately about Luton airport in his constituency, and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), who has just given an outstanding maiden speech. I thank her so much.

In a modern and outward-looking Britain, it is significant that the first piece of legislation in this new Parliament is a Bill making it easier for consumers—our constituents— to travel overseas and for people from other countries to travel to Britain. It is also significant that this first Bill is about consumer protection, because this Government believe that we should put people first.

The ATOL system offers protection to holidaymakers if their tour operator goes bust. The UK is proud of having had the system in place since the 1970s. It is robust consumer protection that gives confidence to people booking their holidays and, therefore, contributes to our vibrant travel markets. The system supports the economy—not only the destinations to which people go, but also our local tourism industry. I am particularly thinking about the 800 residents of Chelmsford who work at Stansted airport. It is important for their jobs that we continue to have a vibrant holiday market.

Although holidays are always meant to be the happiest time of year, that happiness so quickly turns into a nightmare if there is a problem with a tour operator. Last summer, 27,000 British travellers found themselves overseas when the company, Lowcostholidays, collapsed. Another 110,000 British consumers had booked their holidays through that operator and did not know what the future would hold. Lowcostholidays had, of course, moved its location from Britain to Spain, so it was no longer ATOL-protected. That reminds us exactly how important it is to look at the consumer protection we offer people buying from British-based companies and that we offer British consumers who buy from companies based in other countries. That is why the EU countries agreed new changes to the package travel directive in 2015, requiring all European countries to have ATOL-type protection. The bit of law we are discussing today will implement that decision.

In the European Parliament, the committee that looks at such issues is the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection, because consumers are at the heart of the market. As the person who chaired that committee, I chaired the negotiations on the package travel directive. It is important that we ensure that the measure is implemented equally across all of Europe, otherwise we could find that some countries bring in a different system. There is an important difference in that ATOL membership will now be based on whether or not a company is based in Britain, as opposed to whether it just sells into Britain.

As colleagues have said, another important part of the legislation was updating the guarantee system so that it is fit for purpose in a digital age. If someone buys their flight from the wonderful Stansted airport, they will probably click on the airline operator. They will then click through from the airline operator to buy their hotel and then on again to buy their car rental. That might feel like buying a package to some of us, but it was not covered under the old rules in the package travel directive. I welcome the Minister’s work on modernising the measures, which will ensure that those click-throughs are now covered by the ATOL protection.

However, we had many other discussions in those detailed negotiations. For example, should business travellers get the same protection as consumer travellers? That is where we have tended to have a bit of a difference between Conservative Members and Labour Members. My excellent hon. Friend the Member for Redditch has just explained the challenges for small businesses, and an extra cost burden may be unaffordable for them, so we were concerned that they should not automatically have to pay the extra cost of ATOL protection. That is the sort of discussion I hope we will now be able to look at in more detail.

There were also discussions about whether the package should cover add-ons. For example, if someone gets to their holiday destination and decides to buy excursions, or if they bought them before they went, should those be included in the package? We had a lot of representations from small businesses saying, “No, please don’t put these in the package, because it will add bureaucracy and reduce consumer choice.” While I am absolutely passionate about the need to provide consumer protection, we also need to take a step back from time to time and to be on the side of consumer choice and of not adding additional, unnecessary costs for businesses.

In a post-Brexit Britain, our consumers will still want to purchase goods and services from those in other countries, and it will be important to continue to engage with other countries—especially our nearest neighbours in Europe—on issues such as consumer protection. It is important in the Brexit negotiations that we focus on getting a deal that works for consumers as well as businesses, because a vast range of consumer rights are embedded in EU law, on issues to do with not only holidaymakers but misleading advertising, unfair contract terms and the right to seek redress. Crucially, there is also really important legislation about the safety and standards of food. It appears that the tragic fire at Grenville Tower may have started because of an electrical fault in a domestic appliance, which is a brutal reminder of how important it is that we maintain high standards for consumer products.

Today’s consumers are changing, and they embrace innovation. Markets are also constantly evolving, and we are constantly getting new products. Of course, we also have the digital revolution. We therefore need to be constantly working on making sure that our consumer protection, consumer laws and consumer standards are fit for purpose.

The excellent consumer organisation Which? has sent us all a briefing on what it would like from the Brexit negotiations, and it makes a strong case that the UK should continue to work with our European neighbours on consumer standards, on measures to counter fraud and on developing and sharing best practice. In particular, it recommends that we should at an early stage reach agreement on continued co-operation with such agencies as the European Medicines Agency, the European Food Safety Authority, the European Chemicals Agency and the European Aviation Safety Authority. We should listen very carefully to what our consumer organisations are saying.

As the hon. Member for Luton South mentioned, there are other issues that affect holidaymakers, such as the need to negotiate landing rights. There is also an issue about making sure that any deals about how we use our mobile phones overseas are covered. The UK was a great champion of removing expensive mobile phone roaming charges, which put such a huge burden on consumers. However, other issues, such as the motor insurance directive, have not been perfect for the UK; indeed, that directive is causing great uncertainty in the motorsports industry in the UK, and we will need to continue to engage on that.

When the Prime Minister talked about our offer on EU citizens, I was pleased to hear her offer to keep the European health insurance card, which makes it easier for people to get medical care when they travel across Europe. That is a very generous offer from the UK to the rest of Europe, and we should welcome it.

To wrap up, maintaining consumer confidence is key to a modern, dynamic economy. As we seek to leave the EU and to create a new, deep economic partnership with those across the channel, it is important that we continue to stand on the side of consumers and that we find new ways to co-operate with our neighbours and those across the world who seek to make sure that consumers are fairly protected.

19:25

[Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)]

May I offer you my congratulations on your new role, Madam Deputy Speaker?

First, I would like to acknowledge my immediate predecessor, Edward Timpson, who served the previous Government as Minister of State responsible for children and families. Edward was known for his desire to improve the care system for vulnerable children.

I would also like to pay tribute to the late MP Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody, who was, and is to this day, regarded as one of the greatest parliamentarians to have sat in this House. I intend to serve the diverse communities in my constituency with the same unwavering tenacity as Gwyneth did during her 25 years’ service.

It is a source of great pride to have been elected to represent the constituency where I was born and raised, and where I continue to live with my family today. As the granddaughter of a Scottish miner, I was brought up on a diet of working-class values. During my childhood, our family had real times of struggle, but that tough resilience and determination engrained in my roots has always driven us forward. I know what it is like to grow up living with loved ones who are plagued by mental illness, and I know what it is like to be a single mother with a modest income, struggling to make ends meet. I can promise today that I will never, ever forget where I have come from.

As a teacher and a parent, my love for education will not come as a surprise. Before my journey into politics, I was known for leading the fairer funding campaign in Crewe and Nantwich, which I am still committed to. I stand here today for the children in my constituency, and I will continue to prioritise their education and my children’s education—the future of this country’s education—for as long as I am in the House.

Nantwich is a picturesque market town, home to the world’s biggest cheese awards, and we will, in fact, be celebrating the best of cheese later this month. We are also proud of our annual jazz and blues festival, which attracts more than 40,000 revellers to the town.

Needing little introduction, Crewe is synonymous with railways. At its height, Crewe Works employed 20,000 workers, but that has now fallen to fewer than 1,000. Crewe deserves investment, and I welcome the commitment in the Queen’s Speech to bring forward legislation to deliver the next phase of High Speed 2, as this will undoubtedly benefit Crewe.

The surrounding areas of Crewe and Nantwich are scattered with villages steeped in local tradition, and it is important that the people of Shavington, Willaston, Wistaston, Wybunbury and Haslington know that I will work hard to support their communities. These places are all united by the hard-working, community-spirited, salt-of-the-earth, proud northern folk who live and work in them. It is the nature of my hard-working constituency that I want to focus on in this, my first speech. I want to pay tribute to the British workforce. Every single one of Britain’s 31 million workers ought to be recognised and celebrated as the real wealth creators in this country. Without them, this country would grind to a halt.

Unemployment levels in Crewe and Nantwich are lower than average for the north-west, and lower than the UK average. Yet, food banks in my constituency provided more than 50,000 meals last year, and almost 4,000 children are living in poverty. These are not mere statistics for me to be concerned about; each and every one is nothing less than a travesty. This reflects the changing nature of poverty in the UK. There are now more people in working poverty than in out-of-work poverty. It would seem that in 21st-century Britain work simply does not pay in many cases.

I have just a few more facts for you. More than one in five workers earn less than the living wage, and more than half of working households have seen no improvement in their disposable income in more than a decade. Under-25s are not even entitled to the Government’s national living wage, which is in itself inadequate and falls short of a real living wage. Full-time working lone parents are often the worst affected. Having been a single mother myself, I know how tough and isolating it can be. Forty-seven years after the Equal Pay Act, the gender pay gap still stands at wholly unacceptable levels. This inequality follows women into their retirement as lower pay translates into lower occupational pensions. Instead of addressing this, the previous Chancellor prioritised changes to the state pension that have shattered the retirement plans of women born in the 1950s, with devastating consequences. I stand with the WASPI women fighting against this injustice. We should also celebrate the fact that there are now a record number of female MPs in Parliament by acting finally to eradicate gender inequality in the workplace.

We have a duty to address all forms of poverty as a priority, but the fact that we have in-work poverty in the fifth richest country in the world is shameful, and it is a sad indictment of our economic policy. Work should be an escape route from poverty. It is wrong to claim that we are “all in this together”. CEOs can earn in two and a half days what it takes the average worker an entire year to earn. I also cannot help but wonder whether action on poverty pay might be addressed more urgently if we in this House had to do our jobs on a worker’s wage. Is it any wonder that so many people are infuriated by the hypocrisy of MPs receiving inflation-busting pay rises themselves while voting to cap the pay of dedicated professionals who work in our public services? If this Government want to show the UK workforce that they value them, they can—they can start by giving them the pay rise and financial security that they deserve. Actions speak louder than words, and I will continue to hold the Government to account on this issue. In the words of Nelson Mandela,

“As long as poverty, injustice and gross inequality persist in our world, none of us can truly rest.”

Fellow Members, I have no intention of resting.

19:32

[Paul Masterton (East Renfrewshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) in her powerful maiden speech.

With a three-year-old and a one-year-old at home, the thought of enduring a plane ride to sunnier climes on a family trip is somewhat terrifying, so I suspect it may be a little while before I will be in a position to benefit from the additional protections this Bill looks to bring into force. Nevertheless, I welcome its Second Reading.

It is an honour and a privilege to be standing here as the Member for East Renfrewshire, but I must confess that I committed the ultimate sin as a successful candidate at the count: I forgot to thank my wife, who was standing a mere six feet away. So if I could indulge myself for a moment, I would like to put on record for ever more my thanks and love to my wife, Heather, and our two children, Daisy and Charlie.

I would also like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, Kirsten Oswald. Kirsten was a diligent and conscientious MP who did superb work as her party’s spokesperson for veterans. She achieved a great deal in her short time in this place with much patience and charm, and I wish her and her beautiful family well for the future.

I would like to give special mention to the last Conservative Member for the seat, Allan Stewart, who sadly passed away in December. I know how much it would have meant to Allan to have seen East Ren turn blue again, and he and his wife Susie were in all our thoughts on election night.

Madam Deputy Speaker, despite what other new Members may have led you to believe, it is of course East Renfrewshire that is the most beautiful constituency in the land. It is a beauty found not only in its famous green spaces but in its people. East Renfrewshire is home to Scotland’s largest Jewish community. It has a significant Muslim community, a growing Sikh community, and a strong Christian community. It is home to people of all faiths and none—but the key thing is that none of that matters. The constituency is a fine example of everything a modern, open, multicultural and tolerant Britain should be. Testament to that rich diversity and community cohesion is the fact that the constituency will soon be home to the world’s first-ever joint Catholic-Jewish school in Newton Mearns.

Throughout East Renfrewshire flows an entrepreneurial spirit. From Stamperland to Eaglesham, Busby to Clarkston, home businesses are thriving. Family businesses like Valentini’s ice cream parlour in Giffnock and McLaren’s plant nurseries in Uplawmoor sit at the heart of their local communities. From small enterprises like Optimal Physio in Newton Mearns, or the Enchanted Forest children’s nursery in Thornliebank, through to household names like—appropriately for this debate—Barrhead Travel and Linn Products, ambition, aspiration, innovation and a desire to build a better future for those who follow are proud values that underpin the people I am privileged to represent.

Today’s entrepreneurs are following in a grand local tradition. In 1868, John Shanks opened a foundry in Barrhead to make brassware. In the decades that followed, he developed the bath and lavatory fittings for which his name is famous. Barrhead’s history stretches back much further, however, with the Arthurlie Cross, a stone sculpture dating back to the 9th century, rumoured to mark the grave of Arthur, King of Britons. Nearby Neilston was famed for its cotton, the industrial revolution of the 1800s seeing textile mills dominate the area, powered by the stunning Levern Water. The thread spun at Crofthead mill reached the summit of Everest, being used in the boots of the climbers on the famous British expedition in 1975. Thornliebank printworks, established by the Crum family in 1778, was one of the first smoke-free factories in the world. It has since been replaced by a business park, including a unit inhabited by two Members of the Scottish Parliament, and now myself—so I suspect there is far more hot air emanating from the site now than there was 250 years ago.

East Renfrewshire’s natural history is equally prevalent. The outskirts of the constituency provide a stunning landscape punctuated with lochs, hills, moors, woodlands and dams, and the community are rightly protective of it. It is little wonder that the constituency boasts the UK Park of the Year in Rouken Glen, and, according to the Royal Mail, the most desirable location to live in the UK, with three other spots in the top 10.

East Renfrewshire’s more recent history brings me back to this place via two Prime Ministers. Gordon Brown was born in a maternity home in Giffnock, now the site of the Orchard Park hotel; and the former Member for the constituency, the redoubtable Betty Harvie Anderson—the first lady to sit in the Speaker’s chair as Deputy Speaker—shared her first parliamentary office following her election in 1959 with none other than the then new Member for Finchley, Margaret Thatcher. So for those new Members who believe that history repeats itself, I am open to offers.

While the results of this election may not have been what those on these Benches hoped in their entirety, north of the border the picture was a little brighter. Much like indyref2, the panda jokes are dead, and I am proud to stand alongside 11 fellow Scottish Conservative faces. Together, we will continue to fight against the destructive politics of socialism and the divisive politics of nationalism. But we shall do so with an outstretched hand, not a clenched fist, because when the UK Government and the Scottish Government do come together in common cause, that partnership is capable of truly transformational change. East Renfrewshire will receive around £44 million of investment through the Glasgow region city deal for projects as diverse as a business incubation hub in Newton Mearns to a wakeboarding centre at the Dams to Darnley country park. I am not sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, if wakeboarding is high on your agenda, but I will extend an invite none the less.

The people of East Ren are renowned for their love of democracy—turnout is always among the highest in the UK—but after seven trips to the polls in just over three years my constituents need stability and for their politicians to get on and do the jobs they were elected to do. It is the Scottish Government’s inability to do just that which is one of the reasons I am here today. For my part, I will first and foremost dedicate myself to improving the lives of my constituents and assisting them when life deals them a difficult hand or they just need someone to listen. East Renfrewshire’s leafy reputation hides real pockets of severe deprivation and daily struggle, with people who feel left behind and forgotten. It is those people who look to this place and to each of us to demonstrate the good that Government can do, and we must not let them down.

The Conservative party must remember what it is for: extending the ladder of social mobility while providing a robust safety net for those who make the climb. This Government must remember that just as we on these Benches believe that anyone from any background can reach as far and high as their talents and efforts will take them, so too must we acknowledge anyone can fall on hard times. One of the giants of Scottish Conservatism, Teddy Taylor, coined the phrase “tenement Tories”. It meant something very simple—that Conservatism must offer an aspirational vision to all. I am here to represent the people who, as he put it, “don’t all live in big hooses”.

The 2015 general election was the point at which the Scottish National party was at its peak—dominant and arrogant. It claimed ownership of my flag and of my voice, but it did not speak for me and it did not own Scotland. And so, the day after that election, I joined the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. In doing so I made a promise to myself that I would do everything in my power to ensure that my children grew up in a Scotland where their opportunities are unconstrained and their ambition never frowned upon; where their talents and potential would not go unfulfilled; where they are never made to feel ashamed of who they are or how they vote; and, yes, where they remain part of our wonderful United Kingdom. Standing here today may be only the first step towards me keeping that promise to myself, to my children and to families and individuals right across East Renfrewshire and Scotland, but let me assure this House that it is a promise I have absolutely no intention of breaking.

19:39

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). It has been great to hear his and other maiden speeches, which have brought back diversity to what would otherwise have been a one-sided debate. I gently point out to him, however, that the irony of a Conservative Member mentioning divisive nationalism is not lost on us. On the question of the Government getting on with the day job, we are debating this Bill because they actually did not get on with their day job, and chose instead to call an early general election that was not needed.

As a Back Bencher, I find it frustrating when the Chair has to apply a time limit to cut speeches short, leading to frantic scoring out. I think that time limits would actually have been useful for some of tonight’s speakers, because some hon. Members have managed to speak at amazing length about a Bill that is only four clauses long. I will try to be a bit briefer.

This is a small but welcome Bill, although it is perhaps indicative of the Government’s lack of strength and ambition, given that its measures were originally part of the wider Vehicle Technology and Aviation Bill. Even so, this four-clause Bill was heralded in the Queen’s Speech, which, as we all know, lacked ambition.

The air travel organisers’ licensing scheme is well known and has provided comfort to thousands of holidaymakers over the years. It has rescued people financially and literally got them home in a timely fashion. It is a fantastic scheme. As other hon. Members have said, holiday travel and booking arrangements have changed over the years, so it is only appropriate that protections change too.

The Minister was keen to say that the UK has led the way in Europe with ATOL. I do not dispute that, but over the years the European Union has also strengthened passenger rights, and it is imperative that those rights are not weakened post-Brexit. The UK Government need to provide assurances that the rights and protections of travellers will not be diminished after the UK leaves the EU.

In fact, it is the 2015 EU package travel directive, which will be applicable from 1 January 2018, that is the driver for this Bill. The fact that three quarters of those who booked holidays last year did so online highlights the need for further protections. It is to be welcomed that protections will now extend beyond traditional package holidays. The new directive applies to three sorts of travel combinations: pre-arranged packages; customised packages; and linked travel arrangements.

I also welcome the fact that clear protection will be provided to 120 million consumers across the EU who book other forms of combined travel. A further advantage is that the measure is expected to reduce detriment to consumers across the EU by about €430 million a year, while at the same time reducing the administrative burden on businesses. It is suggested that compliance costs for traders will reduce from €11 to €8 per package.

Yet again, we have to be grateful to the EU for taking on big businesses, including the airlines, and extending consumer rights to meet modern travel needs. Since the EU legislated to provide a comprehensive system of air passenger rights in 2004, increased awareness of those rights, and of the ability to complain and appeal, has led to a significant increase in the number of people doing so.

That has been supplemented by a number of court cases that have ruled on the circumstances in which airlines must pay compensation. Appeals against some of those judgments have meant that some airlines have been reluctant to pay compensation until the legal position is absolutely clear. There is therefore still industry resistance to the current compensation schemes. I repeat that it is absolutely vital that the UK does not weaken any legislation in the future.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) on a fluent maiden speech. I am sure it will not be the last such speech he gives in this House.

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Bill demonstrates why we need Government assurances about the impact of Brexit? There are so many uncertainties about so many aspects of consumer protection and its impact on individuals’ daily lives. If we had had such assurances and clarity this time last year, perhaps we would not be in this situation.

[Alan Brown]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There seems to be great reticence on the part of the UK to come out and give the necessary cast-iron guarantees. We are a year down the line since the vote, but we have not moved forward in many regards. Too often we keep hearing how everything will be okay, but we need to start seeing some flesh on the bones.

We still do not know when the UK will develop its own system of passenger rights and compensation in the aviation sector post-Brexit, how similar that will be to the current arrangements and, importantly, how non-UK airlines and passengers will be affected. That brings me back to the point that we need a clear guarantee from the UK Government.

On a slightly different theme, Scotland has a large number of regional airports, many of which are completely reliant on low-cost airlines and outbound tourism to survive and be an economic success. Recent reports have stated that Prestwick airport in my neighbouring constituency is vulnerable to Brexit, given the number of low-cost airlines there and the type of passenger traffic, which is mainly outbound. Despite the fact that the Scottish Government have voted to reduce air passenger duty by 50%, which they hoped to use as a mechanism to grow the number of routes operating out of Prestwick, Ryanair has confirmed that, because of the uncertainty surrounding Brexit and the open skies agreement, it will not expand further at the airport. That is a cause for concern with regard to local jobs in my area.

The International Air Transport Association predicts that just a 12% reduction in sterling would result in a 5% decline in outbound travel from airports. Since the EU referendum, sterling is down 25%, so it has become even more vital for Prestwick airport that we continue within the open skies agreement and maintain outbound passenger numbers. It is incumbent on the UK Government to give an unequivocal guarantee that the UK will stay in the single aviation market after we are taken out of the EU.

Remaining in the open skies agreement—the single aviation market—is vital to ensuring that our airports remain economically viable, and low-cost airlines are vital for regional airports to be a commercial success. EasyJet is setting up a separate operation outwith the UK to ensure it can continue to fly without restrictions after the UK leaves the EU, which is in no small part due to the lack of clarity over the aviation agreement that the UK will eventually come up with.

It is clear that, despite the mantra that everything will be okay when we leave the EU, or even better than the current arrangements, the risks are materialising in front of us. It is clearly worrying if airlines are finding other EU member states a more attractive proposition, and the UK Government need to think seriously about how they are going to counteract that problem for our regional airports. The UK Government really must provide clarity and certainty sooner rather than later.

Clause 2 gives the Transport Secretary the power to reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund using only the affirmative procedure in each House of Parliament. The UK Government need to provide assurances that any changes that the Secretary of State makes to the ATOL scheme through secondary legislation will be preceded by a proper consultation of members of the industry and consumer groups, and by an appropriate impact assessment.

We welcome the Bill but, as I said in an intervention on the Minister, we are concerned about the status of legislation on laser pens and, as the shadow Transport Secretary said, drones. It is imperative that the Government move quickly to provide reassurances on those matters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Steve Double.

19:49

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to be called to speak in this debate by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your first session in the Chair. I congratulate you on your new role. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I also congratulate the hon. Members who have made their maiden speeches today—we have heard some excellent ones.

One of Cornwall’s earliest tourists was the spirited and adventurous Mary Kelynack, a Cornish fishwife who in 1851 travelled to London to visit the Great Exhibition. That took her longer than some say it should have done, but then again she did walk the 600 miles there and back, and she was 84 years old. At the time, Cornish travellers did not have many other options. Some will try to give the impression that little has changed when it comes to travelling out of Cornwall today, but that would give the wrong impression because, thanks to the support of this Government, Cornwall is enjoying record investment in our transport infrastructure.

If Mary had made her journey today, she would have had several options. She could have travelled by road, in which case she would have seen the soon to be completed upgrade of the A30, with the dualling at Temple that will be opened in just two weeks’ time. My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), the roads Minister, is in the Chamber, and I acknowledge and welcome the Government’s announcement today of their support for the next phase of the upgrade of the vital A30, the main road through Cornwall.

Mary could have travelled on one of the new Great Western Railway’s bullet-style Hitachi trains, the first of which we saw in Cornwall just over a week ago—a £146 million investment in our railways which will be fully rolled out next year. Or she could have taken one of the three aeroplanes a day from Newquay to London.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Riveting though the hon. Gentleman’s speech is, it has nothing to do with the Bill. Many hon. Members want to speak, so perhaps he could get to the relevant aspects of the Bill.

[Steve Double]

I am not sure I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am about to come to the very point.

Newquay airport is booming. Passenger numbers are increasing year on year, and by some measures Newquay is now regarded as the fastest growing regional airport in the country. Only recently The Independent declared Newquay the best regional airport in the country. It has regular flights to UK destinations and an increasing number of holiday destinations in Portugal and Spain. That is why I welcome the Bill.

The way in which tourists book their holidays is changing, with fewer and fewer booking the traditional package holiday by popping down to the offices of the travel agent in the town centre. In 2016, 76% of the UK’s 20 million holidaymakers booked their holidays or travel online—a staggering increase even compared with recent years. There was a partial reform of the regulations in 2012, but I am pleased that the Department of Transport firmly believes that more should be done to protect consumers. Holiday providers, market options and ever more varied flexi-packages change, and with that comes the confusion of not knowing whether ATOL cover applies, depending on where the holiday or travel provider is based and what terms and conditions apply in the event of business failure. The Bill seeks to rectify that.

The Government has said that they will

“harmonise ATOL with the scope and definitions of the EU Package Travel Directive. It was widely agreed that this will bring greater clarity and protection for consumers and help to level the playing field for businesses selling similar holidays.”

I welcome this key development and note that the Bill also seeks to build in future-proofing so that as the packages on offer—and where and how they are sold—change, they will come under the new legislation.

The travel industry has seen enormous change in just a few years, and the Bill seeks to reflect that so that travellers and the industry are served more effectively. Many if not all of the changes in the travel industry have been to the benefit of consumers, including greater competition, more choice and greater flexibility. It is important that the legislation keeps pace with those changes. It is essential that flexi-packages of all types are covered by ATOL protection and that travellers are clear and confident at the time of purchase, which might be many months prior to a departure date, that the cover is in place. The Bill serves to ensure that very purpose.

Future-proofing the legislation around ATOL protection is a necessary move that is broadly welcomed by all parties throughout the industry, but I want to push the Minister a little on that point. I am sure he would be disappointed if I did not take this opportunity to mention the potential spaceport at Cornwall Newquay airport. I was delighted to see that the legislation to enable that was included in the Gracious Speech. While it will initially be focused on commercial satellite launches, there is also no doubt of the future potential for space tourism. I know that some will scoff, but do not underestimate the Cornish. Trevithick was a pioneer of steam that revolutionised the world and Davey transformed mine safety. The Cornish have it in their psyche, in their history and in their blood to be pioneers. Surely the day will come when Newquay welcomes its first space travellers. With Cornish inventiveness in our being, “Beam me up, Denzil” is surely only just round the corner. I therefore ask the Minister—with tongue only slightly in cheek—whether the ATOL protection in the Bill can be extended to space tourism when the time comes.

I welcome the additional protection that the Bill will offer to Cornish travellers and believe that it will only enhance the opportunities for smaller regional airports such as Newquay to continue to grow and expand their tourist flights.

19:57

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a privilege to follow my comrade from Cornwall, the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double).

I am in an odd position in this debate as I have worked for the Association of British Travel Agents and Thomas Cook, and I now sit on the other side of the fence examining the ATOL regulations for which I made the argument several years ago. It is great to be back on this subject again.

I hoped that the first Bill we addressed in this Parliament would be about food banks or a new train line to the south-west, but ATOL reform is as good a place to start as any. I welcome the Bill. The updating of consumer protection for holidaymakers is long overdue and it comes on the back of several improvements in recent years in the way in which holidays have been sold and protected. I spent many years in Brussels working with colleagues of the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and others on how we could strengthen the consumer protection for people buying holidays. As other hon. Members have said, the way in which holidays are sold has changed considerably in recent years. The travel industry operates under legislation that has not kept pace, in the UK or the EU, with the way in which travel is sold, partly because of the inventiveness and ingenuity of innovators and entrepreneurs in the travel industry. We are fortunate that the UK sector is second to none in how entrepreneurial it is.

My starting point for considering the Bill is to ask whether it will give certainty and confidence to consumers. The ATOL certificates introduced several years ago by the coalition Government were a step forward, but more can be done. In particular, people are often confused by the protection given when they buy a package, when they buy a flight-plus arrangement or when they buy separate arrangements sold at the same time with transferred data—a linked travel arrangement. The Bill does not say much about what secondary legislation will accompany it, and it will be essential that we get the detail right. The industry and consumers have been waiting for the Bill for some time and it is important that there is no further delay.

Having listened to the debate and having worked in the travel industry for a number of years, I think it is important that the House understands the clear distinction between the protection afforded by ATOL for package sales and those that can be afforded by buying decent holiday insurance, including SAFI—scheduled airline failure insurance. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) remarked, time is running out. We are six months away from legislation needing to be in place and 12 months away from full compliance. For an industry already selling holidays 12 to 18 months ahead, that creates a difficulty for consumers when it comes to understanding what protections will be in place for their holidays.

The package travel directive, which I have learned to love and hate at the same time, introduced many new concepts and requirements, particularly in relation to the notable systems changes required to facilitate additional information provisions within the directive. It gets even more complicated when one starts looking through it. Travel businesses need to have sufficient time to prepare for the effective date of 1 July and to plan sales beyond 2018. That preparation is already at an advanced stage. We need the Government to publish the regulations quickly so that they can be properly consulted on and so that industry can take the necessary steps to adapt to them. I am thinking particularly of small businesses that may be captured for the first time in the scope of the regulations.

Travel is a complex fast-paced industry full of fantastic people. These technical updates need to be fully understood and implemented over time for many different booking systems, both in UK companies and those that operate internationally. That is why the draft regulations cannot come a moment too soon. The Bill will help to clear up confusion about which holidays are protected and which are not. There was an interim stage of flight-pluses: buying a flight plus another element, such as holiday accommodation or car hire. Wrapping them all together is a positive step forward, but will the Minister look again at how linked travel arrangements are treated in the Bill? He mentioned an attempt to bring LTAs into the scope of the protection. I would like to see more detail on that, because how they are treated is especially important. If those transactions are not treated in the right way, they can fall outside the scope of the protections.

The people of Plymouth should not need to look into the small print of their contracts or their regulations to work out if they are protected. At the moment, there is still too much detail for people to understand whether they are fully protected. Given my newness in this House and the fact that this is the first Bill to be presented, will the Minister do me a favour and address a few things in his summing up? Will he clarify whether the implementation date for all bookings is from the point of sale or the point of departure? That is really important in terms of understanding whether holidays being sold now, which may be captured by the regulations after the implementation date, need to have retrospective protection added to them or whether that needs to be added subsequently. That could result in real confusion for consumers, so I would be grateful if the Minister cleared that up. I would also be grateful if the Minister reaffirmed that the protections afforded by not only the package travel regulations but the air passenger and other passenger rights regimes will be carried through when we leave the European Union.

I would like to spend a moment on the air travel trust fund. For those who have not spent time looking at how the ATTF operates, the fund provides back-up support in the event of a holiday company going down. It should ensure that there are sufficient resources not only to bring people stranded abroad home but to refund passengers who have not yet taken their holiday. Will the Minister provide an update on how it is going? Now there is £140 million in the fund and provisions in the Bill to create what I suspect are protected cells within the air travel trust fund—the Government have up to this point shied away from doing that—will he clarify how it will work in practice? Should a new entrance cell in the ATTF be exhausted by the failure of a company in that cell, will the ATTF for the remainder of the holiday industry need to top it up? If a company already covered goes bust and the fund is insufficient, will the ATOL protection contributions—the £2.50 we pay for protection—be transferred into that element of the ATTF to ensure that people are brought home? The ATTF has been exhausted in the past so these technical questions could help to provide reassurance for consumers to know that the fund will always be there.

Finally, on enforcement of the Bill, I note that the Civil Aviation Authority and Trading Standards are to take a larger role. The CAA has, for quite some time, done a good job of enforcing the ATOL regulations. I am, however, concerned about Trading Standards, which is already under a huge amount of pressure and stress to deliver the work it currently undertakes. This could further add to that difficulty and complexity.

It is great that so many people are familiarising themselves with the intricacies of ATOL protection. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members do so during the passage of the Bill. I hope that the Bill will also be the start of a greater focus on tourism by Government. Outbound tourism, which is the type of tourism that ATOL protects, has fallen between a number of Government stools for far too long, with split responsibilities between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. It sometimes seems that this is a hot potato that no Government Minister wants to touch. I am grateful that the Bill has been introduced, because it is time to consider a single regulator for the travel industry and whether there can be a clear Department responsible for bringing together all the elements of outbound protection for holidaymakers.

We are very lucky to have an outstanding outbound tourism sector. I notice that nearly all Members who have spoken to date have praised their local airport. Plymouth’s airport closed in 2010. I implore the Minister to look again at how measures can be put in place to help us to reopen our airport in Plymouth so that I can join the cohort of Members who have praised their own airport. At the moment, my airport is growing grass on the runway. I hope it can open again soon, so that holidaymakers in Plymouth can enjoy the same protections that ATOL affords holidaymakers leaving other airports.

20:06

[Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute for the first time in this place. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I cannot hope to live up to his erudition and obvious knowledge of the subject. I am also grateful for the opportunity to be able to speak on the Bill, which I wholeheartedly support. When times change there is sometimes a need for regulations to change. Sometimes there is a need for no regulation, but in this case there is a need for regulations to change. I support that and I look forward to supporting the Bill in the coming months.

It is an honour and a privilege to represent the beautiful constituency of North East Derbyshire, a constituency of stunning landscapes, vibrant communities, rich ambition and a proud, proud heritage. We sit two hours away from here, nestled between the steel city of Sheffield in the north, the beauty of the Peak District in the west and the market town of Chesterfield in the east. My constituency has been happily and completely intertwined with Chesterfield for hundreds and hundreds of years. From that market town rises the crooked spire, with which some Members may be aware: a church that has been in place for over six centuries and which is notable for its spire not quite being as straight as it should be. It dominates the landscape of Chesterfield and my constituency for miles around. I am a son of that crooked spire. I was born only a few hundred metres away from where it has stood for those six and a half centuries.

There is something unique about having the privilege to serve in this place and I look forward in the coming months and years to doing so, but there is something particularly unique about having the opportunity to represent the place where I grew up and the people who gave me the very values I will speak of in this place when I have the opportunity to do so and to be able to talk about the area that made me. I have that privilege and I am incredibly grateful for that.

Before I enter North East Derbyshire into the obligatory most beautiful constituency competition—I assure hon. Members that my constituency will win hands down—I would like to spend a moment talking about my predecessors. I walk in huge and assured footsteps: the progeny of one of the founders of the industrial revolution, Francis Arkwright; one of the people who opened up the Derbyshire coal field, for which my constituency is so thankful and to which so much of its legacy is accorded, Alfred Barnes; and even a Nobel peace prize winner, Arthur Henderson, the three-times leader of the Labour party who did so much during the dark days of the 1930s for the causes of disarmament and peace.

I would just like to dwell for a moment on one particular person who had the privilege to represent North East Derbyshire: my immediate predecessor, Natascha Engel. I have been here but a moment, and I can already see the love and the respect that Members across the House have for Natascha, and I am happy to report that that love and respect is reciprocated in the constituency. In a time of fierce partisanship and, in my view, unnecessary rancour, I am happy to say that, despite having a different rosette from Natascha, I believe she was an exemplary Member of Parliament. I thank her for her 12 years’ service in the constituency and I hope she returns to public life soon, albeit representing a different area, if she chooses to come back to this place.

North East Derbyshire is a constituency of contrasts, from the beauty of the richly undulating hills of picture postcard-perfect villages such as Ashover and the beauty of the Cordwell and Moss valleys in the north and east, to the fiercely independent market town of Dronfield, with its monument to Sir Robert Peel’s repeal of the corn laws in the 1850s—an indication, I am sure, of my constituents’ dislike of unnecessary regulation, which is something I will remember. They give way in the east to a landscape at once both scarred by the endeavours of man and then rebuilt over time, as we return to our former glory in North East Derbyshire.

My constituency came of age in the service of its nation in the provision of energy. At one point a century ago, a predecessor of mine stood in this place and talked of 40,000 men in my constituency who were mining under its ground every single day. Mining is in my constituency’s blood and, like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith), I share that trait, in that both my grandparents were miners, including one who mined for a time at Westhorpe colliery in Killamarsh, a town that I now have the privilege to represent.

I am the son of a milkman who left school at 15 and went out to work every day before dawn in order to provide for his children and his wife. I am the son of a lady who left school at 16 and, through sheer force of will, went back to school in her 30s and, while holding down a job and bringing up two boisterous young boys, got two university degrees so that she could provide for her kids and make her life better. I am the great-nephew of the lady who ran the post office at Renishaw, a village in my constituency, and I am the nephew of an aunt who once went to work for the National Union of Mineworkers during the miners’ strike.

North East Derbyshire has demonstrated by electing its first Conservative Member of Parliament since 1931 that it has changed. I do not say that in the spirit of partisanship; I say it as it is merely a fact. In the same way that my constituency has changed, I think my family somehow reflects that change as well, from the descriptions that I have just given. That I am stood here today, a working-class boy able to talk in this place and represent the people I grew up with, is something that I will never forget. I will always seek to do my best for my constituency as a result.

Beautiful as my constituency is, and honoured as I am to be the winner of the competition that I have spoken about, my constituency also suffers from unique challenges and problems. We currently have the issue of inappropriate housing developments in the beautiful valleys that I have talked about, because the local council did not put in place the plans that it should have done years ago to avoid that. We have a fracking proposal in the beautiful Moss valley, which my constituents neither want nor wish to see happen, and I will support them in their opposition for as long as it is on the table. We also have the ever-growing burden of congestion, across a constituency as disparate as mine, which stops people getting around and stops businesses doing their daily work and which we have to tackle in these debates.

But my constituency is more than that. I pledge to my constituents that as long as I have the privilege to speak in this place, however long or short that is, I will work hard on their behalf and try my hardest every single day to make life better for them. Although I cannot guarantee that I will solve the problems that I have described or the ones that may come in future, I will try my hardest to mitigate the effects on them and resolve them where I can. If I have any time beyond my constituents, I will seek to dedicate it to this place, in trying to answer one of the big challenges of our time—a challenge that I, as someone new here, believe is growing and urgent and needs to be resolved. That is the challenge, at its most basic, of creating healthy, happy and prosperous communities that are bound together in tight union by energy, grit and determination.

I was born in 1980. According to some social commentators I am, to use that ugly word, a millennial and I sense something deeply amiss in my generation and the one that comes after it—a grave uncertainty, not about the politics of today or the policies that my Government are pushing forward, and which I wholeheartedly support, but something that is more visceral, more structural, more underlying. I feel that my generation is unsure about its place in the world. I feel that it is uncertain about where the world is going—that it feels that it is hurtling untethered into a place unknown and has been for 20, 30 or 40 years. I fear that my generation believes that it may be the first to hand over the world in a worse state than it found it, despite the best efforts of those on these Benches and all Benches in this place. We have to consider that as parliamentarians. We have to realise that my generation and other generations are unsure and uncertain.

However, I would also say to my generation, as frustrated as it is, that the easy words and warm allure of anecdote and emotion that I have seen in recent weeks, months and years is no substitute for good governance. In whatever time I have in this place, I will stand up for cool thinking and understanding and for articulating problems in a proper and clear way. In the time I have here, I will also stand up for the values of my constituency—values of compassion and emotion, but also the values of hard work, aspiration and ambition that my constituency has imbued in me. I will also stand up for the creed of free markets, liberal economics and capitalist progress—unfashionable as they may be in a field in Somerset, but the only engine for us to unshackle ourselves from the bonds of yesterday, that we may face the challenges of today and look forward to the future of tomorrow. While I have the opportunity to serve here, those are the things that I will put forward.

20:09

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on being re-elected—very good choice, may I add? It is great to follow the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who made an excellent maiden speech.

As is customary in a maiden speech, I want first to acknowledge the work that my predecessor, Graham Evans, did for the constituents of Weaver Vale during his seven years in office. Graham’s contribution to parliamentary life was richly diverse. He both chaired the all-party group on beer and encouraged many hon. Members to take up running—although I am assured that this did not involve running in the direction of the bar. Graham completed the London marathon many times, raising a great deal of money for good causes both local and national, and he encouraged many Members from all parts of the House to do likewise. I wish Graham and his family well in the future.

The House of Commons Library and a plethora of MPs from all parts of the House advise me that it is important to research some notable historical facts and figures about my constituency. Its three major conurbations are Northwich, Runcorn and Frodsham. Weaver Vale takes its name from its association with the River Weaver in the heart of my Cheshire constituency. People and things of historical association include Sir John Brunner, founding member of ICI and a former MP for the patch, Tim Burgess of The Charlatans—a band that are a favourite of mine—who hails from Northwich, and the excellent comedian John Bishop, a Runcorn lad with excellent taste in politics. Weaver Vale is also the place where Daniel Craig served his James Bond apprenticeship in the Ring o’ Bells pub in Frodsham, undoubtedly doing stunts across the bar. Another person of note associated with Runcorn is my wife Amanda, who was born there and has stuck with me through thick and thin—I think it was a wise and necessary move to include Amanda in my maiden speech.

As Members will know, Britain is a diverse, rich and vibrant nation, and much of that can be said of my constituency. An array of industries and business sectors are represented in Weaver Vale, with no one industry dominating the life of the entire constituency. Northwich, Weaverham, Frodsham, Helsby, and the eastern part of Runcorn comprise much of the urban life of the constituency, woven around rural areas. I am obviously going to say this, but it is one of the best places in the country in which to live, visit and work.

What grabs me most about the diverse fabric of Weaver Vale is how it has changed over the centuries and decades. At Runcorn is found Norton Priory, the most excavated monastic site in Europe, where the remains of the 12th-century abbey are found alongside the urban estates from the 1970s, where I must now focus much of my attention in assisting constituents. Weaver Vale has a proud industrial heritage, spanning back to Roman Britain, from the salt mines in Northwich to its association with ICI, historically employing thousands of workers throughout Runcorn, Northwich and surrounding areas. Although many people are still employed in the chemical industry, new high-tech industries have emerged and are thriving at Daresbury laboratory, using nanotechnology and robotics and providing the high-skilled, high-knowledge jobs that our community and our nation need. During my tenure as Labour MP for Weaver Vale, I will encourage new and emerging green industries to locate in my patch, and to employ local people. My hon. Friends and I want an economy that works for everyone. We want a race to the top, creating access to highly skilled, fulfilling and sustainable jobs, not a race to the bottom, with insecure zero-hours contracts and fake self-employment franchises.

Like the nation itself, Weaver Vale is a tale of two communities. It has some beautiful countryside, towns and villages. Just picture that rural idyll, with thatched cottages and country pubs such as the White Lion in Alvanley, which I visited only on Sunday. Some residents in my constituency are fortunate enough to have incomes above the national average, but many of my constituents in places such as Windmill Hill and Palacefields in Runcorn face real poverty in their daily lives, from childhood onwards. Despite what Conservative Members claim, there is a real lack of work, too much insecure part-time employment, a growth in zero-hours contracts and a welfare system that lacks compassion and common sense.

One person who experienced the shortcomings of our current welfare system is Sheila, who, very recently, had an operation to remove a brain tumour. When I met Sheila, she could barely walk a metre to the TV. That was a result of the operation, but also of the side-effects of the steroid drugs that she was taking to help to prevent seizures. Sheila had worked hard. She had played by the rules, and paid her taxes. But in her time of need, when the welfare state should have been there to care for her, she instead received a £1,500 cut in her income, and was labelled a shirker by a system overseen by a callous, out-of-touch and now, I would say, chaotic Government. The Prime Minister talks about a nation that works for everyone, but it is certainly not working for Sheila and many thousands like her.

Let me also tell the House about another growth industry that is not a welcome sight in my constituency. I am talking about the sight of hard-pressed residents and families having to use food banks. In the past year the use of food banks has gone up by 25% in the Northwich part of my constituency alone, an issue that was highlighted only recently by one of the local newspapers, the Northwich Guardian. It seems that those who are most in need in our society are paying the price of a failed austerity programme that has more to do with an ideological drive to shrink the state, while living standards go into reverse gear and the national debt is now more than £1.7 trillion. This is not a society that works for everyone.

Finally, I want to thank the thousands of constituents who put me here, especially the young people who came out to vote for the first time, inspired by the politics of hope and opportunity and by a manifesto that wants to put them first for investment rather than cuts: a manifesto for the many and not the few. This rather weak and unstable Government need to take note: I took my seat from one of your own, because my constituents want more bobbies on the beat, not less. They do not want to see individual school budgets cut by hundreds of thousands of pounds. They want smaller class sizes, and they want teachers and support staff who are secure in their jobs and not fearful for the future. They also want to keep their local hospitals open—and yes, those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share in taxes and invest in our future.

As a lad born in Wythenshawe, Manchester, I never envisaged that I would have the honour of sitting on these green Benches to represent Weaver Vale. I was the first in my family to get a degree, and I gave back to society by becoming a careers adviser, helping young people to get into work, training and education. I was the first in my family to become a city councillor, serving the good people of Manchester for 11 years, and I am now the first Amesbury in my family to become an MP—a Labour MP.

Unlike some in the House, I do not have a long line of ancestors who served this House and the other place next door. My family made me who I am. My dad, Barney, was a carpet fitter, then a publican. My late mum used to clean caravans and serve school dinners, and my younger sister is a teaching assistant. All those people would be hit by the pay cap. All of them were and are extraordinary people in their own right: grafters, fighters, and real people.

I bring my real life experience into the Chamber as a check and balance on the Government and as a champion for my constituents, especially those who are most in need. To represent the people of Weaver Vale now is the greatest privilege of my life. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to introduce myself to the House.

20:27

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), who made an impassioned speech. It is also a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who spoke without notes. I intend to do no such thing.

ATOL equals peace of mind. It is safe to go on holiday if the holiday is protected by ATOL. That makes sense. Peace of mind is good; it is happy. I therefore support the Bill.

It is also an honour to be here at all. Just a few short weeks before I stood for election—at the by-election in Clacton in 2014—I was on tour with Jason Donovan in a production of “Priscilla, Queen of the Desert”. I have played on many stages across the world in 45 years, but this has to be the finest. Thank you, residents of Clacton; I will do my very best for you.

I was honoured and indeed humbled when the residents of Clacton gave me the overwhelming support they did at the last election, but I had one other overwhelming sensation, which I am sure many others have, when they first take their seat in the House—that was, what on earth have I let myself in for? When I relayed my concerns to my wife, Vanda—she gets a namecheck as well—she said, “It’s a stage and an audience. What could possibly go wrong?” What a stage and what an audience!

In preparation, I looked up the advice on maiden speeches. It tells us that the typical maiden speech is divided into three parts. Part one consists of being nice about the previous incumbent of the seat. I remind Members that my seat is Clacton. Part two involves a glittering description of the constituency, outlining its fabulous assets and its wonderful potential. In part three, one is advised to lay out some of the plans one has to enhance the wonderful area one represents, left even more wonderful by the splendid previous incumbent.

So to part one. My immediate predecessor was the notable Douglas Carswell, against whom I fought two parliamentary elections. It must be said that we did not always see eye to eye, but I will say this: Douglas was an extremely good constituency MP. As a district councillor, I was regularly in contact with him and I saw at first hand his competent dealings in the constituency. You would send him a note and he always gave you a considered reply—a good example to me. Even after he moved gently on from our party, he always behaved like a gentleman and it is to his credit that we fought those two elections without any mud-slinging, however tempting it might have been. We fought on the issues, not on the personalities. I had respect for him holding his views, even if I did not agree, and I frequently did not.

When I made my speech on being elected, I touched on the subject of respect. I paid tribute to my fellow candidates. I respect them for going on the sometimes gruelling journey that we all know about in this place, pacing the streets, taking some flak, but meeting some wonderful people. I may have stoutly disagreed with my fellow candidates on many issues, but I never once attacked them personally. You can check Facebook, Twitter or any of the other social media platforms and you will see that I never denigrated the other candidates. It seems a pity that we have reached a nadir through social media where a lot of plain nastiness is regular. If we all had a little more respect, the world would be a far happier place.

To part two. Over the last 10 years, I have been fortunate to represent my residents at Tendring District Council. My ward, Frinton-on-Sea, has always been at the forefront of my mind when dealing with issues at district level and, from now on, Clacton, my constituency, its residents and their views will always be at the centre of all I do here.

The Clacton constituency is roughly half of Tendring district, a stunning peninsula with the Colne to the south-west, the Stour to the north and the North sea to the east; I think Members can see where I am going with his. As a result, we have 36 miles of the most stunning coastline pretty much anywhere in the country. We have the sandy beaches of Walton, Frinton and Clacton. Probably the best beaches of all are at Jaywick Sands. We have the Walton Backwaters, a mysterious area of tidal creeks, mudflats and islands— salt marshes and marsh grasslands which in the late ’30s gave Arthur Ransome the inspiration to write his book, “Secret Water”. It is called “Secret Water” because, when one approaches from the sea, it is difficult to see that there is an entrance there. So we have the buzz of Clacton, the quiet of Frinton, the rustic charm of Walton, the beautiful village and priory of St Osyth, and the bucolic hinterland of gorgeous villages and countryside. It is no wonder that we have a fast-reviving tourism industry. We are the sunshine coast.

Which brings me neatly to part three. I find it absolutely incomprehensible that this extraordinarily special place so dear to my heart, lying as it does a mere 70 miles from London, has historically been constantly overlooked. That 70-mile journey takes the best part of one hour 40 minutes by train, which is simply not good enough. A journey by car during peak times is an adventure only for the very brave. The A12 is known to be one of the worst roads in the country. It is often argued that we should be thankful that we are so hard to get to, but there is the old adage: down good roads wealth flows. Imagine if we could bring that journey closer to an hour. Seventy miles in an hour—not unthinkable; not even illegal. We would suddenly get the wealth of London on our doorstep and we would regenerate.

Clacton faces many challenges, most of which we have been taking head-on at the district council, and we have had some success. The long-awaited regeneration of Jaywick has begun. It has new roads, new buildings and a great sense of community. It is on the up. Walton-on-the-Naze has new developments and quality shops arriving. It is on the up. In the last five years, at the district council, we have managed to obtain £50 million-worth of investment for the area, £36 million of which has been spent on new sea defences in Holland-on-Sea and Clacton. You have to go to see them. We have created new lagoons, reefs and beaches over a 5 km stretch. We are on the up. But we need that infrastructure, and that is just one of my priorities for our much overlooked constituency.

I just want to remind everyone that we do exist in Clacton and that all are welcome to come and see us. I will take pleasure in taking visitors to the Naze Tower, built in 1720 by Trinity House as a landmark for mariners. It stands on the highest point in the constituency and gives breath-taking views across to Suffolk and over the beaches and looks down on those treasured backwaters.

We are a jewel of a place with many facets. It is well worth that 1 hour 40 minute journey; do come.

20:35

[Mr Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I want to say what a great privilege it is to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling), but such was the brilliance of his speech that my heart rather sank.

I am genuinely humbled by listening to some of the wonderful speeches including those by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) and my hon. Friends the Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), who really brought home why we are in this place; we listened in silence, and I thank him.

I think I am going to support this Bill, although I have to say that any Bill relating to tourism that encourages anyone to go anywhere other than the Isle of Wight seems to suffer from what our philosophical Front Bench would call an a priori flaw. However, my constituents are as generous as they are understanding, and I am sure that they would allow me to support this otherwise very sensible Bill.

I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor. Andrew Turner was a kind man, a good listener, attentive to his constituents and held in very high regard by many of them. He worked hard for our island for 16 years and I wish him a long, contented and happy retirement.

Representing the Isle of Wight—we call it the island, and I apologise if I refer to it as such—is for me a labour of love. It is my patch of England. I have loved it ever since I was knee high to a grasshopper, and it is close to my heart.

It also has a special place in the nation’s heart, serving as a source of inspiration for islanders, visitors and our nation’s greatest artists. Turner’s first great work was for the Royal Academy: “Fishermen at sea” in the Solent, with the Needles as a moonlit backdrop. The poet Alfred Lord Tennyson settled here, and we hear our sounds and understand our sense of place in his work. When we listen to the seawater today rushing off the stones at Alum Bay, we understand the line in “Maud”:

“Now to the scream of a maddened beach dragged down by the wave”.

Swinburne and Keats wrote here:

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever”,

from “Endymion” is one of Keats’s greatest lines, and was inspired by visits to Shanklin and Carisbrooke. The wonderful eccentric Edward Lear tutored Queen Victoria at Osborne, the Bonchurch watercolourists painted near Ventnor, Julia Margaret Cameron, the wonderful feminist, pioneered portrait photography at Dimbola Lodge, and the Pre-Raphaelites hung out in Freshwater. And today we remain a home for many island artists, as well as cultural and sporting events of world renown.

We have a special place in science, too. We had the world’s first telegraph station, the hovercraft and the seaplane were built here, and the Blue Streak missile system—what a great name for a missile system—was test-fired from the Needles. And today the island’s experts produce some of the most sophisticated radars in the world for the Royal Navy.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) eloquently assured us a fortnight ago that he was still thrusting. I am sure of it, but let me remind the House that our Thrust 2 jet-engined supercar, built largely on the island, won and held the world land speed record for our nation for over a decade, at some 633 mph. So on the Isle of Wight, even our thrusting is world class.

Moving from science to pseudo-science, Karl Marx was a regular visitor, a point I might have to make should the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) ever come to power—although if the victory last month was any harbinger of the future, let us wish Opposition Members many more such victories in the years to come.

On a more serious note, I mentioned our arts and science not to provide a potted history lesson or to express my love for my constituency—which I hope is self-evident—but because they are what we need for our future. We need again to embrace art, science, technology, innovation and education to inspire, to enrich and to employ. Our island is special in many ways, but our wealth has not always been of the financial kind and there is a perception that Whitehall sometimes overlooks us. In the 1990s, the Government promised the Isle of Wight and the Scilly Isles that they would study the extra costs of being an island. Sadly, that promise came to nothing, but those costs are recognised in Scotland through the special islands needs allowance, which provides an uplift in funding for some half a dozen councils with island seats. I believe that we need a better deal for our island, and it is not just a question of money, although every little helps and I will fight for extra spending on health and education. It is about islanders working with the Government to generate ideas for the public good, and about the Government working with us and being keen to listen. I know that there are good examples of that happening, and I wish to encourage more of it.

We need to embrace the knowledge economy and higher education. I look forward to working with the Department for Education and with universities to provide opportunities for such engagement. We need to continue to drive all education standards on the island, and I will continue to fight for the future of the Sandown Bay school. I look forward to the Government’s continuing support.

Our cultural offer is getting stronger. We have the wonderful Isle of Wight festival—I think Rod Stewart topped the bill this year, as part of a tartan revival that is clearly taking place in politics as well. We also have the wonderful literary festival and the cutting-edge Ventnor fringe festival—look out, Edinburgh! However, I wish to work with Culture Ministers and institutions to find out how they can help us to improve our museum offer and possibly attract a major gallery to the island, to help with year-round cultural tourism.

I look forward to engaging with Sport England and with trade and investment Departments to work with our high-tech sailing industry and with the sailing clubs of Cowes and others to ensure that the town of Cowes remains the centre of the sailing world. I also hope that it becomes a global centre for disabled sailing. That would be an important move that would have practical and moral implications. I was privileged last month to meet the captain of our national blind sailing team, who were prepping for their world championships, and I wish Lucy and her inspiring team all the very best.

We need to work with the Department for Work and Pensions, and organisations such as Help the Aged and our wonderful Mountbatten hospice, to make the island a national leader in ensuring quality of life for those in later life, combining health and social care and voluntary and state support to enrich life.

In transport, we need to ensure the future of the Island railway line and improve our cycling routes to make us Britain’s leading cycling destination. We also need to engage with the ferry firms to provide a better service. Let me be clear: privatisation did a great deal of good in the ’80s and ’90s nationally, but the privatisation of our ferries was not such a great success. I do not have all the answers, but I know that we should not have started from that point. I am uncomfortable with the levels of debt that Red Funnel and Wightlink have, because islanders—who are not the richest people in the country—have to help to subsidise it in order to cross the Solent.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to social housing and starter housing from the bottom of my heart. I find it difficult to explain to my fellow islanders why rich property developers were able to build houses there that most of my constituents could not afford. We do not need large-scale projects, which are heartily disliked by many islanders. They do significant cumulative damage to our precious landscape, on which much of our tourism—which accounts for half our economy—depends. We do, however, need genuinely affordable projects to provide homes for islanders, and we will work with the Government to build them. Our island plan should reflect that. For my islanders, housing is hope, especially for the younger ones. Working with many others—our chamber of commerce, our council, our excellent tourism team, voluntary groups and individuals—we will present ideas for a brighter future for our island.

Nationally, this Government have laudable aims of social justice, hope, meritocracy and opportunity for all, values which were inherent in manifestos and are absolutely inherent in our hearts, but we sadly failed to translate them during the campaign. I want those principles, aims, values and aspirations for my fellow islanders and for our nation. Let us deliver real change and real hope in the next few years and set an example, whether economic, moral, or political, that we are the natural party of government.

My fellow islanders deserve nothing but the best, and I will do my best to give them the voice that they deserve. Some Members, such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire, have explained why we are here far more eloquently than I have, but I will battle for my island. I cannot promise to win every battle, but I will fight every battle on their behalf for as long as I have the honour of serving in our Parliament what Wordsworth called “that delightful Island”.

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

20:45

[Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)]

There is much acclaim for my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely), whom I am delighted to follow. Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Friends and family have asked me what it feels like finally to be here, and I simply say, “Surreal,” but in the best possible meaning of the word. I could add “overwhelming”, and that sense is multiplied today as I speak for the first time in the Chamber as the new Member for Stirling. I am acutely aware that so many people have placed in me a sacred trust to do my best to serve all the people of Stirling and to do what is right for my constituents and in the national interest.

I am proud to call Stirling my home. It is situated at the heart of Scotland and its story is long and dramatic. The famed legend of Stirling’s wolf comes from the 9th century, when the Anglo-Saxon defenders of the castle were roused from their sleep by the howling of a wolf, warning them of an impending Viking attack. The wolf is still celebrated to this day.

Stirling remains as steadfast as the rock upon which its castle sits. Last week, I had the privilege of marching with the people of Cambusbarron on the annual march of the gillies, which commemorates the actions of the sma’folk and camp followers at the Battle of Bannockburn, who came over the hill making such a din that they caused the English to flee. We Scots have always had a knack for causing a stooshie. The march now focuses on saving this important historic site from the threat of quarrying.

Stirling constituency is more than the city. It stretches from Drymen and Strathblane in the west to Cowie, Fallin and Plean in the east, and from Killin, Crianlarich and Tyndrum in the north to St Ninians and the Whins of Milton in the south. Through the good offices of our auction houses, Stirling hosts the premier bull sales in Scotland. Dairy, meat production, and some of the best shortbread in the country are all mainstays of my constituency, not to mention the two whisky distilleries making great use of our prodigious rainfall and fertile soils. Our financial services sector and high-tech businesses in the digital economy all make up a diverse, high-value economy that contributes to the success of Stirling and of the Scottish and the UK economies.

I am a graduate of the University of Stirling, which is now in its 50th year and has a reputation in research and teaching that is second to none. Stirling hosts the oldest and the second oldest charitable trusts in Scotland. Spittal’s Trust and Cowane’s Trust are part of the centuries-old tradition of Stirling’s voluntary sector in providing relief for the needy members of the local trades and guilds and their relatives. Social enterprise is alive and well in Stirling, whether through the encouragement given to local food and environmental initiatives such as the Forth Environment Link, the work of Town Break in helping those with dementia, or the work done by the Trossachs Mobility group in ensuring that people with disabilities can access our magnificent landscape from Callander, which is fast becoming Scotland’s outdoor capital.

Today we are debating the travel industry, and Stirling has a unique connection to the things that make up the modern travel industry. Stirling proudly owns Britain’s answer to the Wright brothers. Frank and Harold Barnwell, originally from Lewisham, made their homes in Balfron in 1882. They came from a family in the shipbuilding business, and they were great innovators. They built their first full-size biplane in 1908. Unfortunately, it failed to take flight but, undeterred, they produced a second design at their works, the Grampian Motor and Engineering Company, under the shadow of the Wallace monument in Causewayhead. And then, on Wednesday 28 July 1909, they were responsible for the first powered flight in Scotland when their aircraft flew to an altitude of 13 feet and travelled for 80 yards before a somewhat abrupt crash-landing.

It is down to the great innovators, like Stirling’s own Barnwell brothers, and the pioneering paths they forged in manned, powered flight that today we have the aviation industry we have. Frank and Harold Barnwell represent the great things that Britain has achieved—in this case, two English entrepreneurs who moved their business to Scotland—to create the inventions and businesses that made the modern world.

I say to entrepreneurs and innovators across the globe: Stirling is evidently the place to be—just as I say to all hon. and right hon. Members that when the peoples of Scotland, England and the other nations of the United Kingdom work together, they have achieved and can yet achieve remarkable things that, in turn, make this world a better place.

Stirling’s best days lie ahead. The enthusiastic support of Her Majesty’s Government for the Stirling city deal, so expertly prepared by the officers of Stirling Council, is most welcome, and I will make it my top priority to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), to secure and deliver the Stirling city deal.

This Bill is especially important to the way in which regulation works for innovative companies that have revolutionised the travel industry in the digital space. The new digital district at the heart of the Stirling city deal will encourage the birth, survival and success of many more innovative digital companies.

The pace of technological change in the world today is staggering. We book travel and transport in completely different ways from how we did it only a few years ago. Gone are the days of flicking through teletext to snap up package deals to the sun. The internet revolution has empowered consumers and disruptive new companies to turn old market models inside out, and the provisions of the Bill are very welcome. It is important that consumer protection rights keep up with the pace of technological change. We must shape future measures in a way that adapts to the new market conditions being created by the entrepreneurial skills and talents of our challenger digital businesses, and not stifle creativity by holding on to outdated and outmoded regulation.

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Steven Paterson. His tenure was short, and I make no apology for that. That said, he was an honourable and worthy opponent whose passion for Stirling and Scotland cannot be doubted. I wish him well for the future.

His predecessor was Dame Anne McGuire. She was Stirling’s Member of Parliament for 18 years, and her public service was especially noteworthy for her tireless work to promote and extend the rights of disabled people. Hers is a wonderful personal legacy, and one in which we should all take pride. I pay tribute to her.

I should also like to make a special mention of my friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, the previous Conservative Member for Stirling. His record of service in this House on behalf of the people of Stirling and Scotland, and the United Kingdom, is remarkable. In his maiden speech in 1983, he spoke of the problems facing rural Stirling in the field of telecommunications. That, I am sad to report to the House, remains an issue, although it is now about broadband and mobile telephony, rather than phone connections. I assure the House that digital connectivity is a subject I will keep coming back to.

Public service is often cited as a reason for Members taking seats in this House, and I add myself to their number. A body politic that exists to serve its citizens is one worth aspiring to. I was raised on politics, listening as a small boy as my grandfather held forth on the merits of the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson. He was not a fan, but his trenchant view was that the Government of the day should govern in the national interest. Henry Campbell-Bannerman, a former Member of Parliament for Stirling and a former Prime Minister, said:

“Good government could never be a substitute for government by the people themselves.”

That is also the perfect encapsulation of my personal political credo. I believe in liberty, in freedom and choice. I enlist to the moral argument for free enterprise and free trade as the most powerful means of lifting people, whole nations and regions out of poverty. I believe in law and order, equality for all before the law and in the good that government can do. I believe that the family, in all its forms, is the basic unit of society; thriving and successful families make for a thriving and successful society, and social policy is always best seen through the filter of what strengthens the family. I believe in fair dealing, competition that advantages consumers and justice in all its realms. I believe in giving power to the people and in respecting local democracy, in the constructive tension of public accountability, and in listening carefully to the voice of the people.

Whether right hon. and hon. Members reflect on those last words in terms of the implementation of a Brexit sanctioned by the people or the results of the referendum in Scotland to confirm its place within the United Kingdom, respect for the voice of the people and following their democratically delivered instruction is now the business of this House. And so it is that we must be ready to implement the will of the British people, and I make it my part to do so.

The British people have spoken and we will leave the European Union. So much of the work of this Parliament is now focused on the job at hand, and much of our work as Members must be focused on working together to get the best deal for our constituents and our country. I believe that, in doing so, we have a duty as parliamentarians to personify civility. We should resist trading in dubious charges, misrepresentations and ugly innuendos. We should demonstrate respect for all people, become good listeners and show concern for the sincere beliefs of others; although we may disagree, we ought not to be disagreeable.

I am here, then, on a mission: a mission to restore civility in politics; a mission to represent and defend the interests of Stirling; and a mission to promote and be an advocate for my home constituency and, above all, to serve the people and national interest of this United Kingdom.

20:58

[Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)]

It is difficult to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), as I stumble my way through my maiden speech. The best thing is, though, that he and I will be sharing an office for the next five years, so I will have the opportunity to polish my public speaking with the benefit of his advice.

It is interesting that this Bill is the first one that we are discussing. People are talking about the problems air travellers might have, but according to the 2011 census, nearly one in four of my constituents do not even own a passport. The Bill is clearly very important for those who do have a passport and manage to undertake overseas travel, so that their money is protected. For some people, air travel is not something they do every week or every year—it represents a one-off opportunity. It would clearly be the worst thing that could happen to them if their funds were in any way threatened by companies going out of business, so the Bill is incredibly important.

Some Members might not have been present when the Minister opened the debate, but I firmly endorse his sartorial standpoint of not taking interventions from male Members who are not wearing ties. I bought this suit at the weekend specifically to wear when making my first speech in this Chamber—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I will obviously be wearing exactly the same suit for the rest of the week, but at least for today I am looking my best.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me in today’s debate, because the good people of Walsall North, which includes Willenhall, Bloxwich, Leamore, Blakenall and Short Heath, have had to wait 41 years to hear a maiden speech from their Member of Parliament. You can only imagine how disappointed they will be when they see that the seven people who made speeches immediately before me were funny, erudite, clever and interesting—they will think, “What the hell did we wait 41 years for this nonsense for?”

In preparing for my maiden speech, I sought advice from experienced orators from both sides of the Chamber, but I think that the best advice I received came from Brendan Fisher, one of our ever-present, ever-helpful Doorkeepers. I have made a freefall parachute jump with my wife Clare and my two children, Sam and Corrine, and Brendan suggested that making a maiden speech was like doing a freefall parachute jump: there is the nervous anticipation while boarding the plane and ascending to the required altitude, before leaping, screaming, through the doors, only to find that the sensation of racing towards the ground at 100 mph is actually a pleasurable one—something that you want to repeat as soon as your feet hit the ground.

Hitting the ground running was what I needed to do to stand any chance of beating my entrenched predecessor, David Winnick. Many Members will be familiar with David as a tenacious parliamentarian. If I remember correctly, it was David’s amendment to legislation on the detention of terror suspects that led to the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, losing his first whipped vote in this Chamber in 2005. When I knocked on doors during the campaign, I realised just how assiduously David had worked on behalf of his constituents. I found many people who were not minded to vote for the Labour party—at least not under its current leadership—but were prepared to vote for David because of the good deeds he had done for them, their friends or their family. It was David’s 84th birthday last Monday and I wish to extend my best wishes to him for his birthday and his retirement.

I grew up in a house with six brothers. My dad was an Irish bus driver, and we did not have a lot of money to celebrate birthdays. There was not much money for presents, but with six lads there was quite a lot of fun and quite a lot of fighting. My parents were delighted—and, I guess, relieved—that I went to grammar school. I then went on to university—I was the first in my family to do so—and it was at university that I developed an interest in politics. As soon as I graduated, I went back to night school to do A-levels in politics and economics to give me a bit of a basic grounding. Although, unfortunately, I voted Labour the first time I voted—[Hon. Members: “Boo!”] I know, but I was actually a closet Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It was then a quick journey from joining the party as an enthusiastic activist to standing for the council, and I have served on Walsall Council for the past 18 years.

What a privilege it is now to be the MP for Walsall North. I will be building on some bostin’ work that is already going on in my constituency. For example, I recently met Peter Shirley—the irrepressible Peter—who started the Midland Food Group in 1976 on his own. Today, that business turns over in excess of £50 million a year and employs more than 250 people. It sources quality meats and cheeses locally, and its export market includes the Falkland Islands. Similarly, Walsall Housing Group—I am proud to chair the board—recently signed a deal for a joint venture to build 400 new houses in the Goscote Lane corridor. Indeed, according to a recent edition of Inside Housing, within the next two years, Walsall Housing Group will complete just over 1,100 new houses. That is what is going on under the Government: creating high-quality affordable houses and the jobs that go with their construction.

To get a job, people need a good education, so what better place to start that education than Beacon primary school in New Invention? Two years ago, the school was rated by Ofsted as requiring improvement. Boy, did that improvement come in the shape of Paul Drew, the innovative headmaster, who has raised standards not just for staff but for students. Ofsted has recently rated Beacon as a good school. It does not take money to persuade the admin staff at the school that they should be trained to help children with reading practice. That just takes forward thinking—the type that we need to see. Better education is not always about throwing money at it: it is about employing inspirational leaders.

And so to my inevitable Brexit peroration. Sixty-eight per cent. of people in Walsall North who voted in the referendum voted to leave the EU. They want a good deal for themselves and a good deal for the country, but they do not want a deal that is good just for the 68%—they want a deal that is good for the 100%. They want to know that there are local entrepreneurs who are going to create jobs and find new and exciting export markets around the world. They want to control immigration while ensuring that we have the skills to maintain a strong economy and a strong public sector. They want low-cost affordable housing for every stage of their life, and they want inspirational headteachers to give their children the best start in life. It is a privilege to speak this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope that you will call me many times in future to advocate on behalf of my constituents.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have another maiden speech. I call Bill Grant.

21:07

[Bill Grant (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) on both his note-free speech and his choice of suit, which I have been admiring like other colleagues.

The Bill deals with ATOL and is relevant to people who choose to travel by air. Like my colleagues, I am minded to welcome and support it for three reasons: it is modernising; it is harmonising; and it provides good consumer protection.

May I begin my maiden speech by saying that I am indeed honoured and humbled to be in this Chamber today, having been elected by the people of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock? It is a privilege, and I will always remember that they trusted me with their vote. I value that and will do all that I can for the constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. May I share with hon. Members part of my life’s journey? It would be terribly boring if I gave them my whole life’s journey, but for the past 10 years I was an elected councillor in South Ayrshire. My ward was in the town of Ayr on the coast. There are many good things about Ayr, but I will touch on two. Ayr racecourse is one of the UK’s premier racecourses. I invite Members to come along and spend their money there—they might even make money that they can invest to make some more. Odds on, they may lose some money. In addition, we have hosted the Scottish international air show for the past three years. For the moment, it is a wonderful event. It is not a threat to Farnborough but, in years to come, one never knows.

My time on the council was preceded by 31 years in Strathclyde fire and rescue service. I served throughout Ayrshire and the central belt, was based in headquarters for 10 years as a member of the technical support team, and finally served as a senior officer covering Argyll and Bute, and the beautiful islands—I would name them, but there are too many. It was a complex and diverse fire service, with Glasgow sadly being remembered as a tinderbox city many years ago, and I was well aware of that. Given my background, it is particularly poignant for me to deliver my maiden speech so close in time to the tragic Grenfell Tower incident, which must surely have been a hell on earth for all concerned. I await with interest the outcome of what must be a thorough and effective public inquiry.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Corri Wilson, for the good work she undertook in this Chamber and in the constituency during her period in office. I thank her and wish her well for the future. Some further thanks are due to my appointed buddy, Joanna Freeman, who is a tolerant and lovely woman. She guided me—a lost soul as one of the new MPs—through what I describe as the wonders of Westminster. I will also take a wee moment to thank my long-suffering wife, Agnes, our two daughters, Angela and Karen, and our family, who have been helpful in the journey that has brought me to this Chamber. Sandra Osborne, Phil Gallie and George Younger preceded Corri Wilson as MPs for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock. They were all excellent parliamentarians who may be remembered by some in this House.

Let me take Members back to the dark days of the second world war of 1939 to 1945, when the Labour MP for South Ayrshire was Alexander Sloan, better known locally as Sanny Sloan. A former miner and a workers’ champion, he served his community well, but regrettably, like so many miners, he was dogged by ill health and died in 1945, soon after his second victory in an election to this House. The commonality is that we were both born to mining families in the small Ayrshire mining village of Rankinston, albeit we were born some 72 years apart.

There are many proud British institutions, but I shall mention just two: this Parliament and the national health service. One wonders—dare I say it?—what the outcome would be if there were a referendum on which should be closed. I suspect that this Chamber would be empty. I thank the national health service, and Dr Nykerie and his team at the Golden Jubilee hospital in Clydebank near Glasgow, for the successful double bypass surgery that I successfully underwent in 2014. My family and I are eternally grateful to them. However, I must apologise to my constituents in Maybole, a town just south of Ayr. I waited three months for my bypass, but they have waited nearly 30 years for theirs. The town is severed by the A77, which is—excuse the pun—a main artery from the central belt of Scotland to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) for the important ferry ports at Cairnryan that serve the ferry traffic to and from our neighbours in Ireland. It is an economic driver, so the A77 is an essential link. The punishment of the 30-tonners and 40-tonners taking that journey through the villages needs to be rectified, particularly at Maybole, and I am sure that it will be.

Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock is a rural and coastal community that is, to some extent, the bread basket of Britain, with Ayrshire tatties, bacon and cheese, and Ayrshire cattle, not forgetting the—albeit smaller—fishing communities along our coast from Dunure to Maidens and Girvan, which is still an active port, and to Ballantrae in the southernmost part. The good food and eateries in the constituency are considerably more reasonably priced than those in London; they have wonderful prices. After consuming the lovely food of various eateries, visitors may wish to toast that good food with a fine whisky or a delicately distilled Hendrick’s gin from William Grant & Sons in Girvan. There is no connection. Although I am Bill Grant and they are William Grant, I do not have a distillery. Their product is wonderful. Hendrick’s gin and Grant’s whisky are global.

As an area, we have attracted many famous people. Post-war, President Eisenhower was gifted access to and the use of apartments at the beautiful Culzean castle. More recently, another President—President Trump, although he was known as Donald at the time—secured the Turnberry hotel and golf course. I thank his son Eric for the investment in this world-class facility and for securing its future and the associated employment.

We were home to Sir William Arrol, who resided at Seafield House in Ayr. More recently, that was a children’s hospital, where Dr John McClure MBE was the senior paediatrician for many years. Sir William Arrol was the engineer responsible for building the Forth rail bridge—I nearly said road bridge, but that is not the case—the gantries at Harland and Wolff in Belfast, where the infamous or famous ship, the Titanic, was built; and Tower bridge here in London.

This being an Ayrshire constituency, it would be remiss of me not to mention Scotland’s bard, Robert Burns, who was born at Alloway—the ploughman poet, whose fondness for women is renowned. The women were far more fertile than the fields he ploughed, producing numerous offspring, and I am sure he would have faced immense challenges from the Child Support Agency.

But his passion went far beyond the fairer sex, and he penned many poems and songs, with lines such as

“Ye banks and braes o’ bonnie Doon”.

From its source at Loch Doon, the River Doon gently winds its way past Dalmellington, Waterside, Patna, Polnessan, Dalrymple, Alloway and finally to the Firth of Clyde at the aptly named Doonfoot.

There is also “Afton Water”:

“Flow gently, sweet Afton, among thy green braes”.

The River Afton gently winds its way past New Cumnock, where I shall pause for a moment and mention the local football team, Glenafton Athletic, better known as The Glens, who, during the election campaign, won the Scottish junior cup by beating nearby rivals Auchinleck Talbot. To see New Cumnock bedecked in the team colours of red and white, with virtually every home displaying them, and with the lampposts adorned with bunting, was a credit to the strength and community spirit of New Cumnock, and I commend it for that and for the victory on the football park.

As we move onwards, we come to Cumnock, sometimes referred to as Old Cumnock, which plays host to Emergency One (UK), bespoke builders of fire appliances and emergency vehicles that are used throughout the United Kingdom. I commend them for their good work as they export—yes, I will use the word “export”—from Cumnock in Scotland all over the United Kingdom.

As we move on towards Ochiltree, I will stop for a moment at Dumfries House. May I give immense thanks to His Royal Highness Prince Charles for his involvement and, indeed, vision in not only saving Dumfries House for the nation but securing job opportunities in catering and tourism within and, indeed, beyond the constituency? Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock has a proud past. As the Member of Parliament for that constituency, I will endeavour to do my best to secure a promising future.

Finally, an extract from Robert Burns’s poem “To A Mouse”, which may be reflected on by many parliamentarians from all parties, whether past, present or future. It reads simply:

“The best-laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men

Gang aft agley,

An’ lea’e us nought but grief an’ pain,

For promis’d joy!”

21:18

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant). Before he spoke, he promised me that he would make me look good. By speaking so powerfully, so poetically and so brilliantly, he has already broken his first political promise—so thanks a bunch for that.

It is also a pleasure to follow my predecessor, Sir Edward Garnier. He was a brilliant constituency MP for 25 years. He is independent-minded and he is brave, but above all he is just an exceptionally nice man. He will be missed in all parts of this House, and he will be massively missed in our constituency.

It is an honour to represent the people of Harborough, Oadby and Wigston in this House, and I would like to thank them from the bottom of my heart for sending me here. There are four really striking things about my constituency. The first is the staggering amount of community and voluntary work, whether it is local charities such as Rainbows, LOROS, VAL or VASL; the award-winning work of Market Harborough in Bloom, which is visible all over the town and makes it beautiful; the strength of our local army, sea and air cadets, with whom I celebrated Armed Forces Week just the other day; or community campaigns such as the campaign to save the children’s heart unit at Glenfield hospital, which I support. The strength of our civic life is incredibly visible from the briefest look at The Harborough Mail or the Leicester Mercury, or by tuning into our community radio station, Harborough FM. A huge number of people in my constituency dedicate themselves to improving the lot of their fellow citizens, and it is absolutely inspiring.

The second striking thing about my constituency is the strong culture of enterprise. There are now nearly 4,500 businesses in the constituency—a quarter more than in 2010. There is simply nothing that the people in my constituency cannot do well. From milk floats to jet engines, we have made everything. Although we have heard speeches this evening about the invention of powered flight in Scotland, you will be relieved, Mr Speaker, to hear that we have never tried to combine the jet engine and the milk float, as that would lead to dangerous adventures, I think. My constituency is famous for farming and food, and also for textiles. One of its most famous family businesses, Symingtons, actually managed to combine both of those things, because one brother made soups which fattened us all up, and the other brother made corsets with which to constrain our bulging waistlines. You will agree, Mr Speaker, that that is a very cunning business model. Given the culture of small business, the have-a-go culture, and the culture of enterprise in my constituency, I will work to make sure that important initiatives such as the Midlands Engine and the new industrial strategy work for small business as well as big.

The third really important thing about my constituency is the open and welcoming nature of the people. Perhaps that is because we have been plugged into the global economy ever since the Romans came and built the road that now forms the eastern boundary of the constituency. I have to tell you, Mr Speaker, that not all of that road is now passable by car due to several centuries of disgraceful underinvestment by the Vikings, Normans and Saxons, but none the less, later on the canals came and put the constituency back on the map. The fantastic staircase of locks at Foxton Locks is a testament to the time when it was the spaghetti junction on the M1 of its day. In more recent decades, the constituency has welcomed people from all over the world. Sometimes they have come with absolutely nothing but the clothes on their backs, particularly the Ugandan Asians who came and settled there when they were fleeing from Idi Amin. Wherever they have come from, they have often started brilliant businesses and powered our economy forward. In our constituency, we have very good relations between all the different communities, and I will work to keep it that way.

The fourth and final thing, Mr Speaker—you will perhaps see this coming—is of course that my constituency is strikingly beautiful, from the well-kept gardens of Oadby, Wigston and Market Harborough to the gently rolling countryside, it is a lovely place to be. When we are walking near our home—me, my wife Jemma, and our little daughter Florence—tramping through the tall buttercups and the nice pink clover flowers under the big Leicestershire skies, that is about as close as it gets to heaven.

My constituency is a place of beauty, a place of opportunity, and a place with a strong community, and I want to keep it that way. To keep it beautiful, we have to start by reforming our broken planning system. We have made progress in recent years, and of course we must build more houses, but too often at the moment our planning system only builds resentment. It puts development in the wrong places and does not match new housing with the necessary infrastructure, and councillors and the community simply have too few powers relative to developers.

To extend opportunity we have to focus on education. I grew up in Huddersfield, went to a comprehensive, got to go to Oxford and have ended up in this House. I want young people in my constituency to have the same chances as I have had. It simply cannot be right that school pupils in Harborough, Oadby and Wigston get so much less funding than children in identical circumstances in other areas. The new national funding formula will start to address that injustice, and I hope that the Government will press on with it as soon as possible. I also want the forthcoming review of council funding to address the wider underfunding of Leicestershire.

To make the most of our community spirit, we have to make sure that everyone in it is included. We are an ageing society with more people living alone so loneliness is a growing problem. I commend the work of the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness and the fantastic work being done by mainly community groups in my constituency to address loneliness. I will get right behind them.

I am an optimist by nature. Yes, we are in a global economic race, but this country has better schools than ever before and a brilliant culture of enterprise. Yes, we are an ageing society, but I believe that, with more older people and time to volunteer, we have the conditions for a massive boom in our social and community life. Although this country faces some challenges, I for one believe that our best days still lie ahead.

21:26

[Mr Alister Jack (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in the Second Reading debate on this important Bill. I look forward to working with colleagues from across the House to improve the protections available to British holidaymakers.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) on his excellent maiden speech. I must also express my appreciation for the advice and guidance I have had both from hon. Members and from Officers of the House as I take my first faltering steps in this place.

I must pay tribute to my predecessor, Richard Arkless, who was elected in 2015. Richard did not have long in his role, but he made a positive contribution in those two years and I wish him very well for the future. I also pay tribute to Russell Brown, his predecessor, who served our region with aplomb for 18 years, until 2015. Russell defeated the Conservative candidate in 1997, riding on a Labour tidal wave, if you remember those days. I do: I was standing in Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, John Major was going out and Tony Blair was coming in. It was a painful experience—this is sort of therapy for me tonight. Poor old Russell came in on the Labour tidal wave, only to go out in an SNP tsunami in 2015. We may not have seen anything so dramatic at the polls in Scotland this time, but the tide is rising for the Scottish Conservatives and long may that continue.

I have the honour to represent the electors of Dumfries and Galloway, which, measuring more than 2,500 square miles, is the sixth largest constituency in the United Kingdom. From Dumfries to Stranraer, it is a combination of rolling farmland, sparkling waters and beautiful hills and forests. It captures not only two and a half counties, but the hearts of those who live there and all who visit.

Historically, Dumfries and Galloway is the birthplace of John Paul Jones, the founding father of the American navy. No President has visited us to thank us for that. There is one at the moment with a golf course in the neighbouring constituency to the north, but we are not holding our breath. It is also the resting place of Scotland’s national bard, Robert Burns—a fertile poet, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) has covered in his excellent maiden speech. I will say no more on that subject. Thanks to Kirkpatrick Macmillan, in 1840 Dumfries and Galloway gave the world the first bicycle, which I see has really caught on in this city.

Today our industry is centred on agriculture, tourism, forestry and food processing. In particular, the tourism and farming industries are the bedrock of the local economy, and are based around the small market towns of Castle Douglas and Newton Stewart. My constituency is host to some of the finest dairy herds in the United Kingdom, some of the most expansive upland sheep farms in Scotland, and of course the world-famous pedigree beef cow that is the Belted Galloway.

Our tourism market is very important to our region, and we look forward to welcoming old friends and new to treasures such as the Scottish national book town of Wigtown, with its excellent festival; the ports at Portpatrick and Kirkcudbright, the latter also famous for its artists; and the rugged scenery of the Galloway coastline and hills.

Our small communities are dependent on fishing, field sports and walking tourism, but they are also dependent on faster and wider broadband to develop home-grown businesses, and that is something I seek to improve in my new role.

I am well aware of my obligation to play my part in sustaining those rural communities, but I must also encourage economic development in the larger towns of Stranraer and Dumfries. I was born in Dumfries so I know well its issues. However, I also want to make a positive impact in Stranraer, which has seen its ferry terminal move five miles north to Cairnryan in recent years. That move has resulted in many fewer visitors to the town, but they are a resilient lot in Stranraer, with a wonderful community spirit, and I intend to support them in their regeneration efforts in every way possible. The biggest win for them would be an upgrade of the A75 Euroroute from Carlisle to Stranraer, something I have been telling the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), my neighbour across the water. I hope that he has taken it on board. That important economic artery has been ignored by Scotland’s Government for far too long.

I would like to take this opportunity to send another message to the Scottish Government. In the 2014 independence referendum, my constituents voted overwhelmingly to remain in the United Kingdom. The leadership of the SNP should respect that decision.

As we prepare to leave the European Union, it is the task of us all in this House, and in all corners of our great country, to ensure that the United Kingdom goes forward economically, socially, and constitutionally, as one nation. To that end, I look forward to working with my neighbours on both sides of the border, to bring forward the borderland growth deal for the economic benefit of the whole of the north of England and the whole of the south of Scotland.

In conclusion, I thank the House for the consideration that it has shown to me this evening. I would add only that I am proud to have been elected to represent Dumfries and Galloway; proud to be one of a baker’s dozen of Scottish Conservatives returned to Westminster; and proud that we have turned the tables and imposed a Conservative Government on the English! [Laughter.]

21:33

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to make a brief contribution to this debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) and all the other hon. Members on both sides of the House who have made wonderful maiden speeches today. Indeed, I wonder whether their eloquence in painting pictures of the treasures of their constituencies has made the Bill irrelevant. Who would want to travel abroad when we have such a wonderful array of treasures in these isles? For some inconceivable reason, people will still wish to holiday overseas so the Bill is incredibly important.

As we have heard, the way people book their holidays and travel has changed remarkably. Not that long ago, people would toddle off down to the travel agent and book a fortnight in Lanzarote or Torremolinos—whatever was their destination of choice—as one package, and that was it. People now mix and match using the internet to add on all sorts of different parts of their holiday, and it is important to upgrade the regulation—the valuable ATOL scheme that has been in place for many years—to reflect those changes. The market will continue to evolve, so it is absolutely right for the Bill to set a general framework for the new legislation that can then be augmented by specific regulation. It was a pleasure to serve with the Minister, the shadow Secretary of State and other Members on the Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. I am glad that today we are revisiting those provisions.

I will make one very brief point, which I made when I intervened on the Minister’s opening speech. It is important to have the detailed regulations in place as soon as possible. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who made an excellent speech and who is very knowledgeable in these matters, echoed that point. The industry has to plan 12 to 18 months ahead and it is anxious that we get the regulation in place as soon as possible, so that people booking holidays today for that period ahead can have the coverage and protection the scheme should provide. I will support the Bill on Second Reading tonight, but I hope the Minister will address that point in Committee. Regulation must be in place as speedily as possible.

21:35

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

It is quite something to be the last Back Bencher called in a debate where we have had, I think, nine maiden speeches back-to-back. We are ending with one of the old regulars. One point I would make to new Members is that when I arrived two years ago I was told to find a nice quiet spot from which to speak. They can see the spot I decided to pick: directly opposite the then 56 Scottish National party Members. There are now slightly fewer of them.

I represent Torbay, which is a main tourism area. Indeed, I struggle to think why anyone would not want to enjoy our beaches and our history. It is one of the most beautiful constituencies in the whole country. It is right, however, if people do go abroad, that there are important protections—the ATOL regulations—in place.

One point made in a number of interventions is that the market has changed massively since the start of ATOL. It is likely to change again so it is important that our regulatory system is kept up to date. I therefore welcome the Bill. A lot of Members mentioned their birthplaces. I enjoyed the speech made by the hon. Member from my own birthplace, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard). I was born in Freedom Fields, which he will know, and it was interesting to hear the points he made. This is a changing market, where the travel agent with a selection of brochures has been replaced by a smart phone with an app that connects people immediately with a site that can sell them everything, but not necessarily a package holiday. It is important that we keep up to date and it is right that changes are made.

Reference was made to the origin of package holidays, which can be traced back to a temperance meeting. Sadly, one of the earliest package holidays arranged by entrepreneurs out of Torbay was a trip to a public hanging in Exeter, with a trip to the races thrown in on the way back. There was a slight problem, however. The individual concerned was reprieved and spent 30 years in jail, which rather ruined their plans.

It is right that we have talked about the importance of making sure that British travel agents can compete in a marketplace larger than their own. I therefore welcome the changes that will mean it is the place where they are established that governs what system they are related to, rather than from where the first flight departs, which is the current situation under the ATOL regulations. Realistically, firms will want to sell different flights and different packages, and not be constrained by the point of origin. I hope that travellers will see the benefits of booking through British and UK-based travel agents, knowing that they have the certainty of a scheme, supported by a large pot, that has worked well for over 40 years. I do not normally rush to favour extending taxation powers, but it is appropriate that clause 1 provides the ability to extend tax-raising powers to those selling direct to consumers in a European economic area country, rather than just those in the UK.

This has been a fascinating debate. I feel like I have been on a tour of various parts of the United Kingdom, with all the maiden speeches we have heard, in a debate on people taking trips abroad to see what is on offer over there.

I certainly think that this Bill is worthy of its Second Reading. There are clearly points to go over in Committee, but the protections to ensure that nobody will be stuck abroad without being able to return are welcome. It is right that industry should bear the cost of that rather than the UK taxpayer, which would be the case if we allowed the current system to continue and did not reform it in the way suggested. It will make a real difference, and I look forward to seeing the Bill progress into Committee.

21:39

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

This has been an excellent debate, in which we have had 22 Members speak and no less than 13 maiden speeches. There have been too many to mention, but the contributions have been truly excellent, in what has been a non-contentious debate, given that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) stated at the outset of the debate, the Opposition are not opposed to the Bill; indeed, we are broadly very supportive of it. There are, however, some concerns about the impact of some provisions, so we want to press the Government on some issues.

The Bill will bring ATOL up to date and ensure that it is harmonised with the latest EU package travel directive, extending coverage to a wider range of holidays and protecting more consumers, as well as allowing UK travel companies to sell more seamlessly across Europe. Labour welcomes the extensions, which will ultimately help to protect more holidaymakers, but we want clarity on how UK consumers will be protected by EU-based companies, as they will no longer be subject to ATOL, but to member state equivalents.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl Turner]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not give way at this stage. I am hoping to mention some of the wonderful maiden speeches if I have time later.

The implications of ATOL after Brexit are also a cause for concern. Hidden in the Bill are proposals that the Secretary of State will require only the affirmative resolution procedure to significantly reform ATOL and the air travel trust fund. Labour recognises the merits of some reforms, but we believe that an impact assessment, full consultation and full scrutiny will be required before any fundamental changes are made to this well-respected consumer protection. These issues bring to the forefront uncertainties about the future of UK aviation following the decision to leave the European Union. Labour has been clear that whichever framework is chosen, the Government should prioritise retaining an essentially unchanged operating environment.

In conclusion, the Labour party broadly supports the Bill, as it will extend protections to many more holidaymakers. However, we want clarity on how EU-based companies—which will no longer be subject to ATOL, but rather to their respective member states’ equivalents—will provide protections to UK consumers. We are committed to securing the best possible framework to ensure that the sector flourishes, but this means adequately preparing ourselves for the many implications that Brexit will have for ATOL and our aviation sector as a whole.

Given that I have a few minutes, I want to mention some of the maiden speakers, kicking off with the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean). She spoke very passionately about her constituency and the fact that her daughter Ruth encouraged her to stand and continue the long tradition of Redditch electing women to Parliament. That was an excellent move, because her speech was extremely well received and very good. She also spoke warmly of her immediate predecessor, Karen Lumley, who retired from this place due to ill health. We send our very wishes to her from all parts of the House. The hon. Lady also mentioned her predecessor Jacqui Smith, who was the first woman Home Secretary from this place.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) eloquently described the need for consumer protections in this area. She spoke with great knowledge about the EU and the importance of these consumer protections given that we are leaving the EU. I understand that the hon. Lady is a Member of the European Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Laura Smith) spoke with great pride about representing the constituency in which she had been raised. She also spoke about the very important issue of gender inequality and the pay gap, and the injustice represented by the WASPI women.

The hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) rightly used his opportunity to right the wrong of forgetting to mention his wife in his general election acceptance speech. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) spoke with great passion about the constituency in which he grew up, and also spoke very warmly about his predecessor, our very own Natascha Engel, who is greatly missed here. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) spoke with great passion about his constituency as well, and also, very cleverly, mentioned his wife, referring to the fact that she had been born and bred in Runcorn.

The hon. Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) was, I have to say, very entertaining. He was, I understand, an actor, but he said that this was probably a more interesting theatre. If I remember rightly, he appeared in “Bread”, which I recall watching as a kid. That, of course, was the comedy series about a family in Liverpool who had suffered a terrible time under the Thatcher Government.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr Seely) spoke with great passion about notable people in his constituency—too many to mention—but he also decried the privatisation of the ferry service, and many Labour Members would probably agree with him. The hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) spoke with great passion about his constituency too, especially when referring to the wonderful shortbread and whisky. The hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes) spoke about a very serious issue: the fact that nearly one in four of his constituents do not own a passport, and the importance of the Bill in protecting people who spend an awful lot of their hard-earned money on holidays and expect to be protected by legislation.

The hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) spoke of the terrible tragedy that is Grenfell Tower, having had a great deal of experience as a long-standing fire officer. I am sure that the House will benefit from his expertise in that area, and in others.

The hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) told us how innovative his constituents were, making everything from jet engines to milk floats. He also mentioned the Jo Cox Commission on Loneliness, and said that he would support it. All of us, in all parts of the House, would be grateful for that support. Last but not least among the maiden speakers, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) also spoke about innovation in his constituency, in which the first bicycle was created.

The Bill is not particularly contentious, and Labour supports the Government’s efforts to legislate in this regard.

21:48

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

It is an absolute honour for me to be able to close the Second Reading debate on this Bill. I must tell you, Mr Speaker, that when I first looked at the Order Paper and saw that we had six and a half hours in which to debate a Bill consisting of four clauses, my heart slightly quailed for a second, but I would like to put it to the entire House that tonight has been an absolute triumph. I have enjoyed every speech: it has been just marvellous.

When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) stand up and quote, in the context of a number of maiden speeches, the maiden-seducing Robbie Burns himself, and not only that but mentioning his famous poem “To a Mouse”, which begins, as the House will know:

“Wee, sleekit”—

I will not do the accent—

“cowrin, tim’rous beastie,

O, what a panic's in thy breastie!”

I was tempted to think that none of the new Members speaking could count as a sleekit, cowrin or tim’rous beastie, and that the panic was likely to be in the Labour breastie. So it has been a delight. I must say it has been less a parliamentary debate than an episode of “Britain’s Got Talent”, with dazzling speeches and new voices—and especially, may I say with delight, Scottish voices from my side of the House, a rare and delightful occurrence. We have lost great colleagues across the House, but this evening has brought home to us what absolute legends we have received instead.

We have had an extremely useful debate and I warmly thank all those who have taken part, including the many Members on both sides of the House who have made their maiden speeches. As the debate has made clear, this is not a Bill that is politically charged or partisan. We are collectively seeking to act in the interest of the UK businesses that sell holidays, and in particular in the interest of the travelling public who wish to enjoy those holidays free of care. This may not be the largest of Bills when measured in terms of the number of its clauses, but it is a very large Bill when measured by its potential to bring peace of mind to people in every constituency throughout the UK.

That reassurance is what the ATOL scheme was originally created to provide, when it was set up in 1973. Today, not only does it help to prevent rogue traders from entering the market, but it provides important protection to consumers in the event that their travel organiser should fail. It has provided effective protection to consumers for over 40 years and it is well regarded both by those who use it and by the travel sector itself.

Consumer protection is an important pillar of the holiday sector owing to the nature of the market. Holidays are frequently booked and paid for many months in advance of travel, and the consumer may often be unaware of the financial stability, or instability, of their holiday providers. The impacts from the failure of a travel company can be grievous. Consumers may face a serious financial loss from not receiving a refund, or from the cost of having to make alternative arrangements to get home. Even worse, they may experience the trauma, heartache and sheer inconvenience of a cancelled holiday, or of being stranded abroad without accommodation or a ticket back.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response to the issue that we face. He will be aware that, for many holidaymakers and travellers, delayed and cancelled flights are an issue. Does the legislation that he is bringing forward address the issue for people who are in that very difficult position, whether domestically, in Europe or further afield?

[Jesse Norman]

I am not quite sure I have taken the point the hon. Gentleman has raised. If it is about Brexit, I am not expecting this to change at all. He would be welcome to put the question again if we had more time, but I am afraid I will have to move on. I apologise for that.

The ATOL scheme provides important protection in these situations. It ensures that, if an ATOL holder fails, its customers are able to continue their holiday and return home, or that they will not lose out on the money paid if they are yet to travel. Fortunately, the failure of travel companies is relatively rare, but it does happen. In the last financial year alone, 19 ATOL holders collapsed. In each of those situations, the Civil Aviation Authority had to step in to deliver the appropriate protection to consumers through the scheme.

Many colleagues will be aware of the recent failure of the Spanish online travel agent, the Lowcost Travelgroup. When that business failed last summer, it was reported that there were 27,000 customers on holiday and over 100,000 customers who were yet to travel. Although many of those customers were from the UK, the company did not have ATOL protection as it was regulated under the Spanish regime. The collapse of companies such as that is an important reminder of the need to ensure that consumer protection keeps pace with the way people book their holidays. The huge growth in online booking means that customers have a much wider choice of providers, including those based overseas. Yet it is clear from the low-cost holiday situation that not every travel provider is covered by the same level of protection, and inconsistencies apply across borders. That is why we have already begun to take steps to update the ATOL scheme and bring it into line with modern trade practices.

The Minister of State for transport, legislation and maritime, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), has already mentioned in his opening remarks the legislative changes that we made to ATOL in 2012. These introduced the flight-plus category, to bring ATOL protection to the many consumers who book mix-and-match holidays online, in addition to those who buy traditional package holidays on the high street. The then Government also introduced the ATOL certificate, so that consumers know when they have booked an ATOL-protected holiday, and who to contact if their travel provider fails. We believe these interventions have had a positive impact for consumers and many businesses. Not only have we seen an increase in the number of protected consumers, but the changes have also helped to level the playing field between online and high street businesses.

For similar reasons, we have also been working with the European Commission and EU member states since 2012 to ensure that the European regulations are also brought up to date. The original package travel directive was agreed in 1990, and its provisions were introduced into UK law through the package travel regulations of 1992. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, the ATOL scheme is a crucial means by which UK businesses can meet their obligations to have insolvency protection under the EU directive.

The EU and UK package travel regulations have contributed significantly to consumer protection rights since their introduction. However, those regulations were originally designed for a world where people booked their pre-prepared package holidays through a high street travel agent or tour operator. The regulations thus pre-date the growth in the internet, where people are able to create their own informal packages online. As the House well knows, the internet has since become a vast travel marketplace, providing opportunities for consumers and businesses. Indeed, we heard at the start of the debate that around 75% of UK holidays are now booked online.

That being the case, it is important that regulations and consumer protections are able to keep pace with major changes in the marketplace. That is why a new package travel directive was finally agreed across Europe in December 2015.

The UK Government have supported the rationale for updating the directive, in order to bring greater clarity on what constitutes a package holiday in today’s marketplace and to improve and harmonise protection across the continent. The updated package travel directive will do just that: it brings protection across the rest of Europe closer to the model we have operated since we updated ATOL in 2012. Once again, the UK is leading in Europe; that is good news for consumers.

Overall, it will mean consumers will see insolvency protection extended to cover a broader range of holidays. In particular, it has updated the definition of a package holiday, so that an informal package booked online will need to be protected in the same way as a traditional package holiday booked on the high street.

As has been noted, it also brings a new concept of “linked travel arrangements” into the scope of protection. Like a package holiday, these involve a combination of at least two different types of travel services purchased together for the purpose of a holiday. However, those arrangements are looser, involving the separate selection and payment of each travel service, and separate contracts with different travel service providers. Linked travel arrangements will not be protected to the same level as a package holiday; however, under certain conditions, a refund or repatriation will apply.

There should also be benefits to business. A harmonised approach will help to level the playing field, with the same rules applying for businesses across the EU selling similar products. This harmonised approach will also help to remove barriers for UK businesses that want to trade across borders.

Concerns have been raised about air passenger rights when the UK leaves the EU. The Government are committed to delivering an orderly withdrawal and are preparing to introduce legislation that will preserve the EU acquis on the domestic statute book for the time being. The Government are also seeking to have UK consumers continue to enjoy the strong protections and effective consumer regime that they currently enjoy both inside and outside the EU.

Today, we are taking forward the ATOL Bill to harmonise our domestic regulations with the changes coming in across the EU in 2018. As the House has heard from my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Bill will update the ATOL powers to align them with the scope of the directive. It is a fine piece of work, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Air Travel Organisers’ Licensing Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee, any proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(3) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to other proceedings up to and including Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Freer.)

Question agreed to.

Theme Parks: Child Safety

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mike Freer.)

22:00

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to raise the issue of child safety in theme parks. We in Leicester were deeply affected by the death of one of our own, Evha Jannath of Belgrave, at Drayton Manor park in Staffordshire. On the morning of Tuesday 9 May 2017, Evha woke up excited at the prospect of visiting Drayton Manor park with her school, the Jameah girls academy, which is in Rolleston Street, Leicester. She had been given £10 by her family to spend at the park. Just four days before, she had celebrated her 11th birthday. What Evha’s mother, Mussamth, did not know, when she waved Evha off that morning thinking that she would be safe and would have an enjoyable trip, was that that would be the last time she would see her. Tonight, we need to begin the process of addressing some of the issues surrounding Evha’s death, and I am grateful to see the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work in the Chamber. This is not just for the family or for the 1.5 million people who visit Drayton Manor each year, but for the millions of theme park-goers worldwide.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have sought permission from the right hon. Gentleman to make an intervention. Like many in the House, I enjoy theme parks. When we go to Florida, for example, we notice that wherever there is a level of fun, there is also a need for strict regulations. Does he agree that, when it comes to regulations that work, we should perhaps take some lessons from the Americans when we deal with our own regulations back home?

[Keith Vaz]

This is certainly something that I hope the Government will look at, once they have had an opportunity to see the reports that have been prepared by the police and the Health and Safety Executive.

On that tragic day, Evha got on the Splash Canyon ride at just after 2 pm with her school friends. According to eye witness accounts, as the Splash Canyon ride went around its circuit, Evha fell into the water as the vessels bumped into one of the sides of the ride. Having fallen into the water, Evha began walking towards her friends who were in the vessel as it was pulled away by the water current. For a few minutes, Evha followed the vessel trying to get back to safety and to rejoin the vessel, because her friends were still in it. Sadly, at that stage she received no help and was eventually sucked under the water. In his initial report, the coroner, Andrew Haigh, has suggested that Evha suffered blunt chest trauma which led to her death. In his communications with the family and with me, and especially in allowing Evha’s family to see the body for a second time—which was of particular benefit to Evha’s mother—Mr Haigh has been exceptional.

Issues of theme park safety are critical at all times, but especially as we head towards the school summer holidays. These parks across the United Kingdom earn millions of pounds, and whether it is at Disney in the United States or at Drayton Manor, adults and children must be safe to visit them. According to Health and Safety Executive data, there were 420 non-fatal injuries at theme parks in 2015-2016, with 249 of them involving children under 16. There have been three deaths since 2005. That is three too many.

All theme parks have television screens that are monitored by staff. The family want to know who was watching these screens and how Evha was left in the water for several minutes without anyone coming to rescue her. The House may recall the horrific accident at Alton Towers in June 2015 when passengers on a ride crashed into an empty carriage and many suffered appalling injuries. The fact that this tragedy could happen so soon afterwards means that certain issues were not addressed, and it is in the public interest that they are addressed immediately. Following the tragedy, a feature of this case has been how the agencies involved have gone to great lengths to help the family. I thank the Health and Safety Executive for the work that it has done so far in investigating the issue, particularly the work carried out by Catherine Cottam under the leadership of head of operations Neil Craig.

The vessels on the Splash Canyon ride have no seatbelts and a number of vessels had their

“stay in your seat signs obscured.”

Unfortunately, this incident was not the first time that somebody had fallen out of a vessel at Drayton Manor. In 2013, Patrick Treacy also fell off the Splash Canyon ride. In an interview with BBC Radio 5 live following Evha’s death, Patrick’s mother Vicky called for lap bands on the seats to ensure children or adults do not stand up on the ride. If there is a threat that children may fall out of such rides and into the water, certain safety procedures should be adopted. I fear that that was not the case at Drayton Manor after the Patrick Treacy incident and in Evha’s case the same thing happened again.

In the immediate aftermath of the incident, other major theme parks, including Alton Towers, Legoland and Thorpe Park, closed their water rides. However, the rides have since reopened without waiting for the Health and Safety Executive report. The presence of lap bands that would ensure that participants sit in their seat, but would not impede escape if the vessel capsized, must be seen as a potential solution. That would not affect their enjoyment. Clear public announcements regarding seating on rides at all parks, a member of staff escorting people to their vessels and informing them that they must remain in their seats, and clear signage are all vital, but the family feel that all that was lacking on that day at Drayton Manor. According to the children who were interviewed afterwards, they called out for help to the guards, but nothing was immediately done for them. Making sure that such rides are adequately staffed is also a priority. Perhaps it would have been better if there had been two members of staff at the start of the ride assisting children to board the vessels.

I accompanied the family, including Evha’s father Muhammed Islam, her brother Muhammed, and her uncle Mohammed, to Drayton Manor where the ride and the circumstances were explained carefully to us by the police. On behalf of the family, I thank Superintendent Steve Morray and DCI John Quilty and his colleagues for their work and for the relationship that they have built with the family. Of particular benefit was showing the family the CCTV footage of Evha’s last moments. The police investigation continues.

Evha was only 11 years old and got on the boat with five other children of the same age or younger. Children under-12 should be accompanied by an adult at all times on such rides.

I also want to raise the issue of bereavement damages for the death of a child, which are currently capped at only £15,000. That is woefully low. Although of course no amount of money can compensate for the loss of a child, we must look again at the issue of fair compensation for families. There is no cap on such payments in the United States. Legislation should be introduced to remove the cap to allow proper compensation to be given to families.

The owners of Drayton Manor have been deeply affected by the tragedy, and William Bryan wrote to me:

“the whole Drayton Manor community remains deeply saddened and upset by the terrible incident last week. I cannot comprehend the pain and anguish that the family and wider community feel right now”.

His letter was deeply appreciated. There are so many heroes and heroines who acted swiftly after Evha was discovered. I personally pay tribute to the air ambulance service for its reaction to the incident and its efforts in trying to save Evha’s life, and to the staff, who must have been horrified by what they saw.

Hundreds of people attended the funeral in Leicester, even though many of them did not know Evha personally. The Darus Salam mosque and its director, Moj Mohammed, have also been exceptional and have established a JustGiving page to support Evha’s family. Evha’s school, and particularly its headmistress Erfana Bora, provided great comfort to the family after Evha’s death.

Many legal issues remain outstanding, and I have been careful not to cross into them while the inquest is pending. The family have appointed Hilary Meredith, of Hilary Meredith Solicitors, and her legal team to deal with legal measures, and they have taken up the challenge forcefully, for which I thank them.

By themselves, even though I am sure they will be extremely thorough, the police and Health and Safety Executive inquiries will never bring Evha back. However, it is hoped that their recommendations will change how the system works. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is absolutely right that there are theme parks in other countries. Theme parks do not exist only in the United Kingdom; they exist all over the world. Millions of children enjoy going to them, and if there is an example of better practice, I hope we will be able to follow it.

Throughout May I spent a great deal of time with the family, who remain shocked and in mourning. As one would imagine, Evha’s mother is still devastated by the death of her young child. Muhammed, Evha’s brother, has taken on so much after this tragedy and has handled himself in a way that most 18-year-olds could not, and should not be asked to do. Muhammed and the family are concerned about potential negligence leading to his sister’s death.

To lose a child is horrific, but to use that loss as a means of achieving positive change, so that things can be improved for others, is nothing short of heroic. Having spoken to Evha’s father, Muhammed Islam, I know he is set on ensuring that no other family is hit by such a tragic event. No Member of this House wants to be in the position of calling for change after such a tragedy, which is why we need to ensure there is change.

The House will inevitably move on to debate other tragic events—indeed, earlier today we heard more about Grenfell Tower. However, for this close-knit and loving family, no minute will go past, no day will go by and no birthday will fail to be acknowledged without longing for their daughter, sister and niece. They will never again hear little Evha chatting and laughing, and they will never see her lovely face, which is why they want to get to the truth of what happened. They deserve nothing less.

22:15

[The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for securing this debate and commend him for the support and advocacy he has shown for his constituents. May I take this opportunity to extend my sincere sympathy to Evha’s family and friends at their immense loss, and to join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who have assisted by helping on that tragic day and since? In particular, I wish to thank him for mentioning the HSE—I am the Minister with responsibility for that body—its 50-strong fairground inspection team and, in particular, the two officers he mentioned for the leadership they have shown in this instance.

The right hon. Gentleman will know that Staffordshire police, with the HSE’s support, are currently investigating the circumstances surrounding Evha’s death and that, as a result of that ongoing investigation, I am constrained as to what I can say, particularly about this incident. However, I hope to afford him and his constituents some reassurances, within those constraints. I can confirm that Drayton Manor’s procedures for responding to emergencies at this ride, including its arrangements for identifying and rescuing anyone who falls into the water, will be examined as part of the investigation and that the ride remains closed while this investigation takes place.

Immediately after the accident, the HSE contacted Merlin, which operates similar machines manufactured by Intamin at Alton Towers and Thorpe Park. Merlin had already closed its rides so that it could conduct an in-depth check to ensure that the machines were operating correctly. It agreed to keep the rides closed until the HSE could reassure it that there was nothing physically wrong with the Drayton Manor ride that would increase the risk to passengers. The HSE did that, and the rides were closed for three days.

Once it had completed its checks, Merlin confirmed to the HSE that it had reviewed all the operating procedures to ensure they were in line with the manufacturer’s instructions and that the operators were working in accordance with their training. It also confirmed that it had reviewed the arrangements for supervising the ride and the riders, ensuring that only those who could be safely accommodated were allowed on to the ride; providing clear instructions to riders to remain in their seats while the ride is in operation, and not to stand, swap seats, lean out of the boat and so on; and ensuring that riders knew that the ride is vigorous and that they need to hold on as the boat moves down the ride. Merlin also confirmed that it had reviewed its rescue and response measures to ensure that it would know immediately that a person had fallen into the water; and that, crucially, it could stop the water flow with an emergency stop and could swiftly get someone out of the water using appropriate techniques and equipment. On the information provided, the HSE was satisfied with Merlin’s review of those other rides. That is important to mention in the immediate aftermath of that tragic incident.

Following the incident, the HSE also sent out an information note to the Amusement Devices Safety Council for onward transmission, reminding ride operators of the steps that they were required to take in order to ensure the safety of riders on water rides, in particular. Those included some of the areas that I have just mentioned. Any specific learnings that come out of the investigation at Drayton Manor will be shared with the industry so that it can ensure that they are taken on board.

As I said, the investigation is ongoing and the ride has been shut down to allow that to proceed. The specific lines of inquiry that are being followed cannot currently be disclosed, for reasons that the right hon. Gentleman will understand, but, based on the emerging findings of the investigation, the Health and Safety Executive has no information that suggests the other rides are unsafe to operate.

The investigation is also looking at the arrangements made by the school. After the incident, the Department for Education produced a statement with further advice. If necessary, it will provide additional guidance, should the investigation identify deficiencies in the processes.

Fortunately, serious issues such as this one are rare, but the right hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out that even one is one too many. This was the first drowning on a water ride in the UK. Following such an incident, the Health and Safety Executive carries out an in-depth investigation, not only to establish the causes of the incident but to achieve justice for the victims and their families. Any lessons learned will be shared with the industry, which will be required to implement them.

By way of example, as I am constrained in what I can say about the Drayton Manor incident, I shall explain what happened following the Alton Towers incident involving a multi-car rollercoaster. The operators reviewed and tested their operational and administrative procedures for clearing the block-stops on multi-car coasters. Merlin reviewed its safety management arrangements at Alton Towers and implemented a number of recommendations. Alton Towers’ staff did a series of national and international presentations explaining what went wrong and why. It is important to mention that, because the right hon. Gentleman rightly flagged up the fact that we can learn from other nations, and other nations can learn from what has happened at our theme parks.

The HSE national fairground inspection team’s work plan for this year includes the inspection of multi-car rollercoasters at specific theme parks. The HSE is working with theme park operators and their representative body, the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, to improve management systems for the control of risks associated with rides such as roller coasters. There is no room for complacency, and the lessons that can be learned from incidents are certainly disseminated, with any new requirements enforced.

If the investigations into the recent incident expose any breaches of the law, appropriate action will be taken to hold those responsible to account. If any shortcomings are found in the current regulatory regime, steps will be taken to address them. The Health and Safety Executive will act on information received about incidents in other countries. Often, that information is communicated to the executive through its contacts with the British Association of Leisure Parks, Piers and Attractions, which is a member of the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions. The Health and Safety Executive publishes its safety alerts and bulletins on its website, thus making them available to a worldwide audience. When necessary, the executive will engage with international colleagues to improve safety at fairgrounds and theme parks worldwide.

[Jim Shannon]

Before the debate, I spoke to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about Florida, where there are safety belts in all water rides, wherever they may be. That might be a simple solution, but it is perhaps one way to ensure that what happened at Drayton Manor does not happen again.

[Penny Mordaunt]

Indeed, the right hon. Member for Leicester East also mentioned other possible interventions that might have helped in this particular incident and might help in others. Indeed, on hearing about the incident I have formed a layperson’s view. One asks all sorts of questions, including about lifejackets in certain circumstances.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for the thoughtful and compassionate way in which she has responded to the debate. Does she have any indication of when the HSE will complete its report, because the inquest cannot take place until it is complete? We will then have an opportunity to look at changes that we might want to make.

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am happy to keep the right hon. Gentleman informed about that. I cannot give him a timeline today for the HSE investigation. I have inquired about that, but the investigation will be led by the evidence, so I cannot give him an end date. I understand from what hon. Members have said that they are keen that any safety measures that could be introduced are introduced now. The process that I have outlined, and the methodical review of different but similar rides will, I hope, give some assurance on that front. There are other things that they have mentioned, and which may strike us as laypeople as common-sense things to introduce. It is, like many situations, a bit more complicated than that. In cases overseas, if people have been more restricted in a boat, that has impeded their escape after an accident.

We need to wait, having assured ourselves that the immediate checks have been done on similar rides, for the HSE report. As I have outlined, any recommendations that it makes to the industry will be disseminated widely. The executive is working as swiftly as it can to complete that report so that other parts of the investigation can move forward, which I appreciate is incredibly important to the family. I would add that the HSE has commissioned research into the risks presented by water rides of this nature, as well as the current philosophy on risk control and whether that needs to change.

I assure hon. Members that the HSE will ensure that lessons are learned from this tragic event and are acted on by the industry. In the interim, measures have been taken to ensure that other rides operate safely. I thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East for introducing the debate. As things progress, I stand ready, as does my Department, to assist him and his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

22:28

House adjourned.

Written Statements

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

Monday 3 July 2017

Energy Post-Council Statement

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

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

The second Energy Council of the Maltese presidency took place in Luxembourg on 26 June. I represented the UK.

The Council began with the Commission (Vice President Šefčovič) presenting the recommendation for a mandate to commence negotiations with the Russian Federation on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline. It reiterated its commitment to ensuring energy supply routes to the EU complied with the rules of the third energy package, including diversification and security of supply, which was supported by the member states that intervened. The presidency noted the legal and political concerns raised by the Council.

The Council then discussed the energy efficiency directive on which the main outstanding issues were whether the EU-level energy efficiency target should be binding or indicative, and whether early efforts generating long-term savings could be counted towards the 2030 energy-saving obligation. Some member states supported maximum ambition; others called for more flexibility so that ambitious targets could be met.

The presidency made further efforts to find a compromise that could command a sufficient majority but texts which might have been acceptable to the UK were blocked by a group of member states demanding a more ambitious target yet less flexibility for member states to be able to meet them. Ultimately a general approach was adopted that included a higher EU-level energy efficiency target of 30% and some limited flexibilities for member states to achieve their binding national energy savings target. Eight member states voted against the proposal, on the basis that it ran counter to the position of the European Council in 2014. Although the balance of the proposal would have been acceptable to the UK, we were unable to support the text because the Commission refused to confirm the joint understanding reached with the UK in 2013 on what could be counted towards our 2020 binding national energy savings target. This could materially impact on our ability to meet our 2020 target.

Next, the presidency presented its compromise proposal on the energy performance of buildings directive, emphasising the uptake of electric vehicle charging points as the centrepiece of the revisions, and the increased flexibility for member states compared to the Commission’s initial proposal. The Commission (Commissioner Cañete) highlighted what it saw as a loss of ambition. Member states supported the balance of the presidency’s proposal and the Council agreed on a general approach, although some member states, including the UK, noted the need for measures to be economically and technically feasible.

The Council then discussed energy interconnectors at the request of Spain and Portugal, who sought binding targets for interconnection and funding for the required infrastructure. The Commission reiterated its commitment to the 2015 Madrid declaration on developing interconnectors, and highlighted the future discussion of this issue at the high-level group in September.

Finally, the presidency noted the intention of working groups to move forward on the six remaining legislative files that comprise the clean energy package; the Commission updated Council on a number of external energy relations issues over the past six months, including discussions on energy co-operation with China, Japan, Africa and Iran, and the development of the Eastern Mediterranean as a gas supplier, in order further to improve diversification of supply, The Estonian delegation presented the priorities for its upcoming presidency, which focused on electricity market design but also included negotiations on other elements of the clean energy package and the mandate for Nord Stream 2.

[HCWS20]

DCMS: Digital

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)]

With agreement of the Prime Minister, we can confirm an addition to the Department name. DCMS will change from Department for Culture, Media and Sport to Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The Secretary of State’s full title will be the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. All responsibilities and portfolios within the Department remain the same. The Department will still be referred to as DCMS.

[HCWS22]

Fisheries

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Michael Gove)]

As part of the wider process of becoming an independent coastal state, the UK will be withdrawing from the London Fisheries Convention. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will today formally give notice under the convention.

This is the first step towards taking back control of our fishing waters and creating a policy that leads to a more competitive, profitable and sustainable fisheries industry for the whole of the UK.

We are committed to acting as a responsible coastal state. We look forward to working closely with the EU and other coastal states to ensure the sustainable management of fish stocks in accordance with our rights and obligations under international law including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the UN Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA).

[HCWS21]

Delayed Transfers of Care

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House about action we are taking to address delayed discharges from hospital in advance of this winter. Last year there were 2.25 million delayed discharges, up 24.5% from 1.81 million in the previous year. The Government are clear that no-one should stay in a hospital bed longer than necessary: it removes people’s dignity, reduces their quality of life; leads to poorer health and care outcomes for people; and is more expensive for the taxpayer.

In this year’s mandate to NHS England I set a clear expectation that delayed transfers of care (DToCs) should equate to no more than 3.5% of all hospital beds by September. Alongside this, the spring 2017 Budget announced an additional £2 billion to councils in England over the next three years to spend on adult social care services.

The system has worked extremely hard to agree spending plans and put in place actions to make use of the £1 billion provided in 2017-18 to meet the three purposes of the funding:

meeting adult social care needs;

reducing pressures on the NHS, including getting supporting more people to be discharged from hospital when they are ready; and,

ensuring that the local social care provider market is supported.

Since February, there have been significant improvements within the health and care system, with a record decrease in month-on month delayed discharges in April 2017. We are supportive of the best performing systems where local government and the NHS are working together to tackle the challenge of delayed transfers of care. However, we are clear that we must make much faster and more significant progress well in advance of next winter to help free up hospital beds for the sickest patients and reduce pressures on overcrowded A&E departments.

This is why today we are setting out a further package of measures to support both the NHS and local government to reduce delays. This package supports all organisations to make improvements, and includes:

The integration and better care fund planning requirements 2017-19, clarifying how this, and other aspects of the better care fund planning process, will operate.

Joint NHS England, NHS Improvement, Local Government Association and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services guidance on implementing trusted assessors.

A performance dashboard showing how local areas in England are performing against metrics across the NHS-social care interface including delayed discharges.

Plans for local government to deliver an equal share to the NHS of the expectation to free up 2,500 hospital beds, including a breakdown of delayed days per 100,000 of the population and the indicative reduction levels required by each local authority and local NHS, which can be shared out differently at local level if agreed by both organisations.

Considering a review, in November, of 2018-19 allocations of the social care funding provided at spring Budget 2017 for areas that are poorly performing. This funding will all remain with local government, to be used for adult social care.

In addition, I have asked the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission to commission 12 reviews of local areas to consider how well they are working at the health and social care boundary. A further 8 reviews will be commissioned based on the performance dashboard and informed by local authority returns due in July. These reviews will commence immediately with the majority complete by the end of November, with a view to identifying issues and driving rapid improvement.

We are also putting in place a comprehensive sector-led support offer and in early July NHS England, NHS improvement, Local Government Association, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services and the better care support team are publishing the definitive national offer to support reductions in delayed transfers of care to all areas.

The health and care system has committed health and social care staff and managers up and down the country working every single day to deliver the best outcomes for people. Today’s announcement will give our workforce and their leaders clarity on how the Government expect the NHS and local government to work together to achieve this joint ambition.

[HCWS24]

Resettlement

Monday 3rd July 2017 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

As the Syria crisis enters its seventh year, civilians continue to bear the brunt of a conflict marked by unparalleled suffering, destruction and disregard for human life. This crisis, and wider instability across the world, is driving thousands of refugees and migrants towards Europe’s borders.

The UK has been at the forefront of the international response and has pledged £2.46 billion to help address the humanitarian crisis, complemented by continued diplomatic efforts in the region to end the conflict. Our direct support has reached hundreds of thousands of people in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Egypt. By meeting basic humanitarian needs and helping to create new opportunities, we aim to help Syrians to build a life in neighbouring countries.

As part of our comprehensive approach to the Syria crisis, the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme (VPRS) was launched in January 2014 and expanded in September 2015. In 2016 the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state. The scheme, to date, has focused on Syrian nationals because they formed an easily identifiable cohort of vulnerable refugees who have fled the conflict and whose needs are clearly evident. This focus has enabled us to provide a quick and effective response to the crisis.

The scheme sees us working closely with the UNHCR to identify individuals who are most at risk in the region and whose particular needs can only be met in countries like the UK. Up to the end of March 2017, 7,307 Syrian nationals had been resettled across the UK under the Syrian VPRS, half of whom are children, and we are on track to meet our commitment of resettling 20,000 refugees by 2020. This is in addition to our vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme launched last year, which will see us resettle up to 3,000 of the most vulnerable children and their families from the middle east and north Africa region by 2020. We remain committed to resettling the overall number of refugees previously announced on both schemes.

However, whilst the Syrian VPRS is aimed at the most vulnerable Syrians, there are additional groups in the region who have fled Syria and are also extremely vulnerable but who may not be able to access one of our resettlement schemes. UNHCR’s advice is that a diversified resettlement quota is needed in order to address the needs of the most vulnerable refugees from all refugee populations in the region.

In light of this, with immediate effect, I am amending the scope of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme to enable UNHCR to refer the most vulnerable refugees in the MENA region who have fled the Syrian conflict and cannot safely return to their country of origin, whatever their nationality.

The Government are committed to an effective response in the affected regions and to resettling the most vulnerable; this includes those who had sought refuge within Syria prior to the conflict and been recognised as refugees. We will continue to rely on UNHCR to identify and refer the most vulnerable refugees but will no longer limit the scheme solely to those with Syrian nationality. UNHCR will only refer to us those who are genuine refugees, in that they cannot seek the protection of their home country.

This change will also mean that mixed family groups are eligible for resettlement under the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. This change might also open up the scheme to other groups, such as Iraqi minorities who sought refuge in Syria, but had to flee again as a result of the Syria conflict.

This remains within the overall spirit of the then Prime Minister’s 2015 commitment while recognising that other nationalities who had resided in Syria have been impacted by the same conflict. This decision demonstrates the UK remains fully committed to playing its part in the global migration crisis. We continue with our approach of taking refugees from the region—from Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Egypt—as well as providing life-saving humanitarian assistance such as the £2.5 million migration emergency response fund in response to the Mediterranean migration crisis. Our approach is rightly based on targeting our support so that it delivers the most impact, helps those who need it the most, and avoids unintended consequences.

This provides refugees with a more direct and safe route to the UK, rather than risking the hazardous journey to Europe which has tragically cost so many lives. Local authorities and partners play a vital role in helping those arriving here to settle into a new life in the UK. I am grateful for the way in which over 235 local authorities across the UK have stepped up to provide places for those arriving under the resettlement schemes.

We can be proud of the contribution the UK is making to support refugees, including the support and generosity from the British public, and I believe that this policy change will help us to continue to support the most vulnerable refugees fleeing Syria.

[HCWS23]

House of Lords

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Monday 3 July 2017

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

Oaths and Affirmations

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

14:35

Lord Moonie and Lord Ricketts took the oath, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Retirements of Members

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Announcement

14:36

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from 30 June, of the noble Lord, Lord Feldman, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lords for their much-valued service to the House.

Education: English Baccalaureate

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:36

Asked by

[The Earl of Clancarty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will respond to the public consultation Implementing the English Baccalaureate which closed on 29 January 2016.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, the results of the consultation on implementing the English baccalaureate and the Government’s response will be published in due course—I hope soon.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, is this long delay because the overwhelming public response voices the concern that the EBacc excludes art and design subjects? I ask the Minister not to continue to justify the EBacc with the New Schools Network stats on the percentage of pupils taking one arts GCSE, which represented a shift away from other qualifications, but instead to look at the latest Ofqual figures revealing—two years in a row—a hugely alarming 8% decline in the take-up of arts GCSEs. The EBacc must be scrapped.

[Lord Nash]

I can tell the noble Earl that it is not a result of the points he has made. We have been considering carefully a great many responses, and there have been a few political issues in the meantime. I am certainly encouraged to see that we have been improving the quality of these subjects with help from the Royal Academy of Engineering and the James Dyson Foundation. The decline in the subjects to which the noble Earl refers has been more than made up for in the substantial increase in the number of pupils taking IT and the now almost 70,000 pupils taking computing.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the GCSEs which are just now finishing this term have seen a drop in every technical subject and every creative and artistic subject? If this trend continues, there will be no technical education or creative education in schools for those aged under 16. This is a disgrace and really is unacceptable. Changes must be made to the EBacc, otherwise the Government will not meet their objective to improve technical education.

[Lord Nash]

I refer to my previous remarks about the take-up of computer science and the dramatic increase in the number of pupils taking IT. Of course, we must always remember the very low base that we had in 2010 when only one in five pupils was taking a core suite of academic subjects, which we know are so essential particularly for those from a disadvantaged background. I think that we should all be extremely pleased that we have actually doubled the percentage, which is rendering our education provision much more fit for pupils, particularly for pupils from a disadvantaged background.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister please explain the remarks he made in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty? I believe he said that the loss of entries into the creative subjects is more than made up for by an increased number of entries for IT and computer science. Can he explain in what way those things compensate for one another?

[Lord Nash]

Numerically. I think we all know that the quality of some of these subjects was not what it might be, and that quite a few people were taking some of them not because they suited them but because they were easier. Of course all schools teach many of these subjects, although it may not necessarily lead to exams, and of course all schools have to provide a broad and balanced curriculum—something which the new chief inspector seems to be particularly focused on, which I am very pleased to see.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a GCSE is a good basis for starting study? As there has been a drop of 50,000 in the number of those taking design and technology GCSE, how do we get a good basis for those going on to study creative and technical subjects if we cut a subject such as that?

[Lord Nash]

I agree that a GCSE is an extremely good basis. In fact, the drop in take-up of design and technology over the last six years has been less than the drop over the previous four years to 2010. We are keen to improve the quality of those subjects and to give our pupils a wider choice of subjects.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, given that the Government frequently salute the creative industries for what they bring into the Exchequer and the tourists they bring to this country, is the Minister not concerned about the next generation of creative artists, who are not getting the necessary inspiration they need while at school?

[Lord Nash]

Again, this assumes quite a lot. As I said, it is clear to us that a number of pupils taking these subjects in the past were not the next generation of creative artists; they were people that suited, for instance, the Labour Government’s equivalence structure, whereby they were helping the statistics. Heads will respond only to the incentives set for them. We have set them an incentive to have many more pupils doing a core academic suite of subjects. That seems to be working and we should celebrate that. But we are investing considerably in the creative subjects, and we have a number of free schools and technical colleges focused specifically on that.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I very much note the concerns expressed by noble Lords on the teaching of creative and technical subjects, but, perhaps offering the Minister some welcome respite, I will look at another aspect of this Question: the rather worrying trend developing in the Department for Education and its Ministers of the inordinate amount of time it takes them to respond to consultations. In January this year, I asked in a Written Question how many DfE consultations that had a closing date between January 2015 and September 2016 had still not been responded to, including the one in the Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. The Minister replied, saying that there were seven—one of which, incidentally, was the revision of fire safety for buildings in schools. That cavalier approach may have been something the Government felt they could get away with when they enjoyed a majority. Now that the Tories are merely the largest of the minority parties down the Corridor, will the Minister commit to noble Lords that he will ensure his department replies to consultations in a much timelier manner?

[Lord Nash]

I do not think that this slow pace of response is in and of itself necessarily cavalier, but I have said I very much hope that our response on EBacc will be available shortly, and I shall do all I can to try to make sure that we respond quickly in future.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend truly satisfied that we are exposing our young people to the beauties of art and music, and giving them a proper opportunity to participate, in what is becoming an increasingly depersonalised age where young people spend more time with their machines and hand-held devices than they do with their fellows?

[Lord Nash]

I certainly agree with my noble friend’s comment about the amount of time our young people spend gazing at screens of one sort or another and the balance that subjects such as music, dance and drama can provide. Of course, all good schools do this, not necessarily aiming at exams—music and dance are compulsory in key stages 2 and 3, as is drama up to key stage 4. As I said, the chief inspector is very focused on this. I am sure that noble Lords will see the fruits of that work in due course.

Youth Services

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the need for youth services and how they propose to fund those services.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)]

My Lords, local authorities are responsible for assessing local need for youth services and allocating funding. The Government recognise the importance of activities and services outside formal education settings that can help young people develop skills, improve well-being and participate in their communities. The Government are investing up to £80 million through the Youth Investment Fund and the #iwill fund in voluntary and community organisations that work with young people and are continuing to back the National Citizen Service.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. Of course, I do not think that that is too little, but local authorities are all cutting back. The Avenues youth centre on Harrow Road has been in existence for 40 years. For the first time, the council has cut all grant to that body. Not only is this a time when young people need to have their outlooks broadened and some joy in life, but we and they need to be protected from knife carrying and the terrible occupations that can easily fill in work for idle hands. How does the Minster think the voluntary sector will cope with that?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

As I said in my previous Answer, local needs are best addressed by local authorities. It is not the ideal position of central government to look at local needs such as those to which my noble friend referred. However, it is not just a question of local authority spending. That is why we are spending £200 million on the National Citizen Service, £40 million on the #iwill fund—looking after a third of its running costs—£40 million on the Youth Investment Fund and £10 million from LIBOR fines for uniformed youth groups. Importantly, we are spending £700,000 on the Delivering Differently for Young People programme, which gives local authorities technical and legal support to help them develop new models for delivering youth services.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, it is all very well saying that decisions are best made locally, which of course they are, but if the Government reduce the funding to local authorities by more than two-fifths, it is inevitable that youth services and other non-statutory mainstream services will suffer. The Government have a responsibility. What are they going to do about the fundamental issue underlying the noble Baroness’s Question, which is that there is a problem in terms of activities for young people which should be properly resourced and funded?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

When local authorities have to make difficult choices, who would noble Lords rather did that—the local authority or central government? We have provided additional money to enable local authorities to look at sustainable models. There are very good examples of local authorities which have grabbed the opportunity, looked anew at how to provide youth services and done it with local partners. I can give the example of Knowsley.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome what the Minister said about additional investment, but going beyond the local and thinking about national security—in terms of preventing the radicalisation of young people and the creation of gangs—does he not think it vital that we invest in youth services? These have been cut to ribbons in the recent cuts arising from the economic crash—they have been decimated. I welcome the money, but so much more work is needed. Will he and colleagues consider putting youth services on a statutory basis so that they are protected over time?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The noble Earl may be aware that such services are on a statutory basis, and local authorities have a statutory duty to provide them. If we just take specific examples from recent years, Unison reported on the cuts to local youth services. For 2014-15, it reported that £85 million was cut. In the meantime, the Government spent £170 million on NCS, £10 million on the Uniformed Youth Social Action Fund, £300,000 on the British Youth Council, £500,000 on Delivering Differently and £270,000 on the Centre for Youth Impact. That is some £128 million against £85 million of cuts. My central point remains that difficult decisions should be made locally. It is not true that, for the reasons that the noble Earl expressed, the Government are doing nothing—let alone the National Citizen Service, which the coalition started in 2011 and which now has about 100,000 young people going through it.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, it has long been clear that voluntary agencies deliver more effectively and at lower cost youth services such as those discussed and as a result keep children out of crime. What are the Government doing to encourage and support the voluntary sector in this vital area?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

For example, there is the National Citizen Service, which I keep mentioning—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

I do so because I think it is vital. When the National Citizen Service Bill went through the House, it received virtually unanimous support because it was regarded as a good thing. I encourage noble Lords to visit the NCS during the Summer Recess. They will be impressed. We deliver 80% of that service through local community action groups. The money that central government allocates is spent through local charities, authorities and voluntary groups in the various regions of the country.

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that cuts to youth services, public health, libraries and education all hit hardest young people in the poorest and most vulnerable communities? What assessment have the Government made of the impact of these cuts in such communities? What are they going to do about that?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The Government looked at these particularly disadvantaged areas and set up the Youth Investment Fund, funded by DCMS and the Big Lottery Fund. It will award £40 million to the most disadvantaged areas in the country.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister accept that those of us who believe in local government in England despair at the way Westminster and the Government appear to be determining priorities? It is no good saying that local authorities have a statutory duty to provide when there is no quantity attached to that. The Minister keeps referring to local authority choice, but there is none in England: Westminster decides what can be spent and therefore determines what is needed. When will those of us in the English local authority system get the sort of money the Government appear to be spending per capita in Northern Ireland?

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

It is not true that it is just a question of local authority cuts. That is why central government is spending £40 million on the Step Up To Serve #iwill fund, £40 million on the Youth Investment Fund and £200 million on the National Citizen Service. They are providing real money to help youth services all around the country.

Overseas Development Assistance

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

14:53

Asked by

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to consult non-governmental organisations and development aid charities regarding the commitment in their manifesto to work with like-minded countries to change the rules relating to overseas development assistance.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, we are consulting with civil society organisations to hear what rule changes they believe would be beneficial in helping us deliver the sustainable development goals. NGOs have been invited to share with us their thoughts and indications as to what changes might be envisaged as part of a wide consultation process.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that response but the question was about what the Government are thinking. In 2016, Justine Greening sought from the DAC changes to accommodate the SDGs. What more changes do this Government want? They should come clean about that and then consult properly. Does the Minister not accept that if the United Kingdom went alone on these changes it would break the international rules-based agreements we have, which would have severe consequences for international development?

[Lord Bates]

Of course we are not talking about going it alone. The OECD and DAC process is made up of 30 countries. It is a consensus operation and we have to work with colleagues to bring about the changes that we seek. The Secretary of State convened a meeting of 18 NGO leaders in the department last Wednesday, which I attended. It was a very productive session. The first thing it recognised was that the existing rules were not perfect. The second thing, which we are absolutely sure about, was that it was essential to preserve the primary purpose of aid; namely, economic development. That will remain our focus as we consult colleagues on the DAC, NGOs and other parties here.

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, it is often the small organisations working at grass-roots level that can really make a change and a difference to the poorest communities around the world, but they find it very hard to apply for these grants; there are often very complicated procedures to get the money. Will my noble friend please tell me what is being done to help these small organisations access funds?

[Lord Bates]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Small organisations often bring innovation to the process, passion and low overheads, which are deeply needed in the way that we develop aid. As part of that process, the Secretary of State has announced that we are going to launch a small charities challenge fund aimed particularly at small organisations with a turnover between £25,000 and £250,000 for accountable grants of £50,000 each. We will be making an announcement about that next week but I will certainly make sure that all Members of your Lordships’ House, who I know follow these matters closely and have good links to many small charities doing amazing work around the world, have details of that fund.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, as part of this consultation will the Government publish an assessment of the impact of the changes that were made in 2016—they were indeed made to accommodate the sustainable development goals, as well as the UK priority of investment in conflict-affected and fragile states—before then asking for more?

[Lord Bates]

That is certainly something that we will look at once we figure out the exact routes that we are going down. We have identified a number of areas. For example, development assistance is available post-conflict to rebuild countries but when it comes to peacekeeping, only a small percentage of that budget is attributable to development assistance. When we want to help with training militaries in how to prevent sexual violence in conflict, we find difficulties in getting that element there. When we want to look at refugees providing vocational assistance here in the UK, that is deemed to be a benefit to the national economy and therefore is not allowed. So there are a few things here but the essential point, which the noble Lord is absolutely right about, is that we have to work together on this to resolve those differences with the primary purpose in mind.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to press further the point that the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, made. Will the Minister share with your Lordships’ House a definition of ODA that the Secretary of State will be content with, bearing in mind that she is on record as saying that she would like to see the department that she now leads abolished?

[Lord Bates]

She is also on record as a passionate defender of the 0.7% target. That was in the Conservative manifesto; it was secured under a coalition Government and maintained under a Conservative Government, and it is something that we are extremely proud of. The fact that we have a 0.7% commitment does not mean that everything to do with reform should stop there. We want to make sure that every single penny and pound of that is directed to the people who are in the greatest need because we cannot afford to leave them behind when there is so much need visible around the world.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the prime aim of aid as economic development. We have discussed before in this House how economic development cannot take place without investment in health and in the empowerment and education of women. The UK is a respected global leader in many of these areas: malaria, neglected tropical diseases, maternal and child health, and the education of women and girls. Can the Minister assure the House that any changes that are made will not be to the detriment of continuing investment in the areas in which we have proved to be effective and successful?

[Lord Bates]

I can certainly give that assurance. In fact, health is one of the key areas in which we have been investing heavily. I know that the noble Baroness has taken a great interest in neglected tropical diseases. We announced a further £200 million for that cause, which is saving hundreds of thousands of lives, just a few months ago.

Fire Safety: Schools

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Baroness Walmsley]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the Grenfell Tower fire, what plans they have to review their guidance Fire safety in new and existing school buildings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, our thoughts and prayers are with the relatives, friends and families, and all those people affected by the Grenfell tragedy. The department certainly has no plans to introduce any changes to its guidance that would make fire safety laws for schools less strict. Alongside the rest of government, we will review and act appropriately on any findings from the tragic events at Grenfell Tower. We are undertaking an analysis of all school buildings to identify any at a fire risk from cladding.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his reply and share his concerns about the victims of Grenfell. Is he aware that last year the London Fire Brigade did 184 school fire safety consultations and that, despite it feeling that all new and refurbished schools should have sprinklers fitted, only 2% of such schools were fitted with them? This indicates that the current guidance is not being followed. Given that sprinklers can save lives and reduce the rising cost of property damage, will the Government commit to making sprinklers mandatory in new and refurbished schools and producing up-to-date and robust information about the cost of school fires in lives, cash and educational disruption?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, all new schools must comply with fire safety guidance before they are allowed to open and only in those assessed as low risk are sprinklers not expected to be installed. The number of fires in schools has halved in the past 10 years. The department is not aware of the claims that the noble Baroness makes. Our recent consultation involved discussions with experts from across the fire sector, including the Chief Fire Officers Association and the London Fire Brigade. We would welcome any intelligence that they or she have to offer in relation to this.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the school immediately adjacent to Grenfell Tower is the Kensington Aldridge Academy. It has sprinklers installed, thanks to the regulations that I pushed through when I was a Minister, with the presumption that all new schools should have fire sprinklers fitted. Has the Minister seen the figures from the London Fire Brigade that show that, in the nine years since those regulations came in, there have been 717 fires in schools in London and in only 15 of those schools were sprinklers installed? I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said. Now is the time to go further than the regulations I agreed, to listen to the London Fire Brigade and to make sprinklers mandatory in all refurbishments as well as all new schools.

[Lord Nash]

I am fully aware of the situation in Kensington Aldridge Academy, which is right next door to Grenfell Tower, and that a number of its pupils have died. Of course we will look at this further. We have not changed the regulations. The regulations that the noble Lord introduced are still extant. Although we thought they were absolutely on the right lines, we thought that in some ways they were a little long and potentially confusing. We have been discussing some changes, but we have no intention of changing those regulations and we would welcome discussions with anybody about any further changes and improvements they think are necessary.

[Lord Brookman (Lab)]

My Lords, with many other Peers of the realm, I sit on the All-Party Group for Fire Safety and Rescue and sprinklers and the Fire Brigades Union and so and so forth. I have to tell the House that the most frustrating of meetings take place because these people who are really keen on having sprinklers all over the country, not in Scotland or Wales but excluding England, are very frustrated that the Government of the day are not acting accordingly.

[Lord Nash]

As I mentioned, the recent rather technical consultation we had on the precise wording upset a few people who thought we were reducing the expectation, which we certainly were not. I thought I had pretty much reached an agreement with the APPG on this—but I am very happy to have further discussions.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I am also a member of the APPG for Fire Safety and Rescue, which I joined when I came into your Lordships’ House because the primary school where I was chair of governors burned down in 2004. Because one and a half classrooms survived, it was deemed to be a refurbishment, and under the guidance there was no requirement to increase the level of safety to that required in new schools. The key thing for both new and refurbished schools is that the Government’s advice is advice—it is not statutory. Will the Minister ensure that it becomes mandatory to have the highest standard of safety protection, including sprinklers, in all schools, new and refurbished?

[Lord Nash]

We would expect all schools to follow that guidance, but I certainly will look at the point the noble Baroness makes.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

I, too, am a member of the all-party fire group. Is it not right that Members of this House and others who comment from outside should now take a deep breath and hold back a little and allow those who are competent in this world to tell us what action is needed? These actions should flow from proper, deep investigation—and hopefully we as a House will be told as soon as possible what changes are to be made.

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes an extremely sensible suggestion. We will have to wait on this, but the DCLG has set up an independent expert advisory panel to advise the Government on any immediate measures needed to make buildings safe. That panel met for a full day last Thursday.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, what discussions has the Minister or any of his colleagues had with his counterparts in Scotland to exchange experiences north and south of the border and advice? Here is another sensible suggestion: if he has not had any meetings so far, will he do so now?

[Lord Nash]

We have had conversations on this, particularly in relation to recent events and to universities, but I will look more closely to see whether there is more we can learn.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, closer to home, given the long delay to the refurbishment of this building, is the Minister satisfied about fire precautions in the Palace of Westminster?

[Lord Nash]

I do not think that I am qualified to answer that question.

Inshore Fisheries

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Private Notice Question

15:07

Tabled by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they intend to police and enforce the new regulations for UK inshore fishing waters.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has a robust enforcement system, delivered by the Marine Management Organisation, or MMO, and the Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authorities, or IFCAs, in England. The MMO covers the UK’s exclusive economic zone from six nautical miles to 200 nautical miles or the median line, while the IFCAs cover the area from zero to six nautical miles. As we leave the EU, we will need to review and reflect on the level of fisheries enforcement required.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I have to say that this simple sailor is absolutely stunned by it, as it shows amazing complacency. The bottom line is we have very few vessels involved in this and they are not properly co-ordinated centrally. We have already seen a number of the countries involved saying, “To hell with what you say, we’re coming there anyway”. We will be made a laughing stock if we apply some rules and cannot enforce them. Will we now establish a centralised command system to control the various assets we have—far too few of them to be able to focus on things such as someone fishing illegally in the six-to-12 mile zone? Will we also ensure that we build some more ships and boats so that we can actually enforce this?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the best thing may be if the noble Lord would be prepared to come with me to Newcastle to see the vessel-monitoring system, which I have learned a great deal about since his Question was on the Order Paper. It is a digital service which enables us to target those areas, so that we know every vessel that is at sea within our waters. I have some very interesting statistics on enforcement by the Royal Navy and others. In addition to that, not only are there three offshore patrol vessels but a further five new River class offshore patrol vessels are currently being built. They will be used for, among other things, fisheries protection. However, as I said earlier, we will have to review what we need to ensure that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that if we are to have sustainable fishing in the longer term, which obviously will need to be based on clear scientific evidence, there has to be some alignment and co-operation with neighbouring countries? Fish stocks cannot be managed unilaterally—fish shoals can sometimes move hundreds of miles. Indeed, our own fishermen sometimes fish from the north of Russia right down to southern Portugal. This cannot be resolved by a unilateral declaration. There have to be detailed discussions because, as we know from the very good Brexit fisheries report produced by your Lordships’ House, there is an incredibly complicated set of agreements in place. I hope the Minister will take the message back to the Secretary of State that there is no point in just making a unilateral declaration on this; there have to be thoughtful, detailed discussions on the future.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I agree with a lot of what the noble Baroness says. We need to base our decisions on science. We have a responsibility under international law to have sustainable fish stocks, and I am pleased that in this country we have had some considerable successes in getting sustainable yields. The basis of this is that we have given two years’ notice that we intend to leave the London fisheries convention, which is necessary under legal advice. We now need to negotiate with our partners and friends in Europe so that, as I say, we have a sustainable fishing industry. Also, for the first time we will have the ability to decide who fishes in our waters.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

My Lords, our fishing industry contributes less than 0.5% to our country’s GDP, yet it is hard to think of any industry that will be affected more by Brexit, along with the rural communities that fishermen come from. How are the Government going to guarantee that our fishermen and their industry are not used as a bargaining chip in the Brexit negotiations?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I say to the noble Baroness that the chief executive of the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has said today that our giving withdrawal notice from the London fisheries convention,

“is welcome news and an important part of establishing the UK as an independent coastal state with sovereignty over its own exclusive economic zone”.

The noble Baroness says that the fisheries sector makes a small contribution to our GDP, but it contributes £1.3 billion to the economy, employs 34,600 people in 6,000 fishing vessels, and landed 708,000 tonnes of fish worth £775 million. To the coastal and fishing communities of this country, the United Kingdom, that is a very important consequence. I assure her and your Lordships that we will be very conscious of their interests.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does this mean that the inshore fishermen, with vessels under 10 metres, will have a higher quota? That would be very good news.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I am sure your Lordships will understand that these issues are all subject to negotiation. However, one of the things that we wish to do, in having the ability to control our own waters, is have a sustainable domestic fishing industry.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, almost exactly a year ago the EU sub-committee of this House published the first of the Brexit reports on fishing. Could the Minister tell the House what he thinks was the most significant paragraph in it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I remember replying to the debate on that very interesting report, but I am afraid I cannot remember the precise details. I know that it featured the phrase “the requirement for co-operation”, which is clearly important; that it said we need to fish sustainably, which is also important; and that the sub-committee saw that there were opportunities for the domestic fishing industry. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and the sub-committee giving us a very helpful and important report, which has and continues to have considerable consideration by the department.

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, is not the noble Lord, Lord West, with whom I often agree on many matters, arguing that the Royal Navy is out of control on fishing protection? Surely, that cannot be right.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

We rely very much on the Royal Navy and I am pleased to acknowledge what it does, and has done over centuries, to help us with the protection of fisheries. It is very important that we work with the Royal Navy, Border Force and a number of other agencies, including the National Crime Agency, so that we not only have a sustainable and successful fishing industry but we co-operate, which we must do, with our partners in Europe so that we have robust and clear negotiations.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, will the Government guarantee as part of these discussions that the correct, accurate powers will be devolved to the devolved Administrations, where the powers coming back from Brussels tie in with the existing devolution settlement? Will they further guarantee that there will be an effort across the United Kingdom to establish a UK common fisheries policy with the co-operation of the four nations of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord said, and that is one area where close discussion and co-operation with all parts of the United Kingdom is very important indeed. We have had successful and continuing discussions with all Ministers concerned. We are certainly looking to have a UK policy in bringing back to this country our own fisheries policy. We are working with the devolved Administrations so that we are working together in the negotiations. This is a key area where all the coastal fishing communities of Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England are looking to the Government to secure a good deal for them.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that I may be inviting the Minister to depart a little from his responsibilities, but perhaps he would join me in welcoming the fact that there are reports in Scotland this weekend that the Government are about to place an order for a further three frigates to be built on the River Clyde—yet another illustration of the advantages to Scotland of being part of the United Kingdom and not being independent.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, what the noble Lord said is precisely what so many people are reflecting on: that unity in the United Kingdom is a force for good. I very much endorse the importance of vessels being built for the Royal Navy in Scotland—and in other shipyards, but I am delighted if they are being constructed in those excellent shipyards, which have so much expertise in their workforce, over many generations.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Pearson!

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, has been trying to get in for a while. I hope that we will have time to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as well.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

My Lords, I am most grateful. Will the Minister confirm to your Lordships that the figures he has given for the British fishing industry are for as it is now, in a state decimated by our membership of the European Union and the common fisheries policy? Can he give us any idea of the figures which pertain to the wonderful future when we have taken back control of all our waters, having left the common fisheries policy?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, our whole purpose is to ensure that we have a sustainable future for the UK fishing industry. It is the first time in 50 years that we will have been able to control access to our waters. That is a force for good because, in particular, it is very important that we have sustainable stocks for the future.

Bat Habitats Regulation Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:18

A Bill to make provision to enhance the protection available for bat habitats in the vicinity of a building site and to limit the protection for bat habitats in buildings used for public worship.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Cormack, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Civil Partnership Act 2004 (Amendment) (Sibling Couples) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:18

A Bill to amend the Civil Partnership Act 2004 to include sibling couples.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Lexden, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:18

A Bill to amend the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and make provision in connection with financial settlements following divorce.

The Bill was introduced by Baroness Deech, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Duchy of Cornwall Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:19

A Bill to amend the succession to the title of the Duke of Cornwall, to remove various powers, exemptions and immunities from the Duchy of Cornwall, to make provisions relating to the Treasury Solicitor and any solicitor or attorney appointed in the affairs of the Duchy, and for connected purposes.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Berkeley, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Children Act 1989 (Amendment) (Female Genital Mutilation) Bill [HL]

1st reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

First Reading

15:19

A Bill to amend the Children Act 1989 to state that proceedings under Section 5A of, and Schedule 2 to, the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 are family proceedings.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Berkeley of Knighton, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Development Aid Budget

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

15:20

Moved by

[Baroness D'Souza]

That this House takes note of the case for measuring the impact of the United Kingdom’s development aid budget.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, development aid is a subject of much discussion, debate and starkly different opinions. For example, it is said that development aid is good and necessary, but we should not have a mandatory annual budget; money, after all, could be misused in order to meet targets. It is said that development aid is good and necessary and a mandatory annual budget allows proper longer-term planning, and that it achieves economic growth, albeit in modest terms, while others assert that aid has had no positive effect on growth. There is a further important division on development aid itself—that which is carried out by experts exported to a developing country to run a programme, or that which funds a recipient country to develop the skills and capacities to carry out development programmes itself. The issue here is that none of these viewpoints can be wholly rejected or accepted unless we know more about the effectiveness of aid in the medium to long term, and this in turn requires clear objectives and evidence-based evaluation.

There has been no dearth of debate on this topic in both Houses. Briefly, the 1970 UN target of 0.7% of gross national income, amounting in the last financial year in the UK to £13.5 billion, was eventually achieved in the 2015 international development Act under the coalition Government. This put to an end a pattern of aid flows generously funded by one Government to be restricted by the next Administration, and so on. The Independent Commission for Aid Impact, or ICAI, was set up in 2011 to evaluate aid spending and its contribution to development results. Meanwhile, reports from the House of Commons International Development Committee, the All Party Parliamentary Group for Debt, Aid and Trade and the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee in March 2012 all covered similar ground. But dissent continued. Last November, the Private Member’s Bill proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, aimed to amend the annual expenditure of £13 billion to a five-year cycle to enable some rollover and avoid unplanned project overspend at the end of each financial year. One view is that a predetermined, and indeed statutory, aid budget may lead to uncontrolled spending and a distortion of genuine and lasting development, another that the amount spent is less important than the result achieved. While it is always easier to demonstrate failure rather than success, the literature is not filled with examples of wasted aid, but nor is it heavy with proper methodological impact surveys.

More specific conclusions on UK development aid overall include that the Department for International Development emerges as a worldwide-respected and effective aid agent; economic growth is the essential ingredient for reducing poverty; there should be greater clarity on the aim of aid programmes; and, while aid is not the main driver of growth, it can and does play a catalytic role.

Development aid, formally defined as financial aid,

“given by governments to support the economic, environmental, social and political development of developing countries”,

is a multibillion dollar business, which is changing, and we would do well to understand better what the longer-term implications are. I hope that this debate is not so much about aid spending but more concerned with the need to develop models that assess impact and, to paraphrase the noble Lord, Lord Judd, to ask how much aid adds to the creation of world justice, peace and stability.

A significant factor is the growing acceptance that giving aid is very tricky to accomplish, and even trickier to evaluate. It is difficult to make ambitious, large-scale aid work and especially difficult to improve the lot of the very poor. This is exacerbated by the fact that the goals of major aid programmes are often very different and sometimes inadequately articulated. These can range from reducing the incidence and prevalence of water-borne diseases, through increasing the income of a significant sector of the population to streamlining tax collection. The larger and more ambitious the development programme the more difficult it is to judge the outcomes, whereas focused and contained programmes that incorporate capacity building have effective long-term benefits, as is the case, for example, with immunisation programmes. However, the nature of aid is changing: budgets grow larger while, at the same time, there is reduced administrative support. I asked the Department for International Development to consider giving a grant to a school in Afghanistan, which would have met all DfID’s objectives, and was asked: “Can you handle £10 million”? Well no, certainly not, but the inference was that it was not cost effective for that department to manage small grants.

There has also been a massive increase in private sector delivery, which has advantages and disadvantages. The older model of development assistance—a form of so-called soft power—has been based on the gradual building of enduring individual and institutional relationships with officials, government and otherwise, in the countries concerned and a resulting trust and joint ownership of outcomes. Working at country level, DfID has always been especially good at this extension of its political and diplomatic influence. A study by the Institute of Development Studies pointed out that effective aid requires as much investment in relationships as in managing money. The need for neat results often ignores the reality that effective aid is too often untidy and even messy.

However, private sector delivery is less committed to oversight of aid programmes, and the multiplicity of freelance experts, subcontractors, and commercially confidential information makes impact evaluation virtually impossible, while longer-term evaluation may not be in the interests of the private contractor. It certainly limits knowledge of local cultures, and therefore the likely outcomes, of a major aid programme. The move towards technical assistance also reflects the changing nature of aid. Technical assistance, such as help in setting up insurance schemes to help farmers when crops fail, is best delivered by the private sector which advises and runs such schemes. Yet again, although there will be excessive scrutiny of planned and actual expenditure—down to the last bus ticket in many cases—there is far less, if any, scrutiny of the impact of these schemes, which are usually expensive and less amenable to detailed examination. The growth of a whole industry of private sector companies which exist solely to win development assistance contracts is alarming. Following the earthquake in Haiti, some $6 billion of aid was allocated to a country of 10 million people. Some 70% of the aid was delivered through private contractors and, as we know, the outcomes, or lack of them—notably the devastating cholera epidemic—are a continuing source of anger among the Haitian population.

Capital flows and trade far outweigh development aid, and the use of public money to incentivise private investment is fine and acceptable. However, this makes it far harder to assess how well money is spent, and aid delivered via other departments is harder to track. Despite these difficulties, it is nevertheless imperative that we do so. Since development deals with people, much cannot be reliably predicted, and all these variables make it extremely difficult to evaluate anything but the “simple” achievement of modest goals in proper time: that money has been spent roughly in accordance with the protocols and broadly within the timeframe set. Is this enough? Together with many others, I, think not and this is a legitimate question for the public to ask.

A search of the considerable literature reveals endless evaluation studies but very few long-term and reliable impact studies. A colleague cited an example which I think illustrates the kind of difficulties that arise: Lake Victoria Dam in Sri Lanka, a project conceived in 1978 and completed in 1985, aimed to provide hydroelectricity for a given population and thereby release them from the vagaries of fluctuating oil prices. Costs were astronomical but planned spin-offs included consistent irrigation for several thousand farmers downstream. After more than 30 years’ operation, it is clear that the power output estimates have consistently fallen far short of predicted levels and the irrigation catchment area has been significantly smaller than anticipated. Estimates of the irrigation plan did not take into account major factors such as the leakage or the evaporation rate of the reservoir, and there were adverse unintended consequences: an increase in the incidence of malaria in the below-dam population; poor water quality affecting lakeside settlements; and a failure to capitalise on other benefits such as fisheries and recreation facilities.

An evaluation funded by the UK concluded that the whole project would have benefited from more comprehensive planning and more extensive data at the outset, and:

“Short term and partial studies by consultants are neither a cost-effective nor a professionally adequate substitute”.


The evaluation report also concedes that proper studies would have required,

“a mass of hydrological, financial, agricultural, social and environmental data and computer models developed over a number of years”.

One could argue that the cost was unacceptable and that the spin-off benefits were unrealistic. Would it, for example, have been more cost-effective to put the money required for the dam on a money market, with a guaranteed return which would have paid for oil and provided a profit? But would it have been possible to predict the investment return rates over the course of the building of the dam, or the fluctuations in the price of oil? It is this unpredictability that tends to defeat long-term impact studies.

Systems are needed to justify projects and calculate the so-called return rates, but systems do not necessarily reveal everything and are liable to manipulation. We do not as yet have sufficiently sophisticated mechanisms to measure outcomes, but this does not mean that we should abandon the focus on impact. A well-informed, plausible narrative by reasonable people of good will based on statements from project recipients—so called self-reported impact—is not to be sniffed at. Distrust arises when there are discrepancies between what is claimed and what little evidence is produced. For example, ICAI reviewed cash transfer programmes and pronounced them significant in reducing poverty and vulnerability and,

“presented a strong value for money case”.

Many of these cash transfers took the form of microcredit and microfinance schemes, but the large literature on access to finance, especially by women, shows it to have a very poor record. One respectable study even went so far as to say that many of these projects were counterproductive in the longer term in that they built up unsustainable debt and, in some cases, reinforced the gender inequalities already present in the society.

The mantra “aid works” repeated by the aid agencies is a bit like saying Brexit is Brexit. Of course aid works. The question is how well does it work, and whether,

“you might have to wait for your grandchildren to tell you”.—[Official Report, 18/11/16; col. 1668.],

according to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, when questioning DfID aid channelled through the Asian Development Bank. Does the bald fact that 166,000 households out of several million were supplied with water tell you as much as you need to know? How much did it cost? How well is the water flowing? What are the maintenance costs? Are maintenance skills being taught? What is the consequent reduction in disease?

Does it matter? Should we spend even more millions on monitoring and evaluation reports and yet more consultants winging their way to underdeveloped countries? One can define good aid as the art of spending modest amounts over long periods in careful co-ordination with recipient Governments, in step with the ability to meet recurrent costs. On the whole, aid is benevolent and beneficial, but we need to dig deeper. “Bad” aid is bad for communities for many reasons, some of which are: it can preserve the status quo and release Governments from undertaking reform and development; it can create further divisions between the poor and the not so poor; it may protect corrupt Governments—in one example, the revenues of a World Bank-funded oil production project were used to buy arms; it will result in repeated ill-conceived programmes; and it may promote expensive self-interest purchasing on the part of donor countries to the detriment of local industries in recipient countries.

In a democratic country such as the UK we should have utter transparency on major expenditure in our name, and question whether aid is used for political purposes. Understanding based on evidence as to why some interventions work and others do not in different communities is crucial to ensure that aid inputs achieve desired results, or at least do not make things worse. In conclusion, therefore, it does matter that the long-term impact of development aid is systematically assessed and published.

15:35

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this Motion for debate here this afternoon. It is the first specific debate of our new parliamentary Session and a very appropriate and timely topic to choose. I also welcome the Minister back in his post following the election. I think we all appreciate his knowledge of and commitment to this subject and to the department, and we look forward to working with him.

I was for many years a sceptic about the idea of putting the 0.7% target into legislation. At one time, it seemed that it was perhaps an unnecessary gesture which was detracting from the real debate that needed to take place. However, as the debate developed over the years and the department’s budget grew, I became absolutely convinced that passing that legislation was essential, not just to secure the UK’s contribution to a better world but, perhaps even more importantly, to allow us to move on to a debate about how we spend the money rather than how much money we are spending. I therefore welcome this debate in your Lordships’ House, at the first opportunity in the new Session, on how to tackle some of these important issues.

I also welcome many of the initiatives over recent years of the last two Governments, both the coalition Government and the solely Conservative Government. The establishment of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact was a very good initiative; it was timely, necessary and appropriate, and it has produced some excellent reports that perhaps both we and the department should take more account of. The establishment of the Building Stability Overseas Strategy was also a very welcome initiative. However, like many other initiatives of the Government, I have some concerns about the way in which these initiatives are consistently followed, and about the subsequent impact of that on the impact of our aid and development spend.

I strongly believe that our development finance should increasingly be concentrated on the least-developed and the conflict-affected and fragile states rather than on those that are already making significant progress or which could easily do so with better governance. I also believe very strongly that we should be investing in capacity, particularly of the business environment in countries that need more jobs and better businesses, but also in the capacity of individual countries to run, manage and improve their own services and support their own communities rather than relying on finance and expertise from elsewhere.

As I said, I am concerned that the Government’s overall commitments of 0.7% to effective international development spend, to engaging in the international arena on these issues, and to the new rules—as we discussed in the House earlier this afternoon—on overseas development assistance, which were welcome last year, are somehow not translated into updating and making as transparent as possible the expenditure of now both the Department for International Development and the other departments that are involved in overseas development assistance expenditure.

For example, since the Building Stability Overseas Strategy was agreed in, I think, 2011 and launched by the then Secretary of State, Andrew Mitchell, we have seen the development of the biggest conflict in the world today—in Syria—and all the implications that that has not just in the neighbouring countries but in Europe and beyond. We have seen the rise and fall of better governance in Libya and all the implications that that has in the wider areas in north and west Africa. We have also seen dramatic changes in Myanmar and more recently in the Philippines and south-east Asia, with a constantly changing conflict there. Therefore, our support for peacebuilding strategies needs to change as a result. We have also seen changes in the United Nations, yet we still have the same Building Stability Overseas Strategy as we had in 2011. In that time, the Government’s commitment to expenditure on conflict-affected and fragile states has gone from 33% to over 50%, yet we have the same old strategy. It is out of date and should be updated to ensure that that increased expenditure, both in volume and percentage, is targeted in the right way on peacebuilding initiatives and conflict prevention in the right parts of the world.

Since 2010 we have seen the agreement on the millennium development goals—we have actually seen it since we debated in your Lordships’ Chamber putting the 0.7% target into legislation—and we have seen the agreement on the sustainable development goals. Those goals are very different from the MDGs. They encompass better governance and economic growth and investment in the sort of infrastructure that creates economic growth. Those were never mentioned in the millennium development goals but are now part of the SDGs. Goal 16 is a commitment to the institutions that promote peace and justice for all. These fundamental changes in the global goals—the UK was integral both to the debate and to the final agreement on them—are not yet fully reflected in the expenditure plans and strategies of the department two years on, and undoubtedly they are not yet given full regard in the other departments that are spending overseas development assistance. Yet again, that is an example of a need for clarity and a published strategy by the Government, as well as a linking of expenditure to the new framework—the SDGs—that is not yet transparent enough.

Specifically on the subject of impact, I notice yet again—even in the information that we each receive from those who contact us when these debates are about to take place about the impact and the effectiveness of UK aid—lists of figures relating to the number of children now going to school or the number of people who have had vaccinations or have access to clean water. These statistics get bandied around on these occasions. I appreciate that and welcome it, and I have seen it in action in different parts of the world. It is good news, and it is good that Britain makes its contribution to it, but to me it is much more important for us to look at the long-term impact that UK aid is making.

Where are we investing for the long term? Last year I saw projects in northern Nigeria and in Mombasa in Kenya that were investing in the life opportunities of young Muslims coming out of school with an inadequate education and no hope—they were being recruited by al-Shabaab in one case and by Boko Haram in another—yet through British aid they were getting an opportunity of an apprenticeship or of starting a business, with the necessary skills, support and mentoring that allowed them to do so. This is an impact that will not be seen next week or the week after or even next year or the year after but in five, 10 or 15 years’ time, both in the life opportunities of those young people and their children and in the safety and security of the communities in which they live.

Also in terms of impact, I think that in many individual expenditures we realise the opportunity that we have, but when we talk about this we underestimate the opportunity to catalyse investment from others as well. I think our impact is not just the schools that we open, the teachers that we employ, the volunteers that we send or the vaccinations that British taxpayers pay for. It is the way in which that then catalyses all sorts of donations both from other Governments and from international organisations and private donors too.

I would like to see in the measurement of impact not just the individual numbers that make us feel good on the occasions when we have these debates, but a measurement that has some indication towards the long term and a measurement that indicates how we are catalysing the resources of others who share the objectives that we seek. I hope that in each of these areas the Minister will be able to give us a response.

15:45

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, as there is such common ground between us on these issues and he speaks a great deal of sense. I agree with him that we are lucky to have the opportunity, courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to raise these issues today in a full debate in Parliament. In doing so, I also, from these Benches, welcome back the Minister to his brief and welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg, to her Front Bench role as a Whip covering this department. I wish her well.

There is no doubt that, when it comes to spending more than £13.5 billion of public money, there should be full and relentless scrutiny of how, where and on whom it is spent. This is a public duty on us as parliamentarians. Full accountability needs to be applied to Ministers or officials, too, if any of that money is misspent or misdirected. Focusing on these questions, rather than whether we should meet the 0.7% target, is a point on which I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, very strongly indeed. There is a wide consensus on this. This was shown during the passage of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015.

If I have one area of slight disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, it is that I think it is still not the case that everybody agrees that aid works. There is still a school of thought that does not believe that overseas development assistance works and that development comes purely from private sector sources. I am not of that school, but many of those who hold that argument like to peddle a myth that the bulk of UK ODA is frittered away or wasted on corrupt programmes. When asked to provide evidence, they usually point to an individual programme that they happily mispresent in the process. Because it is impossible to deliver such a large budget without some errors or some programmes along the way that fail, these are used in vain against UK ODA over all. However, I suspect that that will not be the focus of this debate this afternoon, which is welcome.

Section 5 of the International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 covers the independent evaluation of the extent to which UK ODA,

“represents value for money in relation to the purposes for which it is provided”.

I agree very much with the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that this is hard. Given the breadth and the complexity of ODA across many different fields, it is often easier to calculate a numerical output for some aid programmes and harder to calculate outcomes, especially when many of these programmes are delivered in very difficult circumstances. It is also harder when UK aid programmes are delivered in a certain way that is not always consistent with the in-country way of budgeting and of delivering public services.

It is 10 years since I served on the Finance Committee in the Scottish Parliament. We had regular debates there about delivering services in the UK, when it came to public sector intervention, and about what outcomes were delivered, rather than simply outputs from the financial inputs. However, I am pleased to say that, since the passage of the Act, the structures in place for Parliament to scrutinise this work are proving effective. Indeed, in the most recent review of its own procedures, the Independent Commission of Aid Impact, which has been referred to, highlighted not only the number of reports it has carried out but also the fact that the Government listen to its advice. Many of the recommendations made by this independent body have been taken into consideration by DfID and acted on. Indeed, through the sub-committee of the IDC Committee in the Commons, the accountability to Parliament is also here.

I have no deep-seated objections to UK ODA being delivered by departments other than DfID, but we have to be cautious. The ambition of 40% of ODA being delivered outside DfID has had little debate in this House. I cannot recall since I have been a Member having a full debate on ODA in government time considering these issues. I do not doubt the commitment of the Minister when assurances are given that, for example, the department will not be subsumed into the FCO, and I hope that that will not allow any mutterings from those who argue for this to be the case. That is a distraction. In last week’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, questioned whether it would be better simply to amalgamate all development, diplomatic and security presence around the world into one, so there are still some voices. However, I hope that they are in the minority and do not distract us from where we really need to focus.

We have also seen growing global UK leadership on transparency and the calculation of effectiveness and delivery. In many respects, it is the delivery standards of DfID that are now being seen across the world as the leading approach. The 2015 Act requirement on government to demonstrate value for money and effectiveness is deliberately broad enough to ensure that all Whitehall departments have to be scrutinised by ICAI and be equally accountable to the IDC and not only to their own scrutiny committees in Parliament. Can the Minister assure the House that all necessary agreements are in place across Whitehall to ensure that that can be done properly and that there are no barriers to ICAI doing its work?

This is important not only to demonstrate to our own public that money is being well stewarded but because across the world we want to see the growing UK leadership in this respect being carried on. In the Global Fund’s Aid Transparency Index, the UK, with its full government department, is the only country in the world that has retained its top status since the global transparency index of 2013. Other countries have looked to DfID as the exemplar and have copied our approach. In 2013, there were 26 donor countries in the very poor category of transparency; in 2016, there were only five. This is welcome. Interestingly, while the UK scored 88.3% on aid transparency, Italy scored just 16%, France 9.2% and China a derisory 2.2%. Given the extent of the delivery of trade and concessions for aid from China, Africa and elsewhere, a level of scrutiny on their programmes is almost impossible to carry out.

There is no question that the UK is a leader overall. It was therefore with more than a little concern in that regard that I read the Conservative manifesto, which pointed to a slight differing in the direction going forward. In his response to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in Questions today, the Minister indicated only part of the commitment in the Conservative manifesto. It states:

“So we will work with like-minded countries to change the rules so that they are updated and better reflect the breadth of our assistance around the world”—


which is what the Minister said. However, the following sentence states:

“If that does not work, we will change the law to allow us to use a better definition of development spending, while continuing to meet our 0.7 per cent target”.

This begs the question whether the Government have ruled out unilateral changes to our approach on ODA. We have not only complied with the DAC rules but have been a leader in their delivery. Can the Minister rule out any unilateral moves away from that?

Which are the like-minded countries referred to who also wish to change the rules? What changes are the Government seeking? Can the Minister give examples of specific projects that are not currently covered under OECD rules that the Government would like to see counted as aid? What assessment have they done of the impact that increased links between defence and aid may bring about—if, indeed, this is the Government’s intention? I hope the Minister will have an opportunity to address some of these points.

Finally, on the basis of the continuing and very welcome wide consensus in this House, I have said that the UK comprises just 0.6% of the world’s population but that we punch considerably above our weight on the international stage. I feel that this may well be diminished by Brexit, but that is a separate issue and for a different debate. The UK is a global citizen and we demonstrate leadership around the world, so if the Prime Minister’s tagline of a “global Britain” is anything, it is indeed that British aid works, that UK leadership is gaining results and that we should do nothing to undermine it.

15:55

[The Lord Bishop of Truro]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for initiating this debate on such a very important and topical issue.

As no doubt we will hear from other speakers, the UK is known around the world as a leader in international development. It has achieved great results during the past two decades. I have no doubt of the importance of the case for measuring the impact of our development aid. I want to underline that case and also, perhaps more importantly for me, to ensure that we try to measure the right things if we can and do not understand aid only as a financial investment which can be measured simply in financial terms. I fear that too many people in our debate will go immediately from talking about aid to talking about money and finances rather than going back and thinking about what the word “development” might mean. It seems that development is in itself a fascinating idea in our world today with perhaps an assumption that other countries are less developed than we are. We must be careful about the assumptions and presuppositions we make when we use the word.

For more than 40 years, the Church of England has campaigned for the UK to spend 0.7% of gross national income on aid and has applauded the commitment made by the Government back in 2013. Despite pressure to drop aid spending, it has been reassuring to see that all the major political parties have again recognised its importance and continued with the commitment to allocate 0.7% of our GNI to overseas aid.

Aid is not expensive. It costs the average taxpayer less than £1 a week to support some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in the world. This money can be used effectively to prevent the arrival of larger and more expensive problems further down the line, again showing the difficulties around how we measure impacts. The Church sees the benefits of aid money through its extensive international links. The Anglican communion is one of the largest international networks and has supported DfID over the years effectively to channel money into the poorest communities worldwide when other avenues are not available. Church networks complement the work of the aid agencies and are often able to reach further, especially in areas of conflict or where natural disasters have disrupted established communication and infrastructure links.

When I served as the Bishop of Sherborne, I had the privilege to visit what was then Sudan in my capacity as chair of the Salisbury Sudan Link. I was able to visit several areas of both Sudan and what is now South Sudan, which sadly is covered by people fleeing the continuing and terrible violence. Tribalism and poverty make for a toxic cocktail. Almost 3.5 million innocent people in South Sudan have been forced from their homes and are desperately in need of food, safety and hope. Christian Aid is partnering with the Episcopal Church of Sudan and South Sudan and other local partners to provide for the practical needs of some of the most vulnerable.

Back in February, when famine was officially declared, the UK Government announced substantial funding for humanitarian relief in the form of food, clean water and healthcare. Without that aid, and the work of agencies such as Christian Aid and their local partners, the situation for many of those affected would be even more unbearable. I was delighted to see today that the Minister of State, the right honourable Alistair Burt, is out in Myanmar seeing at first hand how our aid money is supporting vaccination programmes and farming communities. In the previous coalition, we saw the Government promoting the positive stories about UK Aid Direct, and we need to see more of this. Of course, it is not perfect and there is always room for improvement, but there is a great deal to be proud of and to build on. Despite what we read in some of the more populist press, aid has high levels of support in this country and needs to be seen as a positive contribution to the world, especially in the new climate of Brexit in which we currently find ourselves.

Our changing climate is also one of the biggest factors shaping the future for many of the world’s poorest people. It is affecting everything from harvests to clean water, causing drought and extreme floods and the spread of diseases. One important way we can use aid is to boost access to clean energy, especially given that nearly 1.1 billion people in the world still have no access to electricity. Without power in schools, hospitals and businesses, it is very difficult to combat poverty. In sub-Saharan Africa, around 70% of people have no access to electricity—80% in rural areas. It is important that we ensure access to energy for people, but also ensure that it is clean energy so that we do not contribute towards increasing climate change—another example of how complicated it is to assess impact.

It is my belief that aid should continue to focus first and foremost on poverty reduction and the alleviation of suffering, and not be diverted by, for instance, security or other geopolitical considerations. Of course it is right that we develop the right measures for the impact of our aid investment and improve it all the time so that every penny is spent as effectively as possible. However, I question how we do that and what measures we can use. As a framework, the sustainable development goals are very useful for this. I would like to know how the Government propose to deliver the SDGs at home and overseas. I ask the Minister: what will the Government do differently to meet the new SDGs and will they regularly report to Parliament on their progress?

There are other ways UK aid can be made even more effective. Not all UK aid meets the highest transparency and effectiveness standards. Regardless of which department spends it, these standards should be met. Will the Government continue to commit themselves to transparency and accountability, especially when other departments spend DfID money, as other noble Lords have mentioned?

There is already much to affirm and encourage in the UK’s response to the needs of the world’s poorest people. We must not, however, be complacent: there are pressures from many directions on the levels of aid, how it is spent, and, as we are debating, how we can assess impacts. The UK must not pull back from its leadership role; if anything we should aim even higher, demonstrating to our G7 and G20 partners that it is possible to meet our international commitments. It is a question of morality, justice and basic humanity.

My final point is that talk of impact should not always assume we are considering money or financial aid. I fear we live in very individualistic times and our society is more and more atomised. If we are not careful, we equate development aid simply to financial benefits or losses. Development aid in fact should mean that we all consider what it means to achieve development. We are partners with others around the world and part of the impact we measure should be what effect other people and places have on us. I mentioned the privilege I had of travelling on several occasions to Sudan and South Sudan. The real need in South Sudan is for help in governance and capacity.

There is an undeniable case for measuring the impact of our development aid, but it should not be a measure simply in numbers or focusing on only financial investment. It must be a measure that understands the sophisticated issues behind development and the interdependence at the heart of working with others.

16:03

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, I join all noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on securing the debate. It is a great honour to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. I agree with him that this is not just about measuring aid in financial terms. However, most of the data we collect have to have an output somewhere—and, as often as not, it is measured in financial terms.

I had the privilege of serving as a Minister in DfID. I reassure noble Lords that the Government I served in were mindful of the way the media reported on how aid from the UK was spent. I can tell noble Lords that under Justine Greening—and, I am sure, under the current Secretary of State—there was a real pressure on all of us to justify how we funded programmes. However, it is important that we also acknowledge that, unless we collect data and then have the ability to measure outcomes, it will always service those people who have a negative or less favourable view on the impact of aid.

We talk about development aid as we used to talk about it 30 or 40 years ago. The world has changed dramatically in terms of the countries that we now support or the countries that support us in helping others. Our approach and narrative need to change with it. I refer noble Lords to my own interests as declared in the House of Lords register. I support a platform that encourages working with the UN on collecting data through blockchain to measure how the private sector works with Governments and the third sector, and to see how money put in is spent and what outcomes can be measured. For far too long, we have allowed the third sector and the corporate sector to operate on their own. We need to encourage work across all three parts of the equation, so that government, the third sector and the corporate sector are accountable to the people whom we all desperately want to help.

We also need to ensure that the agencies that we support reform and work better together. I had the task of looking at the agencies in the UN and the EU. Often, they did not talk to one another. If we look at the SDGs and focus just on women and girls, we see that they have multiple challenges. It is not that they have challenges in respect of just one SDG; the SDGs have an impact on them across an age spectrum, an ability/disability spectrum as well as all the other challenges that women and girls face. We need to make sure that the department continues to press hard and that the agencies that we fund deliver to the standards that we expect of them. However, there must also be transparency and they must show that they are not working completely in silos.

I want to encourage those of us who make a difference to the third sector to ask those in it to work better together so that their data are gathered collectively and we can have much more of an ecosystem response to the impact of what third sector agencies do. Agencies themselves often operate in silos. It is important that they come together and demonstrate that they can work collectively across multiple facets that have an impact on individuals in developing countries.

I am really pleased that the department is making available funds for smaller organisations, because it is the grass-roots, face-to-face impact of smaller organisations, particularly those which innovate within the development space, that we do not always manage to measure from some of our big organisations.

I encourage my noble friend to look at the whole ecosystem of how we deliver aid and not to look at it as a stop-start process. We often forget that, throughout the cycle, many challenges face older people within developing nations. I was horrified to find that all data collection for women stops at the age of 49. I hope that that is being challenged and that, as aid works and as people live longer in developing countries, we are able to measure beyond the age of 49. I hope that we are able to support the United Nations convention on older people.

I worked incredibly hard within the department to look at inclusive societies. While some countries still sit outside a number of areas that this country is proud to support, I hope that we will not stop with our gentle, soft diplomacy as well as some of the hard conversations that other departments can have. I hope that we will not take our foot off the pedal on making sure that we continue to work on our mission of inclusive societies.

I come back to the measurement of data. It is critical and crucial that, when we get negative stories, they are countered quickly. A lot of our departments deliver aid—the Foreign Office, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Defence—and it is absolutely critical that those departments have the same measurements and transparency tools that we had, which I saw and that the Minister is absolutely aware of in DfID. Unless we have that consistency across all departments, we will continue to firefight some of these rather ridiculous stories that come out in the press now and then.

We should be incredibly proud of the fact that we are a country committed to the poorest people on the planet. That does not mean that we should not also fight hard to stop the discriminating tariffs that prevent these countries from developing economically on their own. It is really important that we help them economically build up their own marketplace and infrastructure in their own countries. As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, in doing that we should also focus on capacity building. The reason we have a lot of issues around young people in developing countries is because they have a dividend of young people. It is a great advantage to have those young people if they can be engaged in meaningful education and employment in their countries.

If anything, we should really try to work harder on this—not only ourselves but other countries, too. That is not just like-minded countries; I worked incredibly hard with unlike-minded countries. At the end of the day, they have a very different vision of what they see as aid. They were looking to the UK for support in delivering their aid programmes. So it is about looking at new partners and old, but not forgetting that we have been a world leader. Our narrative needs to remain that we are a world leader. Sometimes, we need to stand up even more firmly to those who try to change the goalposts simply because it is politically astute to do so in their home countries.

16:12

[Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for introducing this debate and giving us a timely opportunity to make the case for the importance of UK aid and of continuing to spend it effectively.

First, I echo what others said in recognising the tremendous work the UK has already done and continues to do on the international aid front. We do it quite simply because giving aid is the right thing to do. More than 700 million people today live in extreme poverty. The challenges they face include food shortages, disease, natural disasters and conflict. Limited access to healthcare and education compounds and continues the cycle of poverty. We can help—and we do. The UK gives aid because it makes a difference. UK aid is effective. The charity ActionAid reminds us that UK aid has helped to immunise more than 55 million children against preventable diseases and provides 60 million people with access to water, sanitation or interventions to promote hygiene.

My noble friend Lord McConnell pleaded persuasively not just for such clear, immediate outcomes—good as they are—but for longer-term commitments that deliver wider-scale outcomes. I cite one particular programme that seems to exemplify this: in humanitarian aid, the UK led the way in tackling the Ebola crisis in west Africa. I have mentioned before in this House the expertise at King’s College London, which contributed so much to the UK’s role in helping Sierra Leone conquer this terrible disease. King’s strong background in global health and the creation of the King’s Sierra Leone Partnership meant it was able to step up its work in response to the Ebola outbreak, enabling it to treat an estimated one-quarter of the Ebola cases recorded in the country. But since then King’s has contributed enormously to healthcare capacity building in the region, demonstrating the vital role that university health partnerships can have in creating sustainable healthcare systems for the long term and globally. We should be able to demonstrate sustained benefits for the longer term in all our aid programmes.

It is to this Government’s credit that they have pledged to continue to meet the UK’s target of spending 0.7% of our gross national income on official development assistance—ODA, as it is normally referred to. This is entirely in line with the promises we made at the 2005 G8 summit. Of the 15 EU countries that made the pledge in 2005, only the UK and Germany have risen to the challenge since then. The UK was the first to meet that target—in 2013, before it became a legal requirement in 2015. As others have observed, the UK was one of just eight countries to meet that target last year. Indeed, eight of the 15 have actually reduced their ODA spending as a proportion of GNI since 2005. To meet our commitment, our ODA spending nearly doubled between 2005 and 2016, from £7.4 billion to £13.6 billion in today’s terms. To continue to meet that commitment, we will need to increase our ODA spending by another £1 billion from now until 2021.

As we have heard, most of our ODA or foreign aid spending is done by the Department for International Development. Between 2010-11 and 2016-17, spending by DfID rose by 24%—at a time when budgets for departments other than health, education and defence were cut by an average of 28%. It is worth noting that bilateral aid makes up almost two-thirds of UK ODA. This means it goes to specific countries, regions or programmes, and spending is controlled almost entirely by us as a donor, unlike multilateral aid, which is channelled through organisations engaged in development work, with little condition on exactly how the funds are spent.

The recent IFS report, The Changing Landscape of UK Aid, highlights the fact that the UK—specifically, the Department for International Development—is seen internationally as,

“a leader in shaping the global development agenda”.

Importantly, the report also notes that despite being one of the smallest areas of government spending, it is one of the most scrutinised. The International Development Committee, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact all have a monitoring role to ensure that overseas aid is properly spent. DfID is rated in the highest category in the international Aid Transparency Index, and the most recent peer review of the UK aid strategy by the OECD in 2014 was largely positive about the UK’s performance. No less a philanthropist than Microsoft founder Bill Gates has said that DfID is,

“one of the most effective, efficient, and innovative aid agencies in the world”.

I was filled with alarm, therefore, when I realised that the strategic focus of the UK aid commitment has shifted to support aid “in the national interest”. This approach seems to mean that when Britain is determining how it will meet its responsibility to the world’s poorest, it will make a judgment based on what,

“best serves and protects its own security and interests”.

So while we are reducing poverty, we are also looking to improve the business climate and create international business opportunities for UK companies. I suspect that there will be huge challenges in the evaluation of the impact of these two very different aims. I cannot help but also feel that in our relationships with our partners overseas, it will be counterproductive. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised similar concerns, and I will listen very keenly to the Minister’s response to his questions.

Money is being diverted to other government departments which may not be subject to the same scrutiny as DfID, as we have heard already. Between 2014 and 2016, there was a 12 percentage point drop in the proportion of the ODA budget received by DfID. In 2017-18, 20% of the UK’s ODA is due to be spent by departments other than DfID or by cross-government funds. That is set to rise to 25% by 2019-20. I feel this should be a matter of real concern, particularly in relation to evaluation, because while DfID is a world leader in delivering aid, the aid spent by other departments does not meet the same high standards. Where DfID was rated very good, the highest category in the Aid Transparency Index, the Foreign Office was ranked poor and the MoD very poor. How can we be sure that the Government will live up to their promise that all departments will follow the same high standards as DfID on fighting poverty? How can we be sure that they will remain transparent and accountable?

A further concern is the recent indication that international definitions of development assistance will be changed to,

“better reflect the breadth of our assistance around the world”.

Redrawing the definition of what constitutes foreign aid to include work that the UK already does abroad but which cannot currently count towards the 0.7% target has worrying echoes of the changes to the definition of child poverty a couple of years ago. The Government have built on a great track record of generosity from the UK and a strong reputation for effective aid. Will the Minister tell the House how he will ensure that this is not put at risk by poor evaluation of the impact of spend from other government departments?

16:20

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I found her opening speech interesting and a little challenging. Having had the privilege of being chair of the International Development Committee when ICAI was set up, seeing that process proceed and working with the National Audit Office, I agree that we have got to a much better system for accountability, but there is always room for improvement. In the beginning, ICAI was accountancy-led, but it became much more understanding of the complexity of development and therefore more effective. There is certainly justification for transparency, but we also have mechanisms in place that can improve it. The noble Baroness identified that there is a danger that if we call for too much we will create a whole other industry of evaluation and monitoring that might get in the way of delivery. I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register.

Not surprisingly, given my background, I am a strong believer in the effectiveness of UK aid and its impact. I have had the privilege of seeing it in action in many parts of the world. However, I recognise that the way aid is carried out and its objectives are not well understood, certainly by the wider public. As many people have said, we should do it, because in spite of all our problems we are a rich country and, frankly, people living in this country cannot really comprehend how you can live on less than $2 a day.

I also accept that it is perfectly reasonable for the Government to want to offer practical examples of positive results and to show that aid is justified by altruism—there is nothing wrong with that—but it also serves the national interest. There is nothing wrong with using aid to strengthen the economic capacity of developing countries so that they can grow their income and tax base and lift their people out of poverty. On the contrary, in the end that is how we can achieve sustainable development. It is also in our interest to ensure that as countries industrialise, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, they do so in the cleanest and most environmentally sensible way, which is not necessarily the cheapest, so it is perfectly legitimate for them to look for some assistance.

Most of us welcome the cross-party commitment to delivering 0.7% and wish it to continue and to continue to be pro poor. I hope that the Government will continue to resist calls to cut the aid budget—as, for example, this weekend, in order to fund ending the cap on public sector pay. That would be raiding the poorest people in the world in order to fund easing relative poverty at home and would be a shameful misuse of resources.

It is also worth noting that, contrary to what many critics believe, the aid budget is under pressure. There is an idea that we cannot get rid of the money and that somehow spending it is difficult. The refugee crisis has led to unprecedented sums being spent supporting displaced people across the Middle East. The UK can be justifiably proud of that response, but it has come at the expense of longer-term development funding. Clearly, the devaluation of sterling in the past year has reduced the purchasing power of the UK aid budget. The exchange rate differential between the UK and developing countries has altered by more than 20% in many cases. Can the Minister give any indication of how many programmes have or are having to be cut as a result? People in the department have told me that that is clearly happening.

The IDC recently reported on the role of contractors and partners. NGOs, private sector contractors, think tanks and private businesses are all legitimate and important partners, but the recent report on that use of private contractors led to a focus on Adam Smith International, which was severely criticised for co-ordinating its evidence to the Select Committee. Although there is no evidence that the evidence was actually fraudulent, it was certainly not particularly well constructed. As a result of that, my understanding is that DfID has halted or cancelled a significant number of ASI programmes, leading to about a third of the staff in that company being made redundant currently. That is unfortunate, because it is the dedicated professional delivery staff who are losing their jobs as a result of mismanagement at senior management level. Again, this could have implications for the delivery of programmes if they are terminated before they are followed through or completed. Can the Minister indicate how many programmes have been disrupted and what action is being taken to ensure that the aims of these programmes can still be achieved? I make it clear that I have no interests in ASI and no connection with it; nor have I spoken to it. This is only what I see and hear.

Can the Minister also explain how DfID monitors and works with the impact of ODA spending by other government departments? A number of noble Lords have raised this point. We have had indications or hints in the past of a turf war, with some Ministers being reportedly, not publicly, less respectful of the role of DfID in ensuring that ODA is compliant with both UK and international law and that it meets genuinely pro-poor development objectives. I am in favour of joined-up government, and there is nothing wrong with ODA being spent by several government departments as long as it is co-ordinated and coherent and the same rules apply across the piece. The noble Baroness who spoke before me mentioned King’s and the Ebola crisis in Sierra Leone, which was a good example of cross-government and cross-departmental work that helped to deliver a solution to a problem that got out of control.

Generally speaking, the Foreign Office and DfID can work well together, especially where they are collocated in our embassies overseas, which mostly they are. Indeed, that is a virtue, because it is good to get the political environment and development objectives co-ordinated and not operating in separate silos. I am certainly in favour of that.

According to the Library briefing, the business department is the department that accounts for the largest share of non-DfID ODA. Again, this is not necessarily a problem, but I do not think many of us are really quite clear exactly what the business department is doing with that ODA money. Most of it may well be going into the climate fund and/or the prosperity fund, but, again, could the Minister, either now or subsequently in writing, give more details of the main development objectives in the business department? That would reassure people who are concerned and give us a better understanding of how the departments work together.

I will raise another issue quickly. Can the Minister provide an update on DfID gender policy and the prioritisation of disability in our aid objectives? Canada has just published its new development strategy—I have a copy here—which it explicitly defines as feminist. There is no doubt that the low status of women and girls in many countries is the single biggest barrier to development. I know this issue is dear to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, who is speaking after me. Access to effective family planning and safe abortion is craved by millions of women, along with freedom from violence, from female genital mutilation, from child marriage and from exploitation. Lack of legal and financial rights also holds development back.

The Canadian example contrasts sharply with the Trump policy, which really is trying to deny women access to these services. The Government have a very good record on this, but now that the Netherlands and Canada have stepped up to the plate I wonder whether it will be pushed even further up the priority list in their new development strategy.

Can the Minister give us any update on disability commitments, which my noble friend Lady Featherstone championed when she was a Minister, as she did the issues of violence and female genital mutilation? I have a particular interest in deafness, but I believe that standing up for the rights of all disabled people in poor developing countries is something that donors such as the UK should prioritise. Too often they are swept away, ignored and stigmatised. Challenging stigma and encouraging all policymakers to champion a positive approach to supporting disabled people should surely be an integral part of development programmes.

I conclude by saying that providing women with legal rights, access to contraception and better maternal and child healthcare has been shown to have a positive impact on reducing poverty and limiting potentially explosive population growth. Back that up with better education and skills training and the seeds of successful development are sown. Let us not be diverted by cutting our aid budget or redefining it in ways that reduce the impact on ending poverty. Let us do what we set out to do, which is to use our aid budget to make the quality of life of the world’s poor better and to eliminate poverty by 2030.

16:30

[Baroness Tonge (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my erstwhile colleague. I was going to say “late colleague” but he might have taken that the wrong way. At one time he held the most coveted position in the House of Commons—or at least most coveted by me—as chair of the International Development Committee.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for securing this debate. It is always important to bear in mind, when congratulating ourselves on our commitment to help the poorest people in the world, that we should ensure its effectiveness and monitor its impact, particularly in relation to the sustainable development goals, which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell. Aid to the poorest people in the world does not just benefit them, if properly spent, but will benefit us in the longer term by reducing migration and expanding our markets. Do not forget that it is also the right and moral thing to do, as several noble Lords have already said. People sometimes forget that, so it is worth reminding ourselves of it.

I remember Justine Greening pledging to scrutinise the aid budget like never before when she became Secretary of State—and Priti Patel is doing the same thing. That is what they do, and of course they should. However, this country’s record is second to none. We have an all-party commitment to 0.7% of GNI to be spent on development aid, and it is worth noting that the International Development Committee, the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Independent Commission for Aid Impact all scrutinise the aid budget more than any other, it would seem. Added to all this scrutiny, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, Bill Gates, who is to be admired, has said:

“DFID is widely recognised as one of the most effective, efficient, and innovative aid agencies in the world”—


while the campaign for aid transparency Publish What You Fund rated DfID as “very good”, the highest category in its aid transparency index.

There is a long list of what UK aid has helped to do. For example, it has saved the lives of 103,000 women in childbirth, enabled 9.9 million more women to access family planning and provided safe abortions, especially for women raped in conflict. There is no greater impact we can have on development—here it comes—than empowering women, and the best way of doing that is to give them power over their own bodies in the form of family planning. This issue is so misread, and it frustrates me terribly that it is not number one on everyone’s list. If you want a country to develop economically you have to empower women, and to empower them you have to give them access to family planning. That is crucial. Alongside that, bed net distribution has halved the number of deaths from malaria; children are being vaccinated; there is more education, clean water and sanitation—the list goes on and on. There is our impact.

For aid to be effective, though, the recipients must have consistency and reliability, and this is currently at risk under the new Government. Governments of developing countries need to be able to plan and carry their projects forward. NGOs cannot plan if they do not have consistency of funding. I pick out as examples Marie Stopes International and the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which no longer receive core funding from DfID and have been waiting for guidelines since last autumn to know how to apply for funding—not how to get it but how to apply for it—for the family planning and safe abortion work that they do among women and girls, particularly for the large cohort of young people that we have heard about in some of the most marginalised communities in the world. This work has already been held up for nearly a year.

Will the Minister please tell us when this matter will be dealt with? Women and girls are suffering because of indecision at DfID under the new regime. It seems that everyone from the Secretary of State downwards is saying the right things and supporting development, but there is no action on funding for big NGOs such as those I have mentioned.

I understand that in 2017-18—again, the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, mentioned this—20% of the aid budget is to be spent in other departments, which will rise to 25% the year after. Will the Minister confirm this and also that these departments are not rated as efficient as the Department for International Development? It is very worrying that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence will be receiving DfID’s money when we know that they are not very efficient at spending the money they have already. The Minister should reassure us on this point.

Finally, on a matter very close to my heart and related to the Foreign Office budget, for how much longer will our aid budget be spent on providing health services and education for the people of Palestine, who could well provide it themselves if they were free to do so and their economy was functional? What impact are the grants to UNRWA to assist Palestinian refugees having? Why is it that we are—and have been for 50 years—supporting and funding the occupation of Palestine by another country, a rich country to boot, while doing nothing to resolve the situation that makes the aid necessary?

Have we ever done this before in our history? The occupying power under international law is responsible for the welfare of the people it is occupying. For 50 years, we have been shoring it up. To use our Department for International Development budget to help pay for Israel’s illegal occupation over 50 years surely makes us also complicit in breaking international law. Considering the length of time for which this outrage has been allowed to continue, it is an extremely ineffective way of using our aid budget—which is what this debate is all about.

16:38

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join all those noble Lords who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for having introduced this debate. It is terrific to see her in her emancipation leading so forcefully on such a vital issue.

I declare an interest because of my past ministerial responsibilities at the Ministry of Overseas Development, as it then was, at the Foreign Office and at the Ministry of Defence, and because of a great deal of my life spent voluntarily and professionally in organisations in the voluntary sector.

I have one worry underlying this debate: I wish we would stop using the word “impact”. We are talking about development; development enables people to take control of their own lives and take them forward, and enables Governments and communities to take charge of their own affairs and carry them forward. “Impact” is not the right language for doing that; we should talk about contribution or, as my noble friend Lord McConnell put it, effectiveness. Those are the sort of words that we should be using.

The other thing that we should watch carefully is the contrast between long and short term—and, of course, “impact” lends itself to the short term. We have seen that in conflict situations, when the army liberates an area and wants to see something done quickly. DfID may have reservations and say, “This is not going to be sustainable—it’s not the best thing to do in the long run”, and we have to look at that. It is also about empowerment, which means prioritising education; it means, of course, income generation, and sweeping up the gender issues in that income generation. But it is not just about women; it is also about too many millions of young men, idle in their community, unemployed and prey to extremism. We really have to think about that very hard.

It is also about multilateral agencies. If my life has taught me anything, it is that competitive aid is doing harm. We need to co-ordinate our efforts with others, sometimes running joint programmes—but not necessarily just that; it is about co-ordinating the priorities that we share. It is also about refugees and displaced people. The difficulties and issues that we face at the moment in this sphere are child’s play by comparison with what is going to happen in future if one looks at climate change alone. That demands a global strategy on how we meet these challenges. What exactly are the Government doing to develop those global strategies; how far are they working closely, hand in glove, with UNHCR in this context?

It is about justice. We love to talk about the rule of law, but justice costs money. How do you establish effective systems of justice in the poorest countries in the world? They do not come cheaply. It means that a great deal of resources have to be targeted and provided. And it is also about having security sector reform, because nothing will progress without peace and stability, and the security sector is vitally important. It has to be a sector in which people and communities have confidence, operating to the highest standards of integrity and with a real commitment to human rights.

We have great NGOs in this country—I can say that from personal experience—and their briefing is always invaluable, based as it is, invariably, on the authority of engagement. I have listened to this debate so far and seen that the briefing has not been lacking; it is clear that the NGOs are at work.

Fifty percent of DfID’s budget goes to fragile states. We need to hear more precisely about how in such fragile states, often in acute conflict, DfID and the Government’s commitment—our commitment—to human rights, sustainable development goals and poverty alleviation is being sustained and developed.

I can see very great potential advantages of interdepartmental co-operation and, similarly, of interdepartmental ministerial appointments. But it is not just about intellectually seeing it as a good idea; it is about how it is actually helping in these situations. Are the principles, priorities and commitments of DfID really being upheld? Is it really in the driving seat? Otherwise, we must worry that public funds and taxpayers’ money may be going to activities which cannot be justified by the aid programme.

There is a disturbing rise in civilian casualties in conflict areas, particularly in siege situations. We need to ask how, in situations where people are really suffering—and, as has been discussed, they are doing so at this moment—DfID’s priorities and the Government’s professed objectives are being upheld and the standards fulfilled. It is going to be tough and complex but we need to know how it is being done. In general, we also need to know how closely DfID and the Foreign Office are really working together in the application of human rights. In the immediate situation for refugees—not least those in the central Mediterranean area—how are we ensuring that commitments to human rights and the protection of children are being upheld? I am alarmed to hear stories about border patrols, which we may be financing, arresting children who then end up in prison. We need to watch things like that and it would be good to hear more from the Minister.

In conclusion, it is refreshing that Bond, the global forum of our NGO community, has reminded us of the words of the former Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams—the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Williams of Oystermouth—in April this year. He put it extremely well, saying that,

“aid is not about creating dependence but helping people become valued partners and co-workers for a safe and equitable world”.

16:47

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, the House knows, and was reminded again this afternoon, of the depth and length of the commitment which the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has to these matters; it is indebted to her again for this debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the Centre for Democracy and Peace Building and of the Centre for the Resolution of Intractable Conflict at Oxford.

It is a source of considerable pride and satisfaction for many in your Lordships’ House and for our country that, with the initiative of Mike Moore and my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, we now commit 0.7% of GNI to international development as a legal commitment, as well as a moral one. Coming from my background, I regard this as a kind of tithe—a commitment we make to show our generosity of spirit and determination to make a better world. It is not purely a question of assessing effectiveness, but it is important to evaluate what our money goes to. In DfID and the British Council, we have two organisations that our country uses internationally and which are much better appreciated abroad than they are at home. They are singular organisations with a global and positive impact. I do not want what I say to take anything away from the very positive things that DfID does, but we are here to try to hold the Government to account and I will touch briefly on four issues.

On the question of evaluation, one has to be a little careful to evaluate the right thing. For example, in the case of Northern Ireland, there was an assumption that the problem of the conflict was one of socioeconomic disadvantage. So even during Mrs Thatcher’s time, when money was tight here, lots of money was put into Catholic nationalist and, indeed, Protestant loyalist, areas of Northern Ireland. If you had measured how much went in and some of the economic impacts, it would all have looked very good. However, it did nothing to resolve the conflict. It created upwardly mobile Provos, but it did not stop the conflict because it was not about economics but about other issues. Therefore, when we evaluate, we need to think what we are evaluating and whether it is the purpose for which we are giving the money. That is often not the case because of the dominance of an economic view of humanity and its difficulties. Economics is important, but it is not the sole driving feature and, in resolving economic problems, economic aid is not always the best or only way to address them.

First, I touch on the question of conflict. The first paragraph of Article 1 of the charter establishing the United Nations states that it was set up to address conflict. Many years later, it has produced 17 sustainable development goals. Number 17 is about implementation. The issue of conflict does not arise until SDG 16, and it is there with two or three other issues. Why is that? It is because many of the member nations of the United Nations did not want it there at all. Yet the fact is that not a single one of the other SDGs can be achieved without resolving the question of conflict. Noble Lords have mentioned Syria, Iraq and Libya as examples. How can any of the other SDGs be satisfactorily resolved while those conflicts are continuing? They cannot. Therefore, it is crucial that some of our thought, resource and funding goes to understanding conflicts, what makes them and what resolves them. I appreciate all the difficulties about money for peacekeeping, but I am not actually talking about peacekeeping. I am talking about understanding why we have conflicts and finding ways of intervening, because if we do not do that, to be honest—the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, adverted to this in some of her comments—we are simply subsidising conflict rather than trying to resolve it, and we will not be very effective in making the kinds of changes that we want. Therefore, addressing the question of conflict is absolutely essential.

Secondly, when it comes to addressing economics, the best way, of course, is for communities themselves to develop the education and, indeed—as I will say—the culture that enables them to progress. It became clear to myself and a number of colleagues, particularly Martti Ahtisaari, the former Finnish president, that you can never develop a serious economy in a country, or proper governance, unless you develop institutions of higher learning, and you will never get those if people are never educated beyond a master’s degree. Yet, when we have proposed PhDs for young people from Africa and the Middle East, we have found it impossible to get funding from DfID or any other government or EU agency, because the only thing to which they want to commit money is primary and secondary education. That is perfectly reasonable and good, but we will never get anywhere unless there are people educated in those countries to a level where they can develop institutions of higher learning that take their governance and economy forward. It is short-sighted to focus only on things such as primary and secondary-level education.

That leads me to another very problematic issue—the question of culture. I give an example. I was asked to go and see some Aboriginal people in Australia because, despite the fact that the Australian Government were putting in very large amounts of money, their situation was getting worse. Their health was getting worse. Their education was not improving and the degree of physical and sexual violence, alcoholism and drug abuse was increasing. Why was that? It was because understanding the need for cultural change was not part of the agenda. One needs to find ways of helping people, to engage with cultures where they are, but also of taking people to a new place where they can survive in a world which is very different. Let me put it this way: the Aboriginal people have a culture that goes back longer than any other civilisation, something like 60,000 years. For almost all that time, they have been hunter-gatherers. That means that when you find food, water or whatever, you eat as much as you can because you have no idea when will be the next time you will get something. That is fine until McDonald’s and Kentucky Fried Chicken come along, and then, if you go in and eat all you can, you end up with diabetes and all sorts of other problems. That is exactly what has happened. The cultural change has not taken place. Why? Because people who are sensitive to addressing people’s needs say, “No, no, we mustn’t change their culture. That’s their culture. It’s neo-imperialism to get involved in that”. Yet it is a fact that if we keep their culture preserved in aspic, they will die out as a people. So there are complex, difficult issues to be addressed there.

My final point is on the question of the size of organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, quite rightly sang the praises of the large international NGOs, which are very important and deliver a lot of help. However, there are problems with them, one of which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. They gobble up the resources almost in total—a large amount of paperwork needs to be filled in and there is a lot of bureaucracy—and that is very difficult for small NGOs. Yet the small NGOs, with a particular idea and commitment, are the ones that will produce something new. Noble Lords often comment about international norms. But those are what we believe now—they are not good enough for the future. If we are to develop things further than where we are now, we do not need international norms alone. We need the small, piloting NGOs that will take a little money and do a lot with it with some new ideas. Can the Minister look again at this question of whether some of the money that goes to the large NGOs and the degree of bureaucracy that they have to create to manage the large number of people they work with might be better spent by taking us forward with the new ideas that some of the small NGOs may help us to create and exploit?

16:56

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to join this debate, not only because it is a fascinating subject in itself but because we are at last entering a period in which we can make a proper assessment of aid impact. I congratulate my noble friend on recognising this so soon, and I agree with her analysis and comments on the private sector. I did not agree with her about women in microcredit; we have to have a private discussion about this, because they have a high level of repayment in some countries.

We had a debate back in November 2015, during which various watchdogs involved in the aid programme were discussed. Other noble Lords have already explained the process, but it was already clear by 2010 that DfID was responding to a new international emphasis on aid effectiveness and transparency, added to which came value for money under the coalition, when Andrew Mitchell was Secretary of State and soon established the excellent ICAI. Aid dependency, people’s participation and sustainability were again under discussion. Noble Lords will know that many of these concepts are cyclical, and I can remember them back in the 1970s—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, also does—and even earlier. But they were being drawn together under a new Administration, partly because of hostile elements in the media and the need to defend the aid budget during the 0.7% Bill campaign.

Our great advantage this afternoon is that we can draw directly on the first five years’ work of ICAI, the body created to report regularly, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, whom we are very lucky to have in this House, with his first-hand experience. Only last week, ICAI published an important document, the ICAI Follow-up Review of Year 5 Reports. In my experience, the most targeted aid goes not through government but through civil society, churches and faith groups, and human rights agencies. The Grenfell Tower fire is only the latest example of the way that local organisations can move faster and more effectively than government, especially in a crisis. NGOs do not always have a good press but, having worked with several of them, I am bound to say that they have been a most efficient channel of our aid money, including ODA under successive partnership schemes, started by the noble Baroness, Lady Chalker. I can think of many examples of good long-term development that I have mentioned before but will not repeat now.

Aid from all sources goes astray. There were very few examples of fraud during my time with Christian Aid: there was a land speculator disguised as a doctor, and an agent who absconded with money for an emergency in northern Iraq. But no one is surprised that the aid world is always vulnerable to criminals, cheats and liars, especially seizing their chance during emergencies, and some do get round the system. The failure to deliver aid in conflict zones such as Helmand or South Sudan are all too familiar examples. It was good to hear from the right reverend Prelate—Bishop Tim, as we remember him in Sherborne—especially hearing him talk about the importance of climate change, but we are primarily concerned with development aid.

Turning to ICAI’s reports, I was discouraged to read more criticism of the Conflict Pool, which is now reborn as the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund. Held up as a fine example of interdepartmental co-operation, the CSSF has now doubled its budget to £1 billion or more for conflict prevention and peacekeeping—here, the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, made a vital point—but it still struggles to escape from an amber-red rating in a previous report. As it has wide implications for our foreign and defence policy, it was thoroughly examined by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy last February. It was not a satisfactory report, as the CSSF was still found to be wanting. In fact, some people have told me that the CSSF was simply in “a mess”. Perhaps earlier the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was a bit too forgiving.

ICAI said bluntly two years ago that the FCO’s project managers were not equipped to handle such large sums. It said:

“The other government departments in question do not have DFID’s level of project management capacity and culture of managing for results. There is a risk that the expansion of CSSF’s budget will generate unhelpful competition between departments”.


To answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, DfID is in the driving seat, but the Minister might like to comment on this because it has implications for all the other 14 departments now drawing on ODA, and especially for their relations with DfID. There are echoes here from our discussions of the CDC Bill. The Minister knows that there was a lot of concern about the rapid scaling up of CDC projects—many in the private sector—and whether DfID would be able to transfer skills quickly enough. Such overheating inevitably means that aid impact and delivery will be adversely affected in all these organisations.

The June 2015 report also mentioned the statistical boast common to all aid agencies in claiming the numbers of people they reach—the “Heineken factor”, or, in ICAI language, an overreliance on “reach indicators”, which specify the number of beneficiaries due to receive or to have received assistance. DfID’s new plan, which replaces its results framework, is not yet entirely satisfactory because there are no standard indicators. I am not sure that ICAI or anyone could ever reach a sensible solution because of the variability of data, but of course we must be glad that it is making the effort.

Again, I am reminded of our concerns during the CDC Bill that, although DfID was talking about so many “jobs created”, it turned out that it was counting “indirect jobs created”, and this was another important point picked up by ICAI. The NAO had concerns about this too. Why should the public be so misled on these issues? As the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned, education is a much surer measurement if we are looking at long-term impact.

A high priority for ICAI, following the theme of “no one left behind”, is the relationship between our ODA and the 17 new SDGs. This was well identified in the IDC’s recent report. It is of course to be expected that the new goals, which now have to come directly from the countries’ own priorities and, we hope, from their NGOs, will inevitably sharpen up aid impact and effectiveness. However, we are still not helping the very poorest enough and we should be doing more in African LDCs.

At this point in the debate, I feel I am something of an agnostic, because government—and indeed Parliament—may be prone to an illness described as “excessive monitoring”. We should not expect watchdogs to pretend to know everything. ICAI, thank goodness, is a relatively small, efficient operation and it cannot look at the entire aid programme. It already covers a vast number of projects and has become a vital link between the department and the IDC. I am full of admiration for ICAI, but equally I would not like overstretched DfID staff to be smothered by unnecessary double counting that may interfere with their essential work.

The cost implications of consultants coming and going have been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. They have to be taken into account. We all know that last December the Times reported that billions had been spent on consultancies while DfID’s own staff fell in proportion to the rising aid budget. I am among the first to defend the aid budget, but serious questions have been raised today, and I hope always will be, about aid effectiveness—the noble Lord, Lord Judd, was right to remind us about “impact” not being quite the right word. The Government, assisted by ICAI, are gradually addressing them, and I hope more Members of Parliament will go and see for themselves, maybe through the CPA and the IPU, the good that we are undoubtedly doing in many areas of the world.

17:06

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, imagine my disappointment on arriving in the Chamber today to find that, due either to technical incapability on my part or to a malfunction of the machine in the Whips’ Office, I was not on the list to speak after all. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in the gap so forgive me for darting about a little bit with slash, slash, slash—it is not all that easy.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, in focusing some of my remarks—I make no apology for this—on the value of access to contraception and family planning programmes as a way to break the cycle of poverty. By empowering women to plan their futures and reach their fullest potential, voluntary family planning gives women and girls the opportunity to complete their education and take up better economic opportunities. We know that it transforms lives, creating more prosperous, stable societies, which is in the UK’s interest.

The UK is continuing its leading role by hosting an international summit on family planning in London next week and I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s personal commitment to prioritising this agenda. Working with the UN Population Fund and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the summit aims to boost global commitment to ensuring women and girls have access to family planning services. Can any of us here in the UK imagine not having this access and the choices it provides? The summit will procure a range of new commitments from developing countries, donors and other partners. These commitments will increase access to family planning services for women and girls in the world’s poorest countries, fix problems with supply chains and prioritise the needs of women and girls in humanitarian crises.

Jumping to the fact that the aid budget is taxpayers’ money, I will just illustrate this with two small stories. I had a conversation recently with someone who had been a consultant in one of the big consultancies where I was making the case that so many girls were now educated in a way they were not before. The consultant said to me: “How do you know? I have worked in remote areas in Pakistan and a girl will turn up once and the box will be ticked and she may never turn up again”. I encourage my noble friend to be aware of what is actually going on. In another story, a friend was looking at a project in Pakistan where they were feeding children and giving them lunch. A sign said that meat was included in the rice. My friend, understanding Urdu, heard the project leader say to a worker, “Where is the meat in this rice? I told you today we have important visitors coming and we need the meat in the rice”. That could be happening far more on the ground than we are probably aware of.

The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, talked about small charities. I strongly endorse his point. Mary’s Meals, of which a number of noble Lords will be aware, gets not a penny from the taxpayer but provides fantastic value for money and feeds millions of children across Africa. The aid budget is taxpayers’ money and the Government have a duty to communicate to the UK public how this hard-earned money is spent effectively, delivers results for the world’s poorest people and is not subject to waste or corruption. They should continue to drive for greater efficiency and value for money and I commend the Minister for the work he is doing in this space.

17:10

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, on securing this important debate and I thank her for her thought-provoking opening remarks. I pay tribute to the contributions that we have heard across the Floor of the House and to the wonderful insight and experience that noble Lords present have brought to the debate.

When the aid budget is under attack in the press—as it is—it is important to ensure that hard-earned taxpayers’ money is shown to be spent effectively when delivering policy that helps the poorest in the world. Collecting data on inputs, outputs and outcomes which allow us to measure its impact is essential if we are to do that.

UK aid works, not only in helping some of the poorest people in the world to live in dignity and to begin to take charge of their own lives and livelihoods through economic development but benefiting us in the UK. The Overseas Development Institute recently published a report entitled Aid, Exports and Employment in the UK, showing how in 2014 UK direct bilateral aid generated an increase in UK exports and provided an estimated 12,000 extra UK jobs. It is a win-win relationship. I make this point because all too often DfID’s work is castigated in the press and those of us who support the fabulous work that it is doing need the ammunition to fire back.

UK aid strategy is changing. Over the past several years, more and more of the UK’s ODA is being spent by departments other than DfID through the FCO’s Prosperity Fund, the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, the Ross Fund and few other pots in other government departments, in total amounting to a good third of the overall ODA budget. While it falls to DfID to ensure that all UK ODA complies with the OECD’s ODA rules, DfID, nevertheless, in its annual report and accounts makes it clear that aid administered by other departments is the responsibility of the Secretary of State of those individual departments. Those other departments have published precious little information about the increasingly large sums of ODA they spend. This situation must be rectified.

DfID, on the other hand, is in many ways an exemplar department when it comes to openness and transparency, which is vital if we are to collect the data we need to assess development impact. My noble friend Lord Purvis referred to the Independent Commission for Aid Impact which scrutinises DfID’s work and provides independent evaluation of all UK aid spending. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, gave useful information about the work in depth that ICAI carries out. As well as ICAI, DfID also commissions independent evaluations such as the DfID evaluation annual report, and bilateral and multilateral reviews give in-depth analysis of country and sector expenditure. In addition, DfID is subject to further external scrutiny by the International Development Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office, as we have already heard.

The other departments do none of this and, although ICAI’s remit includes scrutiny of ODA spend by all UK government departments, this has not happened. When may we expect ICAI to undertake a review of ODA spend by other departments?

Since the last general election just a few weeks ago we have seen changes to ministerial posts such that we now have DfID Ministers with shared responsibility across other departments. Can the Minister confirm that this bodes well for future transparency? While DfID has displayed openness and transparency, there are a number of wider issues that I would like to raise where some joined-up thinking could maximise the impact of the UK aid budget.

The first is in respect of the policy on energy, an issue referred to quite extensively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. DfID is doing some good work on ensuring clean energy access for people in developing countries. However, at the same time the UK Government overall have spent more on fossil fuel projects in developing countries than on renewable energy projects. This needs to change as it is counterintuitive to help developing countries to mitigate against and adapt to climate change but to fund so many fossil fuel projects as well. In the same vein, DfID should use its position as a major shareholder in the World Bank to persuade it to switch to supporting more renewable energy projects. Between 2011 and 2015 the World Bank invested more in oil, gas and coal than it did in renewables.

Secondly, I want to talk about the Commonwealth Development Corporation. The CDC Act came into force earlier this year as a consequence of which, by 2020, a massive total of £6 billion will be made available to the CDC by DfID. In spite of the plethora of reports produced by DfID and its scrutineers, we still lack sufficient data on CDC’s activities. It must publish what it funds and it must do so in a timely way, given that all capital transfers to the CDC as of 2014 count immediately as ODA. Why is it that other development finance institutions such as the World Bank, the African Development Bank and the Asian Development Bank all appear and are rated in the multilateral aid review, but the CDC does not? Where in the department’s bilateral and multilateral reviews can the public see what impact the CDC is having?

I want to deviate from my speech a little and say in response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, that sound methodologies must be developed. The CDC does have at its disposal £5 million for just this purpose, but it lies unused. I think that we can put pressure on the CDC to use that money to develop some of the methodologies that are going to be necessary.

Lastly, I should like to talk about double standards. Britain was a driving force in ensuring that women and girls were front and centre in the drawing up of the UN sustainable development goals. Our commitment to this group, representing half of the world’s population, is enshrined in legislation and our then Secretary of State was a founding member of the UN High-Level Panel on Women’s Economic Empowerment. The UK has been a driving force in putting issues such as gender-based violence in conflict zones, forced marriage, teenage pregnancy and FGM at the forefront of international decision-making, so when a high-scoring project, properly assessed for impact and aimed at tackling the serious issues facing girls in developing countries, is sacrificed on the altar of the Daily Mail’s vitriol, something is seriously wrong with decision-making at the highest level. I am talking of course about Yegna, the Ethiopian Spice Girls. To make an impact, we must be consistent. There is little point in carrying out assessments and then ignoring the results, and I hope that cash transfers will not go the same way.

The Conservative Party’s manifesto stated that the party will,

“work with like-minded countries to change the rules”,

related to overseas development assistance. Will the Minister share with us what definition of aid the Secretary of State will be content with and at what point she will depart unilaterally from the OECD’s ODA definition, as she has stated she is prepared to do? Where is her red line? For my part I am concerned that this Government’s preoccupation is solely with Brexit and it is no secret that the Secretary of State herself is wedded to a hard Brexit. Will the Minister reassure the House that there will be no return to tied aid as the Government pull out all the stops to get trade deals in the limited time at their disposal? Will he further reassure your Lordships’ House that trade with developing countries will continue to support development, including through improving market access, strengthening capacity to trade and building better livelihoods?

I end on a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale. The International Development Committee produced a damning report on the Government’s implementation of the UN’s sustainable development goals. There is also precious little mention of them in the bilateral or multilateral aid reviews. This is in spite of this commitment made at the G20 summit in the middle of last year:

“The UK is intending to publish a report in due course on its contribution to the Global Goals which will cover both international and domestic implementation”.


When can we expect this report?

17:20

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for initiating the debate. It has been vital and given us an opportunity to have several bites at the cherry with questions to the Minister. Last week he and I attended the NGO reception at which the Secretary of State was also present. At the event she evidenced the huge impact that UK aid has in the world, particularly in Africa. A number of people at that meeting gave first-hand, personal accounts of the impact. She has also said that,

“Britain is saving lives and bringing stability and security, and that’s good for our economy”.

While I welcome her new-found enthusiasm for development, I have concerns about the direction in which she is taking the department. Apart from seeking changes in the rules governing ODA, which we addressed earlier in Oral Questions—I hope that the Minister will be able to answer the specific questions on that additional sentence in the manifesto that the Government will not go it alone—I particularly want to address the issues the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, raised in the debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech. He pointed out that more aid will be administered by other government departments, pointing out that in 2015 they accounted for 19.5% of ODA spending, compared with 13.8% in 2014.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this aid has been the FCO. As noble Lords have pointed out, a big problem with this is the lack of monitoring and evaluation systems. The Government must ensure that non-DfID aid programmes and funds meet DfID’s high levels of transparency and report publicly on their activities. Parliament needs to be satisfied that they are being properly assessed against their achievements in delivering the sustainable development goals. What are the Government doing to ensure that all government departments and funds managing ODA achieve rapid and ambitious improvements to the transparency of their aid programmes?

Another area of concern is what is happening to Ministers in DfID. We have Alistair Burt and Rory Stewart reporting to Boris Johnson at the FCO, and of course the Minister now also covers the Treasury. While I am all in favour of cross-Whitehall co-operation, as highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, is there something more going on here, especially in the light of the Budget’s shift away from DfID? I certainly hope there is not. Most noble Lords here would agree that DfID has huge expertise and a world-renowned reputation in defeating poverty. It should remain independent and the leading provider of UK aid. Will the Government confirm that they will apply the International Development Act 2002, with its legal requirement for aid to focus on poverty reduction, to all aid, regardless of which department or fund manages it?

Poverty and bad governance are still holding too many countries and their people back. Many women, disabled and older people and too many minorities are discriminated against and denied access to their fair share of goods, services and opportunities. Economic growth has the potential to be the engine to drive change. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said in Oral Questions, growth without jobs, inclusion, healthcare, education and human rights—growth without power—will not deliver for the many.

The universal nature of the sustainable development goals and the principle of leaving no one behind are vital tools. As my noble friend Lord McConnell asked, what are the Government doing to ensure that aid programmes delivered outside DfID focus on supporting the SDGs? Just when will we have clearer reports from cross-Whitehall co-operation on how the SDGs are being implemented? How will Parliament be involved in that?

To deliver the greatest impact, we must have a fairer tax system for the world’s poorest countries. Unfortunately, different government departments seem to be working against each other. According to the IMF, developing countries lose around $200 billion a year to tax avoidance. The UNCTAD estimates that tax havens cost developing countries at least $100 billion a year. While DfID is doing good work in helping developing countries broaden their tax base, other departments are not helping to improve tax transparency. The Treasury should work quickly to introduce public country-by-country reporting for UK companies. As the Minister is in the Treasury now, can he tell us how Ministers are progressing this matter multilaterally and when they expect an agreement to be reached? What discussions are taking place about the overseas territories following the UK’s lead and introducing a public register of beneficial ownership? The private registers being introduced at the moment are almost useless for developing countries, as they cannot see the information and many are excluded from information-sharing agreements. While this policy inconsistency continues, the impact of our aid will never be quite as much as we would like.

Value for money means measuring success by the change that we make and not simply by the cash that we put in. That is why Labour strongly supports the Independent Commission for Aid Impact. When a budget as important as this is ring-fenced, there is a fiscal responsibility and a moral duty to deliver as much change as possible for the money that we invest. DfID’s Annual Report and Accounts sets out the mechanisms which the department uses to ensure that it spends its money in a strategic, long-term way. As noble Lords have said, this includes a single departmental plan setting out strategic objectives for the period of the spending review. We also have the annual target and the framework of accountability, involving ICAI and Parliament.

As Priti Patel argued last week, the private sector needs to play an even greater role by integrating the aims of the SDGs into business practice. Developing countries currently face an annual investment gap of $2.5 trillion if they are to achieve the SDGs by 2030. That can be done only by working with the private sector. Noble Lords have mentioned the CDC, which should do more to measure the development impact of its investments. That would not only provide a better basis for investment decisions but increase the transparency of the CDC.

The 2012 to 2016 investment plan has expired; I am told that the 2017 to 2021 investment plan and strategic framework will be published this Thursday. I am sure that the noble Lord will tell us that it is a matter for the usual channels but I sincerely hope that time will be given in this House for a proper debate in government time on that strategic plan. It is vital that we hold the CDC to account, particularly in terms of transparency.

To conclude, I will pick up a theme that my noble friend Lord Judd referred to. We talk about aid dependency, but this generation has the opportunity to eliminate that for good by empowering the powerless. That is our vision on this side of the House, and it is what we will be pressing the Government to do.

17:30

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for securing this debate. It has been extremely useful and one of those occasions when you look at the wealth of expertise both in and outside this House and are not quite sure whether at the end of it you are supposed to give a speech or should have been taking notes. Of course, it has been a combination of both as I have gone through this debate.

The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has a distinguished track record in this whole area. She outlined, rightly, the need for evidence-based analysis of what is working here. We also heard during the course of the debate from my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Verma, who left a tremendous legacy from her time as Minister. I publicly thank her for that. Many of the areas in which I now deal simply continue excellent initiatives that she began. I also join others in welcoming my noble friend Lady Sugg to the Front Bench as Whip. She will be a tremendous support because, again, she has such experience and expertise in this area.

If I were to try and answer all the questions presented to me, we would exceed the two-and-a-half hour cut-off line—perhaps even the two-and-a-half hour cut-off line for my speech. I have a limited amount of time, but I am very keen that we are able to draw on the wealth of expertise in this House. I will look for an opportunity, I hope before the recess, to continue some of these discussions we have had today.

UK aid plays a vital role in helping the world’s poorest and most vulnerable. That is both morally right and in our enlightened self-interest, as we were reminded. One of the other themes of the debate has been that the world has changed. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to that in particular. We talked about the changing nature of some of the pressures. I want to dive straight in to the ODA issue mentioned by so many. It is an area of focus.

The rules of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee were set up some 40 years ago, when the world was a very different place. They have been changed only once in the past 40 years. That process of changing them, once, in March 2016—as the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to—took a period of four years to agree. This is a slow-moving area because the Development Assistance Committee works by consensus. We have been very keen to say that we want to share our concerns with our friends. That has literally just begun through our communication process. At this stage, I cannot give a run-down of who our friends are in these particular areas or what each of them are coming to us to say are the areas they would like to see changed and improved.

However, they have looked at particular areas such as climate change. That is something on which 40 years ago there was perhaps not the same focus so we need to look at it. Some elements of research that you can do into climate change are not ODA eligible, yet they benefit, as many have mentioned, the poorest on the planet. There is also violent extremism and countering terrorism—the new threats we face. Do the rules allow and capture all that has been done in this particular area? There is migration on a huge scale around the world, almost unprecedented in our history—certainly post-war—and that raises new challenges. So when, for example, we deploy Border Force cutters in the Mediterranean to intercept the people-traffickers who make fortunes out of other people’s misery and put their lives at risk, and when we work with the Libyan coastguard to try and improve their security and safety, are these not areas that we ought to be able to consider as part of our overall effort?

There is also trade. We talk about trade and development. The only way we are able to achieve that aspiration set out by the former archbishop of not creating dependency—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—is by trade. Look at the number of people in extreme poverty, which reduced by 50% between 1990 and 2010. What was the reason for that—was it the levels of aid? No, it was the levels of trade, so those are very important to us. That is also the reason why the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Secretary of State for International Development jointly announced that one of our ambitions is to maintain and build upon the preferential trade arrangements for the 48 countries in Africa to be able to trade into the United Kingdom tariff-free. We recognise that that is incredibly important to us.

The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to the issues of monitoring. Many noble Lords referred to the level of monitoring that goes on. He referred to the possibility that there might even be an excess of monitoring in some respects. Of course, at the moment overseas aid is, in the UK, probably one of the most scrutinised of any spends that happen anywhere in the world. That is one reason the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right to point to the International Aid Transparency Initiative’s rating of DfID as world-class and world-leading in the way that it does aid. We have nothing to fear from transparency because that is part of the way we learn and gather information about this. I direct noble Lords to the website “devtracker”. It is a bit of a catchy name, but the Development Tracker is an incredible resource, enabling you to see exactly, in real time, what is actually happening on which programmes and who is delivering them. You can read the independent evaluation reports carried out and see how much money has been paid—as I say, in real time. These are ground-breaking methods of transparency that are recognised internationally. Of course, then we have our own quality assurance, and that has been added to a whole new—

[Lord Purvis of Tweed]

I do not wish to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but he has quite substantially moved on from the area of the DAC and OECD. With the greatest respect, I was waiting for him to answer the point that a number of noble Lords across the Chamber asked about the line in his party’s manifesto that, if there were no agreement within the OECD and DAC, the Government would propose unilateral action and bring forward legislation to change the criteria for ODA in the UK. All of us asked him to reflect on that and perhaps move away from it, especially in the context that he no longer has a majority in either House. This would be a good example of listening to a great deal of concern that moving unilaterally would not be in the best interests of the UK in this area.

[Lord Bates]

I do not want to parallel or parody debates taking place on other aspects of government policy and exiting the European Union, but I can assure the noble Lord that we have no red lines. We are still developing what the issues are that we would like to address. We began that process talking to the NGOs. I would like to continue by talking to Members of your Lordships’ House about what the issues are, citing some of the problems and talking it through with officials. Of course, then we need to present that to colleagues. So it is not a firm, baked plan, which we are demanding or otherwise we will go out on our own. We have said we are quite determined that there are some issues that need to be addressed and we want to share that with people and work together in a consensual way.

Returning to the point about examination and monitoring, of course we have our own internal quality assurance. We also have the National Audit Office. We have the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, which has been cited. The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, asked about the CSSF. That was one of the ICAI reports that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to, where that scrutiny is beginning to happen. There is also the International Development Committee in the other place, of which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was a distinguished chair for 10 years. Again, we have a very good working relationship with that committee. It is rigorous, but there is a partnership because we all want the same thing—namely, to eradicate extreme poverty.

Then we have the sustainable development goals, which a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friends Lady Verma and Lady Jenkin, referred to. They are going to introduce a whole new level of scrutiny. Again, it comes back to the point about the Development Assistance Committee. Forty years ago, we did not have the millennium development goals, never mind the sustainable development goals. Now we have these new goals that introduce whole new categories—such as beneath the ocean or peace and conflict, which the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, referred to—that we need to work on.

I was asked what the Government are doing in respect of the SDGs. We published our Agenda 2030 in March. That was the cross-government response to that. The Office for National Statistics has announced a consultation looking at the best way of producing data and statistics in these matters so that we can track our progress towards the SDG aims. It has some very important elements in it. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, was concerned about how those data might be connected. There is a huge new initiative taking place across the UN institutions about collecting data, particularly on the sustainable development goals—what actually works and how it should operate. That is being done by the UN Statistical Commission. We have representation on that and we will follow that, and publish routinely and regularly, in accordance with the requirements of the SDGs, how we are progressing. We will also be able to see online how other countries are progressing towards them. I think this is going to be a major step forward—to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, among others—because once we see countries’ own self-assessment of where they are lagging behind and where they are progressing, we will have an additional level of data to help us ensure that our resources are directed to those who are in greatest need.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, also asked why BEIS is the second-highest ODA spender. Of course, that is because the primary objective of BEIS ODA is research and innovation—to reduce poverty by generating and putting into use knowledge and technology to address development challenges and advance development for the poorest in the world. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, gave the example of King’s College working in partnership with the Government of Sierra Leone on Ebola. What has been achieved through this, and more widely through development, is incredible, but we still have a long way to go. We have rigorous ways of monitoring the impact and communicating the achievements.

I know that at this point the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will be flinching in his seat, but I ask him to bear with me on impact because it is leading to the subject of effectiveness. We can see that development aid is changing the lives of the world’s poorest. Just today we read about the outbreak of cholera in Yemen, and there is the World Health Organization with 1 million cholera vaccines, desperately trying to get safe access. It is true that you cannot separate the security elements from the humanitarian need in this respect. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to this as well. Without the security elements, we will not be able to get those vaccines to those who need them.

Just last week, I returned from South Sudan. I was delighted to hear the analysis and the experiences of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Truro. I saw the terrible situation there. Were it not for the World Food Programme and DfID’s contribution to that, 1.6 million people who are relying on airdrops of food, through a completely man-made conflict—this is not to do with climate change but entirely to do with the civil war which is raging on the ground—would have their lives put at risk. Therefore, to say that you can somehow separate the security dimension from the humanitarian dimension is not correct.

I will speak about other government departments. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, referred to the Building Stability Overseas Strategy. Of course, we now have the UK aid strategy—Command Paper 9163—produced in 2015. I do not want to quote extensively from it but that is our new marching point for this and includes significant elements on how we are going to work with global peace, security and governance. I commend it to noble Lords. It says:

“All departments spending ODA will be required to put in place a clear plan to ensure that their programme design, quality assurance, approval, contracting and procurement, monitoring, reporting and evaluation processes represent international best practice”.


It is also right and absolutely fair to say that other government departments are not quite at the level of DfID at the moment. We do not want to crow too much about that because they have not been doing it for as long. My noble friend Lady Chalker is in her place. There is a long tradition and expertise in that area in government, which we want to retain. But that cannot be any reason not to aspire to the highest standards. We have said that we want all government departments that are delivering ODA to be rated either good or very good within five years. An ODA senior officials’ group now meets regularly across government to ensure that lessons are learned and we can assist other government departments in doing that.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, mentioned disability. Again, this is part of the SDGs and leaving no one behind, which is a key part of what we are doing. Looking again at our disability strategy is also something that the Secretary of State, Priti Patel, has made a personal passion of. We will be putting additional resources towards that.

The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, mentioned small grants. I covered this subject in the exchanges in Questions about the small charities challenge fund.

The right reverend Prelate also spoke about what churches could be doing in this area. I will be meeting him tomorrow. Again, I turn to the example of South Sudan. When I was in South Sudan, I met Archbishop Deng—a very gracious man—the Archbishop of South Sudan and Sudan. There are 100,000 churches in South Sudan. What an incredible network that we could be using for peace and reconciliation. I also met Bishop Anthony Poggo, who I am sure is well known to the right reverend Prelate.

The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, mentioned the catalytic impact of private sector investment and the £2.5 trillion gap in private financing. We need to get much more private capital in there. Governments cannot do this alone through ODA. It needs to be through trade, private investment and, increasingly, government assistance providing a catalytic role in that.

Without doubt, UK aid is making a significant contribution to tackling the global challenges of our time. The Government agree wholeheartedly on the importance of measuring its impact so we can fully understand and continue to improve on the very significant contribution the UK is making to the world’s poorest, to stability and prosperity here and to eliminating extreme poverty by 2030. I look forward to continuing these discussions as weeks go on.

17:50

[Baroness D'Souza]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which was, as always, sympathetic, informative and detailed, and I warmly thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate.

It is extremely encouraging that DfID is regarded so highly within this House and well beyond it, but there are areas which would benefit from greater scrutiny, particularly, clarification of the objectives and perhaps the strategy of aid itself and aid delivery. A particularly interesting idea is whether we can look further at the potential synergistic effect of bringing together the work of various government departments, the private sector and NGOs.

There are two very small points I want to make. First, many small research-based NGOs are doing some remarkable work on modelling and charting the development process rather than its impact and notably the evidence for development. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, it would be wonderful if they could receive some money to further the work they are doing.

Secondly, it is nearly 60 years since there has been a general debate on the basis for international aid. I wonder whether the UK is in a very good position to be able to lead an initiative to discuss what should be the basis for aid in the coming years.

Motion agreed.

Northern Ireland Political Situation

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Statement

17:51

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, I would like to make a Statement about the political situation in Northern Ireland. As the House will recall, following the resignation of Martin McGuinness, the then Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, in January, an election took place to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 March. Despite intensive discussions in the three weeks following the election, the Northern Ireland parties were unable to reach agreement on the formation of a new Executive.

In order to facilitate further discussions between the parties, Parliament passed legislation immediately prior to Dissolution extending the period in which an Executive could be formed until 29 June. Last Thursday, 29 June, I made a statement in Belfast setting out that, while differences remained between the parties, progress had been made and that it was still possible for resolution to be achieved. I urged the parties to continue focusing their efforts on this, with the full support of the United Kingdom Government and, as appropriate, the Irish Government. In that regard, I want to recognise the contribution of the Irish Foreign Minister, Simon Coveney, and his predecessor, Charlie Flanagan.

In the past few days since the passing of the deadline, further progress has continued to be made, including on the most challenging issues, such as language, culture and identity. Gaps remain between the parties, but these are few in number and on a defined group of issues. The Government remain committed to working with the parties, and the Irish Government, to find a way to close these gaps quickly in order to reach an agreement that will pave the way for the restoration of devolved government. The Prime Minister has been actively involved, following on from her meetings with each of the parties, including speaking to Arlene Foster and Michelle O’Neill on Friday night. I continue to believe that a deal remains achievable, and if agreement is reached I will bring forward legislation to enable an Executive to be formed, possibly as early as this week, but time is short.

It has been six months since a full Executive was in place to represent the people of Northern Ireland. In that time it has been civil servants, not politicians, who have made decisions on spending. Without political direction, it has not been possible for strategic decisions to be made about priorities in areas such as education and health. This has created pressures that need to be addressed, and it has led to understandable concern and uncertainty among businesses and those relying on public services alike. This hiatus cannot simply continue for much longer. There is no doubt that the best outcome is for a new Executive to make those strategic decisions in the interests of all parts of the community in Northern Ireland. It should be for a new Executive to make swift decisions on their Budget to make use of the considerable spending power available to them.

While engagement between the parties continues and there is a prospect of an agreement this week, it is right that those discussions remain our focus. At the same time, we will not forget our ultimate responsibility as a Government to uphold political stability and good governance in Northern Ireland. In April, I made a Written Ministerial Statement that sought to provide clarity for those civil servants charged with allocating cash in Northern Ireland to assist them in the discharge of their responsibilities, but there remains resource available, including £42 million from the spring Budget and any further budget transfers as may be agreed, which is as yet unallocated. If we do not see resolution in the coming days, we will need to reflect carefully upon whether further clarity will be required for Northern Ireland Permanent Secretaries around those resources”.

My Statement seems to have run out of pages. I do not think that is all of it.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

The Minister may have my copy.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

That is most kind. I am most grateful for the cross-party spirit on this issue, which I hope continues.

“In that situation, we would also need to reflect carefully on how we might allocate the funding made available to address immediate health and education pressures as set out in Monday’s Statement on United Kingdom government financial support for Northern Ireland, recognising Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances, and, if no agreement is reached, legislation in Westminster may then be required to give authority for the expenditure of Northern Ireland departments through an appropriations Bill. From my conversations with the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, we have not quite reached that critical point yet, but that point is coming and the lack of a formal Budget is not something that can be sustained indefinitely. Similarly, decisions on capital expenditure and infrastructure and public service reforms in key sectors, such as the health service, cannot be deferred for much longer.

One area on which there is much consensus, however, is on the need for greater transparency around political donations. In line with the commitment set out in the Conservative Party’s Northern Ireland manifesto at the general election, I can confirm that I intend to bring forward legislation that will provide for the publication of all donations and loans received by Northern Ireland parties on or after 1 July 2017.

All of this reinforces further the importance of the parties coming together and reaching an agreement, and it sets out, too, some of the hard choices that we face if uncertainty persists. I am also conscious that, with the deadline now passed, I am under a duty to set a date for a new election. I will continue to keep that duty under review, but it seems unlikely that that would of itself resolve the current political impasse or the ultimate need for political decision-making, however we proceed. As the Government for the whole United Kingdom, we will always govern in the interests of all those within the United Kingdom, and so if resolution were to prove intractable, and an Executive could not be restored, we would of course be ready to do what is needed to provide that political decision-making in the best interests of Northern Ireland, but I am clear that the return of inclusive, devolved government by a power-sharing Executive is what would be best for Northern Ireland, and that will remain our overriding focus in the crucial days ahead.

The UK Government will continue to govern in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland by providing political stability and keeping an open and sustained dialogue with the parties and with the Irish Government, in accordance with the well-established three-stranded approach. I stand ready to do what is necessary to facilitate the quick formation of an Executive once an agreement is reached, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

17:59

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I welcome the Minister to his new post. I have had many dealings with him in the past and I look forward to continuing negotiations. I place on record my appreciation for his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I think most folk would agree that we maintained the cross-party consensus, which in many ways was due to the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. I therefore place on record our appreciation of his efforts.

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We know that the Secretary of State, the Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney, his predecessor Charlie Flanagan, and all the Northern Irish parties have been working hard to try to narrow the gap on outstanding issues, notably on the question of the status of the Irish language and respect for all languages, culture and heritage in Northern Ireland. We welcome the fact that the Secretary of State did not come before Parliament today to announce that the shutters are coming down on the talks in Belfast.

People in Belfast and across Northern Ireland will have heard the Secretary of State’s contention that there remains “the prospect” of a deal this week. If that is achieved, then he will enjoy our full support in passing any necessary legislation to enable the Executive to reform and the Assembly to meet. But I think there will be frustration among many Northern Ireland citizens that a full six months after the Executive broke down and little more than a week before 12 July—the high point of the marching season—we remain at this impasse.

Without departing from the consensus which has existed for many years between the Government and ourselves, and indeed with the Liberals, some hard questions must now be asked about what more the Government can do to assist the parties in moving forward. It is encouraging that the Prime Minister picked up the phone on Friday night to the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein. But would the Minister comment on the suggestion—the point was made in the House of Commons, and I am sure it will be made here as well—that the Prime Minister might be more effective if she were to get on a plane to Belfast herself? History has shown that it has often required direct intervention from the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to bridge the divide in Belfast. We have the examples of Tony Blair and Sir John Major, who made great efforts when things looked extremely difficult there. It remains unclear why there is a perception that the current run of Conservative Prime Ministers have proved reluctant to take personal responsibility to try and break the deadlock.

In fact, many might believe that the current Prime Minister has a particular duty to be more involved, as it was her decision to call an election which pushed the talks so close to the 12 July commemorations and led to her reliance on the Democratic Unionist Party that other parties have today cited as a factor in the talks. We agree with the Secretary of State that:

“This hiatus cannot simply continue for much longer”.


But I hope we might hear more from the Minister about how the Government intend to bring it to a positive end with the restoration of the Executive. If not greater hands-on engagement by the Prime Minster, as I and others have suggested, does he think there is a role for a new, independent, potentially international chair to come in with fresh eyes and a powerful mandate to support the efforts of the British and Irish Governments? Again I refer to the past, when that has also been an effective means of shifting things.

I note the warning by the Secretary of State that, if a way forward cannot be found, he will have to bring forward budgetary transfers to provide clarity and resources for the Northern Ireland Civil Service. That may well be necessary, and if so, again the Government will have the full co-operation of Her Majesty’s Official Opposition. But I am sure the Minister agrees that it is profoundly unsatisfactory that major decisions about public services and other measures continue to be taken by unelected civil servants, no matter how competent. On the matter of an appropriations Bill, the Minister will be aware that some will see that effectively as a measure of direct rule. I am sure this is a position that the Government wish to avoid, and we urge the Secretary of State to consider all alternatives before we take such a backwards step.

I welcome the decision that the Secretary of State has taken today to legislate for publication of all political loans and donations received by political parties on or after 1 July. That is an important step in normalising the politics of Northern Ireland. Do the Government intend that the thresholds that apply to the publication of donations in the rest of the UK will be those that are applied in Northern Ireland?

This House has played a terrific part in helping peace in Northern Ireland, and I am sure that everyone here will agree that Northern Ireland needs its Assembly and Executive up and running as soon as possible. There is no greater illustration of that than the Brexit negotiations, which we are entering with no real means of Northern Ireland’s voice—the voice of all its communities and traditions, and opinions on Brexit—being heard around the negotiating table. That, I am sure the Minister will agree, cannot be right. All of us, including on this side of the House, must redouble our efforts to see the Executive, and with it the voice of Northern Ireland, strengthened and restored.

[Baroness Suttie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and welcome him to his new role—he is certainly starting at an interesting and challenging time for Northern Ireland. I also place on record my tribute to his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop. Given the importance of the issue, however, I wonder why this was not a Prime Ministerial Statement today.

When we last discussed these issues, just before the election, there was a degree of optimism that genuine progress could be made. Indeed, for a time last week, it appeared that good progress was being made. However, with the passing of Thursday’s deadline, and even with the short continuation of talks over the weekend, we once again find ourselves in an impasse. This is an extremely disappointing development, and it is frustrating to watch from here the way in which the two largest parties in Northern Ireland appear to have backed themselves into a corner when there are undoubtedly creative solutions to be found.

The increase in turnout of some 10.6% between the 2016 and 2017 Assembly elections demonstrates the strong commitment of the people of Northern Ireland to devolved government, and I can well understand the frustration of ordinary people in Northern Ireland at this latest setback.

As the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, has already said, there has been no ministerial direction in the devolved departments for a number of months. Decisions on how to allocate budgets are being missed, and all this has a direct impact on public services and jobs. Can the Minister give an indication of how today’s Statement will help to change the dynamics in the talks process? As well as the damage that is being done to Northern Ireland’s economy and public services, it is vital at this time for Northern Ireland to have its own voice in the Brexit negotiations. Can the Minister tell us who speaks for Northern Ireland on Brexit?

The confidence and supply arrangement with the DUP in Westminster has understandably caused concern about how the Government can fulfil their role in independently mediating the Belfast Good Friday agreement. Can the Minister explain how they will demonstrate the “rigorous impartiality” needed, as set out in the Good Friday agreement?

Bringing together my last two points, can he tell us how the voices of all parties in Northern Ireland—including those which won seats in the Assembly in March but do not sit on the Government’s co-ordinating committee—will have their voices heard on the vital issues of governance of Northern Ireland and of the Brexit negotiations?

Although I welcome the introduction of legislation on party donations, does the Minister agree that for the legislation to have the desired effect of returning confidence to the party-political process in Northern Ireland, it should be backdated to 2014? Finally, can the Minister say whether he believes that this is a genuine postponement, or are we just delaying the inevitable?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for their contributions and their kind words of welcome. I also very much endorse what they said about my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who has given great service in this role and continues to be a source of very valuable information and advice. I am most grateful to him.

To take up some of the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, first, I am most grateful for the endorsement of the bipartisan approach that we seek, which I am sure extends to the Liberal Democrats as well, in relation to the Belfast agreement. We are wedded to that, as indeed everybody in Northern Ireland seems to be—it is just about ensuring that we complete the last phase of these discussions so that we can take things forward. The issues that remain to be resolved are relatively narrow, and I can understand, and indeed share, the general frustration felt by the Front Benches. I am sure it is widely felt. The Secretary of State has worked tirelessly to seek an agreement, and the issues are becoming tighter and narrower. There is the prospect of an agreement, and I can certainly confirm that the shutters are not coming down in any way at all. We are very much wedded to getting a deal, and there is the prospect of one following the approach that we take.

The suggestion is made of the greater involvement of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has been closely involved; she spoke to the five parties in Northern Ireland, to which I think the noble Baroness was referring, as recently as Friday. Talks with the two leaders, Michelle O’Neill and Arlene Foster, continued on Saturday, and she has spoken to the Taoiseach on a number of occasions as well, so those discussions are going on. I caution about always rushing for the involvement of the Prime Minister because that has not always paid dividends in Northern Ireland and does not necessarily help. As I say, the issues are being driven forward, and it is for the two main parties to hammer out the deal between them.

On the noble Baroness’s question about the involvement of the other parties, I should say that they have been having their discussions as well. At the moment the main focus has of course been on the discussions between the two main parties, as you would expect, but the others have been involved in discussions of their own because, once an agreement is made, which I certainly hope and believe will be the case, the deal then has to be completed with their involvement.

I thank noble Lords for their indications of support for the donations and loans Bill that will be forthcoming. Retrospective legislation is not always wise, let us say, so it will be carried forward from the date of announcement, which I think is the usual way of these things. As I say, though, I thank noble Lords for their general welcome.

I think I have picked up the main points. I welcome noble Lords’ continuing support, and of course we will update the House on the progress of the discussions, which are at a crucial and, we hope, successful stage.

18:11

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his position and thank him for repeating the Statement on Northern Ireland. I am particularly pleased at his optimism that a power-sharing Executive is still achievable in Northern Ireland, because that is what we negotiated in the Belfast agreement.

Living near the border and knowing Sinn Fein inside out as I do, I ask the Minister whether he realises that one of the joys for Sinn Fein is to bash the British. He will understand that minority Governments are unstable institutions, and we have a minority Government in southern Ireland depending on Fianna Fail support. We are likely to have an election in southern Ireland, and it would certainly be helpful to Sinn Fein if it could continue to bash the British from now until that election takes place. So the Minister’s optimism may be misplaced.

In welcoming the new Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Ireland—after all, it is a foreign country with a Foreign Minister—does the Minister realise that when we negotiated the Belfast agreement, the then Foreign Minister of the Republic, David Andrews, was expelled and excluded from all strand one talks? Does he now recognise that last week on the front pages of daily papers in both the Republic and Northern Ireland there was much criticism of the new Foreign Minister of the Republic for interfering in the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, and that that has upset a lot of people across Northern Ireland and is particularly unhelpful? Lastly, will the Minister confirm that, although there are many options if we do not have an Executive, one of the options is still direct rule?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind words of welcome. I am indeed optimistic, but then it could perhaps be pointed out that I am new to the job so I do not know whether that is just an occupational hazard.

Discussions are going forward involving all three strands of the Belfast agreement. Discussions have been undertaken between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach and between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Foreign Minister of Ireland, and it is appropriate that they should as provided for in the Belfast agreement. As I say, we are entering a crucial stage. It is important that we look forward rather than back. I have a lot to learn but I think looking forward is probably a good idea in Northern Ireland, and I think it is what people are focused on.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, when exactly was the involvement of the Prime Minister, as he said, negative? I would like to know. The default position for anyone who has done the job is to support the Secretary of State regardless of party. However, I really feel that the Government have lost the plot, and have done so now for a period. My noble friend Lord Murphy was the first to say some six months ago that it was necessary to convene a summit of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach to resolve the problem, but that did not happen. Deadlines have been set and passed with equanimity with no downside for any of the parties concerned. In addition, there is a massive democratic deficit in Northern Ireland now at a time when Brexit requires Northern Ireland’s voice to be heard, as Wales’s and Scotland’s voices are being heard through their Governments more than ever before.

Lastly, I want to ask about the donations Bill. Does the Minister accept that there is real concern that it will hit one side of the community, particularly the nationalist parties? I do not think that legislation is helpful at a time when the Government already stand accused of being partisan and dependent on their deal with one party in Northern Ireland to keep the Prime Minister afloat.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution. He comes with past experience of the job. He will know that deadlines have been set in the past; this is nothing new. I fully agree with what he says about the democratic deficit. It was inherent in the Statement that we need a power-sharing Executive because of budgetary issues and involvement in issues such as Brexit as well as many others. I do not disagree with him on that at all. All I can say is that work is progressing and there is a narrowing of the disagreements, so there is the prospect of a deal.

On the question of the donations legislation, obviously there will be a chance to discuss this when it is presented to Parliament but I would say that it has been welcomed by the opposition Front Benches both in the House of Commons and here. There will be a chance to scrutinise it as it goes through both Houses.

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, while much has been made of disrespect and respect, who is respecting the more than a quarter of a million people who are on hospital waiting lists, over 53,000 of whom have been waiting for over 12 months to see a consultant? Who is respecting the interests of the victims of the historical institutional inquiry that people have been waiting a lifetime for but is lying idle and unattended to on the shelf in Stormont? Who is paying any respect or even attention to the schools that will reconvene in September not knowing whether they have budgets that can carry them through the entire year? This shame and disgrace have been going on now for over six months. While I am entirely in favour of people treating each other with respect, the vast majority of people who are on these waiting lists are being treated disrespectfully. Will the Minister be kind enough to pass that message on to his right honourable friend and ensure that those people have their legitimate needs and concerns properly addressed, openly and clearly?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for raising those issues. He will of course be aware that on a day-to-day basis, health spending and education spending are being carried forward in Northern Ireland because it is important that we have appropriate government there. What is not happening, as he did not allude to directly but I am sure he intended to, is that strategic decisions are not being made at the moment. That again refers to the democratic deficit, which we must seek to fill. At the moment the head of the Civil Service in Northern Ireland has indicated that the Civil Service is in a position to keep matters running, but the noble Lord is right to say that this could not go on indefinitely and that there is a democratic deficit. There is indeed.

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister knows that a drift to direct rule is very easy and will be disastrous, but that to get out of direct rule is much more difficult. He knows that every successful agreement in Northern Ireland—the Good Friday agreement, the St Andrews agreement and others—has rested on important prime ministerial involvement. None of those agreements would have been possible unless the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach together talked to the parties and leaders in Northern Ireland. I take the point about the Taoiseach, but, where appropriate, the Taoiseach can be involved. Phone calls are not good enough. The Prime Minister needs to go to Belfast to talk to the parties concerned, because the British and Irish Governments are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement.

Finally, the Minister has enormous experience of Welsh politics and government, and he knows that you can have a language Act without the union being jeopardised. I hope that he can bring that experience to bear in the talks that lie ahead.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, for his contribution. Once again, he did not allude to his personal experience, but I know that he has vast experience in Northern Ireland in many respects, not least as Secretary of State.

I agree about the involvement and engagement of the Prime Minister. That is important, and it is happening. The Prime Minister is constantly involved, but the lead at the moment rests with the Secretary of State. He is very much involved with the talks, flying backwards and forwards to Northern Ireland, engaging with the parties and progressing things. While that remains the case, I think that that is the best approach.

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, it is nearly two years since the Northern Ireland Assembly did anything bar pass a Finance Act. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the consequences of that—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, spelled out some of them. Where does the Secretary of State’s optimism come from? I looked at the response of the political parties to the Statement. Sinn Fein says that there will be no agreement in the short term, the DUP says that Sinn Fein is introducing more demands, the Ulster Unionists are saying that there is no further clarity and Colum Eastwood says that we are on the path to direct rule. That is actually what the people of Northern Ireland think. We do not know what is happening, but it looks like we are on the way to direct rule.

Can the Minister do something useful that would raise spirits in Northern Ireland? That might be handing over the money for legacy inquests and giving effect to that one small part of the rule of law which has been neglected in Northern Ireland. Secondly, could he look at having an Act on party donations? Could we have something that will provide pensions for those young people who were terribly injured in the Troubles and who now have no pensions and no money? Could he think about providing other support for the victims and injured in the Troubles, because no one is helping them?

We all know what has to happen: the noble Lord, Lord Empey, set it out. Can the Government not bring some hope and reassurance other than just the words that they are hopeful?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I seek to reassure the noble Baroness that it is not just words at issue here, it is the fact that the Secretary of State has been very closely involved in the discussions. The discussions are progressing. I note what she says about statements by political parties engaged in talks, but she will know from the history that that is nothing particularly new. We want to ensure that we adhere to the Belfast agreement, and taking direct powers over relevant issues here would be very much contrary to it. That is not what we intend to do: we are wedded to the Belfast agreement and we are seeking to ensure that it is implemented.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, during my period as Chief Whip, I was well aware of how important day-by-day attention to the detail of the peace process was across government, but particularly in No. 10, and the relationship between the Northern Ireland Office and No. 10. I and many others are concerned that insufficient attention has been paid on a daily basis to the importance of securing that peace process. You do not get a peace process on one day. Once it has been signed, you have to do the work again, again and again.

I am concerned about the partisanship of the Government and the Secretary of State. In the last week before the general election, he agreed a supply day for the DUP. He agreed to go to a fundraiser for the DUP, and had to pull out because of the outrage in the press in Northern Ireland. Now we have the relationship with the DUP. It is important that the Government seriously address appointing an independent chair for the talks—several have already been mentioned as possibilities. I urge the Government to take this seriously, because all of us will suffer if we do not get a devolved Assembly going and the threat to the peace process continues.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I entirely refute the accusation of partisanship made against the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—that is unworthy of the noble Baroness. They are wedded to the peace process and working hard to achieve it. She referred in particular to the agreement with the DUP, which of course is not contrary to the Belfast agreement. The billion pounds of spending, at least, was welcomed by Gerry Adams, who said, “Well done, Arlene”, so I am not sure that I could agree with her on that point. Where I agree with the noble Baroness is that it is important that we pursue the peace process and uphold the Belfast agreement in, as the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, said, a bipartisan way. That is exactly what we are doing.

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I very much regret that to date no agreement has been reached between the parties in Northern Ireland to return much-needed devolved government. However, I understand that substantial progress has been made on many issues and, like the Secretary of State, I believe that a deal remains achievable. I therefore welcome the additional time that has been granted.

Of course, some important issues still need to be resolved. One of these is the matter of legacy. Will the Government undertake to publish the proposals on this, so that a wider consultation can take place, which would help to facilitate the parties in reaching a consensus on this issue?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his more optimistic take on what is happening and the progress that is indeed being made. The legacy arrangements to which he refers were, of course, the subject of the Stormont House agreement: to be fair, balanced and proportionate. It will be on the agenda of an incoming power-sharing Executive to look at that, and we will need to consult the bodies concerned. That is what we will do when we reach that happy goal.

[Lord Tebbit (Con)]

My Lords, I remind people that when we are discussing matters of the support given by the DUP to the present Administration, this is not a new event. It is only as recently as Mr Heath’s Administration that an Ulster Unionist, Robin Chichester-Clark, sat in the Government as Minister of State for Employment. We have had these things happen before, so what is the great excitement about it?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I do not recall first-hand the matter to which he refers, but it was indeed the case that the Ulster Unionists were much more closely involved with the Conservative Party in the 1970s. Since then, of course, we have the Belfast agreement, which we are steadfastly adhering to and seeking to uphold across parties. That, I believe, is the way forward.

[Lord Rogan (UUP)]

My Lords, I too welcome the Minister to his position, and ask two simple questions. It is now believed in Northern Ireland that no agreement will even be attempted before October at the earliest. This House and the other place rise at the end of July. How do the Government plan to address the situation, and in which way and by whom will Northern Ireland be governed during August and September? I ask again the question posed by my noble friend Lord Kilclooney: is direct rule an option?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, as I said, the progress being made is considerable, and we hope that an agreement will be reached before the timescale the noble Lord talks about—it would indeed be extremely difficult if we had not got a power-sharing Executive in place by October. Ultimately, everybody knows that power-sharing may give way to direct rule. That is not what anybody wants but, ultimately, I suppose that it is a possibility. I must say that it is not in the Government’s thinking in any shape or form, any more than it is in that of opposition parties. At the moment, it is no more than a theoretical possibility. As I said, we are working hard to seek a power-sharing Executive. We are making some progress, and that is the position on which the Statement was presented in the Commons and repeated in the Lords.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, having been on our Front Bench during the development of the Northern Ireland Assembly, I endorse my noble friend’s comments about the need for the direct involvement of the Prime Minister. That is important.

Can the Minister give me an assurance that the Government will produce a clear, unambiguous statement about proposals in their agreement for funding to Northern Ireland, in the interests of having a united front across the United Kingdom? I accept totally the needs of Northern Ireland—and it is extremely important that other parts of the UK accept, recognise and appreciate those needs—but only if there is equity in the allocation of funds for Wales, Scotland and the English regions, in the interests of transparency, to which the Minister referred. We need a national consensus. Can the Minister assure me that he will have regard in the discussions to our support for the convention of the Council of Europe on minority languages? I seek an agreement from the Minister that he will write to me answering my question on financial arrangements with Northern Ireland: given the needs of other parts and regions, why now?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her contribution. I restate that the Prime Minister is closely involved and engaged in the discussions. She referred to the financial position, and I shall write to her and copy to other Members what precisely has been happening with regard to budgetary arrangements. They are, in essence, to ensure that essential public services continue in Northern Ireland. She will be aware of the more recent agreement between the Conservative Party and the DUP, which can be the subject of discussion on another day.

I recall a point which I omitted to respond to from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about the donations Bill and the thresholds. I shall write to him, and to everybody who has contributed to this Statement, setting out exactly what is happening. It is obviously a fairly detailed matter.

Grenfell Tower Update

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Statement

18:32

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government. The Statement is as follows:

“With permission, I would like to update the House on the Government’s response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and our safety inspections of cladding in other buildings. Almost three weeks have passed since the catastrophe that hit Grenfell Tower. Progress has been made to help the survivors and people in surrounding buildings who were affected. Landlords across the country have been taking measures to make their buildings safe. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been appointed to lead a full public inquiry, and an independent expert panel is now advising my department on any immediate action on fire safety that is required.

The disaster at Grenfell Tower should never have happened. The police investigation and public inquiry will find out why it did. Right now, the immediate priority of the Government is to provide every assistance to those who were affected and take every precaution to avoid another tragedy in buildings with similar cladding. The Grenfell Tower victims’ unit is operating from my department and providing a point of access into government, and staff from across government continue to offer support at the Westway assistance centre and a separate family bereavement centre. More than £2.5 million has been distributed from our £5 million Grenfell Tower residents’ discretionary fund. Each household affected is receiving £5,500 to provide immediate assistance and, so far, payments to 112 households have been made.

There has been much speculation about who was in the Grenfell Tower on the night of the fire, and it is vital that we find out. As I announced yesterday, the Director of Public Prosecutions has been clear that there will be no prosecution of tenants at Grenfell Tower and Grenfell Walk who may have been illegally subletting their property, so all tenants can be confident about coming forward with information for the authorities. There may have been people living in flats that were illegally sublet, who had no idea about the true status of their tenancy. Now their families want to know if they perished in the fire. These are their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters; they need closure, and it is the least they deserve. But that cannot happen unless we have the information we need, so we are urging anyone with that information to come forward, and do it quickly.

The immediate response to the Grenfell disaster is being co-ordinated by the Grenfell response team, led by John Barradell, who is being supported by colleagues drawn from London Councils, the wider local government sector, the voluntary sector, police, health and fire services, as well as central government. Their expertise and hard work is making a huge difference, but this is only a temporary measure. It is also vital that we put in place long-term support for the longer-term recovery.

It was right that the leader of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea took the decision to resign. I look forward to working with a new leader of the council, and I will look at every option to ensure that everyone affected by this tragedy has the long-term support they need.

The Prime Minister promised that every family who lost their home because of the fire would be offered a good-quality temporary home within three weeks, and the deadline is this Wednesday. I have been monitoring the progress of rehousing, and we will honour that commitment. Every home offered will be appropriate and of good quality. What we will not do is compel anyone to accept an offer of temporary accommodation they do not want. Some families indicated they wanted to remain as close as possible to their former home, but when they received their offer decided it would be easier to deal with their bereavement if they moved further away. Some families decided that, for the same reasons, they would prefer to remain in hotels for the time being. Other households indicated that they would prefer to wait until permanent accommodation becomes available. Every household will receive an offer of temporary accommodation by this Wednesday, but every household will also be given the space to make this transition at their own pace, and in a way that helps them to recover from this tragedy.

The people affected by the disaster at Grenfell Tower need our assistance, and they are receiving it. They also want answers. Sir Martin Moore-Bick has been appointed to lead a full, independent inquiry. He has visited Kensington and met victims and survivors, as well as members of the local community who have done so much to help. After consulting with the community, Sir Martin will then advise on the terms of the inquiry, and we will ensure that there is legal support for victims so that they can play a full part. We must allow that inquiry and the criminal investigation to run their course. Each must have the space to follow the evidence wherever it takes them. We must all be careful not to prejudge or prejudice either of them, but what we can do right now is take sensible precautions to avoid another tragedy.

The Building Research Establishment is continuing to test the combustibility of cladding for councils and housing associations, as well as private landlords. So far, all the samples of cladding tested have failed—that is 181 out of 181. It is obviously extremely disturbing that there are such a large number of buildings with combustible cladding, and the priority now is to make those buildings safe. Where appropriate, mitigating measures cannot be implemented quickly; landlords must then provide alternative accommodation while the remedial work is carried out, which is exactly what happened in the four tower blocks in Camden. Our primary concern has been buildings over 18 metres, or six storeys, where people stay at night. Hospitals, prisons and schools are also being assessed.

We ourselves have asked questions about the testing regime after discovering the 100% failure rate so far. The testing process itself has been looked at abroad by the Research Institutes of Sweden, which have confirmed that they believe that the process is sound. A full explanatory briefing note on the testing process has been made available on GOV.UK. As the note explains, every failed test means that the panels are unlikely to be compliant with the limited combustibility requirement of the building regulations guidance; that has been confirmed by legal advice and the advice of the independent expert panel that was established last week. For use of the panels to be safe, landlords need to be confident that the whole wall system has been tested and shown to be safe. We are not aware of any such system having passed the necessary tests, but I have asked the expert advisory panel to look into this further.

Almost three weeks have passed since the catastrophe that hit Grenfell Tower, but I know I speak for every Member of this House when I say we are still in shock. It was not just the terrible scale of the suffering, it was the fact that it happened in 21st-century Britain, in London’s richest borough. I will continue to direct the full resources of my department to assist the Grenfell response team. I will be working closely with the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea Council to make sure that there are plans for the longer-term recovery in place, and I will return to this House regularly to update honourable Members on progress”.

I commend this Statement to the House.

18:40

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, for repeating the Statement made in the other place by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. As the Minister said, this tragedy should never have happened. I am pleased that progress has been made on a number of fronts—but considerably more needs to be done. I am sure that Members of this House will agree with me that the devastation of this disaster was made all the worse in the immediate aftermath by the poor response of Kensington and Chelsea council, which can only be described as shameful. I am pleased that the leader of the council, Councillor Nicholas Paget-Brown, has resigned, along with his deputy, Councillor Rock Feilding-Mellen. I just wish they had accepted responsibility and resigned sooner. I note that the Secretary of State has welcomed the resignation of the leader of the council—but why did he not call for it, as others did?

Many have called for the Secretary of State to appoint commissioners to take over the running of this authority, as it is not fit for purpose. But so far he has decided not to do this and instead has opted to “keep an eye” on the council. Can the Minister explain why the Secretary of State has decided to do this? What exactly does keeping an eye on the council mean and entail? It certainly does not seem to me to be the sort of response one would expect to such a complete and abject failure by the council towards the local community it was elected to serve and protect.

I am pleased that housing offers are being made, but is the Minister satisfied that everyone has been contacted, and that they have been assured that no other issues—such as how they were renting a property at Grenfell Tower—will be of any concern to the authorities? We must be sure that no vulnerable, traumatised families are hiding, frightened and not getting the help they are entitled to, or not being able to provide the police and other authorities with valuable information, because they are too scared to come forward.

The faith communities and the local voluntary sector have a big role to play here. What support are the Government giving to them to do this important work? Why has only half the discretionary fund of £5 million been distributed to date? The Minister said that 112 households had received the £5,500 immediate assistance. So how many have not? If it is even just one family after three weeks, that is a disgrace. How have these families been able to live? What about the report that at least one tenant has been charged rent? What arrangements have been made for the schooling and care of local children who attend Avondale Park primary school and have been traumatised by these horrific events?

I move on to the public inquiry, which was reaffirmed in the Queen’s Speech. The background note to the Speech, published on 21 June, provided further detail and said:

“Residents, the families of the deceased, the Mayor of London and HM Opposition will be consulted on the terms of reference under which the inquiry will proceed and the Government will agree the terms of reference, which will be published in consultation with the Chair of the Inquiry”.


On 29 June, Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the chair of the inquiry said:

“I’ve been asked to undertake this inquiry on the basis that it would be pretty well limited to the problems surrounding the start of the fire and its rapid development, in order to make recommendations as to how this sort of thing can be prevented in the future”.


The Prime Minister has also said:

“No stone will be left unturned by this inquiry”.


It is important that we are very clear about this inquiry, its terms of reference when agreed, that no stone is left unturned, as the Prime Minister promised, and that Sir Martin has the power to go where the evidence leads him. Will the Minister please confirm that that is the case and that no conflict—perceived or otherwise—should be drawn from the statements I have previously outlined?

It is right that sensible precautions are taken to avoid another tragedy. It is shocking that all the samples so far tested have failed. The Statement does not make clear what the Government are doing to assist local authorities and other organisations when their buildings fail the fire safety test. The Government need to go much further than just saying, “Landlords must provide alternative accommodation”. We want to have a clear explanation from the Government of what they are doing to assist landlords in coping with this challenge—and that is not addressed in this Statement.

Finally, the Minister said that he would update the House on a regular basis—but we are going into the Summer Recess in three weeks and are not back until September. What plans do the Government have to ensure that, while we are in Recess, Parliament, the media, survivors and their families and the public are properly informed about what is happening; what progress is being made; and when things are proving more challenging than they thought they would be? The Minister may not be able to address my last point when he replies, but I trust he will agree to take it back to the department and will return to the Dispatch Box to address it before the Recess.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. I remind the House that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I agree with the Minister that it was the right decision for the Government to make it clear that there would be no prosecution of those who may have illegally sublet flats. The Government were also right to say that the resignation of the leader of Kensington and Chelsea council was the right thing for him to do.

It is now three weeks since the catastrophe that should never have happened hit Grenfell Tower. It is also eight years ago today since six people died in the fire at Lakanal House in Camberwell, following which a coroner’s report published a number of recommendations that were sent to the then Secretary of State. That occurred in 2011—six years ago. As a consequence of that fire, guidance to social housing providers was issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government. Does the department know which local authorities undertook works to meet the recommendations in that guidance? Is there a list of what each local authority—or local housing provider, for not all are local authorities—actually did?

The Minister referred to 181 out of 181 failures in cladding tests. It is clear that those tests are vital, but I understand that it is not simply a question of the cladding: it is also the insulation and the void behind the cladding that can cause a fire to spread so very quickly. I was struck by a briefing produced by the Association of British Insurers, which I saw today, about approved document B. This document defines fire regulations in England and the Association of British Insurers urged a comprehensive review of it in response to the Lakanal House fire.

It repeated that recommendation when it responded to the housing White Paper. Its briefing stated:

“The ABI recommends that the Government urgently revise Approved Document B to reflect the fire safety risks associated with modern building materials, techniques and construction methods, deviating away from a focus on more traditional masonry builds”.


I say to the Minister that that is a very important issue. I do not think that action as a consequence of that can simply await the result of a public inquiry. It is extremely urgent. Local authorities and local housing providers should be told what action they should take within a matter of weeks. We should note that the ABI has urged this review since 2009.

There has also been a problem with emergency planning that I want to ask the Minister about, because there was clearly a major failure in Kensington and Chelsea with emergency plans. It took around 48 hours for there to be an identifiable process of who was responsible for what. Even then, there was very serious doubt. Can the Minister commit to the department ensuring that all emergency plans of all local areas are checked out, updated and made robust so that emergency responses can always take place quickly, with the responsibilities of all the different agencies clearly understood and acted upon?

Grenfell Tower was a most appalling tragedy. It increasingly seems as though some of the lessons that could have been learned from previous fire incidents had not been fully taken on board—which means that the speed of response by the Government this time matters very greatly.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Before the noble Lord responds, perhaps I could draw the attention of the House to my interests. I am a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that and to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his contribution. I thank them for their general welcome of the progress that is being made. I will try to pick up some of the more detailed points that they made.

First, in relation to the position of Kensington and Chelsea, one has to remember that there is local political accountability. That said, it is important that we recognise that the immediate situation, which may well go on some time in relation to many of these issues, is being handled by gold command, the boroughs involved and central government with assistance from other bodies, to which noble Lords referred. I pay tribute particularly to the help that has been given by the voluntary sector and charities, which has been considerable. It has been trusted by the local community and has been much more responsive and much speedier in terms of an ability to act. That said, many civil servants have worked pretty much round the clock, as well as others from other London boroughs. I also pay tribute to what they are doing. The Secretary of State will want to engage with the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea to see what is happening in terms of political involvement not just from the governing party in Kensington and Chelsea but the other parties to see how we can move this forward. However, what is most important at the moment is that we have effective organisation on the ground dealing with these issues.

I can confirm to the noble Lord that everybody who has sought financial assistance has so far been given it. If others have not sought it, we are encouraging them to come forward. As I have indicated previously, there is sometimes an issue with languages but we have people on the ground who are able to help on the language issue, whether in writing or orally, so that is being handled as well. I should say that getting £2.5 million out—this is in addition to any entitlement to benefits—is not something to be dismissed too lightly. It is significant.

I turn to the inquiry that has been mentioned. This is a judge-led inquiry. The Secretary of State has indicated in the other place that he expects this to have broad terms of reference. Obviously, it needs to focus on the immediate situation in Grenfell Tower, but it also needs to consider the wider lessons that have to be learned. As we go on across many years, many Administrations, and, doubtless, across many parties in local government, there are lessons for us all to learn. Every day we are finding out more. It is important that we pick these up. It is the very least we owe to the people who have suffered and lost their lives in Grenfell Tower that we never let anything remotely like this happen again. So it is important that all those detailed lessons are learned, and that we have broad terms of reference. The judge, Sir Martin, has been in Kensington and is engaging with tenants and tenants’ representations to ensure that we have that input and no doubt get those broad terms of reference.

As regards assistance for other authorities to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, referred, whose samples have failed, I am pleased to say that in every case except Camden evacuation has not been involved, so although clearly the situation involves ongoing action it is not as difficult as the position has been in Camden. Obviously, we are reviewing that and seeing what has happened.

The noble Lord also asked about updating. In fairness, we have presented two Statements in a fairly short time. I have had a very good briefing session for Peers, which will be followed up with a detailed letter on some of the points that were raised. Some were answered at the time but some of the more detailed points were not. We will keep that under review, but we of course recognise the obligation to update Members. That is quite right.

I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his warm welcome of the progress that has been made, which was typically generous of him. I think that we have complied with the coroner’s inquest recommendations in relation to Lakanal House, certainly the recommendation regarding sprinklers, which I imagine will be something that the inquiry will want to look at. I note what the noble Lord said about the Building Regulations. I will get officials to look at that again. However, I think the indication was that we were just looking at the position on the Building Regulations where it had been suggested by the coroner’s inquest that we might want to simplify these. I think that we would want to review that in the light of what has happened. I do not think that we would want to pursue that as things stand at the moment.

I hope that I have picked up the points that have been made by noble Lords. However, as always, if I have not picked up anything following the Statement, I will ensure that it is covered in a letter.

18:57

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend, and indeed the whole Government, defend the integrity and impartiality of the learned judge appointed to conduct this inquiry and deplore the comments made by some that the only person capable of being an impartial judge on this has to be a black woman who has lived in a tower block? We have had too many criticisms of noble judges before. I know that is not a general view, but there were comments in the press this weekend about that. Can my noble friend assure me that the inquiry will look at the advice on staying put? All my life I have laboured under the misapprehension, apparently, that when there is a fire one gets out ASAP. Yet it seems that even when the whole building was ablaze from top to bottom, the emergency services may have been giving advice to stay put. That is all very well when one little flat is on fire, but not when the whole building is ablaze. Will that issue please be looked at as well?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank my noble friend very much indeed for that contribution. I am happy to endorse what he says about the impartiality of the judge and to deplore the suggestion that has been made that such a situation has to be dealt with by somebody from a particular background. That is totally improper. It is important that we uphold the independence of our judiciary and recognise that Sir Martin will go about his job in that way.

I, too, had seen the point about staying put when there is a fire. Doubtless, that is something which the judge will want to look at within the context of the Grenfell Tower fire but more widely as regards advice when there are fires.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that there are blocks of flats owned by private landlords in all our major cities which are clad in very similar material. When I asked the other day whether the cladding on those privately owned blocks should be tested compulsorily, as is the case with social landlord-owned blocks, the Minister said that,

“it is not compulsory for them to do so, because that is what we have decided”.—[Official Report, 27/6/17; col. 290.]

Many of my colleagues came up to me after I asked that question to say that they could not understand the answer. What is the difference between a privately owned block covered in this cladding as against a social landlord-owned block? Surely the risks are exactly the same? If one should be compulsorily tested, surely it should apply to the other. Can I have a fuller explanation on this occasion?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. In fairness, on that occasion I responded to a supplementary question, perhaps from a sedentary position, so it was a second question. However, I went back afterwards, because I took seriously what the noble Lord said; I know that he always comes forward with serious and properly researched points. After this dreadful fire in social housing, the Government have taken the view that looking at social housing in this country has to be our top priority. That is not to say that we disregard our concern for private blocks, because indeed they have been contacted, and indication has been made to landlords that they are able to avail themselves of the free testing facility, we are encouraging them to do so and we will follow that up. But in terms of priorities, social housing will come first, and then of course we will, rightly, turn to the issue of private housing. As regards resources, we could not offer the same attention to both. It is not that it is more important, but we are focusing on the social housing first.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I am a resident in Kensington and Chelsea and have stood as both a parliamentary candidate and a council candidate there. The borough has, quite rightly, come up for quite a lot of criticism. Will the Minister tell the House, first, when he expects the interim report to be published, and will he reassure everybody, whether in social or private housing, that should the council be found wanting, even within the scope of the interim report—which will, of course, just be interim—the Government will take those findings extremely seriously and will think about looking at the governance arrangements of the borough?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. On the interim report of the inquiry—we very much anticipate that there will be such a report—of course the Government will take that very seriously, but we want to ensure that immediate urgent action is taken. I do not want to second-guess what it might say, as that would be totally inappropriate. In raising that issue, the noble Baroness reminds me of a matter raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, or the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, on insulation—it was the noble Lord, Lord Shipley. The expert panel will want to look at that; it has already had two meetings and it is obviously quite distinct from the inquiry. We set up the expert panel under the leadership of Sir Ken Knight, who has vast experience of fires and so on, and it will come forward with matters that need dealing with even more urgently than the interim report. That might be an appropriate way forward, and that is what we anticipate will happen.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, I understand that the vast majority of tenants at Grenfell Tower were from ethnic minorities and of Muslim origin. That starkly highlights the poverty trap that many of these communities find themselves in. Can my noble friend say what longer-term strategy we are introducing so that we can ensure that people from ethnic minority communities are not trapped in this way? That is a wide question, but a more specific question for the short term is: are the Government setting up specialist bereavement and support services for those who have been traumatised in this dreadful and appalling incident?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thank my noble friend for those perceptive points, which are on a broader front than the Grenfell fire situation or fires generally, about the nature of social housing in our country today. First, she will be aware that we are conducting a racial audit within government; I think that this is the first time this has ever happened. It has slipped back by perhaps a couple of months because of the election, but we are looking, across all government departments, at issues such as education, school places and housing allocation to see exactly what the stark figures are. One cannot really argue with the figures, and one would want to ensure that policies are properly framed with regard to those. Secondly, the Casey report is still very much work in progress—that is the report that was made to the Home Secretary and the then Prime Minister on issues of integration—and we will want to take that forward as well in the context of the racial audit. Therefore, my noble friend raises important issues. She asked a second question about bereavement support, which is being done by government departments. We are ensuring that it is in place and being used, and it is important that we do so.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I have three quick questions about this ghastly tragedy. First, the Secretary of State has promised extra funds for remedial work that councils need to carry out. Am I right to assume that housing associations will be eligible for those extra funds in the same way as councils? Often housing associations now own the blocks that were previously council owned. Secondly, will the funds that go to councils—and, I hope, also to housing associations—for remedial work on other tower blocks elsewhere be new money, or will this money be drawn from the funding set aside for new development? It would be a double tragedy if we lost some of the new homes that we desperately need to see built. Finally, on the governance point, rather specifically about the particular arrangements in Kensington and Chelsea, will the inquiry look at the tenant management organisation’s relationship with the local authority? It is a rather unusual way of working, with the danger—I want to know whether the inquiry will tackle this—of things falling between the tenant management organisation and the council as the owner itself.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for those pertinent questions. First, on his question about remedial work and whether funds will be made available for local authorities and housing associations, my understanding is that that is the case. I will, once again, cover that in the write-round letter, but I believe it is the case. I believe also that it is new money—our targets on housing remain very much as they were—but, again, I will cover that in the letter. On the governance arrangements, I will ensure that this debate is made available to the judge, Sir Martin, so that he is aware of the discussions here. I would be surprised if that issue did not come up in discussion with tenants’ organisations, which he will be speaking with. However, the point is well made, and I will make sure that it is brought to the attention of the judge, as well as the whole of this debate.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I am sorry to come back again but, to be frank, I am dissatisfied with the responses I am getting. Why cannot the private sector fund its own cladding testing arrangements and get on with that job immediately? I am sure it is not beyond the wit of man to generate, create or design the equipment that is used in testing. As I understand it, Ministers are now saying that the many dozens, if not hundreds, of privately owned blocks—I do not know how many—which potentially have had this cladding applied to them, will have to wait, because there are not the facilities. The Minister said that the Government’s priority is to deal with the social landlord sector, which means that private blocks will have to wait to see whether they are tested, unless those test sites are already available. If they are, why cannot it be made compulsory?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the point is one of compulsion. They are available, and there is spare capacity at the moment, as has been indicated—we can do 100 tests a day. So we are encouraging landlords to make use of that facility: they are able to do so; we are encouraging them to do so; and there is evidence that many are doing it. The point is one of compulsion. We are not compelling it at the moment, because—

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Why?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

We are putting our attention very much on the social housing sector, which, in the light of what has happened, noble Lords will understand.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful Statement on this agonising subject, and I endorse his thanks for all that people are trying to do to improve the situation. As someone who has for many years been either a regulator within government or in business being regulated, I have concluded that in areas such as safety and standards, including fire safety, we need regulations that are balanced, well thought out and cost effective; simply expressed and well communicated to everybody who needs to know what those regulations are; and—this is the important point for today—properly enforced. So often we find that good rules are not enforced and disasters of the tragic sort that we have seen on this occasion ensue. Therefore, I ask my noble friend, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, will probably be interested in the answer to this question as well: how can we quickly prioritise and improve enforcement of the regulations in this area—that is, fire safety—and indeed of other regulations, such as product safety, which may be important, and how can we do that at speed? That obviously includes the public sector, where there has been a problem in this area, and business, although in my experience business people are very well aware of the serious health and safety responsibilities they have and the liabilities that they can incur. I would like to feel that the Government were thinking about the wider lessons here and about how we might prevent such tragedies happening in this and other areas.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for her general encapsulation of the principles that should be carried forward in relation to regulations in this field and indeed in many others, as she indicated. I say once again that the judge will no doubt want to look very seriously at the debate on this issue. My noble friend referred to the importance of carrying forward lessons in a timely and urgent way, and that is the purpose of having the expert panel. It will look at these issues urgently, even ahead of the inquiry and the interim report. This is just the sort of issue that the expert panel will want to look at, along with the point about insulation, as I indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Shipley.

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, following on from my noble friend’s question, given the difficulties that the London borough has faced, I am not certain that any other borough would have done better in facing such a big and unexpected tragedy. Does my noble friend intend to ask local authorities to submit a plan to central government on how they will tackle major incidents such as this? If this is to be part of the enforcement that my noble friend wanted, there will have to be clear, simple directives so that issues can be checked from central government down to local government and down to the private sector or local authority that manages each block.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, my noble friend will be aware of both the expert panel to which I have referred and the inquiry. It is very important that the Government create the framework for what is needed to respond to the dreadful events of the Grenfell Tower fire and to the potential for something similar happening elsewhere. However, it is for the experts to determine what is possible and necessary. Therefore, the expert panel, which has vast experience in these areas, will be looking at this situation and advising the Secretary of State of the action needed in the very short term. The interim report of the inquiry will come forward with short to medium-term issues. The full report, which will consider a far wider range of issues, will then come forward with more detailed decisions and recommendations, which we will want to take forward.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

My Lords, perhaps I may come back to the interim report of the inquiry. I do not believe that the Minister gave us a timeline. Have the Government not had discussions with the chair about when we might expect to see some of the findings come to light? This is a matter of great anxiety not just in the borough but for everyone who lives in tower blocks.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is a fair one but the answer is: not ahead of the terms of reference being decided. Those have to be decided first to determine when an interim report might be appropriate. Of course, such a discussion will take place once we have those terms of reference.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

Is my noble friend confident that a new Conservative administration in Kensington and Chelsea will restore the public confidence that is so badly needed? Could there perhaps be a case for a short-lived coalition administration, drawing in representatives of other parties, so that these terrible issues can be tackled on a full, real, cross-party basis?

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful suggestion. First, it is important that we get a new leader in place and I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will then want to discuss with the leader how to carry this matter forward. As my noble friend indicated, it is always better that issues such as this, where there is essentially nothing to divide us, are carried forward consensually.

Energy Price Caps

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Statement

19:15

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Prior of Brampton) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given to an Urgent Question by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in the other place.

“Mr Speaker, the Competition and Markets Authority, following a two-year inquiry, found that energy customers on standard variable tariffs were paying on average £1.4 billion a year more than would be the case in a competitive market. That is completely unacceptable, so my party’s manifesto committed to introduce a safeguard tariff to extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers—those on pre-payment meters—to more customers on the poorest-value tariffs.

The energy regulator, Ofgem, has the powers necessary to act to impose such a price cap without delay. I wrote on 21 June to the chief executive of Ofgem asking it to use the regulator’s powers to do that. Today, the regulator has replied and has announced that it will work with consumer groups to take measures, including extending the current safeguard tariff for those on pre-payment meters to a wider groups of consumers, and to move urgently to implement these changes. I welcome this initial proposal—it is a step in the right direction—but I will wait to see the actual proposals and to see them turned into action to cut bills.

The test of whether the regulator’s changes go far enough is whether it moves sufficiently to eradicate the detriment to consumers that the CMA has identified. I remain prepared to legislate if it does not, and I hope that such legislation will command wide support across the House”.

19:17

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Statement. Does he accept that, during the election, his party placed the promise of a cap on energy prices at the centre of its manifesto? Does he recall that the Prime Minister stated:

“So I am making this promise: if I am re-elected on June 8, I will take action to end this injustice by introducing a cap on unfair energy price rises. It will protect around 17 million families on standard variable tariffs from being exploited with sudden and unjustified increases in bills”?


Although these are welcome suggestions on safeguarding tariffs and on capping warrant charges for the installation of pre-pay meters, these measures would affect only 2.5 million customers, leaving more than 14 million standard variable tariff customers completely unprotected from price rises over the next period. Does he accept that the response to the letter to Ofgem of 21 June on energy prices falls far short of implementing that promise? Although welcome, extending the safeguard tariff to more customers will not end the injustice of an excess £1.4 billion a year being paid on standard variable tariffs or bring about a competitive market.

Can the Minister confirm that the letter of 21 June does not ask Ofgem to consider introducing a general price cap? Can he explain why not, even though the CEO of Ofgem confirmed earlier this year that Ofgem would have the discretionary power to implement an energy price cap? Will the Government now be asking Ofgem to consider introducing a price cap? Is legislation coming or is the Minister content to ignore his party’s election promise of an energy price cap? What does the Minister have to say to the millions more people on standard variable tariffs who heard the Prime Minister’s remarks and may now be feeling misled and betrayed by the Conservative Government?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for BEIS’s letter to Dermot Nolan, the chief executive of Ofgem, he says:

“You will have seen that the Conservative manifesto proposed to ‘extend the price protection currently in place for some vulnerable customers to more customers on the poorest value tariffs’”.


That is what my right honourable friend has asked Ofgem to do. It will now go through a period of consultation and decide how best to do that.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, on this side of the House we appreciate and welcome the measures that are obviously designed to help poorer customers. I will ask the Minister two questions. How much of this £1.4 billion does he assume is going to be redistributed back to customers as a result of these measures, and what is the shortfall on that? Secondly, his party, despite its election manifesto, has never seen a way of resolving these problems by price cuts. What is he going to do to improve competition? That is the way to control prices in this sector, and clearly they are not going to be controlled when you have a six-body cartel that is operating against customers’ interests.

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, the Secretary of State has made it clear that, in judging whether Ofgem’s proposals go far enough, he will be looking at that figure of £1.4 billion—which, as the noble Lord knows, was identified in the CMA report of 2014. Clearly that is the figure that the Secretary of State has in mind. The noble Lord is absolutely right, though, that for the long term getting real competition into the market will drive prices down. Some 20% of the market is now supplied by companies other than the big six. I think that they now number 50, so there are signs of growing competition. The CMA is quite categoric in its diagnosis that customers are not yet feeling sufficiently well informed or enabled to make the switch. I went on to uSwitch today to have a look and I can understand that—one’s brain sort of hazes over a bit when you go into this sort of field. So I think it will take some time before competition really works in this market—which is why the Secretary of State decided to ask Ofgem to review the situation today.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I could pursue the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham. The reality is that the CMA inquiry found that the standard variable tariff, which is the bulk of the market, was being exploited by the oligopoly that runs most of our energy supply. It was an absolutely condemnatory finding. Unfortunately, the remedies proposed by the CMA did not add up to very much, which is presumably why the Prime Minister thought she had to make clear that heavier government action was necessary.

If my noble friend Lord Grantchester is right that the remedy proposed in the letter to Ofgem affects only a minority of those consumers, and that in any case it depends on Ofgem finding a way within its existing rules to implement it, that total market distortion is not going to be resolved by the relatively slow creep of greater competition; it is going to require some clear and probably legislative action by the Government. None of that was reflected in the Queen’s Speech. Can we therefore expect that, if Ofgem gives an unsatisfactory answer to the Minister, we will get legislation on this basis in this Session of Parliament?

[Lord Prior of Brampton]

My Lords, I think the Secretary of State made it clear that, if there is an unsatisfactory response from Ofgem, he will resort to bringing through legislation. I should add that we should be careful about the law of unintended consequences in this case. It is very easy to win a headline with a blanket price cap and to reap adverse consequences later when the distortions that you bring into the market through that price cap make it worse for consumers rather than better.

Air Quality: London

Monday 3rd July 2017 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

19:24

Moved by

[Lord Borwick]

To move that this House takes note of the case for improving air quality in London.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I recently watched a wonderful old film, “Genevieve”, which was made in 1954 and starred a very young Kenneth More. In one scene two characters are driving through the countryside on the London to Brighton road. Their car breaks down so they stop on the side of the road next to an open field. They ask each other whether any other car could be expected to come past them on the London to Brighton road so they could be saved. I do not think there would be any such concerns on the A23 today.

In debating air quality, I declare an interest as the chairman of the GATEway autonomous vehicle project advisory board. I also have an unusual number of past interests. I have been a trustee and was deputy chairman of the British Lung Foundation for 12 years and there I learned that lung diseases are mainly diseases of poor people. For many complex reasons, debilitating lung diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, known by the catchy acronym COPD, are predominantly found in those on lower incomes. A very large number of people are subject to periodic exacerbations of their COPD, which is painful, frightening and extremely expensive for the NHS to ameliorate.

I also spent nearly 20 years as the chief executive and then chairman of the company manufacturing the London taxi and selling it in London with diesel engines. I am very glad that the new rules for London taxis will require them to be zero emission in the future and I will buy one the moment it enters production. I also spent seven years striving to make a pure electric delivery vehicle to deliver goods in London and other cities, where the only pollutant was the carbon dioxide produced by the driver. It was a marvellous vehicle and we were very grateful to Tesco, UPS and FedEx for their support but unfortunately, although we made 400 vehicles, the idea came far too early and we had to shut the company down after enormous losses. Having sold too few electric trucks, I then decided that there was only one product that people actually want and that is a zero-emissions politician.

Before we can deal with a problem we first have to recognise it as one. That means being able to measure it. How bad is the air quality in London? Air quality problems come from carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates and all those poisons come from cars. What can be really damaging are particulate matter. They are measured by their diameter and the smaller the particles the more easily they are absorbed into the lungs and the bloodstream. PM2.5, emitted from cars, is especially damaging. As well as causing respiratory illnesses, smaller particles that go into the bloodstream can cause cardiovascular illnesses. There has even been particulate matter found in human brains, with air pollution having links to Alzheimer’s disease.

We have only recently been able to reliably measure PM1 and even PM0.1 and just as we have discovered that PM2.5 can do more damage than PM10, we should all be nervous of the effects of these even smaller particles. However, the dangerous gases and particles do not come from cars alone—central heating and gas cooking hobs can produce large amounts. Cars produce pollution in complex ways. It is not just the fumes pouring out of the exhaust that bring down air quality. For example, one of the largest sources of particulates is tyre and brake wear. When your tyres wear down, where does the rubber dust go? It is likely that it goes up into the air and into the lungs of passers-by. In a busy city such as London, there is often traffic stopping, starting, braking and accelerating. All of these actions increase tyre and brake wear.

In a study done recently in Ontario, researchers proved that although the average pollution recorded was one figure, this was an average of a very wide range. You can have dreadful concentrations of pollution that will not be detected. Urban design makes sure that no wind tunnels are formed between buildings, but it is wind movement that stirs up stagnant air. It is perfectly clear that you can get a wide variety of readings of particulates in different parts of London but they also vary with the weather, the wind and the design of the streetscape. We watch out for new buildings that cause wind tunnels to be formed among skyscrapers, but it is perfectly possible that such a wind tunnel is mixing up pollution and blowing it away. Perhaps we should look out for the reverse—buildings that slow the dispersal of pollution. Sensible urban design will be a key part of ameliorating air pollution.

I have recently been carrying an air quality meter and although the air quality in this House is fine and pretty good on the roads around it, when you go into Westminster Underground the meter goes mad—it goes up by about 100 times. This may be because the ventilation system of the Tube is 100 years old and the tube is dirty. Does the Minister know whether the new Crossrail system has a ventilation design that will eliminate dust and particles? Will he ask the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants about the potential dangers of air pollution in the London Underground, who should be warned and what else should be done about it? I know the mayor has started to look into this issue but more work needs to be done.

For a long time big landlords have had standby diesel generators so that their trading can continue if electricity service is interrupted. Occasionally these would be started and run for a short time if only to check that they were in working order. An unexpected by-product of the recent rules to enable private producers to feed-in electricity into the grid is that it is apparently now economic for such department stores and office blocks to run their generators and be paid for it. Bizarrely, we are now generating electricity through medium-sized diesel generators in the centre of London.

Do we have the right regulations to deal with the emissions produced? Small local generators in the centre of London cannot be the right answer. So, therefore, are we asking the right question? As you can tell, the sources of pollutants are wide-ranging and identifying the type of pollution is complex. However, the impacts are brutal, and so my main request is for more serious effort to go into research. We need research to be done to find out which of the exhaust particles and those from brake and tyre wear that are emitted from cars do the most harm, and in combination with which other factors. We need research into the unexpected behaviour of pollution. We also need more research into other forms of public transport as it is not easy to say that all Londoners would be better off on the Tube, or, indeed, on a bus or a bicycle. Then, once we know, we can act.

The Great Stink of 1858 was one such time when noble Lords were moved to act when the smell was apparent in and around this House. Thanks to Bazalgette, the solution of new sewers solved the problem. Perhaps this generation of Parliament, which is breathing in the air just as its predecessors suffered from the Great Stink, can take action with similar good results.

We know that poor air quality in London is a big issue. This can be traced back to the early 2000s, when the only thing we concentrated on was carbon dioxide. That led to the introduction of preferential tax treatment for cars with diesel engines as they emit less carbon than petrol cars. However, they emit much more particulate matter, which has a catastrophic impact on health. Drivers, commuters, walkers, cyclists—all Londoners are at risk.

There are some exciting new inventions being tried out by Westminster Council, notably pollution-eating paint and generators powered by footfall. It was encouraging to see action taken this week against drivers who leave their engines idling while picking up their children from school or collecting someone from the shops. Leaving an engine running is often because the driver is trying to control the temperature of their car, but, of course, the effects of it can be harmful to passers-by. The safest thing to do then might be for everyone to work from home—but, of course, hiding away is not the answer.

What can we do? At the moment, many cyclists wear masks, which are quite often sold with the words “anti-pollution filter” as part of the marketing. However, they are usually ineffective. For one thing, for a mask to work properly it would need to sit so tightly to the skin on one’s face as to require suction. That is not a comfortable or desirable solution. You often see pictures of the citizens of Beijing—thousands of people—all with masks around their mouths and noses. It can certainly cause problems for deaf people who lip read. It seems to me that this is more important politically than it is as a preventive measure. The striking visual of a city’s workers, shoppers and families all wearing masks makes it hit home just how bad the smog is in Beijing and that it must be tackled at source.

In Beijing, everyone has a headache from the pollution. When I was there I wondered what would happen if I filled a jam jar with the city’s air and then brought it back through customs. However, rather than cause trouble for our border staff, I instead looked up the rules for shipping certain substances. Royal Mail prohibits the shipping of nitrogen dioxide within the UK and internationally. Indeed, it is listed alongside toxic and infectious substances such as arsenic, cyanide, Ebola, mercury, mustard gas, pesticides and rat poison as being prohibited for posting and shipping. My noble friend the Minister may reassure me that it would not be illegal as it is only a trace amount, but I could not find this exception in the regulations. Why are people expected to breathe traces of nitrogen dioxide on London streets when it is prohibited for posting and classified in the same bracket as deadly diseases and chemical weapons? The department has been accused before of trying to talk down the importance of this poisonous subject.

Electric cars are another game changer. The technology is getting more impressive by the day but we need continuing research and development to ensure we reach a stage where they are genuine viable alternatives to cars, vans and lorries. More kerbside space could also be dedicated to charging infrastructure.

However, more conventional cars are improving nowadays. Manufacturers routinely spend as much on the exhaust system as they do on the rest of the engine. So replacing an old car with a new car is likely to be the best thing an individual can do, which argues for a scrappage scheme to get rid of the old, badly maintained vehicles.

We must also be mindful of the Volkswagen scandal. The idea that other car companies were totally ignorant of VW’s actions is questionable. Car companies all buy each other’s cars to find out what makes them work so well. Were they actually ignorant of how VW were doing it, or did they cover up their findings and not blow the whistle that could have saved many thousands of illnesses? Real-world testing will also be essential.

Autonomous vehicles will also be important in this fight. They will drive at steadier speeds than human drivers and will almost certainly reduce the amount of particulates emitted from constant speeding up and braking. There are clever new devices to monitor driving and, hopefully, improve it.

We could also look further into the success or failure of low emissions zones. The Mayor of London’s modelling shows that bringing in the ultra-low emission zone from 2019 would result in a 20% reduction in the expected NOx emissions levels.

We also hear campaigners argue for more bicycle lanes in London. That would be great to improve the safety of cyclists, but the population of London is increasing, with road capacity decreasing. By slowing down cars, cycle lanes are causing pollution that is now being breathed in by the cyclists themselves. While they are being constructed, traffic delays are caused. This means more pollution.

Just as they now announce the pollen count and the UV intensity on weather broadcasts, perhaps there should also be announcements of pollution levels. Just as those with skin conditions might stay in to avoid high UV levels, government advice is now sometimes given that people vulnerable to lung problems should stay indoors and avoid the dirty streets. I think it is the people who normally drive polluting cars who should stay indoors.

The first Clean Air Act received Royal Assent on 5 July 1956, 61 years ago almost to the day. It was transformative. It changed our outlook on air pollution and set the framework for future action. However, of course, there is still more work to do. That is why I am so pleased to be debating this vital issue. It is clear that air pollution is a silent killer. We now need more research into these health effects and the solutions available. We have an opportunity to mark the 61st anniversary of the first Clean Air Act by pledging to take even more steps to improve air quality. I beg to move.

19:39

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, I offer my warm congratulations to the noble Lord not only because he has initiated this debate but on giving us such a comprehensive and technically informed tour of the issues involved. I need to declare an interest as the current honorary president of Environmental Protection UK, which is the successor body to the National Society for Clean Air, one of the campaigning bodies that produced the Clean Air Act 1956, referred to by the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who will speak later in the debate, is also a former president of that organisation—not as far back as 1956, but nevertheless he made a significant contribution to it. I look forward to his speech.

As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, the 1956 Act was a great landmark. It effectively removed smog and pea-souper fogs from London and thus transformed this city. But I have to tell noble Lords that the Government of the day were not initially persuaded of the necessity for such an Act. I have before me a confidential Cabinet committee paper, admittedly not a scoop because it dates back to 1953. In it Harold Macmillan, then the Housing Minister and a brilliant one in that role, did not initially take air pollution very seriously. Indeed, he was at his most disdainful and cynical. I shall quote him directly:

“Today everybody expects the Government to solve every problem. It is a symptom of the welfare state … For some reason or another, ‘smog’ has captured the imagination of the press and the people. I would suggest that we form a Committee. Committees are the oriflame of democracy. There are some short-term things which we have done; and can do. There are some longer-term solutions … We cannot do very much, but we can seem to be very busy—and that is half the battle nowadays”.


Eventually Harold Macmillan changed his mind, but only after another three years of vigorous public campaigning as well as the work of the committee of inquiry set up under Sir Hugh Beaver. Of course, later in his life Macmillan claimed the Clean Air Act as one of his great successes.

I now fear that more recent Governments, including the current one, have been as complacent as Macmillan originally was. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord has just said, there are still dangerous although invisible substances in our atmosphere which have yet to be tackled effectively and which again affect in particular the poorer communities within our population. Large parts of London still exceed EU standards for NO₂ and World Health Organization standards for both NO₂ and ultrafine particulates. These are damaging to cardiovascular health and can cause respiratory diseases. Although the calculations are complicated, they are thought to have caused up to 10,000 equivalents of death in London alone.

I take some responsibility as I have been both a Transport Minister and a Minister in Defra, and I briefly held the portfolio for air quality. Subsequently, I served on the board of the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for non-vehicular emissions. There has been some success in limiting point-source emissions but very little in relation to vehicular traffic. Moreover, the standards we have in place have been dramatically revealed to be inadequate. The Volkswagen scandal revealed a huge subterfuge in the motor sector to the detriment of the population at large, despite more rigorous EU standards and increasingly well-evidenced and assertive reports from medical and public health authorities.

Even the powers that we have had, we have failed to use. It is 20 years since I took legislation through this House to set up low-emission zones, but it has hardly been used. In London we now have the basis of low-emission zones and we have the mayor’s new air quality strategy as well as work being done in some London boroughs of all political persuasions, to which the noble Lord referred. All are attempting to do something about the problem, but we need to do significantly more. The theme of my speech today is that it is important that the mayor’s strategy is followed through so that the zones can be expanded and enforced, but a national strategy is needed to back that up. The mayor’s powers are limited and the lack of a national strategy has already twice been exposed in the High Court as inadequate in terms of the Government’s responsibilities under European legislation and under their own commitments.

Pushing all the responsibility on to local authorities, as the current draft strategy does, will not work. They need the staffing and the resources to deliver. That is even more the case in cities outside London which face greater challenges. However, the Government are going backwards on that as well. Of the 17 cities they first thought needed attention, it is now proposed that only five will go forward in the national strategy.

The scope of the powers also needs to be addressed. Although road transport is the major contributor to pollution in London, it actually accounts for less than half of it, as the noble Lord indicated in his speech. He referred to stand-by diesel generators, and indeed stand-by generators of any sort as well as decentralised energy sources and other forms of heating. Another example is off-road construction machinery. All of it contributes to pollution levels. These need to be addressed by the mayor, who does not actually have the power to do so very effectively.

There are of course trade-offs in this. The noble Lord referred to the biggest of them, which is between climate change objectives and air quality objectives and the overriding commitment to fuel efficiency and thus carbon saving. That has led to what in retrospect was a mistake when the balance of taxation was changed in favour of diesel vehicles. That has aggravated the situation significantly, so technology and regulation must catch up. We need to take a holistic approach. It should not be impossible for the motor industry, even using current technologies, to produce filters that can tackle carbon and other emissions which are damaging to public health. Technology ought to be able to provide solutions and regulation has to back it up.

Other choices such as wood burning are allegedly also carried out for environmental reasons. I have my doubts about wood burning myself because I think that it is more of a lifestyle choice, and it is an increasing contributor to pollution in London and elsewhere. There are other trade-offs in relation to road safety. The noble Lord referred to the dust produced by braking and how some road humps actually contribute to increased air pollution by vehicles. However, the humps save lives, so we need road design that can contribute both to road safety and improve air quality by reducing pollution.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Do the Government accept the findings of the King’s College study which calculates a mortality equivalent of 9,500 deaths in London? Do the Government have figures for the number of staff and resources in local government, the Environment Agency and Defra and how they have reduced over the past few years? What has been the effect of that? Can the Minister tell us what will happen after Brexit, given that infraction proceedings will no longer be the enforcement mechanism? How will the Government enforce air quality standards? Again after Brexit, will the Government base policy on the same standards as the EU or will they adopt the WHO standards, which are more stringent? Will Volkswagen and any other transgressors face US-style penalties if they in effect distort testing results both on-road and off-road in the way that company did? Why is there no scrappage scheme for older diesel vehicles, and will all new diesel motors be subject to on-road, real driving tests, with those failing being banned? I have a number of other questions but I shall put them in writing for the Minister; these are enough to be going on with.

I hope that the dismissive tones of Harold Macmillan 64 years ago are not echoed by the Minister’s boss, Mr Michael Gove. In my capacity as president of EP UK I have written to Michael Gove urging him to set up a wide-ranging, high-powered independent clean air commission with the immediate task of helping to prioritise and allocate resources across government to ensure the effective enforcement of existing measures, and more particularly to develop a forward strategy and a new clean air Act. At the beginning, Macmillan was dismissive of experts; the current Secretary of State has been known to be similarly dismissive. In the end, Macmillan took their advice. The 1956 Act was, in retrospect, one of the few successful legacies of the Eden Government—a Government who, noble Lords may note, were an otherwise somewhat controversial and short-lived Conservative Administration, so it ought to have some attractions for the incumbents. I hope they adopt a more aggressive stance on this. It will be a real legacy that will benefit hundreds of thousands of citizens in London and beyond.

19:50

[Baroness Valentine (CB)]

I know that we are preparing to leave the European Union, but I start by recognising that it is Europe that has kept the pressure on successive Governments over air pollution standards—or, rather, tried but on the whole failed, given that we have been breaching agreed limits for a long time. In 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the Government to produce a new air-quality plan to better evidence how they would meet nitrogen dioxide limits. Following production of this plan, the Government were again taken to court by ClientEarth and required to provide a better plan by the middle of this year.

The Government could usefully take a leaf out of the various London Mayors’ innovative approaches to tackling the problem. Nowadays, London’s pollution is caused largely by transport emissions, whereas past pea-soupers were caused by burning coal. Thus I welcome the mayor’s recent transport strategy, which promises a wide range of interventions to tackle air pollution. But sorting out air quality is potentially complex and expensive. It can be caused by dirty engines, traffic jams, narrow corridors or dips. It can be blown in or blown out by the wind. Pollutants need accurate measurement and we need to understand their impact—something we failed to do with diesel. Finally, we need to invest in electricity infrastructure, ideally renewably sourced, and manage congestion alongside renewing vehicle fleets. Above all, what is needed is an honest commitment to sorting out air quality and a pragmatic plan to work through some of those issues—in particular, to take the beam out of one’s own eye before pushing that cost on to other people.

One-third of nursery schools in the capital experience nitrogen dioxide levels that threaten children’s health. My children grew up in Putney, where the high street was one of the most polluted streets in London. Causes included polluting buses, a narrow, high corridor and congestion. While Transport for London took a while to recognise that they were a major contributor, I am pleased to say that the corridor has recently become a low-emission bus zone, and more of these are to be rolled out. But while there is enough electricity to support a few hundred buses, 10,000 electric buses would require not only a new power station but many sub-stations, along with cabling to individual bus garages.

I am an investor in a company called Vantage Power and therefore declare an interest. This company has developed hybrid electric engines that are a practical halfway step to getting to all-electric buses, enabling buses to run through the most polluted parts of London in all-electric mode.

It is important to tackle congestion and cleaner vehicles at the same time. When the original congestion charging zone was introduced, nitrogen oxides decreased by 8% and particulate matter from diesels by 15%. It is self-evident that idling engines in traffic jams are not a recipe for clean air. So, ironically, as was alluded to earlier, while encouraging cycling helps, putting a cycle lane down the Embankment, which causes serious congestion, both adds to the pollution and pollutes the cyclists. A better-conceived cross-London cycle lane would have had cyclists going diagonally across Hyde Park, rather than riding alongside congested traffic.

I turn to the area around Heathrow. Planes cause pollution at two levels: in the sky and on the ground. Here again, congestion is part of the story. Most aircraft landing at Heathrow go into holding stacks before landing, significantly increasing pollution—something I hope runway three will help to sort. But of course we need to sort clean fuel, too. At ground level, the majority of the pollution is caused by vehicles, specifically those going to and from the airport and those on the M25 and M4.

Modal shift is one of the answers and I should again declare an interest as chairman of Heathrow Southern Railway, which is seeking to build a stretch of track alongside the M25 to join Heathrow to the railway tracks going south-west out of Waterloo. That would save more than 3 million vehicle trips a year. But the Government and the mayor could be much more ambitious about using congestion charging and raise money at the same time. People pay to use motorways overseas and a more ambitious programme would see congestion charging in London taken right out to the M25 to include road pricing on both the M25 and the M4. Current technology would enable the pricing to be flexed at different times of day so that congestion is minimised, as in Stockholm. At the very least, some such congestion and emission zone could be introduced in the immediate neighbourhood of Heathrow, in parallel with increasing public transport to the airport.

In passing, I am delighted to note an initiative by Heathrow to subsidise 6,000 staff buying more environmentally friendly cars. I also note Uber’s pilot scheme of 60 drivers using electric vehicles last year. The lesson from this was that Uber drivers sacrificed around 10 hours driving per week due to the insufficient range of the cars and the lack of availability of on-street charging points.

I conclude by repeating my request for a genuine commitment by all parties to improving air quality for the sake of children living in London. To sort this overnight would be impractical and expensive, but there is no reason why we cannot have a pragmatic plan to work through the challenges and improve over time—ideally not too much time. For instance, beyond hoping that engines get cleaner quick enough and that car companies do not cheat in the emissions tests, what will national government do about congestion and polluting vehicles on the M25 and the M4? How ambitious will London government be in introducing flexible congestion charging and providing electricity infrastructure for buses and cars? What will councils do to manage pollution on their local streets? Will they make their residents pay for driving polluting cars? Finally, I look forward to the Government’s announcement on surface access to Heathrow later this year, which is one part of this jigsaw.

19:57

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on securing this important debate and on the extremely knowledgeable way he gave us a complete dissertation on all aspects of air pollution. I cannot aspire to copy that, so I shall concentrate on diesels.

I would never buy a diesel car in a million years. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister may appreciate this, because when I was a little boy on the farm in the highlands of Scotland, we could go into the car shed, start up the petrol-engined car—the only type available in those days—and potter around in the shed for about half an hour before the fumes became a bit much. When one went into the tractor shed and started up a diesel tractor, one was overcome by noxious fumes in about 30 seconds flat. We all knew that diesel engines were filthy things and that they were only good for lorries, combine harvesters and tractors, where one wanted good traction and incredible pulling power at low engine revs. The poisonous fumes did not matter because the vehicles were out in the countryside in the open air.

So when Gordon Brown in the last socialist Government started to give huge incentives to people to buy diesel cars, I was astonished. I assumed that somehow the experts had cleaned up diesel and I was not aware of it. But they had not cleaned it up at all. It was typical in my experience of Parliament of single-issue pressure groups such as Friends of the Earth demonising one issue such as carbon and then blackmailing the Government—all Governments—into promoting diesel, even though it was a killer in other respects. So, before we hear too many demands that this Government must do more to deal with diesel pollution, can we have at least one word of apology from Gordon Brown, other socialist politicians and the lobby groups for the evils they inflicted upon us, all in the name of saving the planet?

Now we are stuck with far too many diesel vehicles, including all the criminal Volkswagens for which British drivers have not received one penny of compensation—I believe that Porsche vehicles are equally guilty. However, that is a matter for the Minister for Transport and not for my noble friend.

In London, the problem is even more severe, for two reasons: an over-preponderance of filthy London buses and unprecedented congestion caused by cycle lanes. Last Saturday afternoon, traffic around Westminster was completely snarled up—I suspect that it may have been some of Mr McDonnell’s anti-democratic henchmen marching to try to bring down the Government. On Horseferry Road, I counted eight open-topped tour buses with a total of six passengers between them, each bus belching out a mass of diesel fumes. Add to that the five ordinary buses, which had about 12 passengers between them, and then the half-dozen tour coaches, and the air in Horseferry Road was positively toxic.

We hear demands to penalise diesel car drivers—but they are not the main problem. The average MPG of a diesel car is 40 to 50—some are now even up to 70—whereas the MPG of a bus is six, with a 10 to 13-litre engine. When we get more hybrid and electric buses, buses will cease to be a problem—but all older buses will then most likely be converted to open-topped tour buses. I can accept that commuter buses, carrying passengers to and from work, should access bus lanes and have a favourable tax regime, but I can see no justification whatever for tour buses to carry on blocking London streets, not paying considerably more for the privilege and causing incredible pollution. I challenge any noble Lord tomorrow, even if it is a wet day, to find a single tour bus that is even half-full. There are too many of them and they are killing Londoners.

From January next year, I understand that all new London cabs will have to be battery powered. That is a noble aim, but I fear that TfL is not nearly ready; there are not sufficient charge points and the battery distance of 100 miles is not good enough. A trip to Heathrow and back will put cabbies out of action for an hour, even if they can find a charge point to recharge their batteries. I suspect that we will see a large drop in the number of taxis. They will be replaced by—I am quite happy to use these words—the rotten and corrupt Uber company, whose drivers will face no penalty for driving diesel cars. TfL may end up putting decent London cabbies out of business and letting them be replaced by unqualified, uninspected drivers who have no clue where they are going.

I also feel strongly because, if Uber succeeds in putting London cabbies out of business, people like me and others in wheelchairs will never get a taxi again, since Uber does not have to provide a single wheelchair-accessible taxi. It is not allowed to discriminate if you book such a taxi, but it does not have to provide any, whereas all London cabs—current diesel ones and the new electric ones—are wheelchair accessible. I am conscious that I am treading on dangerous ground in talking about taxis in the presence of my noble friend Lord Borwick, who is an expert, but I hope that my remarks are not too wide of the mark.

I have the great privilege to serve on the Council of Europe. I missed all the Queen’s Speech debates last week because I was attending the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. There, as in Paris, I saw tens of thousands of cyclists and not a single one in Lycra and a racing helmet—except for tiny little toddlers wearing a helmet in a sort of wheelbarrow attachment on a bicycle, and they were quite cute. It was a pleasure to watch those cyclists: men and women of all ages, in normal clothes, riding elegantly with their heads held high. It was almost reminiscent of those pictures one saw of people riding penny farthings in the old days.

In France, they can ride on the pavement, and I have never felt so safe in my life—as opposed to taking my life in my hands when trying to cross to 1 Millbank and encountering some of the thugs on bikes mowing me down on the pedestrian crossing. How have we got it so wrong in this country and the French so right? I did not see a single racing bike handlebar in Paris or Strasbourg. Everyone rode with their head held high and their head much higher up than their bottom—there is nothing more repulsive than the sight of the Lycra-clad louts in London with their bum in the air and their head between the handlebars. That is not an air pollution problem, but it leads to an attitude whereby some cyclists regard London and other parts of the country as a racing track.

I have lived and worked in London since 1979 and have always considered it the greatest capital city in the world. Now our dedicated cycle lanes are destroying it and completely jamming up traffic. A former 20-minute taxi ride from here to Euston station now takes 45 minutes. To go to London City Airport, I instruct the driver to go south of the river and use the Rotherhithe Tunnel. It is many more miles and costs me more, but at least I get there in half the time it takes trying to use the Embankment, which is now a no-go zone. Most of the time, the cycle lanes are empty. Vehicles cannot use them because they have huge kerbstone barriers.

There are also red lines everywhere. Wheelchair users cannot flag down a taxi on the Embankment because it is down to one lane either way, with red lines. If a cabbie breaks the law to stop, they will jam up the traffic for ages as wheelchair users get into the taxi. Why in the name of goodness did TfL not do with cycle lanes what it did with bus lanes, with a big white line separating the cycle lane from the rest of the road and a requirement that cyclists have priority from 7 am to 10 am and from 4 pm to 7 pm? That would have worked perfectly. Instead, London has created dedicated racing tracks for cyclists who ignore red lights and pedestrian crossings, while tens of thousands of motor vehicles—buses, lorries and cars—sit jammed in traffic and belching out petrol and diesel fumes. It is probably too late to change the system now. We cannot adopt the French system because our cycling culture is now so ingrained. It seems to me, as a victim on various pedestrian crossings, that cyclists feel that they have a God-given right to cycle as fast as they can on dedicated tracks, and to hell with pedestrians and other road users.

It is not often—if ever—that I have praised the French in the past, but I envy them their cycling and pedestrian culture, where we all share the same space and respect each other’s right to use the road. Thus I am afraid that air quality in London will not improve until we tackle polluting London buses and change our cycle-lanes policy. But can we hold our breath that long?

20:07

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I must declare an interest: I have just recently become chairman of the British Lung Foundation, of whose board of trustees the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, was a member for a long time. Since that charity has done a great deal of valuable work in trying to promote better air quality not only in London but in the UK generally, I thought it right that on my third day as chair of the trust I should speak on this subject, although I am no expert on it.

I want to begin by discussing the public health dimensions of the crisis that we face in air quality in our big cities, especially in London. No one can any longer be complacent about this and assume that it is a problem faced only by cities such as Delhi, Beijing or Shanghai. I will not go into all the details of the scientific evidence—the noble Lord provided the House with an excellent summary of these issues—but want to pick up one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, in mentioning the EU. The EU has done an extraordinarily important job in tackling how we measure pollution in our cities as well as producing a scheme to try to regulate it.

It is a sad reflection of the situation here that the people of London are exposed to pollution which far exceeds EU limits. Around an eighth of the total area of London is above the legal limit for nitrogen dioxide. According to the WHO’s definition of safe levels of particulate matter, air in 90% of the city is considered toxic to breathe. Moreover, Defra’s own modelling shows that not just London but as many as 40 urban areas in the UK will have toxic and illegal air by 2020. This crisis urgently needs to be dealt with.

The implications for public health are enormous. First, air pollution contributes to the development of lung conditions. Incidentally, lung disease is already the UK’s third-largest killer after cardiovascular disease and cancer. Too few of us are aware of this fact. Toxic air is a major contributor to developing a lung condition. Children are particularly vulnerable as their lungs are still developing, and those growing up in high-pollution areas are four times more likely to have poor lung development. Many suffer from chronic asthma, and their lungs may well be damaged for the rest of their lives. How can we expose vulnerable children to suffering of this sort which is wholly preventable? Moreover, those children and adults in deprived areas—as the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said—are more likely to be exposed to poor-quality air.

Secondly, toxic air exacerbates the suffering of those who already have a lung condition. The symptoms of those with COPD—which, again, the noble Lord referred to; an extremely unpleasant long-term chronic disease—or asthma become worse, sometimes leading to hospitalisation, just because they breathed air outside. Why should they spend their lives inside? Those with cardiovascular disease are also at risk of suffering from coronary attacks which can lead to hospitalisation due to exposure to high levels of traffic-related air pollution. The Department of Health and NHS England say that public health and the prevention of disease is a high priority. Here we have an area of ill-health that is preventable, yet the Government have done far too little about it.

The cost of this is enormous. Estimates suggest that around 40,000 deaths per annum across the country are attributable to toxic air, and in London it contributes to 9,400 early deaths per annum. The direct costs to the NHS in London are extremely high, given the several thousand hospital admissions caused by air pollution every year. The overall economic cost could be as high as £3.7 billion, according to a recent study by King’s College London.

I turn now to the challenge this poses for the Government and will ask the Minister a number of questions. Before doing so, I salute the work of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, for deciding to attach very high priority to improving air quality. He has already announced a number of measures for tackling the problem. However, he cannot do this alone. The Government must play their part and not simply pass on responsibility to local authorities, either in London or elsewhere in the UK. As my noble friend Lord Whitty said, solutions require national as well as local policies.

My first question is: why were there no provisions for a new clean air Act in the Queen’s Speech? We heard a little about the history of the earlier Clean Air Act and I think it was in the Conservatives’ manifesto, so why are the Government going through a two-year Parliament with no such Bill? This is urgent. Moreover, it would attract cross-party agreement. I hope the Minister will not say when he replies that there is no room for anything other than Brexit-related legislation, when we are told that currently the Government are struggling to find enough business to fill parliamentary time.

A clean air Act should help to promote greater understanding of the need for clean transport, including more walking and cycling. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, was a bit unfair to cyclists. I accept that there are some dangerous cyclists, but many are far from dangerous and are doing the right thing in cycling to work or to meet friends rather than getting in their cars. While I am attacking the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, he was also a bit hard on Gordon Brown—the “socialist politician”, as he described him. It is fair to say that, when government advice was given that it would be better to buy a diesel car rather than a petrol car, that was based on what was the scientific consensus at the time. I am sure he regrets that now, as many other people do who were involved in giving that advice, but the Prime Minister alone cannot be taken to task for it.

A clean air Act ought also to establish new legal limits on pollution, based on the WHO’s standards. It could also introduce a targeted diesel scrappage scheme—to which the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, and my noble friend Lord Whitty already referred—to help local authorities get the most-polluting vehicles off the road. What do the Government plan to do in this respect? This seems a really important, burning issue. There is also a need for new fiscal incentives. Vehicle excise duty and company car tax should be further adjusted to encourage people to purchase the lowest-polluting vehicles, to deal with all three of the main sources of pollution: CO₂, NO₂ and PM emissions. Following the Vauxhall scandal, already referred to, the regulation of vehicle manufacture may also need some tightening up. Electric cars surely need to be introduced more quickly, with greatly increased numbers of charging points than exist at present. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could address these issues in his reply.

Finally, we need more charging clean air zones or ultra clean air zones, especially around schools. Many children in London go to schools massively affected by pollution because they are located on main roads. Should we not introduce fines for those who selfishly run their car engines when they are stationary—in all clean air zones but especially outside schools?

There will not be enormous public resistance to any changes. According to a survey commissioned by London Councils, 76% of Londoners believe that tackling air pollution should be a priority, and nearly half of them said that poor air quality had affected their health. Many also said they would accept that changes are required in their own behaviour in order to improve the air that we breathe. Please will the Government get on with it—research, yes, but some action as well—and move on from the rather pathetic response they gave to the High Court’s ruling that they should publish a plan on how they will deal with non-compliance with EU laws on air quality? Will they confirm that, after Brexit, UK courts will be able to enforce the relevant legislation?

As a Londoner, I am proud of this great city, but I do not want to be ashamed of it in respect of this most basic of human rights: that the air we breathe should be clean.

20:17

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for instigating this debate. It is very timely, and possibly even a bit late, because we are already experiencing such incredible pollution levels here in London. It has been years since I have talked about air quality, which is in the title of the debate, because we do not have air quality—what we have is air pollution. It is very important to understand that we already have quite damaging levels of air pollution. I have worked on this issue for about 15 years because an eagle-eyed co-worker of mine spotted that we were likely to get EU fines if we did not reduce our pollution—even then, in about 2002.

It has been quite difficult listening to some noble Lords in the debate without shouting quite loudly—the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, pre-eminent among them. It was not people like Friends of the Earth and the environmental campaigners who lobbied so hard for the diesel vehicles. It was in fact the EU, which, seeing the problem with heavy carbon loads and trying to reduce our carbon emissions, listened to the diesel car manufacturers such as Volkswagen and then pressured our Government to do the same. So we have to understand that, although the EU has been incredibly good about getting us to try to clean up our act, it was also the instigator of the problem in the first place.

Noble Lords have already talked about the horrors of air pollution and the fact that it affects particularly the young and the already unwell, so I will talk about the solutions that we should look at. There are two solutions in particular that I will highlight and would like a response from the Minister on. The first is having a new clean air Act and the second is to talk about traffic reduction.

I am not rubbishing the small measures. The small measures are incredibly important as well. Air pollution is a very complex issue and we need a lot of solutions and ideas. We have to think about turning off engines outside schools. We have to think about techno-fixes such as cleaner cars and cleaner fuels. We should also think about the luxury cruise ships that come up the Thames and try to park at places such as Greenwich. They are incredibly polluting. There is a programme on Channel 4 tonight which says that people are more exposed to air pollution on those ships than on London’s roads. That is slightly worrying. Apparently, levels of pollution on these cruise ships can be equal to those in Delhi and Shanghai, which is really quite disturbing.

On the clean air Act, the fact is that Brexit will impact on every single area of our lives, creating endless trauma—no doubt—but also the chance to improve things. We will need our own laws and our own enforcement mechanisms and agencies. It is an opportunity to create a body a bit like the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, with its own staff, legal powers and a culture of independence from the Government. We need that sort of body to look at the environment, and clean air in particular. Brexit means that we have the chance to do new things and to create a new clean air Act with new standards and limit values—a clean air Act that will freshen our filthy air and let us all breathe easier.

Of course, London Councils has made the point that, although we are talking about London in this debate, pollution does not respect legislative boundaries. What London is experiencing today, other cities and towns are experiencing as well. The problem will only get worse. If we can fix it here in London, other places can learn from our example.

I am impressed with the Mayor of London’s list. Obviously, I would like it to go faster and be larger and more expensive, but he is on the right lines. Transforming the bus fleet is going to be incredibly important to cleaning up. I do blame Boris Johnson for some of the dirtier buses that we have. He chose not to have the cleanest buses. He bought us buses that actually are not fit for use. But I harbour only a small antipathy towards him for that. Other people have done just as much, although during the Olympics he tried to clean up our air pollution so that it would conform to EU limits by putting pot plants along the Olympic route. There was only one emissions testing facility, which was on the Euston Road, and the intake pipe was something like 18 feet up, and anybody who knows anything about pollution knows that the worst pollution is lower down. Previous mayors have done their bit. Ken Livingstone brought in the congestion charge. Boris brought in the wonderful cycle lanes, which are doing so much for London. Now Sadiq Khan is bringing in a whole raft of measures. For me, it is not a pick-and-mix list; every one of those things has to be done.

The European Commission currently has the power to fine the UK Government for failing to protect the health of their citizens. We need a replacement UK body with similar clout. The Environment Agency and Natural England are under the thumb of Defra and cannot offer the necessary protection to people or planet. We also need a body that can be sued by victims if it sets the bar too low or fails in its job of enforcing standards to protect human health and the natural world. All these things have to be taken into account in our Brexit negotiations and in the repeal of the laws. They have to be contemporaneous so that we do not just move into a situation where we have nothing protecting our environment.

On traffic reduction, all levels of government have failed to deal with the air pollution crisis over the past two decades. Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments failed to reduce nitrogen dioxide levels to the legal limit, which we were meant to do by 2010. None included traffic reduction in national plans, despite that being the most direct, fastest and most straightforward way to cut pollution.

The new bike lanes have been a success and now carry as many people as the Victoria line. They have replaced car traffic and relieved pressure on public transport, but we need more of them to reduce pollution to legal levels in London. People often fail to understand that every cyclist is somebody who is not taking up a seat on public transport and is not using a car. We should be welcoming cyclists. The reason we have protected cycle lanes is because our roads are dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, talked about how wonderful things are in France with no Lycra and no helmets. Why do people wear Lycra and helmets on the roads in London? It is because they can be dangerous. I do not wear Lycra or a helmet, but I get criticised for not making myself visible. I was once stopped by a taxi driver who said, “What do you think you’re doing? You look just like a pedestrian”, as I was wearing normal clothes on my bike, so you cannot please everybody. Cycle lanes also mean a healthier population. They encourage people to get exercise. Even if you are breathing the polluted air, you are still not breathing as much of it as car drivers, whose air intake is much lower. We will have cleaner, healthier people if we have more cyclists.

The Government have lost two court cases for failing to produce a plan which would enable us to reduce pollution to the legal limit. ClientEarth has done an amazing job on this. It is getting harder to take the Government to court to get a judicial review, but it has done it. The Government are in the High Court again this week. A Government’s highest priority should be to protect their citizens. Why are they dragging their feet on something as dangerous as air pollution? We have a national health crisis, not just at the moment for people who are experiencing respiratory problems but down the line with all the children, who have small lungs, who will have breathing difficulties in future. For some reason, the Government find this impossible to visualise. Why is public health reliant on the dedication of a voluntary organisation such as ClientEarth? Why have official bodies charged with protecting our health been silent and failed to act? I do not want to put ClientEarth out of business, but the success of its actions has highlighted the enforcement vacuum at the heart of the UK’s environmental policies.

ClientEarth’s successful court action in British courts has relied upon advice from the European Commission and the European Court of Justice. Whether those reference points are still to be part of British law post Brexit depends on the so far rather confused negotiations. We should know. We have to have enforcement mechanisms, legal opportunities to sue and our own enforcement body.

Will the Minister say whether a clean air Act is going to be government policy? Do the Government see the sense in traffic reduction?

20:28

[Lord Higgins (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating my noble friend on his success in the ballot and on initiating this debate. It enables us to raise a number of issues, particularly in relation to Transport for London, which is very difficult to do.

Many years ago, I had to drive home through what turned out to be the last real pea-soup British fog. It was a terrifying experience. I could barely see past the front end of my car. It brought home to me just how terrible the pollution at that time was. As my noble friend rightly pointed out in his opening speech, it was followed by clean air legislation and over the years there was a considerable improvement in the quality of air. However, the other night I drove from the other side of the river to Piccadilly and that brought home to me very forcefully how terrible the level of pollution now is. I had to suffer it because in the course of that journey I was diverted all along the Embankment, right the way back. With the journey I had to take, the pollution which the car I was in was creating was very serious, due to the diversions. I stress as strongly as I can that the policies being adopted by Transport for London are making a very considerable contribution to the problems which we are facing, and I will deal with four particular aspects of it.

The first is roadworks. We constantly see serious congestion and pollution caused by roadworks which have no one working on them. This can go on for a very long time. We had a classic example the other side of Parliament Square in Great George Street, where Transport for London had decided to bring in a bicycle lane. It started the initial work, and the capacity of the road was reduced as a result. For weeks, absolutely nothing happened and the pollution and congestion got worse and worse. This was typical of the way in which roadworks are begun without a clear plan to make sure they are carried through without an interruption, creating disruption as a result of the work which ought to be done not being done. It is very important to stress that that level of roadworks should be worked on 24 hours a day. Clearly, there will be increased costs, but none the less, it will greatly reduce the amount of congestion and pollution if instead of just working a few hours a day, we concentrate on them on a 24-hours-a-day basis.

The second thing I want to talk about, as other noble Lords have done, is bicycle lanes, because it is clear that the action being taken on these has substantially reduced the capacity of roads in London and is increasing congestion. For example, on Lower Thames Street, they must all have died of carbon monoxide poisoning long since. The bike lanes have been sectioned off so they cannot be used by other traffic under any circumstances.

I spend a great deal of my time in The Hague in Holland, and bicycle ownership per head there is far greater than it is here. They have bicycle lanes but they have not found it necessary to cordon them off in the way which is done in London, and they therefore have not suffered from the problems which we are suffering from. They back up the lack of barriers by a law which says that if you are a motorist and hit a cyclist, it is automatically your fault. However suicidal the cyclist may be, that law is enforced. None the less, their approach to bicycle lanes has been vastly better than the one which we have adopted in London.

I do not know what we can do about the situation. It is going to be very difficult, given the huge amount of money being spent on bicycle lanes, to put the matter right. We have seriously to argue, given that the number of cyclists using them outside the rush hour is very small, whether some forms of vehicles should be able to use them during the off-peak periods. It is also arguable that there is a serious problem here as far as emergency services are concerned, if there is a terrorist attack, because of the lack of space on the roads for emergency vehicles to get to any particular incident.

Thirdly, I turn to the question of buses. A few days ago I had occasion to drive from Westminster to Dulwich by way of the Oval and Camberwell Green. I had a very long journey with masses of pollution, and the reason was that there were enormous queues of buses. It was the middle of the day and there was virtually no one in them. The queue was some seven or eight buses long. Some of the buses were duplicate numbers because the old story, “You wait for hours and then they all arrive together”, is certainly true. It seems clear to me that the number of buses polluting and causing congestion in the middle of the day ought to be reduced, but there appears to be no plan for organising them in a way that would ensure that we did not get vast queues of buses causing problems.

Lastly, I turn, as my noble friends did earlier, to the question of minicabs. I found to my surprise some time ago that there is apparently no one who is able to control the number of minicabs. Minicabs now are not the old traditional kind of locally based cabs; they tend to be, as noble Lords have already referred to, Uber, an organisation that I believe is banned in a number of countries. There is an enormous increase in the number of minicabs adding to congestion. I do not know whether the Minister can tell us how many minicabs are now on the roads, what the increase has been and how that compares to the number of black cabs, but it is becoming a serious problem and adding to congestion.

Overall it is very difficult to raise these matters with Transport for London. More and more it is the case that TfL has become largely unaccountable. For example, I do not really know how one can get in touch with it about a specific blockage or roadworks not being worked on. TfL needs a helpline that would enable people to ring in and bring to its attention the many ways in which congestion is increasing in London, because one cannot get at the people who are responsible for controlling these matters.

Again, I thank my noble friend for initiating this debate. It has been extremely helpful. I hope we will manage to get a better policy regarding traffic in London.

20:38

[Lord Hunt of Chesterton (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the debate introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick. Air pollution is now an intrinsic aspect of most large cities around the world. It damages the environment and greatly affects the health and habits of citizens as well as the operation of the city’s transport and other operations, and even the economic functioning of major cities. The important point for this debate, which focuses on London, is to realise how air pollution is quite complex and keeps changing, as urban citizens have experienced and protested about around the world. I declare my interests as a director of a small environmental company, a former president of the National Society for Clean Air and a former director of the Met Office.

My own experience began in the London smog of December 1952, when thousands of open fires in Whitehall offices, where my father worked, were belching out so much smoke that it was dark at midday. However, medical research—which I studied a bit because I used to lecture on this—showed that the carboxyhaemoglobin in the blood of policemen actually decreased during four hours of traffic duty. This is a little quiz: why? Because those policemen were not smoking. This showed that four hours in the worst air pollution that we could ever have was a lot healthier than four hours’ smoking.

The health effects of the 1952 smog were very serious, of course, particularly for non-smokers, with hundreds of thousands of people dying prematurely from asthma and other lung diseases. After the clean air legislation in 1966, coal burning was progressively replaced by cleaner oil heating and by vehicles producing fewer particles in their exhausts. Urban pollution became less visible but, by the 1970s, different gaseous pollutants in the urban atmosphere, such as nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, were increasing. These were produced more by road vehicles than by the reducing number of local power stations, which had been important in earlier times.

Photochemical reactions stimulated by solar radiation produced ozone and nitrogen dioxide and a yellowish haze in the atmosphere, which was extremely bad for some people’s breathing and produced serious associated health effects. As European urban pollution was beginning to resemble that in the United States, where they were familiar with the phenomenon in Los Angeles, the health standards for acceptable levels of air pollution in Europe were established, based on advice from the World Health Organization.

Europe introduced selective subsidies for particular types of vehicle engine, based on differing environmental criteria. European Governments also focused on reducing adverse climate impact associated with carbon dioxide emissions by subsidising and encouraging the use of diesel engines, even though this amplified other pollutants with significant health effects, as other noble Lords have commented. Different standards were adopted in Japan in the 1980s, where diesel engines for private vehicles were banned, as I noted in my visits—and I never bought a diesel car. In 2016, the UK Government changed their policy to discourage diesel private cars—but diesel car tax still tends to be lower than petrol car tax.

The next important policy change was to focus on measuring and then reducing the concentration of vehicles producing air pollution in city centres and other locations of higher pollution, such as highways, crossroads and around airports and ships—as the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, commented. The research showed how air pollution from road vehicles breathed by people in the streets and in vehicles was highly concentrated in such locations, because the pollution was emitted near the ground—as other noble Lords have commented—quite unlike the pollutants dispersed from rooftops and power stations before the 1960s, which effectively spread all over the city. These low-level emissions of pollution meant that cleaner, healthier areas could be established in cities where concentrations were markedly lower, and this has benefited cyclists. But children walking in streets next to traffic are exposed to high concentrations, as has also been mentioned.

There is a terrible story of an eight year-old child living near a very busy crossroads in Beijing, which was reported in all the newspapers in Asia. This child was found to be suffering from lung cancer at that age because of the very high concentration of pollutants on the crossroads where she lived. In the UK, particulates will become more of a threat in future.

I should say that the European Environment Agency, the director of which is a British colleague of mine, reported on its website in November 2016 that air quality was slowly improving all across Europe, but that it is a large health hazard. The figure it gave last November was 467,000 deaths per year.

Following other countries, UK legislation enabled London in 2003 and other cities to restrict private traffic in such critical areas by the congestion charge, while allowing public vehicles and taxis to avoid the charge. As the London Taxi Association, which I spoke to, emphasised, this policy has not produced smooth running of traffic or low air pollution. Excessive numbers of minicabs—50,000 was the number I heard—and goods vehicles are permitted, with high pollution emissions, as has happened in the past two years.

Apparently, from a reply to my recent PQ, HMG have no policy to limit the number of road vehicles—not even in urban areas. Is this really true? In other words, are we just to have more, more and more traffic with no limits? Is there no policy even to think about a limit? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point.

There are other ways in which the impact of air pollution could be minimised. In London, individuals and the public are provided with current air pollution information and forecasts for the next day or two ahead. For example, there is www.airtext.info—and I declare an interest as helping in that. That is provided by local authorities in London and also used by the Mayor of London’s office. By the way, the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, could download it if he wanted to; he commented that he was unable to find information about air pollution every day, but it is there. That information can enable those suffering from health effects to use drugs or other remedial measures, such as dealing with their exercise or not going out. Regional forecasts are also provided by the UK Met Office and the European Centre in Reading.

Over the longer term, urban government organisations should relate their consideration of air pollution to the future development of their cities and regions. In recent decades, London has been successful in its development of Docklands and the green and water spaces for the Olympic areas, although it has not been so successful in its multistorey housing, in making London greener or in transport planning, as other noble Lords have commented. For the future, we should expect lower pollution from ground-level and underground transport and from aviation transport, together with electric propulsion. If vehicle emissions cannot be suppressed, there should be high-tech cleaners within buildings to reduce air pollution. Dyson now has this invention, which is widely used in Asia.

For the future, there need to be more effective fora for all the interconnecting aspects of the London environment—perhaps like the high-level academic and government conference held at UCL in 2002, which also included schoolchildren and then then Mayor of London. We need more such events.

20:46

[The Earl of Caithness (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was right to remind the House that London is in breach of EU standards, but let us put that in perspective. London is not alone in the UK, and its air quality is better than the other great capital cities of Europe, such as Paris, Brussels, Rome, Madrid and Athens. This is a European problem as well as a London problem, and it affects the other parts of the UK.

Much has been done in the last 70 years to improve air quality. It has been a long-standing problem, and noble Lords have referred to that—but even though air quality is hugely improved on what it used to be, I still noticed the difference when I commuted regularly down from Scotland to London on Monday morning, and was very pleased to get back up north on Friday.

We tackled the smog problem, and I recall being the Minister in charge when we did great things on unleaded petrol and the large plants directive regarding emissions from power stations, and things like that—all improving air quality. I say to my noble friend that he should not expect any thanks from the environmental lobby. It will criticise, criticise, criticise, and as soon as you do what it wants it will not thank you—it will go and find something else to berate you about.

We then move on to carbon dioxide and the Labour Government making their mistake about diesel cars. A few years ago, when I was on Sub-Committee D, the EU Agriculture, Fisheries, Environment and Energy Committee, I tried to persuade everybody that we ought to do a report on air pollution—but as we had just taken on energy we thought that would be a more appropriate subject. I wish that we had done air pollution, as I wanted.

Now the focus has moved to nitrogen dioxide—I shall call it NOx from now on—and particulates. Undoubtedly, there is a problem, but there is considerable hype and scaremongering on this matter. It is important to base action on facts. I thoroughly support what my noble friend Lord Borwick said, and thank him for introducing this debate. We must have better research and facts. It cannot be easy for any Government to take action when you have companies such as Volkswagen producing misleading figures and local authorities not reporting them. If local authorities are not reporting them in the UK, just think how much worse it is in Europe.

Tackling the problem that we face with air pollution in London has to be done at all levels. It has to be done at international level—and by that I mean the EU. It has to be taken at national level, by our Government, and at local level through the local authorities. We as individuals all have an important role to play. We need to take far more responsibility for our decisions. There are EU directives in force, but because of lack of facts it is debatable how far they are applied and agreed to at the moment. The Government have legislation in place and only in May this year they issued the clean air zone framework.

With most air pollution in London coming from diesel vehicles, the Government have a definite, important role because they can alter vehicle excise duty and tilt it towards getting us all to use better, non-polluting, zero-emission cars. I do not support the idea that has been mooted of a diesel scrappage scheme. I have a diesel car, but diesel cars are not great offenders in this problem: there are many worse polluters. If the Government are going to spend taxpayers’ money, they should give it to encourage a range of technologies and let the private sector develop those best suited for the future. Do not pick winners.

I too ask my noble friend whether the Clean Air Act 1993 is still fit for purpose or if it is time it was updated and a new Bill brought forward. No noble Lord has referred to what I thought was a very good report by the Institute for Public Policy Research on solving London’s air pollution crisis. Interestingly, it makes most of its recommendations at local level, for the mayor and the 32 boroughs of London. On the subject of what the mayor should do, it should be remembered that not all the pollution is London-generated. About 75% of the particulates which affect London actually come in from outside its boundaries. The causes of pollution vary between central London and Greater London and, therefore, the problem has to be addressed in different ways. For instance, NOx from aviation and railways affects Greater London but has minimal effect on inner London. However, as other noble Lords have said, road transport is the prime offender and, within that sector, TfL buses are the main culprits. TfL is the responsibility of the mayor: how will my noble friend hold him to account on implementing the necessary strategies which should be done at local level, not by the Government?

After buses, the next worst polluters—which no noble Lord has mentioned—are our own domestic gas appliances. It is the responsibility of all of us to update our appliances, in particular our boilers. Does my noble friend have any suggestions as to how this can best be done? Is there a Government scheme that is going to encourage or persuade us to update our gas appliances, which are huge contributors to the NOx problem? That is a situation in which we as individuals have a role to play. There has been talk of public health and children; the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, mentioned it in relation to Putney. Have noble Lords ever stood back and looked at people standing at a traffic-light level crossing? They are all on the traffic verge, practically in the road, absorbing all the fumes. A few sensible ones are standing at the back of the pavement: even three yards would make a huge difference to a child’s health. We do not seem to understand the fairly obvious thing: you want to get away but when the lights go green you still have plenty of time to cross.

I agree with a lot of what my noble friend Lord Blencathra said about cycle lanes in London: they increase congestion. My noble friend Lord Higgins was absolutely right to say that this is a huge problem for the emergency services. This problem will increase and we will suffer from not only the bicycle lanes—and more are going be put in—but the indignity of the whole thing being ripped up in the not too distant future. Solving our air pollution problem is not a quick and easy matter; it is a long-term process. All Governments have tried hard to do it, some more effectively than others. My noble friend and his department will try hard. What we need to do is give him every support to do so at the national level and encourage the mayor in particular to tackle it at a local level and drive this forward.

20:54

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on achieving this debate. It has been an excellent debate with lots of interesting comments and statements.

I start by paying tribute to Simon Birkett, who runs Clean Air in London. He has kept air pollution in the public eye and produced a mass of statistics over many years. If we are to have a sensible debate about air pollution, we have to have the right data. Simon has recently produced what I think he calls a Birkett app. If you have the right type of phone, you can look at the Birkett IndexTM—I suppose that means trade mark—which gives the air pollution levels and the percentage of deaths attributable to PM 2.5 in local authorities and regions of the UK. Simon looks at the average over 10 years or so of deaths attributed to different public health risks. Smoking comes top with 80,000 in England. Air pollution comes second with 29,000 in the UK, so it is not totally comparable. Alcoholism accounts for 15,000 to 22,000 deaths, obesity 9,000 and road traffic accidents just under 2,000. It is important for people to understand the comparators and where the data have come from if we are to have a proper debate.

All the arguments focus on the need to reduce traffic, particularly in London. It is interesting to note that a lot of noble Lords have talked about ways to reduce other people’s traffic so that they can get through quicker, which is a natural reaction. However, we have to ask ourselves whether we have the right to drive in London where and when we like, probably at minimum cost to ourselves. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talked about roadworks. However, I think that some of those around Parliament recently have been caused by the utility companies, which are a bit of a law unto themselves.

As many noble Lords know, I am a cyclist. Cyclists have come in for a bit of a bashing tonight from a number of noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, talked about cycling in The Hague. I have cycled in The Hague and it is very nice. There are some cycle lanes and places where you can feel safe. However, one of the things about The Hague is that there is not much traffic around, and that must make it a great deal safer. I cycled across Paris a couple of weeks ago between the Gare du Nord and the Gare du Midi. There is a segregated cycle lane most of the way, very like the cycle lanes here. However, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, correctly said, the law is different on the continent. If a cyclist gets hit by a vehicle, I think that the driver of the vehicle is already at least 50% liable before the circumstances are investigated. A long time ago in your Lordships’ House, I suggested that we should change the law here. I was given a pretty rough time by some of the Law Lords, who said that would mean that somebody was guilty before they were proved innocent, or the other way round. But it has contributed to the antipathy, which is often there, between cyclists and motorists. It would be much better if there were no antipathy and everybody behaved with respect to other road users. One of the cycling groups I am involved in is starting a campaign to persuade cars to keep at least a metre and a half clear of cyclists on main roads. In London that is of course impossible, because there is too much congestion. However, we have to look at all the types of traffic here. Buses have come in for a lot of abuse today too. Trains have not been abused yet—I will talk about them in a minute.

In the rush hour, that cycle lane along the embankment is very full and congested; I sometimes feel in danger going down it, while at other parts of the day it is less congested, as are the buses and the roads. However, the benefits of cycling start and finish with people not feeling frightened on a bicycle, and the segregation achieves that. They made a mess of the cycle lanes through the Royal Parks, which is one of the reasons why there has been a delay in Great George Street; the Royal Parks bit of the cycle lane was about two years late, whatever you think about it, and that has caused a lot of problems. It is the same with buses; if we had electric buses, people would use them. The concentration of people you can get in a train, a bus or a cycle lane is rather higher than you can get in one car. I therefore come back to the question: should we not restrict people’s ability to drive their own cars around London and other cities?

Nobody has criticised white vans or trucks yet, but maybe some of my colleagues will do that in winding up. They also cause quite a lot of pollution. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group. We are trying quite hard to get more freight on the rails into city centres. Sometimes it comes in passenger trains, sometimes in roll cages—such as supermarkets have delivered—or in the guards’ vans of trains; there are various examples of that, including crabs and lobsters from Penzance. However, where do you transfer the freight from the train into, hopefully, an electric vehicle or possibly even for cycle delivery for the last few miles into the centre of London? That would create a large reduction in emissions, but there needs to be somewhere to transfer the freight, such as a consolidation centre. The cost of land around the mainline stations is high, and that challenge has not yet been addressed.

The last aspect is the building sector. There are concrete mixing plants, which everybody sees around London and other big cities; there is a big one just outside St Pancras station, which supplies a large amount of concrete buildings in London—it might even supply HS2, if it gets built from Euston. The materials come in by rail—that is quite environmentally friendly—but then you have big concrete trucks going around London. They are diesels, and generally pretty efficient, but it is difficult to know how that could be transferred to electric in the short term anyway. But the biggest problem we have is in the link between the policies and the planning, which is a problem in London and many other places.

I will give an example. We have talked about the ultra-low emission zones in London, we have plans to ban older HGVs from London, which is probably a good thing, and there is the transport strategy. However, while the transport strategy acknowledges the future needs of housing and infrastructure development—which means all these building materials—in over 200 pages it includes not a single reference to air quality and the congestion benefits of rail freight. That seems a bit odd.

The last point relating to this issue is that there are many little concrete batching plants around Greater London. The railway delivers the aggregate and sometimes the cement as well, and it is mixed on site and delivered locally, but there are more and more cases, including in Stratford and Bow in east London, where local authorities allow residential developments next door to these plants. The residents then obviously complain about the noise and dust, and they want them closed down. We either have these little terminals around London and city centres that can receive the materials by rail from the batching plants, which make the asphalt and so on, or they are brought in from 50 or 100 miles away by truck. It is a planning and policy issue, and I hope that when the Minister responds, he will say that he will look at it again. I hope that we can have a meeting about it later because it is quite a serious problem. There are these lovely terminals, which have been there for years—working 24/7, as they have to—and then people build a house or a block of flats next door to them and the residents complain and want to restrict the opening hours of the works.

I have very much enjoyed listening to and participating in this debate, and I look forward to the noble Lord’s answers.

21:06

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for raising this important topic.

Many noble Lords in this debate have referred to the health issues associated with high levels of air pollution. Although there is a very good case for needing more research, a lot of statistics are available that make a strong case for being seriously worried about the health implications of the current situation. Road transport is responsible for many of the current problems. Diesel creates 40% of London’s nitrogen oxide emissions and PM—particulate matter—creates a similar level of emissions across London. It is not just a case of having difficulty in breathing, as one might immediately think; these emissions also cause heart attacks, as the British Heart Foundation makes clear. In London, three-quarters of a million people have cardiovascular disease, and research shows a strong link between ultra-fine PM and poor cardiovascular health.

So far, the attention given to NOx levels has been focused only on where we have breached EU levels, but even short-term inhalation of high levels of PM increases the risk of heart disease within 24 hours of exposure. The UK’s current legal limits for PM are much less stringent than the World Health Organization recommends, and the WHO says that there is no safe minimum level of PM that can be inhaled.

I take this opportunity to emphasise the importance of the role of the EU, as the noble Baroness did earlier. The big question that I ask myself is: would there have been anything like the emphasis on air pollution that we see today if it had not been for EU emission levels?

On these Benches, we largely support the actions taken by the Mayor of London. We support his ideas for an ultra-low emission zone and additional charges for polluting vehicles, but we believe that even more should be done. In one important respect, we part company with Sadiq Khan, and that is in his support for a new Silvertown road tunnel. This would simply generate even more traffic. What we need in London is more public transport river crossings and more walking and cycling bridges east of Tower Bridge, not another bridge to take yet more traffic.

The Liberal Democrats went into the election with a comprehensive plan for tackling these problems, not just in London but throughout the UK, because it needs a comprehensive approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, that road traffic needs to be deterred; it needs to be excluded at some times of the day. Diesel needs to be discouraged and phased out, and alternatives need to be encouraged. It is a complex issue because some things can be done immediately—for example, a ban on idling vehicles could be done almost instantly and air pollution signage in polluted hot spots could also be done very quickly. We need to make sure that there is more thorough and effective monitoring. Other actions would take a bit longer, such as the introduction of a targeted diesel scrappage scheme—which we support—with a requirement that, in order to participate, you need to replace your diesel with an ultra-low emission vehicle. I declare my usual interest as the owner of an electric car.

It would take longer, of course, to insist that charging plugs for electric vehicles are a universal shape but, as someone who regularly suffers from what is called “range anxiety” when I am in my electric car, I am very pleased to see that that proposal is in the Government’s Bill on this issue. I am also pleased to see that there are other proposals to encourage a wider number of electric charging points. In Canada, they use lamp-posts for electric vehicle charging points; that would be one way of opening up the ownership of electric vehicles to people who do not happen to have a drive. Why should ownership of electric vehicles be restricted to people in one sort of housing?

Increased congestion is, of course, a huge problem. It is the source of many of the problems we face, and tackling it is vital. The plethora of private hire vehicles, with the popularity of Uber, has had a major impact. The rules for London taxis state that, from this year, all new cabs should be zero emission. I believe that should apply to all private hire vehicles within, say, five years.

Also causing congestion is the growth in home deliveries. There are lots of solutions to the problem of the white van coming to deliver your parcel from Amazon or whoever—there are drones and, I saw in the newspaper last week, electric bikes with a cab on the back for small deliveries. There is the possibility of delivering outside busy hours or delivering not necessarily to your home or your office but to collection points. There is no reason why small vans should not switch to electricity fairly rapidly, but HGVs and large vans are a problem. One answer has to be hydrogen, another has to be biofuels and rail freight is obviously important.

The same applies to buses. At the moment, electric buses are relatively heavy and can have a limited range, but there are options available and the technology is moving very fast. In Britain, electric bus orders are in the low-single and double digits in most places. However, in China in the city of Changsha there are 14,000 electric buses either on the streets already or on order. TfL has a massive network of more than 9,000 buses. Removing all the diesel buses from London would have a significant impact on air quality. It is a pity that TfL has been slow in rolling this out, although it is doing some good work now.

I do not join the chorus of anti-cycling comments we have heard today. It is vital that we encourage more cycling and more walking. I am always interested in the criticism of cycle lanes because it was Boris Johnson’s big idea. Too much blame goes to poor old TfL, which is carrying out his instructions. However, they are making a real difference in encouraging new people on to bikes, and many of those new people are cycling to work and no longer driving their cars. That is important.

There are two other problems. One is the need to find an alternative to diesel auxiliary engines used for refrigeration in, for example, supermarket lorries. Transport refrigeration units are not included in the terms of the clean air zones or in London’s ultra-low emission zone. However, it is vital that they are included in the future because they are disproportionate emitters of both NOx and PM. If a truck has a diesel TRU, its overall NOx emissions are likely to be as much as six times higher than an ordinary truck, and its PM will be up to 30 times higher. Such trucks are serious polluters. The Government should prohibit the use of red diesel in auxiliary TRUs and abolish the perverse subsidy for the use of red diesel.

Ships are also a problem. Mention has been made already of cruise ships. There is an article in the Times today which emphasises this issue, highlighting heavy levels of pollution from ships. Any new wharfs for liners berthing in the Thames should use offshore electric power.

None of the plans for Heathrow show the kind of revolution that London needs in order to avoid pollution from the surface transport that will be needed and generated by a third runway. There is serious work to do on this.

21:17

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for instigating this debate today and for once again giving us the opportunity to take stock of the action we still need to take on this critical threat to public health in London and the UK. I agree with a great deal of what he said, and in particular with his analysis that we should base our policy on the best scientific evidence available. However, that should not be an excuse for inaction. I think his message was that we should have both—and I agree with that. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As ever, we have had a debate of considerable knowledge and authority.

I disagree with the several noble Lords who think that the problem is cyclists, buses and even pedestrians getting too close to the kerb rather than private car owners. The solution in city centres is a rebalancing of all of that. It is not just about tackling air quality but is a bigger issue of quality of life. As long as we have private cars driving into and clogging up city centres, they will not be pleasant places to live and work. That is a real challenge for us. We have to rebalance that in everyone’s interests.

I declare an interest. I am a member of the development board of ClientEarth, the environmental legal charity that has been pursuing the Government through the courts on this issue. I am proud of the work that it does, both in the UK and globally, in holding Governments to account for delivering their environmental obligations under existing laws. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that I do not think any environmental charity has to apologise for the laudable objective of trying to save the planet.

As noble Lords will know, ClientEarth has been able to demonstrate to a number of courts, including the Supreme Court, that since 2010 the UK has had illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide in the air. Over this period, the Government have done little to tackle the problem. The courts, quite rightly, ruled that as the Government are already in breach of the legislation, they have a duty to get the levels of nitrogen dioxide down below the legal limits in the shortest possible time. To do that clearly requires urgent action on a scale deliverable in that shortest possible time and technically evidenced to show that the return to legal limits is indeed a likely outcome.

Noble Lords would have thought, given the public health implications, which are well known, that the Government would have shared this sense of urgency and acted appropriately. Instead, as we know, various draft air quality plans have been produced that, it is obvious to most observers and to the courts, only partly address the problem. They lack sufficient urgency and are based on unsubstantiated assumptions. I argue that the latest draft again fails to meet the very reasonable tests that have been set. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and other noble Lords in asking why the Government are still dragging their feet on this.

The latest draft air quality plan—which, incidentally, the courts had to insist was published—sets out proposals for clean air zones in the most highly polluting towns and cities in England. It is at best a partial response. For example, it does not address similar issues in the devolved nations. In addition, the Government’s own technical support, which accompanied the draft plan, makes it clear that charging vehicles entering clean air zones is the most effective way of reducing pollution. But the Government are failing to heed their own technical advice. Instead, their draft plan says that charging should be introduced only as a last resort. Equally, the draft fails to offer increases to vehicle tax for polluting vehicles, or a targeted diesel scrappage scheme. The Government’s lack of leadership on this and the Prime Minister’s continued reluctance to act on diesel cars means that thousands of lives will continue to be put at risk.

Why is this so important? A number of noble Lords have drawn attention to the growing evidence of poor health and premature deaths linked to polluted air. I welcome my noble friend Lady Blackstone to her role at the British Lung Foundation, which has done a considerable amount of work over many years to raise awareness of the health dangers. There have been various statistics quoted about the health dangers. King’s College London estimates that there are 9,416 deaths a year in London alone and we know that children’s health is particularly vulnerable to damage from exposure to traffic fumes. Evidence shows that such exposure reduces lung growth, produces long-term ill health and can cause premature death in young people. Yet at least 3,000 schools are sited within 150 metres of a road emitting illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide. The issue is stark and clear.

Meanwhile, British Heart Foundation research has shown that even short-term inhalation of air pollution can significantly increase the chance of a heart attack among those living with cardiovascular disease. As we also heard, the latest research from scientists at Lancaster University has shown that tiny particles of air pollution can even find their way into brain tissue, with all the additional health threats that that entails. All of that reinforces the growing public health concerns about the damage that nitrogen dioxide and particulates can inflict, and makes a mockery of the comments of the GLA’s Conservative adviser Adam Wildman, who wrote of a,

“pollution panic … not borne out by the evidence”.

What needs to be done to bring vehicle emissions to safe levels? I pay absolute credit to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who, unlike the Government, has shown real leadership and is taking tough decisions to clean up the air in London. As we have heard, he has set out plans to make the congestion charge zone a zero-emission zone as soon as possible. He has also set out plans to make London a world leader in clean and sustainable urban transport—both public and private vehicles. More immediately, he is introducing an additional charge for the most polluting diesel vehicles. Incidentally, a recent YouGov poll for ClientEarth showed that more than two-thirds of Londoners believe that owners of higher-polluting vehicles should pay more to travel through London.

The mayor has also raised public awareness of the health risks through mass public information and a new air pollution alert system. All these factors are to be celebrated. Some individual local authorities are also taking matters seriously. Lambeth already has advanced clean-air plans and a range of concrete measures to cut down on car use in its locality. Westminster has introduced £80 fines for drivers caught with idling engines, and there were calls for no-idling zones to be made compulsory outside schools, hospitals and care homes. However, lest we become complacent about this, and as the Library Note helpfully states, many other local authorities are failing even to capture the existing pollution data that they are required to measure under law, let alone taking action to clean up their air pollution levels.

That brings us back to the need for national leadership and a robust plan of action—a point emphasised by many noble Lords. It is clear that the Government need once again to revise their draft air quality plan so that it properly delivers a return to lawful nitrogen dioxide levels across the UK in the shortest possible time. That plan should also include, first, a recognition that local authorities will need help—they cannot do it on their own, as the Government would have them do; there is no point in devolving responsibility to them without help. I agree with my noble friends Lord Hunt and Lord Berkeley that an overall reduction in the number of road vehicles has to be part of that solution, particularly in those clean-air zones.

Secondly, while clean-air zones are necessary, they cannot be limited to a select number of towns and cities. There is a danger that such an approach will simply shift the problem elsewhere. As we heard, car fumes do not stay in one area; they move with the wind from one part of the country to another. Thirdly, we need to ensure that motor manufacturers are forced to give accurate test results for emission levels which can be properly verified in everyday road settings. The fact that VW and other manufacturers tricked the Government in the past has still not properly been addressed. What action are the Government taking to tackle that previous subterfuge and introduce proper penalties for any future transgressions by those manufacturers?

Fourthly, we need a scrappage scheme for the most polluting diesel vehicles, increased charges on diesel fuel and greater incentives for car purchasers to opt for low-emission vehicles. Finally and crucially, we need a new clean air Act which could consolidate the complex and disparate body of domestic, EU and international law into one coherent and effective piece of legislation. This would ensure that air quality targets are in force when we leave the EU and give the public confidence that their health concerns are at last being addressed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

21:28

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)]

My Lords, I too am most grateful to my noble friend for securing the debate. The need to improve air quality is of paramount importance. I have listened carefully to your Lordships, bringing their immense commitment and experience to this debate—although, intriguingly, not with universally shared views. I will of course answer as many questions as I can and promise that on all those questions that I do not answer I will write in detail and as soon as I can to all Members who have participated.

The air that we breathe is vital to everyday life, so its cleanliness is an imperative and it is now for us to grasp this continuing challenge. Air quality has improved significantly over recent decades through the regulatory frameworks that successive Governments have put in place and significant investment from industry. This began with the Clean Air Act 1956 before the UK joined the European Union and will continue after it leaves. I know there have been a number of calls for a new clean air Act. The truth is that there is already extensive existing legislation in place to support action to improve air quality. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked what will happen after we leave the European Union. Our strong commitment remains to improve air quality and this will continue after the UK leaves the EU. The great repeal Bill will ensure that the whole body of existing EU environmental law continues to have effect in our own domestic law.

My noble friend Lord Higgins raised the fact that in the last four decades the UK has reduced emissions of all the major five air pollutants. Sulphur dioxide emissions have decreased by 95%, particulate matter by 73% and nitrogen oxides by 69%. This is progress but more must surely be done.

London faces the greatest challenge because of the size and complexity of the capital’s transport networks. Although London has the largest low-emission zone in the world and the largest hybrid bus fleet in Europe, air quality is poorer in London than anywhere else in the country. There were over 4 billion passenger journeys in London in 2014-15, and the figure is expected to grow to almost 4.5 billion by 2020-21. London bus passenger journeys alone totalled over 2.4 billion in 2015-16. This number is greater than the rest of England combined. Only 15% of England’s population live in London but 60% of rail travel starts, ends or passes through the capital. My noble friend Lord Caithness alluded to this.

Tackling poor air quality in all its forms is a top priority. The current focus is, quite rightly, on the Government’s most immediate air quality challenge: to reduce concentrations of nitrogen dioxide around roads. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, referred to this. Yet many everyday activities such as industrial activity, farming, heating homes and generating energy also make a significant contribution to harmful air pollution. So, in addition to urgent action to tackle nitrogen dioxide hot-spots around roads, we need to reduce harmful emissions of other air pollutants. That is why the United Kingdom recently adopted ambitious, legally binding international commitments to reduce emissions of five damaging air pollutants by 2020 and 2030.

A modern economy needs to be a clean one and the Government are determined to build this stronger economy. As we develop our industrial strategy, we must take into account the need for cleaner air and the opportunities presented by moving to a cleaner economy. However, we can all make cost-effective changes to secure cleaner cities and a clean, green economy. Indeed, I applaud the anti-idling campaign days that Westminster City Council successfully introduced, reducing harmful emissions through prompting a simple behavioural change. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Valentine, mentioned that. Local authorities have powers to address idling and issue on-the-spot fines. I think that point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.

Almost all your Lordships mentioned the largest environmental risk to public health in the United Kingdom: poor air quality. Tonight, we have stalwarts of the British Lung Foundation and those who understand the impact on heart disease, and I thoroughly endorse all that your Lordships said. This issue contributes to the cutting short of thousands of lives every year. It appears to be a particular threat to the elderly, the very young and those with existing health issues. Those living in city centres, often on the lowest incomes, are most exposed to dangerous levels of air pollution.

My department works closely with the Department of Health, Public Health England and their advisers, the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants. My noble friend Lord Borwick and others referred to research. The committee regularly reviews the latest research and the department reflects its guidance in its policy-making. The air quality expert group also considers current knowledge on air pollution and provides independent advice to the department on the levels, sources and characteristics of air pollutants in the United Kingdom. Daily air quality forecasts provide accompanying health messages to the public, based on the expertise of Public Health England. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Chesterton, for expanding on this, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for referring to the Birkett app.

The Government are revising their national air quality plan for tackling nitrogen dioxide, particularly to take account of recent updates in data on emissions from diesel vehicles. The consultation on our revised plan ended on 15 June. We are considering all responses very carefully, including a comprehensive one from the Mayor of London, and will use them to shape the final plan, which we will publish by 31 July. The noble Baronesses, Lady Blackstone and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to vehicle excise duty. The Government will continue to explore appropriate tax treatment for diesel vehicles and will engage with stakeholders ahead of making any tax changes in the Budget this autumn.

Local solutions, based on local knowledge, will always be the best way to achieve improvements in air quality in local areas. Our plan makes it clear that the Government will work closely with local authorities to develop the right solution for their areas. We will work with them to develop and implement measures that will achieve the desired outcomes in the shortest possible time. The plan, and the clean air zone framework that accompanies it, will empower local authorities to make targeted interventions, ensuring that actions have an impact on those areas where nitrogen oxide emissions are highest. The main focus of the plan is tackling nitrogen dioxide but clean air zones aim to address all sources of pollution, including particulate matter. A third of emissions are not transport-related and have an equal component of emissions from gas and non-road mobile machinery, particularly construction machinery.

Tackling air pollution in London is crucial and the Government continue to work closely with the Greater London Authority and the mayor’s air quality adviser. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will meet the mayor shortly specifically to discuss air quality matters. Both the previous and current mayor have taken steps to tackle air quality, between them putting in place a host of London-wide measures to improve air quality and reduce pollution from vehicles, including agreeing the world’s first ultra-low emission zone, cleaning up the bus and taxi fleet, and encouraging more people to take up cycling and walking.

The mayor is putting his significant powers to good use by implementing a broad range of actions to bring nitrogen dioxide levels within legal limits within the shortest possible time. These include: the introduction of an emissions surcharge; launching an ultra-low emission zone in 2019; spending more than £300 million transforming London’s bus fleet, with a commitment to purchase only hybrid or zero-emission double-decker buses from 2018; and requiring all new taxis to be zero-emission capable from 2018. Most recently, the mayor has committed, in his recently published draft transport strategy, to rolling out a series of zero-emission zones in London between 2025 and 2050.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, was absolutely right to refer to the balance between national and local. Nationally, the Government have committed more than £2 billion since 2011 to promote the use of ultra-low emission vehicles and support greener transport schemes. We will invest more than £600 million in ultra-low emission vehicles from 2015-20, with a further £270 million announced in the 2016 Autumn Statement. The Autumn Statement package will see £80 million invested in infrastructure, £150 million to support the adoption of the cleanest buses and taxis—my noble friend Lord Blencathra referred to the need for these—and £40 million towards the plug-in car grant.

[Lord Higgins]

My noble friend referred to taxis being ultra-low emission and so on. Will that also apply to so-called mini-cabs such as Uber?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

To save time I will have to write to my noble friend because there is rather a detailed answer.

This investment will help us to continue to deliver one of the most comprehensive programmes of support for ultra-low emission vehicles in the world.

The Government have also taken steps to incentivise taxi drivers to update cars and have made £20 million available to local authorities to support the rollout of ultra-low emission taxis across the UK by reducing the upfront cost and installing charging infrastructure. Many local authorities across the UK, including the GLA, have benefited from this funding.

I welcome the new £325 million electric taxi factory which opened in Coventry earlier this year, supported by £16.1 million through the regional growth fund. The London Taxi Company factory will have the capacity to assemble more than 20,000 vehicles a year. It will develop the new TX5 model, a zero-emissions taxi, together with other hybrid technology vehicles. I very much hope that my noble friend Lord Borwick will not have to wait long for his own.

Thanks to government investment, a growing private sector and local authority engagement, the UK now has more than 11,000 publicly accessible charge points, including more than 900 rapid charge points that can charge an EV in 20 to 30 minutes. It is the largest network in Europe, but I was very struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, said from her direct experience and insight. My noble friend Lord Blencathra and the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to charge points. I am sure there is scope for many more.

A number of noble Lords raised VW, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. It is fair to say that the main reason for the difficulty in meeting nitrogen dioxide limit values is also the failure of European standards for diesel vehicles to deliver the expected reductions in NO₂ emissions in real-world conditions. Since 2011, this country has been at the forefront of calls for action in the EU to secure more accurate, real-world emissions testing for diesel cars. This testing will come in from September this year, which I am sure will please the noble Baroness. The other point about VW is that the Government launched an investigation into the real-world emissions of a selection of diesel vehicles from across all main brands sold in the UK. We remain very vigilant and are working on VW.

A number of points were raised about cycling and walking, and I am not going to please any noble Lord because I think there is a balance in these matters. There are zealots who are bicyclists and zealots who are drivers. Indeed, if one prefers any sort of transport perhaps there is an abomination of all other sorts. Having ridden quite a few horses, I can observe on that as well.

To be serious, it is important that we encourage cycling and walking as an investment. It is not only healthy but important to well-being. Those who walk and cycle are avoiding shorter journeys by other means of transport and, as I heard from a noble Lord, they are perhaps avoiding longer journeys. The £1 billion of government funding made available to local authorities to invest in cycling and walking over the next five years will have an overall benefit, although I am very struck by something which we have all experienced: there have been snarls in some of the implementation, which were raised by my noble friends Lord Blencathra and Lord Higgins. In the long term, the more people we can get cycling responsibly and walking, the better.

While road transport is the immediate challenge, it is not the whole picture and we need to work hard to tackle all sources of harmful emissions. The biggest source of harmful particulate matter emissions is the domestic burning of wood and coal. Wood-burning—I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this—contributes between 7% to 9% of London’s fine particulate concentrations. We are working with stove manufacturers, fuel suppliers and retailers to identify where further improvements can be made.

We also know that the energy market is driving a rapid increase in the number and use of diesel generators, which the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and my noble friend Lord Borwick referred to. This is a concern, and we will shortly be publishing our response to our recent consultation on emission controls for stationary diesel generators. Non-road mobile machinery is another source of harmful emissions. London’s low emission zone for construction equipment is an approach that other local authorities may wish to consider. The Government are also keen to ensure that air pollution from ships is reduced, a point the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Randerson, referred to. I have read in my brief about some of the issues in Greenwich. We are signed up to international regulatory standards which will significantly reduce pollutant emissions from ships.

I am very struck by how localised this can be and how often a small piece of action can remove some of these hot spots. These are the areas that we should be looking at. I am also very struck by some of the references to the removal of, or a change to, a traffic light, or the removal of a hump in the road. Some of the microdetails can make a significant difference. We need to look at both the large-scale and the localised issues. We know that further cross-government action is required to deliver improvements in emissions from shipping. We will be working closely with other parts of government to make sure this happens.

My noble friend Lord Borwick asked about Crossrail. I assure him that dust management was included as an integral part of the design. I note the recent announcement and the new review of air pollution levels by the mayor on the Underground.

Much has been done to seek to improve the quality of our air, over quite a period of time, but there is, as I think we have all conceded—I sense the determination of your Lordships—still so much more that we want to and must do. The Mayor of London, and indeed all local authorities, already have a number of tools at their disposal to tackle air quality problems, and we will support them—but not by casting them loose, as I think some of your Lordships might be suggesting. This is going to be a joint initiative and action, but as I say, local authorities have within their powers the ability to do much, with national support as well.

As a number of your Lordships, particularly my noble friend Lord Caithness, said, these are issues where we all have a part to play as individuals: whether we are parents delivering children to school, who can avoid any idling beside the school; or any general idling of vehicles. There are so many ways in which we can change our behaviours to net benefit. Whether it is local businesses, schools, households or delivery services, we need to ensure that we do this and at the same time ensure that the world’s capital—which is how I consider London—is able to continue to prosper.

It is a key environmental objective of the department to secure cleaner air for everyone. It is by working together in partnership, at local and national level, that we can transform not just the quality of our air in London but the lives of millions of people across the UK. We have set ourselves the goal of being the first generation to leave the natural environment in a better state than the one we found it in. This is a big ambition, to which we remain committed and which, working together, we can and must achieve.

21:50

[Lord Borwick]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and most of them for their very kind words about my calling this debate. I thank them all for spending so long on this immensely important subject. Knowing that it has kept us up later than our other causes would have done reminds me that we are actually all working on behalf of lung patients who spend many an evening up, unable to sleep and in pain. We around this House are united in saying that this is a serious subject that needs to be dealt with.

Many noble Lords mentioned cycle lanes. I want to mention a point that has not been made: demand for cycle lanes will change throughout the year. Bicycling in the middle of a snowstorm is a fairly dreadful experience, whereas of course cycling is extremely popular at this time of year. One of the problems with our bus lanes is that they are very fixed. I was very impressed with a Beijing solution of a movable picket fence that can be moved from side to side, making the bicycle lane either bigger or smaller at a moment’s notice. In fact, such a thing might be something that we could look at in the governance of our bicycle lanes; it would be a lot cheaper to build and to alter.

I thank all noble Lords again for their contribution and for joining me in agreeing on the importance of this subject. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 9.51 pm.