House of Commons
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prayers
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
1. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on plans for the House to vote on continued UK membership of the EEA.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
The United Kingdom will no longer participate in the EEA agreement once we leave the European Union. The United Kingdom is a party to the EEA agreement in its capacity as an EU member state, so on exit day the EEA agreement will cease to operate in respect of the UK. It will no longer have any practical relevance to the United Kingdom. We are considering what steps, if any, we might need to take to confirm formally our withdrawal from the EEA agreement as a matter of international law.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but I am afraid that article 127 of the EEA agreement, to which the United Kingdom has been a signatory since 1993, clearly states that any country wishing to leave the European economic area must give formal notice of at least one year. Will the Secretary of State therefore please confirm that such notice would have to be given to leave the EEA and that, given the fundamental constitutional, political, legal and economic importance of such a decision, the decision to leave the EEA would be subject to a debate and a vote?
Mr Davis
There is actually agreement that when the UK ceases to be a member of the EU, the EEA agreement will no longer operate in respect of the United Kingdom. As such, the Government’s legal position is clear: article 127 does not need to be triggered for the agreement to cease to have effect, but we are looking at it just to make sure, for clarity purposes, that we meet its requirements.
Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that continued membership of the European single market, which some Opposition Members seem now to be advocating, would negate many of the advantages of leaving the European Union, while requiring us still to accept decisions that we could no longer influence? To that extent, it would actually be worse than continued membership as a full member.
Mr Davis
Yes, my right hon. Friend is quite right. The simple truth is that membership of the European Free Trade Association, for example, which would be one way to retain EEA membership, would do exactly that: it would keep us within the acquis, and it would keep us within the requirements of free movement, albeit with some limitations, but none of those have worked so far. In many ways, it is the worst of all outcomes. We did consider it—I gave it some considerable thought, maybe as an interim measure—but it seemed to me to be more complicated, more difficult and less beneficial than other options.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
The Secretary of State has given an equivocal answer on whether there might need to be a vote on the EEA. Will he consider whether we should also have a vote on the settlement bill and, indeed, on the cost of the Nissan deal set out in the rather heavily redacted letter I have here?
Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we have already had a vote, and that was on 23 June last year? The British people decided to leave the European Union. Does he agree that one of the things we can now look forward to is being able to do trade deals with a number of countries throughout the world, which we are now constrained from doing as members of the European Union?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend makes exactly the right point: we are able to make trade deals once we leave the European Union, and that will give us enormous benefits, because as the European Commission itself admits, 90% of world trade will be outside the EU, not within it, in the coming decades.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
The Secretary of State set out his position on the EEA. On 15 August, he told the “Today” programme that transitional arrangements should be
“as close as possible to the current arrangements”.
Two days before that, the Chancellor and the International Trade Secretary said in a joint article that Britain would leave the customs union and leave the single market. Both positions cannot be right. Will the Secretary of State step up to the Dispatch Box and tell us what form of transitional arrangements the Government are seeking to negotiate?
Mr Davis
I did that only a couple of days ago. I will come back to the point, but for the House’s interest, I will read a small part of a LabourList article—I read LabourList all the time, of course—by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who opened this question. He said:
“On Sunday Keir Starmer used an article in The Observer to call time on the ambiguity that had come to define Labour’s approach to Brexit since the referendum”—
the ambiguity, right? He said, “It was an approach”—this is the best bit—
“that…served us well on 8 June”.
What was that ambiguity? Tell leavers you want to leave; tell remainers you want to remain. That ambiguity, of course, could not last, and, as the hon. Gentleman said, it was never sustainable. That is the ambiguity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just asked his question.
Now, our position is very clear. The transition arrangements will meet three different requirements: to provide time for the British Government, if need be, to create new regulatory agencies and so on; time for companies to make their arrangements to deal with new regulation; and time for other countries to make arrangements on, for example, new customs proposals. That is what will be required. That is why we need to be as close as we are to our current arrangements. It does not mean that, in the long run, we are in either the customs union or the single market.
Mr Speaker
There is plenty of material for colleagues to include in their Second Reading debate speeches if they so wish. The material might be better located there.
Keir Starmer
I asked the Secretary of State his position and he started with my position. If he wants to swap places—any time.
Given the progress to date, and knowing that we will go back to this answer, what prospects does the Secretary of State genuinely believe there are for bespoke transitional agreements being agreed, negotiated and implemented by March 2019? Knowing how anxiously businesses are looking at this, when does he anticipate being able to tell them what the arrangements will be, because they need to make arrangements?
Mr Davis
That is a very legitimate and sensible question. I believe that the benefits of a transitional arrangement go both ways—they are symmetrical. They apply equally to France, Holland, Germany or Denmark as they do to us. That is some of the read-back we have been getting. I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been travelling around Europe himself and he will no doubt have picked up that same read-back. We are finding that the Commission is open to discussion of transition. We have raised it only briefly at each of the last two meetings because it does not fit within the current four groups of negotiation, but I think there is a very good prospect.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
2. What assessment the Government have made of the potential effect of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill on (a) workers’ rights and (b) environmental protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The UK already goes beyond EU minimum standards in a number of employment areas, and similarly we have a long history of environmental protection. We are committed to safeguarding and improving both. The EU Withdrawal Bill will ensure that EU-derived workers’ rights and environmental protections that currently apply will continue to be in place in domestic law on exit, and will enable those laws to continue to function effectively. It will then be for Parliament and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures to make any future changes to EU-derived law.
Dr Williams
Britain already has one of the most competition-friendly economies in the world, according to the OECD, but some Conservative Members want to use Brexit to dismantle workers’ rights and erode environmental protections. [Interruption.] The EU brought us—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but there is huge pressure of time today, and we do not have time for descriptions. What we need is short, pithy questions, preferably not heckled extensively, so that we can get down the Order Paper.
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but I explained that what I need is a single-sentence question, not a series of descriptions.
Dr Williams
Will the Minister assure the residents of Stockton South that their rights will not be eroded and that workers and the environment will not end up paying the price of Brexit?
Mr Baker
Yes, I am happy to reassure the hon. Gentleman and his residents. I can reassert the Government’s commitment not to roll back workers’ rights. As I have said, the UK already goes beyond EU minima, and it will be for Parliament in future to determine the future course of the law.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
First, may I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box? In the course of the debates about the so-called Henry VIII powers, will he remind everybody that section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 actually, for 40 years, gave a British Government the kind of Executive authority that was never granted before, and that in leaving the European Union we will be giving Parliament back its power to scrutinise?
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Does the Minister recognise the risk of an impending governance gap with regard to environmental legislation? At present, the Commission and the European Court of Justice perform the vital role of both monitoring and enforcing laws. Domestic mechanisms like judicial review simply do not go far enough. What new institutional mechanisms is he going to look at to make sure that he leaves the environment in a better state than he found it?
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
May I also welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench? I welcome his comments to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), who is completely wrong, because leaving the European Union will enable us to take our full role on international bodies such as the International Plant Protection Convention, the World Organisation for Animal Health and the Codex Alimentarius Commission. We will be able to adapt the world conventions Ramsar and Bern to our own environment, our own landscape, our own flora and our own fauna. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Despite the Minister’s assurances a few minutes ago, clause 9 as it stands will give the Minister the almost unlimited right, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny, to wipe out any workers’ protection that he chooses. Given that they are promising not to do that, will the Government commit today to amending that clause at Committee stage so that the erosion of workers’ rights is explicitly excluded from the powers that that clause will bring?
Mr Baker
The powers in the Bill have been drawn widely in order that this country and this Parliament can meet the imperative of delivering a working statute book on the day we leave the European Union, to deliver certainty, continuity and control and, on the area that the hon. Gentleman raises, in order to implement the withdrawal agreement in a way that allows us to leave the European Union smoothly and successfully.
I will not give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he is looking for today, but I will say to him that as the junior Minister responsible for the Bill on behalf of the Secretary of State, I will look with the utmost seriousness at the amendments that are tabled. What we will not do is accept any amendment that compromises the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to deliver certainty, continuity and control as we leave and to allow us to make the necessary changes to UK law to implement the necessary withdrawal agreement.
Peter Grant
The Government believe that clause 9 is necessary because of the huge volume of legislation that will have to go through simply to tidy up potential anomalies in legislation. I am offering them a way out. Why are they so determined to bring in legislation that they do not intend to use, when they will have their work cut out for them to bring in the legislation that they do need? Why will the Minister not commit to putting into legislation the promise that he has just given to the House at the Dispatch Box?
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I add my congratulations to my colleague on his appointment to the Front Bench? It is very well deserved. Is not the right way for the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) to secure the rights of workers, and to secure the environmental protections that he wants, to vote for the EU (Withdrawal) Bill? If the Labour party succeeds in blocking the Bill, those protections will no longer exist.
Mr Baker
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations and his support, and I look forward to his support in future. He is absolutely right: the best way for Members of this House to ensure that they serve their constituents by delivering a working statute book, and delivering the continuity of the rights and protections currently in EU law and applying to the UK, is to vote for this Bill and to support its passage through the House.
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)
3. What assessment he has made of the progress during negotiations on reaching agreement on the future status of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU27 after the UK has left the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
As the House will be aware, and as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has set out, our Department has prioritised this strand in negotiations. We recognise the importance of providing swift reassurance to 4 million people—EU nationals living in the UK and UK nationals living in the EU. In August, we agreed to protect the rights of frontier workers, cover future social security contributions and protect existing healthcare rights and arrangements for EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU.
Mr Sharma
Businesses across my constituency and throughout the country are worried, not just about retaining staff but about attracting the brightest and the best. Heathrow, which is just outside my constituency, employs thousands locally, and medical research firms contribute massively across the country. What can the Minister say to assure them that Brexit will not destroy their competitiveness?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do want to make sure that as we look towards the future and towards a new immigration policy after we have left the European Union, we can meet the needs of business and our economy. I am glad that the Home Office has commissioned work from the Migration Advisory Committee looking at all sectors of the economy and all parts of the UK, to make sure that we can continue to attract the brightest and the best.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reiterate and emphasise the Government’s commitment to settling the question of EU nationals, giving them the stability they need through securing their rights, including keeping families together?
Mr Walker
Absolutely. My right hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. We have set out in our paper a fair and serious offer to maximise certainty for people— individuals and families—and it is important to remember that this applies equally to EU nationals living in the UK and many of our own nationals living across the EEA.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Some of the proposals the Government have apparently been considering on the future of EU migration may apply from the day on which we leave the European Union. Irrespective of the status of any leaked document, does the Minister agree that the Government should not make any changes that would prevent them from securing a transitional deal to protect jobs and the economy?
Mr Walker
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I will not comment on any leaked documents, but of course it is important that we secure certainty and continuity for citizens in this process. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out very clearly our commitment to establishing interim arrangements, and we look forward to discussing those issues in the context of the future partnership, which will be crucial to securing results on both.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that striking a positive position with respect to future migration from the EU will be really important not just for the labour market, where we have skills shortages at all skill levels in the economy, but as one of the keys to help secure the best possible final trade deal with the EU?
Mr Walker
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is very clear from what the Prime Minister has said that even after we have left the EU we will continue to want to seek talent from Europe. We will continue to strike that positive attitude, but it is important in the interests of both UK and European citizens that we get on with the discussions, proceed at pace and secure a deal that provides maximum certainty.
Paul Blomfield
Perhaps I have given the Minister time to think about actually answering my question about making a commitment not to introduce any new migration rules from 2019 that will impact on a transitional deal. Looking beyond 2019, let me also ask: given that the Government are committed to the principle of reciprocity in any deal on citizens’ rights, would he be happy for UK citizens living and working in the EU to be subject to biometric screening and fingerprinting?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman has asked very theoretical questions about future policy, and I am not going to get into commenting on other Departments’ policies that have not yet been published. What is important is that we negotiate in good faith to secure the best outcome for UK citizens and for EU citizens, and that is exactly what we are doing.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
4. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers after the UK leaves the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
We have been working closely with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on support for farmers. The Government will provide the same cash total in funds for farm support until the end of the Parliament. We are working closely with a range of stakeholders, as well as the devolved Administrations, to maintain stability for farmers. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will introduce an agriculture Bill to support our vision for a thriving and self-reliant farming sector that is more competitive, productive and profitable, as well as to protect our precious natural environment for future generations and to deliver on our manifesto commitment to provide stability for farmers as we exit the EU.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive response. He is aware that the UK farming sector is highly reliant on EU labour. What discussions has he had with DEFRA and others about the potential reintroduction of a seasonal agricultural workers scheme?
Mr Baker
I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Government keep our position on seasonal workers under review. Until we have left the EU, employers in the agricultural and food processing sectors are free to continue to recruit EU workers to meet their labour needs. It remains the Government’s policy not to operate migration schemes for non-EEA nationals coming to fill vacancies at lower skill levels while employers have unrestricted access to labour from elsewhere in the EU. I note, however, that the Home Office told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee earlier this year that a new SAWS could be introduced very quickly—in five or six months—once the need for such a scheme has been identified. I hope my hon. Friend is reassured that we will have the agility to meet those needs.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I hope that Ministers are listening to the people who gave evidence to the EFRA Committee that food will end up rotting in the ground if we do not have the labour force to dig it up. May I urge the Minister to accept that this is not just about subsidies for farmers, but about access to the market—and tariff-free access to the market? Unless that is resolved, our farming industry will collapse.
Mr Baker
Of course we wish to secure tariff-free access to European markets, and indeed to markets across the world, but these are matters for negotiation. I am sure the hon. Lady would join me in saying to the EU that it is in all our interests to move swiftly to discussions on our future agreements.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
British farmers are among the most efficient in Europe. Will Brexit not give us a chance to design an agricultural policy in their interest, not that of inefficient farmers in Europe?
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
13. Welsh farmers and fishermen need assurances now that the UK and Welsh Governments are working together. How often will formal ministerial discussions on agriculture and fisheries take place in the next three months, and will these meetings be open to formal scrutiny?
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential effect on (a) the economy and (b) employment levels of the UK leaving the EU without a deal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
A future partnership between the UK and the EU is in the interests of both sides, and I am confident that we will secure a good deal for the UK as a whole. A responsible Government, however, should prepare for all potential outcomes, including the unlikely scenario in which no mutually satisfactory agreement can be reached. The Government are undertaking a comprehensive programme of analytical work across a range of scenarios to assess the economic impacts of exiting the EU. As the House has agreed twice, however, we will not be publishing any information that would prejudice our negotiations.
Hannah Bardell
The CBI president, Paul Drechsler, has said that the implications of falling back on to World Trade Organisation rules and a no-deal scenario would open up a
“Pandora’s box of economic consequences”
and that the UK could face tariffs on 90% of its EU exports by value. Will the Minister reassure business, therefore, that the UK will not walk away from these negotiations with no deal?
Mr Baker
It is our intention to do what is in all our interests—the mutual interest of all the nations of the EU and the UK—which is to secure a deep and special partnership, including a broad and deep free trade agreement, and I look forward to doing so. I think, however, that the WTO is one of the great achievements of liberalism against the forces of economic nationalism, and I look forward, in whatever circumstances we leave, to the UK playing the fullest part in the improvement and development of the WTO.
Mr Speaker
I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to refer to Ludwig von Mises, but no doubt that awaits another of his answers in due course.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I hope that the Minister still believes that no deal is better than a bad deal.
Mr Baker
I agree with my right hon. Friend and refer him to what the Chancellor famously said on “Marr”: what we cannot do is accept some kind of punishment deal. An environment in which the UK trades with the world while having control of our own tariffs, taxes and domestic regulation is one of which we should not be afraid.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Does it remain Ministers’ ambition to secure barrier-free access for the UK to the European single market, and is not the only way to enjoy the benefits of the single market to comply with the rules of the single market?
Mr Baker
We recognise that the freedoms of the single market are indivisible and that the people of this country wish for Parliament to set its own laws and for a UK migration policy that meets with their democratic consent. It is the ambition of Ministers to secure trade with the absolute minimum of frictions, and I hope and look forward to doing so.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
19. The potential of not having a deal raises the issue again of a transition, and the Secretary of State said earlier he thought that there were very good prospects on that point. Given that the purpose of a transition is to give certainty to business, is not the only logical timeframe for a transition one that runs from when we leave to when a new comprehensive deal is signed?
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
6. Whether the Government plan to continue to apply the Dublin III Regulation after the UK leaves the EU.
Mr Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley) (Lab)
20. Whether the Government plan to continue to apply the Dublin III Regulation after the UK leaves the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
The Prime Minister has been clear that we will continue to co-operate with our European partners on migration and asylum as we leave the EU. In our negotiations, we will discuss the exact nature of this co-operation as part of our future partnership, but as the Secretary of State said in his statement to the House on 5 September,
“We are a country with a strong tradition of tolerance and generosity, and if anything, I expect that to grow after we leave, not diminish.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 64.]
Norman Lamb
Will the Minister guarantee that unaccompanied children who are orphaned or have no idea where their parents are will still have the right to be reunited with family members—whether they are brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts or grandparents—who are living in the United Kingdom once we have left the European Union? They are, after all, the most vulnerable children: the most vulnerable to traffickers and to others who seek to abuse them.
Mr Walker
The right hon. Gentleman is right: we should absolutely seek to continue our policy of generosity towards those children and ensure that our family reunion policy remains generous. We have reunited, and continue to reunite, many refugees with their immediate families: we have granted more than 23,000 family reunion visas over the past five years. Obviously, I cannot set out the details of what we will agree with the EU, but we intend to agree on significant co-operation in this space to ensure that we can continue to bring families together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I would call the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr Campbell) if he were here, but he is not, so I will not—but we will hear Mr Andrew Slaughter.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
The problem with Dublin III, apart from the fact that we do not implement it very well, is that unaccompanied children have to get into the EU, often making perilous journeys, to apply under its provisions. Will the Government consider extending the provisions if we leave the EU, so that wherever people are in the world, they can apply under those terms?
Mr Walker
I think that the hon. Gentleman’s question will have been heard. It is not really a question for my Department, but we certainly intend to establish co-operation with the EU on these matters and to continue to have as generous a policy of family reunion as we have had to date.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
7. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the maintenance of UK food safety standards after the UK leaves the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The UK Government are committed to maintaining food safety standards and ensuring that the UK has an effective food safety regulator. The Food Standards Agency is a science and evidence-based Department, responsible for protecting public health and consumers’ other interests. Any proposed changes in UK food safety rules once we have left the EU and are no longer subject to EU regulations would be subject to a rigorous risk assessment by the agency. Our absolute priority is to protect public health and consumers’ other interests in relation to food, and we will continue to base that on the best scientific evidence available.
Patricia Gibson
Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State for International Trade, who is on the record as having said that he is “relaxed” about the diminution of food safety standards post-Brexit, or will he now distance himself from those remarks?
Mr Baker
The Government are committed to maintaining food standards, which will be a matter for the House of Commons to decide in future. I remind Members that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will bring EU law, as it applies to the UK, into UK law, so that it will continue to apply.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
The Government know that the UK relies on the EU for 25% of our food and that we grow just 15% of our own fruit and 55% of our own vegetables. The Minister is nostalgic for decades past, but—assuming that the Government do not intend UK households to return to consuming Spam and tinned peaches—can he assure us that he is not considering imposing tariffs on EU food imports?
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
8. What steps his Department is taking to ensure a flexible approach in the Government’s negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
Both sides in the negotiation are clear about the fact that we want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership. We have said repeatedly that, to achieve that end, both sides must demonstrate a dynamic and flexible approach to negotiations. In papers published by the Government, for instance, we have made it clear that we stand ready to protect the voting rights of EU nationals living in the UK. There will be give and take as the negotiations progress, but the destination is clear: a deep and special partnership that sees both parties emerge strong and prosperous, capable of projecting our shared values, leading in the world and demonstrating our resolve to protect the security of our citizens.
John Stevenson
Given that a transitional arrangement is likely to be required, and if the Government are to be flexible, a simple solution to consider is an off-the-shelf arrangement with some modifications. Would the Government be willing to consider rejoining the European Free Trade Association and then the European economic area, with suitable and appropriate amendments and modifications?
Mr Davis
As my hon. Friend will understand—he heard me say this earlier—we considered that in some detail before the Lancaster House speech. We concluded that it did not meet the requirements for which the British people voted and that it would not be as easy to negotiate as an alternative bespoke transitional arrangement might be.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Now that the Secretary of State has accepted that there will need to be transitional arrangements, is it the Government’s policy that the UK will continue to make payments into the EU budget for that period, however long it lasts?
Mr Davis
I think this must be the 20th time I have said to the right hon. Gentleman that I am not going to negotiate from this Dispatch Box, and he should know that. What I will say to him is that the transitional arrangements as we have described are an implementation period—or phase, or any of all the other different words used for it—and are there for one purpose: to ensure, in his words, that we avoid a cliff edge. That is not just true of us: it is not just the UK that has come to this conclusion—some time ago as it turns out—but so have the other members of the European Union, and one of the things we have been doing in the past six to nine months is ensuring that they understand from their point of view precisely how valuable to them a transitional arrangement will be.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is right that we meet our financial obligations when we leave the European Union, but past contributions we have made have funded vital infrastructure across Europe, including eastern Europe, which will have a long-term financial benefit for the EU. Has this been discussed in negotiations and used to mitigate our final bill when those negotiations conclude?
Mr Davis
We have made that very plain: the words used are that we expect to respect our international obligations but also to have our rights respected. That point has been made very clear. One of the reasons why the last negotiating round was perhaps a little tenser than the previous one is that we were making it very plain what we judged the legal basis to be, and that was not always comfortable.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman give to financial services companies and other firms that are seriously concerned that they now face the cost and uncertainty of three successive rule books: the single market, the post-single market transition and the post-transition agreement?
Mr Davis
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that does mean that we will want to ensure there is a single transition, not two different transitions in and out of the transition period. That is why, as the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) quoted me as saying, I said we want the transition arrangement to be as close as possible to the current circumstance. It will be remembered, too, that when I responded to the right hon. and learned Gentleman I said there are three effective sets of criteria: one, time for the Government to accommodate; two, time for other Governments to accommodate; but, importantly too in his context, time after the decisions for financial services and other industries to do their own accommodations.
Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Last week, Michel Barnier said it was not fair that EU taxpayers should continue to pay for Britain’s obligations, but is it fair that British taxpayers should continue to pay for the EU’s obligations in circumstances where we may not be benefiting from subsidy schemes post-withdrawal?
Mr Davis
My hon. Friend raises a point that we have already raised with Michel and the remainder of the team. At the moment, the Union’s negotiating team are taking the approach of stressing what they term legal responsibilities, and we are challenging them. When we get to the end of that, we will make some decisions about political and moral responsibilities, and also negotiating outcomes, and that is where the decision will, I suppose, be made.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The Government took flexibility to new heights over the summer, taking just under three weeks to jettison one of only two proposals set out in their customs arrangement paper on the basis that they represented “blue sky thinking”. Can the Secretary of State tell us how many of the other proposals set out in the various future partnership papers are effectively just creative ideas that are unlikely to survive contact with reality?
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
May I gently say to my right hon. Friend that I would have thought that what everybody is trying to do is to form some kind of consensus? I think we all agree that we have a very, very short period to negotiate all manner of highly complex agreements, including a transitional period agreement. So may I suggest to him that, rather than keep ruling things out, we put everything back on the table and look at what we call “Norway for now”, which we would simply adopt as a transitional period until such time as we come to a final arrangement with the EU?
Mr Davis
Well, my right hon. Friend can be as gentle with me as she likes. The simple truth is that, before the Lancaster House speech, we went through a process of considering what the best negotiating strategy would be, in some detail. We looked at who would have to negotiate with, where the compromises would have to be made and what the gains would be. We came to the conclusion that the route we are now taking, involving discussions with the member states initially and now with the Union and a transition based on maintaining the important components of what we currently have, is the best way to do it.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
9. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on changes to VAT rates after the UK leaves the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
The Secretary of State and the Chancellor are working together to deliver the UK’s departure from the European Union. Our future relationship with the EU, including on VAT, will be subject to negotiations. Any decisions on VAT rates will be taken by the Chancellor as part of the normal Budget process.
Sarah Jones
Our children go back to school this week, and parents are still paying a fortune for branded school uniforms. Cutting VAT on uniforms for older children would save some £200 million, but this cannot be done under current EU law. My constituents have asked me to ask Ministers to raise this matter whenever the negotiations turn to VAT.
Mr Baker
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point, which I know has been heard by those on the Treasury Bench and will be heard by the Chancellor. However, I would gently point out to her that VAT raised £120 billion in 2016 and provides essential funding for public services, including education.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Does the Minister look forward, like me, to the days when these protracted discussions are concluded and the Chancellor will have the liberty, which we did not have as members of the EU, to set tax rates across the whole range?
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
10. What discussions his Department has had with universities on their priorities for the negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
17. What discussions his Department has had with universities on their priorities for the negotiations on the UK leaving the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
As we leave the European Union, the Government are committed to ensuring that Britain remains a global hub for education, science and research. I am delighted to see this week that the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge have been ranked as the top two universities in the world. To maintain our success, the Government are listening carefully to the sector’s views. This week, we published our discussion paper on science and innovation. As the UK leaves the EU, one of our core objectives is to continue to collaborate with European partners on major science, research and technology initiatives, and the paper explores how the UK and the EU can achieve that objective together.
Jo Churchill
This country has three of the world’s top universities, as well as a vibrant life sciences sector, as indicated by the life sciences industrial strategy. The sector needs global talent and reassurance, but I know from talking to people at the University of Suffolk and the University of Cambridge that some have sought not to give academics and students that reassurance. What reassurance can the Minister give me that the scaremongering is untrue and what assurances can he give to our university sector?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is rightly a champion for the excellent universities in her area. As the Prime Minister has made clear in the EU exit White Papers, one of our greatest strengths as a nation is the breadth and depth of our academic and scientific communities. Britain remains the second most popular destination in the world for academic study. We have already offered assurances to EU students starting a course in the 2018-19 academic year or before, and they will continue to be eligible for home fee status tuition fee loans and applicable maintenance support. I share my hon. Friend’s ambition for our university sector to act as a magnet for talent from around the world.
Alex Chalk
The University of Gloucestershire in my constituency admits students from across the world, including the EU, benefiting the local economy and community. What steps are being taken to amplify and underscore the message that the UK continues to warmly welcome overseas students to study here, in Cheltenham and beyond?
Mr Walker
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I have just given. He is absolutely right, and I would add that the Home Secretary has asked the Migration Advisory Committee to examine student migration and to report back next year. As she made clear in her commissioning letter, and has been echoed in our own science paper, international students enhance our universities, both financially and culturally, and often become important ambassadors for the United Kingdom in later life, so we will continue to welcome them long into the future.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister boasted yesterday about the number of Nobel prize winners that this country had had, but the truth is that many of them were migrants who started their lives elsewhere in the world and came to this country to study in our universities. Should we not be proclaiming that fact as part of our proud inheritance?
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Will the Minister please reassure the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England that he values their collaboration with their EU counterparts and that he will prioritise doing everything he can to ensure that that collaboration continues?
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)
11. If he will include within the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proposals for a mechanism to ensure that UK workers' rights and protections remain in line with EU rights and protections after the UK leaves the EU.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
21. If he will include within the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill proposals for a mechanism to ensure that UK workers' rights and protections remain in line with EU rights and protections after the UK leaves the EU.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
We do not need to be part of the EU to have strong protections for workers. As I explained earlier, the UK already goes beyond EU minimum standards, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will not change that. In future, it will be for Parliament and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures to decide on changes to employment law. The Government have committed not to roll back workers’ rights and to ensure that we keep pace with the changing labour market.
Dan Carden
That is very interesting, because the Secretary of State for International Trade wrote in the Financial Times in 2012:
“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden… It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable”.
Is it not the case that we cannot trust the Tories with workers’ rights?
Mr Baker
It is certainly not the case. I will say to the hon. Gentleman once again that this Government are committed not only to protecting workers’ rights, but to ensuring that workers’ rights keep pace with the changing labour market, as evidenced by the Taylor report, which the Government are currently considering.
Alex Norris
We have heard very warm words about protecting workers’ rights, something which will be tested over time, but will Ministers detail today the precise mechanism that they will use to work with trade unions and employers to ensure that Britain does not become the low-standards capital of Europe post-Brexit and to maintain workers’ rights over time?
Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend on his appointment. Whether in relation to workers’ rights or more generally, does he agree that had the British people wanted to be subject to EU law, they would have voted to remain in last year’s referendum? Does he agree that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill actually restores powers to Parliament and that a vote against it is only a vote to ensure that the UK automatically keeps pace with EU law with no say of its own?
Mr Baker
Of course my hon. Friend makes an important point, for which I am most grateful. An easy way to automatically keep pace with EU law, whatever it might be, would have been to remain in the EU, but the public did not choose to do that, so Parliament will decide the law in future and it will be for Parliament to scrutinise any proposed changes.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Minister to his place. Does he agree that the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is not the great repeal Bill but the great continuity Bill? Workers’ rights will not be undermined by the Bill; they are already enhanced when compared with the EU.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
12. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the timetable for the UK leaving the EU is met.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
14. What steps the Government are taking to ensure that the timetable for the UK leaving the EU is met.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
We aim to get the right agreement for the United Kingdom and the European Union. Government officials are working at pace, and we have said repeatedly that both parties will need to demonstrate a dynamic and flexible approach in each negotiation round. Flexibility and creativity are needed from both sides, and we have already said that we are willing to meet as frequently as required. We want to reach an agreement about our future partnership by the end of March 2019. From that point, we believe that a time-limited interim period will be in the mutual interest of the United Kingdom and the European Union, allowing people and businesses in the United Kingdom and the European Union to adjust to the new arrangements.
Bob Blackman
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Our future trade relations with the European Union are clearly vital, and it is good news that a queue of trade deals is potentially in the offing for when we leave. Given our unique position with the EU, it is surely perfectly possible to conclude a trade agreement by the time we leave in March 2019.
Mr Davis
Yes, my hon. Friend is exactly right. The Bill that we will debate later today is designed with exactly that in mind. The unique nature of the free trade agreement that we are seeking to agree with the European Union is that we all start from exactly the same standards. The previous question related to maintaining the same standards for labour law and other matters, but those standards are actually already better. My hon. Friend is right that our unique position is the key to getting a fast, effective and wealth-creating trade agreement.
Mr Simon Clarke
People and businesses in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland are confident about the opportunities that lie ahead after Brexit. Can the Secretary of State reassure my constituents that he will ignore some of the ill-judged rhetoric coming out of the Commission about teaching us a lesson and focus instead on securing a deal that works for our mutual benefit?
Mr Davis
I think I should say, in the interest of maintaining amity across the negotiating table, that Mr Barnier clarified that he did not intend to say “educate”. He meant that he wanted to bring everybody up to speed on the benefits, as he sees it, of the single market. Both sides want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership for the future, and that is what we intend to do. It is in neither side’s interest for there to be a cliff edge for businesses or a threat to stability. The UK and the EU will work together to agree provisions for an interim period that will allow people and businesses in both the UK and the EU to adjust in a smooth and orderly way to new arrangements. That will minimise disruption, give as much certainty as possible and meet the wishes of my hon. Friend’s constituents.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Nowhere is the timetable for leaving the EU more important than in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Press reports today indicate that there will be a special relationship in how we work the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Can the Minister give us some idea of those discussions and of what has happened so far?
Mr Davis
At the moment, I can talk only to the discussions within the European Union negotiating group. From the beginning we were very keen to start on this as quickly as possible. We understand, of course, that the conclusion we get will be dependent, to some extent, on all the other decisions on borders. How much special arrangement we have to make will depend on how open the borders are generally. We have made very good progress. At the last round in particular, the Commission was concerned that continuing with the common travel area would impinge on European Union citizens’ rights. We have persuaded the Commission that that is not true, and it has basically accepted our argument.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Secretary of State not realise that, every time he speaks at the Dispatch Box, the key wealth-creating areas of this country feel more and more uncertain about their future? We are haemorrhaging people. We cannot recruit people to the City of London and financial services, we cannot recruit people to universities and we cannot recruit people to manufacturing. For goodness’ sake, man, get on with the job.
Mr Davis
Perhaps I will organise a visit for the hon. Gentleman to see Mr Barnier himself. We have taken action in all those areas. We have taken action to underpin the funding of universities. In industry, we have seen the Nissan arrangements. We have talked to the financial services sector about what we expect to happen, and we have particularly talked about an implementation period with them in mind—not just them, but them in particular. Plenty of action is being taken to improve the certainty and clarity on where we are going.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
18. It is important to be robust on the timetable, but it is also important to be robust in the face of Brussels’ demand that we send more money. We should not be bullied or blackmailed; we should be strong as a nation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I hear my hon. Friend loud and clear. We have been very clear that the UK and the EU will have financial obligations to each other that will survive our exit from the EU. The Commission set out the EU position in July, and we have a duty to our taxpayers, as he says, to interrogate that position rigorously, which is what we did line by line in the last round of negotiations.
Mr Speaker
Order. We had not moved on to a new question. We were on the same question, but two different Ministers appeared at the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) should feel very gratified to have a dedicated Minister to attend to his particular inquiry. That is something he can tell his grandchildren in years to come.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
Since our last Question Time, the Government have made important progress towards delivering the result of the European referendum and grasping the opportunities that Brexit can provide. In the negotiations with our European counterparts, we have found important areas where we agree—on pensions, healthcare and Northern Ireland, for example—and we are now working on those areas where we do not agree. We have provided more clarity by publishing papers on a range of issues. Finally, later today we will debate the repeal Bill, which will give effect to the result of the referendum while providing the legal certainty that will avoid unnecessary disruption. I believe the Bill should command the support of all those who believe in securing a smooth and orderly exit from the European Union.
Martyn Day
Leaving the EU single market and customs union would be an unprecedented act of self-harm to our economy, especially if the UK Government fail to negotiate a trade agreement with the EU. Will the Secretary of State confirm that if he fails to reach a deal within the two-year deadline, the UK will remain a member of the EU under the existing terms?
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
T2. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, EU legislation giving protections to food from particular geographical areas, such as the Cornish pasty, our clotted cream and the Cornish sardine, came into force in 1993. Has his Department had discussions with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs about similar arrangements carrying on after we leave the EU?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)
I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government fully support the UK’s many world-class traditional food products, including those from Cornwall. We recognise the importance of protecting the name and status of high-quality UK food products, such as those currently registered under the protected food name and geographical indications schemes. We are working closely with DEFRA on this important issue. The Government are also engaging directly with producers, actively considering how best to ensure that traditional food products are protected once the UK has left the EU.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
T5. Whenever I hear the Secretary of State explaining what will replace our current relationship within the EU, whether he is on the single market, the rights of EU nationals or whatever, it always sounds like a cut-and-paste, second-best, Heath Robinson version of events. I just wonder whether he ever, even for a moment, thinks it is possible he may be mistaken.
Mr David Davis
It would probably be a unique foray at this Dispatch Box for a Minister to admit error, but let me say this to the hon. Gentleman: I said at the beginning that this is a negotiation; it will take time and go in directions that we do not necessarily expect, and there will be give and take in it. That is as close as I can get.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
T3. Later today, this House will get to debate the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for the first time, which, as we know is a very important piece of legislation that provides certainty and a smooth exit for this country from the EU. Will the Secretary of State set out for the House, and indeed for the country, what the consequences would be of this Bill not being passed? Does he agree that any Member who seeks to block its passing is not acting in the national interest?
Mr Davis
I am afraid that my hon. Friend is precisely right. The purpose of the Bill is to establish continuity, for several reasons. The first is to provide certainty for business, an issue raised by the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). The second is to ensure our ability to carry out a free trade deal which will be unique in the world. The third is to underpin all the rights and privileges that we have promised to our country down the years, including employment rights, consumer rights and environmental rights. All those things are vital in the national interest, so he is exactly right.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
T7. How should employers in my constituency that I have visited in recent months today assess the risk of ending up with tariffs or additional regulatory barriers to exporting to the single market when we leave the EU?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Steve Baker)
Those employers should have confidence that it is in everyone’s interests, ours and those of all the nations of the European Union, to deliver tariff-free access between our markets. I would say to those employers that they should have a great deal of confidence that we will therefore secure the deal.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
T4. The purpose of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to provide continuity and a working statute book on the day we leave. Will my right hon. Friend make it absolutely clear that a vote against this Bill is a vote for chaos and for uncertainty?
Mr David Davis
My hon. Friend is exactly right about that, and she allows me to reiterate one other point: all the talk from Opposition Members has been about changing things in this Bill. The Bill is about maintaining continuity; it is about keeping in place the aims and purposes of all the European law that we currently have—and will have the day after we leave.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The purpose of any transitional arrangement is, as the Secretary of State said, to avoid a cliff edge, and to give continuity and certainty to the UK economy. But the Chancellor and the Trade Secretary published an article last month saying that during any such period the UK would not be in the single market or the customs union. What is the purpose of a transitional arrangement that undermines the very stability and continuity it is supposed to achieve?
Mr Davis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point and I suspect it would have been in his question earlier if he had had the chance to ask it. The simple truth is, as I have said, that we are starting from the aim of maintaining as much continuity as is necessary to anything that might change in the final settlement. So we will do that. Because we are not in the European Union at that point—legally, we will not be—we will not be formally members of the single market and the customs union. We may well seek a customs agreement for that period and a similar arrangement on the single market provisions, but we cannot make that decision ourselves; there is a negotiation to be carried out with the EU.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
T6. Does the Minister agree that the system of secondary legislation contemplated by the Bill that we will be debating later today provides the best and most flexible means of ensuring that the United Kingdom is left with a coherent statute book when we leave the European Union? Does he not also agree that there will be general bemusement in this country that the Opposition are seeking to oppose that Bill?
Mr Baker
May I begin by paying tribute to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done in the Department? The quality of the work I inherited is a testament to the leadership he provided in the Department. I am most grateful to him. He makes a good point: secondary legislation is a long-standing mechanism for making detailed changes to the law, with the scrutiny procedure for each instrument agreed by Parliament. Since their introduction, every Government have used statutory instruments and every Parliament has debated and approved statutory instruments.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Minister earlier extolled the benefits of the World Trade Organisation should there be a no-deal scenario, but there is no automatic equivalent to the single aviation market or the open skies agreement. What contingency are the Minister and his team making to protect our aviation industry?
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
T8. Constituents of mine are the bedrock of the success of world-beating companies such as Spirax Sarco. Does my hon. Friend agree that the withdrawal Bill must be the opportunity to cement employee rights, not erode them?
Mr Baker
I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I think we have had a good canter around the issue today. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to once again say that the Government are committed to protecting workers’ rights to ensure that they keep pace with the changing labour market and that nothing in the withdrawal Bill will change that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Businesses are in desperate need of confidence. When will the Secretary of State confirm that he will have the transition arrangements in place, because we will leave the European Union in just over 18 months? Businesses are making their plans now and need answers.
Mr David Davis
I would say two things to the hon. Lady: first, we will do that as soon as is feasible within the constraints of the negotiation; and secondly, if she is concerned about business confidence, I say to her that the best way to guarantee stability is to vote for the Bill this afternoon.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Many farms in Wales straddle the border with England. Will my hon. Friend outline how he is ensuring that the voice of cross-border communities is not being ignored in discussions over Brexit and devolution?
Mr Robin Walker
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We would be happy to meet him and his constituents to address this important issue. The Bill sets out a framework that protects common UK frameworks while we have the conversation with the devolved Administrations as to where they are needed. I think that is a sensible approach to protect the interests of farmers and businesses across the UK.
Business of the House
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Andrea Leadsom)
The business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 11 September—Conclusion of the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill (day 2).
Tuesday 12 September—Second Reading of the Finance Bill followed by motions relating to House business.
Wednesday 13 September—Opposition day (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
Thursday 14 September—General debate on abuse and intimidation of candidates and the public during the general election campaign.
Friday 15 September—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 9 October will include:
Monday 9 October—General debate. Subject to be confirmed.
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our thoughts and prayers to those caught up in Hurricane Irma, which is causing great damage to many areas of the Caribbean.
Today, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will have the first of its two days of Second Reading on the Floor of the House. It is a key piece of legislation that paves the way for an orderly exit from the EU and fulfils the will of the British people.
Finally, Select Committees provide vital scrutiny in this place. I have been working hard to ensure that we establish them as soon as possible, and I am grateful for the co-operation of colleagues from right across the House who have worked quickly to bring forward the names of elected Committee members. I am delighted to draw colleagues’ attention to the motion in my name that will ensure that the Select Committees can begin their important work next week.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business and for tabling the motion on Select Committees. It has been drawn to my attention that the Chair of the International Development Committee does not appear to be on the list; I hope that will be rectified soon. Her Majesty’s Opposition have been ready for the Select Committees to start since July; nevertheless, they will be taking evidence next week, so I thank the Leader of the House for arranging that.
We have had R and R—rest and relaxation—and we have had rock and roll, although I did not get an invitation to Glastonbury. All that is left now is restoration and renewal. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when we are likely to have the debate on restoration and renewal? The House needs to consider the proposals as soon as possible.
Look at what the Government have done to our children who were expelled because they missed out on a few grades. We teach our children that it is okay to fail; that is how we learn from our mistakes, and sometimes that is the spur that leads children to go on to do better things. We had the bizarre situation of parents having to threaten judicial review just to get their children back into education. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education to make it clear that every child can have an education? Some headteachers do not appear to be abiding by the law.
Will the Leader of the House ask the Chancellor to make a statement on the fiscal rules? It seems that the Ministry of Justice broke Treasury pay rules for civil servants for a six-month period from last October by increasing the overtime pay rate for prison staff by £5 an hour. The Opposition agree with that increase, but I understand that there are Treasury rules. We need a statement on whether or not there are fiscal rules. We could do with that clarity for the NHS, because our nurses need to be paid.
The cherry-picking season is over. Look at what the Government have done to our health service. The Secretary of State for Health picked a fight with Professor Stephen Hawking, who rightly told him to stop the slide towards privatising the health service—a person who can explain a black hole against a Secretary of State who cannot even recognise a financial black hole. The sustainability and transformation plans are the second reorganisation of the NHS under this Government. There is a crisis in social care, £100 million will be spent on recruiting GPs from abroad, and the health service needs a cash boost of £350 million. After the Government’s defeat in the House of Lords yesterday on their decision to abandon the 18-week target time for treatment, will the Leader of the House please ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to explain this shredding of Government policy, because we have had silence from him? Otherwise, what is the point of the Secretary of State?
There has been more pain and distress for our constituents, as highlighted in last week’s United Nations report on people with disabilities. The report said that the UK has failed to ensure that the UN convention on disabled people’s rights is reflected in current law. Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government will respond to the report, which found a persistent employment and pay gap for disabled people?
The Leader of the House mentioned the Brexit Bill; look what the Government have done to the Brexit negotiations. They should have allowed the civil service to use position papers to present the facts. That way, we would not now be seeing the whole thing unravelling. Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Bill state:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate”.
Never before have Ministers been given such unfettered powers. Will the Leader of the House confirm how many statutory instruments will come before the House? Is it likely to be more than 500? Fewer than 1,000? Anyone from any party who believes in parliamentary democracy, the sovereignty of Parliament and the separation of powers should be against the Bill. The Government are playing Jenga with our economy and our rights.
As if that is not enough, the Government want to fix the Standing Committees. They do not have a majority in Parliament, but they want a majority on Standing Committees. Can the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will not insult the British people, who did not give them a majority, and that they will ensure that the result of the election is reflected in the Standing Committees?
I wish to touch on the eminent people who have recently died: our friend in the other place, Lord Garry Hart, who was a leading planning lawyer before he come to the Lords; Michael Siefert, who sent his lawyers to give free legal advice to people during the miners’ strike; Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the former Archbishop of Westminster; and of course Heather Heyer, who was mown down in Charlottesville for opposing racism and anti-Semitism.
Finally, I wish to draw the House’s attention to a film that is doing the rounds— “Dennis Skinner: Nature of the Beast”. What Members will find is that, like the sovereignty of Parliament, the beast of Bolsover will endure.
Mr Speaker
Splendid. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) is even smiling. Marvellous.
Andrea Leadsom
May I thank the hon. Lady for that tour de force? I must also thank the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), because, in trying very hard to help a potential colleague of mine to unseat him—
Andrea Leadsom
It was great pleasure to visit Bolsover and to see at first hand what an excellent job he has done over so many years. It is a great pleasure to see him here, but there is always another election. That is the great thing about our democracy—there is always another one.
The hon. Lady has raised a number of broad issues. I will try to deal with them all in turn. First, she caught me slightly unawares when she mentioned a Committee that may be missing from the list on Monday’s motion. I am checking that as we speak, but may I assure all colleagues that all of these scrutiny Committees will be established on Monday at the close of business following a decision by the House. Let me be clear that if there has been an omission, it will be rectified. She and I both played a part in last night’s farce, where we were running around like idiots trying to sort out the order. I am very grateful to her for her help yesterday.
The hon. Lady talks about education and wanting to hear more about inclusion. May I assure her that this Government are determined to see that every child has a good education? There is much to be proud of: 1.8 million more children are in good and outstanding schools than in 2010. That is really something of which we can be proud. Delivering a good education to every child is vital.
The hon. Lady mentioned the fiscal rules. There are very clear Treasury fiscal rules. She will be aware that, because of the difficulties in certain prisons, there has been some short-term support for prison officers. I am not aware of all the details that she mentioned, but I will certainly take them away and write to her about them.
Stephen Hawking is a very eminent and highly regarded person, but I am afraid that I absolutely agree with the Secretary of State for Health, who said that he is just completely wrong to be talking about privatisation of the NHS. The Government are fully committed to a free health service at the point of delivery, as are all parties across the House.
On the UN inquiry into the rights of persons with disabilities, we are very disappointed that the report does not accurately reflect the evidence that we gave to the UN. The Government are working to improve accessibility, including by improving building regulations and guidance to local authorities, strengthening accessibility requirements for transport and working right across Government services to improve the accessibility of the information that we provide for those with disability.
Very importantly, on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, the hon. Lady talks about Henry VIII powers. I want to assure all Members that what the Bill seeks to do is to bring into UK law the entire body of EU law. The point of doing that is to provide continuity and certainty and a smooth transition as we leave the EU. Let me talk about the powers that are used to do that. May I give the example of the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016? We can all understand that Henry VIII powers are used there so that as any new legal high is created, we can update the legislation to ensure that it is then banned to keep people safe. The Bill is about that kind of use of Henry VIII powers, so that we can finally define the terms that are necessary. About half of the legislation in the last Parliament contained Henry VIII powers; there is nothing new or unusual about their use. They are of course always subject to scrutiny, either by a Committee of the Whole House or by Committees as a part of this House.
Finally, I join the hon. Lady in noting the passing of a number of eminent and high-profile people who have contributed a great deal to our communities over many years.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for the update on the business. We should also pay tribute to Edward du Cann, the former chairman of the 1922 committee and an eminent Member of this House, who has sadly passed away.
May we have a debate in Government time—I note that there is an opportunity for a general debate when we come back in October—on housing policy? It is the single biggest issue affecting this country right now, and the need to get young people the opportunity to have a home of their own is absolutely crucial. We need a strong debate to get answers from the Government on how this will be implemented in the future.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a very important point, and I think we all agree that being able to get a home of one’s own is crucial for every young person and for everyone in our society. I am pleased to tell him that nearly 900,000 new homes have been delivered since 2010, including nearly 333,000 affordable homes. Annual housing supply in England amounted to 189,000 additional homes between 2015 and 2016, an 11% increase on the previous year. My hon. Friend will know plenty of ways to ensure that the subject is debated in the House, and I am sure that a lot of colleagues will be interested in taking part.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has just left the Chamber, because I think that we are looking forward to sequel after sequel of the film—I particularly look forward to “Beast II: The Return”. Let us hope we have many more of these events.
I welcome back all right hon. and hon. Members. Today we have the first day of a two-day debate on the Second Reading of the repeal Bill, as we continue to progress in this clueless, delusional Brexit folly. Two days to debate this unprecedented power grab with all the horrors of these Henry VIII powers. It is almost certain that these two days of debates will be heavily subscribed, with many Members having only a few minutes to put their constituents’ many concerns to the House.
It gets worse than that, Mr Speaker, because according to the programme motion there will be only eight days for the Committee of the whole House to negotiate setting up of a new legal framework for the UK and disentangling ourselves from an institution that we have been a member of for decades, with all the attendant regulations, directives and treaties. To put that in context, there were 41 days for the Maastricht treaty, 25 days for the Lisbon treaty and 39 days on entering the European Union when it was just the Common Market. Eight days for leaving the European Union—it is almost beyond a joke, and the Leader of the House must come back with a sensible programme motion that allows a sensible amount of time for us to debate the thousands of amendments that will surely have been tabled by the time we come back in October.
After your rebuke yesterday, Mr Speaker, and all the faffing around we had in supplying all the names for the Select Committees, one would have thought we would at least have had a motion on the Order Paper today to get the Select Committees up and running. I appreciate that there are a lot of constraints and that we have got the motion for Monday, but that will also mean a lot of pressure on Select Committees wanting to meet next week. What is the difficulty and the problem with all this?
Then we have the thorny issue of the Standing Committees. The shadow Leader of the House is absolutely right: the Government have no reasons to expect to have a majority in the Standing Committees of the House. They do not command a majority. This is a House of minorities, and that parliamentary reality and arithmetic must be reflected in the Standing Committees. Does the Leader of the House understand and appreciate that she is in a minority in the House and that all the Committees must recognise that reality?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of the programme motion for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. What I can say is that it has eight days in Committee, with eight hours protected every day. It is important for hon. Members to appreciate that the Bill will provide a base for the UK’s departure from the EU. There will be a large number of subsequent Bills on new policies, systems and processes that relate to the UK’s departure from the EU, so there will be many opportunities for all colleagues throughout the House to have all their views taken into account. As we have said time and time again, it is absolutely clear that we want to be a consulting Government, to take into account views right across the House and to provide sufficient time for all colleagues to make their views known.
The hon. Gentleman’s others points about Committees are rather churlish. We have made every effort to establish the Select Committees as soon as we possibly could. They have been established faster than in the previous two Parliaments. It is extremely churlish; what he actually demonstrates is opposition for opposition’s sake. He does not even have the decency to recognise that the House is responding to a genuine request from Select Committee Chairs right across the House to get a move on and do it, and we have done it. He does not have the grace to say thank you or to appreciate that fact. He merely—this is important—wants to oppose for opposition’s sake. That is simply not constructive. It is a great shame that he takes this approach at a time when the House needs to come together to look at what we can agree on, not simply make small and petty points.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I must advise the House that although there is extensive interest, as always, in business questions, there is a ministerial statement to follow. Approximately 60 Members also wish to contribute to the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and I have to take account of their interests. So exceptionally—and colleagues know it would be exceptionally—it may not be possible today to get everybody in. The chances of my doing so will be greatly enhanced if the premium on brevity from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike is observed.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Over the summer, many of my constituents in Aldridge-Brownhills have once again had to endure the litter, rubbish, antisocial behaviour and noise caused by unauthorised Traveller encampments on public open spaces and village commons. Even our local football club, Walsall Wood, has been affected. I am sure the House understands the upset and frustration this causes. Can we please have a debate in Government time to look at the matter, including at the powers available to councils and police, and—really importantly—the impact on our local communities?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises an important point, which is of great interest to Members throughout the House. I am sorry to hear about the issues she has faced in her constituency. The police and local authorities have a wide range of powers available to address the issue. They can direct trespassers to leave the land, and remove any vehicle and property if there is a suitable pitch available on a caravan site elsewhere. Failure to comply with a police direction is a criminal offence. It is really important that the police and local authorities work together to address the issue.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I think the phrase that the Leader of the House was looking for earlier was “scalded cats”. In Tyneside, we would say, “scadded cats”. I note that there are two days of general debates in the business that she announced this morning. One is next Thursday and the other is on the first day back after the conference recess. As she is aware, the Backbench Business Committee has not yet been established but I, as elected Chair, am already receiving inquiries from Members about the availability of time. Will she ensure that when the Committees are established on Monday, that includes the membership of the Backbench Business Committee? I understand that there are still some vacancies on the Conservative side, but can we ensure that the Committee is established notwithstanding any such vacancies?
Andrea Leadsom
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am trying to get every Committee established just as soon as possible. I will look into that specific point and let him know perhaps later in the day.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House and her assiduous Parliamentary Private Secretary for responding so quickly to the requests led by the Chair-elect of the Public Accounts Committee. Indeed, I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your intervention in getting the Select Committees up and running from next week.
May we take advantage of the fact that there is a suspension of the usual arrangements in Northern Ireland to get a statement from the Government once and for all bringing forward a plan for a statute of limitations to protect our veteran servicemen from prosecution for acts that occurred during the troubles—many years ago—that have been investigated many times in the past? It is not right that criminals and terrorists go free while veteran servicemen face the possibility of long terms of imprisonment.
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reflecting particularly on your role, Mr Speaker, in ensuring that we have Select Committees up and running soon. He raises an important point about the statute of limitations. Yesterday, the Prime Minister made it clear that there has been a review of bodies looking at legacy issues, and I am sure my right hon. Friend will take the issue up separately with the Secretary of State for Justice.
Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the fact that Select Committees will be appointed on Monday. Further to the previous answer from the Leader of the House, I would be grateful if she could assure the House that the International Development Committee will be added to the list for the vote on Monday so that it can meet for the first time next week.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raised this point earlier. He is right: there was an administrative oversight in the last-minute running-around, and it will be rectified. I can assure him that his Committee and the Brexit scrutiny Committee will be on the Order Paper for Monday.
Mr Speaker
They might momentarily have been forgotten. The hon. Gentleman has never been, and will never be, forgotten.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
May I thank the Leader of the House for taking time out of her busy day yesterday to attend the launch of “A Manifesto to Strengthen Families”, which is supported by 44 Back-Bench Conservative MPs? It contains 18 practical policy proposals, such as strengthening prisoners’ family ties and promoting greater support for veterans’ families and for fatherhood. Does she agree that this subject has long needed more consideration by Members of this House, and will she meet a small group of those 44 MPs to discuss how more parliamentary debate time can be provided for it?
Andrea Leadsom
I strongly congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent work that has gone into the families manifesto. It is a very important piece of work. A number of Ministers are very interested in it, and I would be delighted to meet her.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Leader of the House noticed that Huddersfield University has won the prestigious global teaching university of the year award? In a year when Huddersfield has also become a premiership football club and the new Doctor Who comes from Huddersfield, will she congratulate our university and our team on their success?
Andrea Leadsom
I am delighted to congratulate Huddersfield. That sounds like a bit of a hat trick. Carry on!
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
May I echo the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for a general debate on housing, to deal with the issue of leasehold reform? There are substantial abuses of leaseholders in my constituency and many other constituencies. If that bid fails, I would request that the regeneration of town centres—particularly the town centre of Winsford—be included for debate.
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a point that constituents raise with a number of MPs. It is very important, and I certainly share her desire to see its resolution. I encourage her to seek the opportunity for a debate on it.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the real anxiety of organisations such as Mencap, which provide vital services for people with learning disabilities, that they face demands for back pay of up to six years following a change of guidance on so-called sleep-in shifts. Many organisations fear that this will push them under, and they need the Government to step in to provide support. There has been a moratorium on enforcement action until 2 October, but with the House not sitting then, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Business Secretary comes to the House to clarify the position and provide reassurance for these organisations?
Andrea Leadsom
I am well aware of the issue the right hon. Gentleman raises, and the Government are looking at it. I will certainly make a point of taking it away and seeking feedback from the Department.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
In the recess, the Government made a welcome announcement about action to counter the risk posed to aviation by drones. What follow-up will there be so that we can see that action implemented as soon as possible?
Andrea Leadsom
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that very important question. This is an exciting and innovative new industry, and we are very keen to harness it effectively, but he rightly raises concerns around safety that the Government take equally seriously. He will be aware that registration and testing will be introduced for users of drones of 250 kg and above. Further measures, such as a ban on drones flying at certain distances from airports and at certain heights, are being considered, and we will make further announcements on that in due course.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Months ago, a report commissioned by the Government and only released after freedom of information requests found that the Ministry of Justice’s own approved methods of restraining children in young offender institutions and secure training centres can actually kill children or leave them disabled. Will the leader of the House ask her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make a statement explaining why the Government have continued to preside over this and failed to act on it yet?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point. It is not something that I am particularly aware of, but if she would like to write to me I will certainly raise it with the Ministry of Justice.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I used to serve on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which is little known in this House but which looks at statutory instruments to advise on whether they fall within certain criteria. When EU directives came before the Committee, even if they made no sense at all and did not so comply, we still had to recommend to this House that they were passed. Will the Leader of the House confirm that if we are going to use Delegated Legislation Committees to discuss important EU matters, those Committees will, as usual, be open for any Member to attend and speak at, the instruments will be voted on, and, more importantly, will then come to the whole House to be voted on, so that, whatever the Opposition like to believe, there will be proper scrutiny?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a really important point, which is that this House will scrutinise all legislation relating to EU withdrawal and to our future policies post EU in the usual way, and that that democratic oversight will be continued for the duration of this period.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Despite serious underfunding and rationing in Vale of York clinical commissioning group and the acute trust, it has been placed in the capped expenditure process. Over the summer, it emerged that this process seems to be changing day by day. May we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health to say exactly what the process is and to ensure that our health service is properly funded to meet local demand?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady will be aware, NHS funding will be over half a trillion pounds from 2015 to 2020, and we have protected and increased health funding. As regards local sustainability and transformation partnerships, where work is under way to change processes locally, there is broad consultation under reconfiguration tests, where there must be support from clinical commissioners, clinical evidence, patient and public engagement, and support for patient choice.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
Colchester’s Lib Dem and Labour-run borough council has recently introduced a very unpopular fortnightly black bag scheme that is leaving my residents to deal with rats, other vermin, flies and maggots. It is totally unacceptable. Will my right hon. Friend allow a debate in Government time to discuss local councils ignoring the wishes of residents and failing to address their concerns?
Andrea Leadsom
Speaking as an ex-Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, it is interesting how litter is always one of the biggest concerns of everybody in our country. Litter is right up there, and so what happens to it is a vital issue. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) shouts “Rubbish!”, and he is quite right—it is a very important issue. Regular litter collections are incredibly important. I am sure that my hon. Friend will take every chance to raise that with the Department for Communities and Local Government.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Although I was present to vote in the first vote last night, I was not able to do so because I was locked not in the lavatory but in the lift. Were it not for a Conservative party researcher, I suspect I would still be in the lift. It is very unsatisfactory, in our first week back after the recess, that there are problems with the lifts. Will the Leader of the House ensure that they are serviced? Surely, with all the maintenance men around, they ought to be.
Andrea Leadsom
I am sure, Mr Speaker, that you are as concerned as I am to hear about that. I will certainly look into the matter; I assure the right hon. Lady that I will take it up later today.
Mr Speaker
The situation is extremely irregular, and the right hon. Lady has my sympathies. I hope that she will not take it out of good humour if I say that I am rather surprised that the lift dared.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
In August, 15 Gypsy and Traveller motorhomes and caravans invaded the popular open green space at the foot of the Ise Lodge residential estate in Kettering. Rubbish and human faeces were left in the undergrowth; the local convenience store had to employ a security guard; and widespread harassment, alarm and distress were caused to the local settled community. The police refused to use the section 61 powers open to them to request the Travellers to move on. May we have an urgent statement from the Home Office that it will review the powers available to the police so that we can have an effective system to protect the settled community from the intimidation caused by Gypsies and Travellers?
Andrea Leadsom
This is an incredibly important issue that is raised time and time again at business questions and at other times. I know that all Members suffer from the problem of unauthorised Travellers’ camps. The reality is that the powers to tackle them do exist, but the police and local authorities need to work together to make sure that they use them, and that they use the enforcement possibilities that are open to them.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
May we have a debate on the labour market and labour shortages? Yesterday the all-party group on migration published a report highlighting employers’ concerns about so-called low-skilled jobs after Brexit—that they will no longer be able to recruit EU workers to these roles, and that the language stigmatises such roles, which makes it more difficult to recruit UK workers to them. Will the Leader of the House read the all-party group’s report and encourage her ministerial colleagues to do so?
Andrea Leadsom
I am always delighted to read all-party group reports, so I am happy to do that. The hon. Lady will be aware that the Home Office will be coming forward with proposals on new immigration rules as we take back control of our borders, and that the Home Secretary has made it very clear that she will ensure that we have the right balance between the excellent work that is done by many EU and other migrant communities in this country, and, at the same time, taking back control of immigration. She will ensure that there is the right balance between what our country needs by way of immigration and fairness to those who already live here.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Almost 1,000 of my constituents are Travellers. I know many of them, and they are good people. Their reputation is being destroyed in our community by the action of a small minority, who over the summer have destroyed gravestones, damaged village greens, intimidated residents and damaged businesses. This cannot go on. Nottinghamshire police are highly constrained by the powers available to them and looking to the Government, and to a cross-party agreement, to move things forward. May I echo the comments of other Members from across the House who have called for a debate in Government time about how we can move this issue forward, for the benefit of the whole community, and specifically of the Traveller community whose reputation is at stake?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend is looking at a different aspect of the matter, namely that legitimate and well-mannered Travellers who take account of local communities are being run down by those who behave appallingly and who cause so much heartache, mess and concern in so many communities. Hearing the mood of the House, I am happy to take the question away and look at whether we can provide time. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the Chairman-elect of the Backbench Business Committee, is also hearing this, and he may well be prepared to make time for it in his Committee.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House give us some Government time to have an urgent debate about the quality of decision making of the Department for Work and Pensions and Atos—or Independent Assessment Services, as it now seems to be known? I have a paraplegic constituent with schizophrenia who was called for a medical. When I raised concerns with the MP complaints team, I received the stock reply that PIP entitlement is determined by how a disability affects an individual rather than a particular diagnosis. Does the Leader of the House share my concern that the DUP are devoid of compassion and common sense? How many paraplegic schizophrenics does she think would not qualify for enhanced care in the mobility component of PIP?
Andrea Leadsom
I must say that individual members of staff of—I think the hon. Gentleman means—the DWP are actually working incredibly hard, very often in very difficult circumstances. We all have particular constituency cases that we need to pursue with quite a lot of vigour to make sure that constituents can get through a system that is sometimes not sufficiently attuned to their individual needs. I certainly encourage him to talk to Work and Pensions Ministers, who I am sure will be very interested in the case and keen to help him.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
As somebody who lost many relatives, including my grandfather, in the Kashmir earthquake, I know the dire consequences of natural disasters. May we have an urgent statement on the Floor of the House about the floods in south Asia? They are affecting 41 million people, have cost 1,200 lives and are affecting our fellow Commonwealth members.
Andrea Leadsom
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I am very sorry to hear of his own very sad personal experience. I can tell him that in Nepal the Department for International Development has set aside £400,000 for the Red Cross and the Nepal Red Cross Society for monsoon flood response to help 30,000 people, most of which is earmarked for water, sanitation and hygiene. In Bangladesh, the UK’s contribution of £660,000 to the flood response will help over 60,000 people. In India, as the Government have not requested international assistance, DFID’s response has been through the Start Fund global consortia of non-governmental organisations, which responds to small and medium-sized emergencies, with a donation of £325,000 for Nepal and £400,000 for India.
Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
At the end of this month, Sneyd Green community centre in my constituency may well be closing its doors, after seven years of attempting to carry out a community asset transfer. Local volunteers, led by John Reynolds, have worked tirelessly, but have simply not received the support they should have received from the local authority. May we have a debate in Government time about what the big society really looks like now, and about what support can be provided to volunteers in such a situation?
Andrea Leadsom
I pay tribute to the excellent work of volunteers. I know that a lot of people work tirelessly as volunteers and find it very frustrating when trying to get such things done. I encourage the hon. Lady to talk to one of the Communities and Local Government Ministers and see whether anything can be done at this late stage to try to help this along. Otherwise, she may wish to apply for an Adjournment debate to get the Minister to respond on the Floor of the House.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a debate on the proposals announced yesterday by Babcock DSG to close three of its sites across the UK, including the only military land support repair workshop in Scotland—at Forthside in my Stirling constituency—with the threatened loss of 56 highly-skilled jobs?
Andrea Leadsom
We are always incredibly concerned to hear about the prospect of job losses. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are very strict rules on consultation and about working closely with those affected to ensure that all decisions taken are fair. However, if he wants to write to me specifically about this, I will see whether I can bring it to the attention of the relevant Ministers.
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
British Steel pensioners are concerned that proposed changes will result in their losing out on the proper uplifting of their pre-1997 service. May we have a statement from the Government on the proposed changes to the British Steel pension scheme and on how they will ensure that pensioners are not short-changed?
Andrea Leadsom
I am happy to take up that matter with the relevant Department on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf.
Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
During the recess, I visited Abercrave farm and the Dan-yr-Ogof show caves in my constituency, where the owners have installed small-scale hydroelectric schemes. These are outstanding examples, being invisible to the eye in beautiful national park countryside, based on private investment and providing much-needed green energy. May we have a debate on how we can help rather than hinder the development of further hydro schemes around the country?
Andrea Leadsom
I do not think we hinder in any way, but are keen to encourage the development of renewable electricity. It is something that this country has done extremely well at—we are one of the top performers across the EU in terms of the speed at which we are starting to use green electricity—and I would be happy to talk further to my hon. Friend about what measures we can take. Or he might want to arrange an Adjournment debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am afraid that we are now running very short of time, so I am looking for single-short-sentence questions. It is really a matter of good faith. If people want to ask a single-short-sentence question, that is fine, but if they want to include a long preamble, it is better they keep it for the long winter evenings that lie ahead.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
May we have a debate in Government time on the impact on higher education institutions of the UK’s immigration policy throughout the Brexit process and beyond?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important issue that is of great interest to all of us. There will be lots of opportunities over the next few days, during the debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, to raise the issue, and later in the year during our discussions on immigration.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
Big Ben’s bongs are silenced. They are loved by the community and international visitors. May we please have a debate about why this has happened? Is it beyond the wit of man for ear defenders to be worn by the workers? [Interruption.]
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend will be aware that there are strong views on this matter—she will have heard Opposition Members shouting her down over the prospects of a debate—but my view is that this is an important issue. The House of Commons Commission met last night and agreed to continue with the cessation of the bells for the time being but also to consider alternatives to leaving the bells off.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
May I add my calls to those of other hon. Members for an urgent debate on Travellers? There have been very real problems with them in my own constituency. The legislation is in need of urgent review.
Andrea Leadsom
As I have said to others, I can hear that this is an important matter. There have been big problems over the summer, and I will certainly take this up.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The growth in the spirits market, particularly gin, whisky and other spirits, both here and in exports, is important to our economy. Indeed, there is a Lakes distillery now in Cumbria. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of this sector and of reaching a sector deal, and does she agree that such a deal must be UK-wide, not limited to any particular part of the country?
Andrea Leadsom
My hon. Friend raises a valuable point. I travelled around Europe this summer and saw the fantastic UK spirits now available there and the increasing exports. Spirits are an increasingly important UK export, and I would support any efforts he wants to make to ensure we give them the right level of priority.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Over the next couple of months, the new Mersey crossing will open, and it will be tolled, contrary to promises made by Conservative Ministers. May we have a debate either on the tolls on the new Mersey crossing or, failing that, on why Ministers are so willing to break their promises?
Andrea Leadsom
The Government are guilty of investing a huge amount in infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, right across the country. I am not aware of the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises about broken promises, but if he wants to write to me, I can take it up. I want to reiterate, however, that we are fully committed to improving road and rail transport across the UK, and our record is extremely strong.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
May we have a statement from the Home Secretary on the shocking and sickening revelation on BBC’s “Panorama” about Brook House immigration detention centre? It showed the shocking behaviour of G4S staff and how our immigration detention system is not working, with committed criminals who should have been deported being held alongside asylum seekers not convicted of any crime.
Andrea Leadsom
We would all agree the footage was shocking. The hon. Gentleman might well wish to raise the matter at the next Home Office questions.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
Given that the Chancellor has said in Leeds this week that the Government are now willing to consider devolution proposals from 17 Conservative and Labour councils in Yorkshire, is it time for a statement next week on devolution in Yorkshire?
Andrea Leadsom
It is certainly time for the hon. Gentleman to raise this at oral questions, with Ministers separately or through an Adjournment debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Awamiyah, a predominantly Shi’a district in Saudi Arabia, has been surrounded by siege barricades since Government attempts to relocate residents in order to redevelop the neighbourhood in May 2017. There are many reports of heavy clashes between Saudi citizens and military forces, and entire blocks have been demolished. Thousands of local citizens have fled—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has breached his one short sentence. I am waiting for the question mark.
Jim Shannon
Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or debate on the matter?
Andrea Leadsom
As ever, the hon. Gentleman has raised a very specific and incredibly important issue, and the Foreign Office will certainly examine it closely. I should be happy to raise it on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf; alternatively, he can raise it in the usual way through the Foreign Office.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
May I pursue the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson)? Many of my constituents tell me that they will have to pay up to £80 a month more just to get to work as a result of the Mersey crossing toll charges. May we have a debate on what the Government will do to prevent them from being penalised by what is, in effect, a jobs tax?
Andrea Leadsom
As I said to the hon. Member for City of Chester, the Government have invested a huge amount in infrastructure. This sounds to me like a question that needs to be put during Transport questions, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to write to me, I can take it up with the Department for Transport on his behalf.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the viciously successful campaign by the British company Bell Pottinger to stir up racism in South Africa by working for the corrupt Gupta brothers, who are linked to President Zuma?
Andrea Leadsom
I read about that myself, and on the face of it, it seems very concerning. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Bell Pottinger has been removed from its trade body as a result. He may well wish to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate, or in a question to a Minister.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
May we have a debate in Government time on bank closures, which are ripping the heart out of communities across the country? In my constituency, the last bank in the northern town of Amlwch has now been closed without consultation. The public want to know why the Government are saying nothing, and why Parliament is not discussing the issue.
Andrea Leadsom
I hope to give the hon. Gentleman a bit of good news about that. There are very clear rules governing how banks can close—there must be broad consultation and assessment—but not enough people know that the Post Office has now agreed with all the major banks to provide basic banking services. Given that post offices are open at weekends and for longer hours, that can often provide a very good alternative.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
My constituent David Hemphill suffers from myotonic dystrophy, and previously qualified for a mobility allowance of £224 a month. When that was removed in December, he lost his mobility vehicle and was instead given an Access to Work grant for taxis, which costs £560 a month. May we have a statement, or a debate in Government time, about the detrimental costs of such changes to the public purse?
Andrea Leadsom
That does sound like a bizarre decision. The hon. Gentleman will, of course, want to raise the matter directly through one of the MPs’ hotlines or with Ministers, and I encourage him to do that.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
In June we were told that the much-delayed clean growth plan would be published after the summer recess. Will the Leader of the House ensure that when it is published, there is a parliamentary debate about it?
Andrea Leadsom
As the hon. Lady would expect, in such circumstances there is normally some kind of ministerial statement, either written or oral. Alternatively, she may wish to organise a Back-Bench debate when the plan is published.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The question of the shortage of nurses in Rochdale—which reflects the national shortage—was raised with me during the summer. May we have a debate in Government time about how the Government plan to increase nurses’ pay, and also to ensure that we are training enough nurses?
Andrea Leadsom
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the number of nurses on wards is up by nearly 12,000. We are increasing investment in the NHS, increasing the number of training places, and so on. If the hon. Gentleman wants to raise issues relating specifically to Rochdale, it might be a good idea for him to do so during Health questions.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Across Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire, the closure of community care beds is causing great concern to my constituents and those of my neighbours. The decisions were referred to the Secretary of State for Health under the 2013 regulations, but there has been no response. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on the accountability of clinical commissioning groups? Those who spend public money and commission public services should not be outside the realm of public scrutiny.
Andrea Leadsom
I do not think it would be true to say that clinical commissioning groups are not subject to public scrutiny—they most certainly are—but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has a particular concern about a CCG, Ministers will respond to it.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May we have a debate on the Home Office’s shambolic visa system, with case after case throughout the summer of artists and academics, especially from Africa and the middle east, being denied entry to the United Kingdom, affecting festivals, research tours and business? Will a Home Office Minister come to this House and answer the concerns of some of my constituents, who are trying to arrange these visas and are beginning to believe a covert travel ban is in place?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there are millions of visitors to this country every year; the Home Office manages those processes extremely effectively. If he has specific concerns about individuals, he might wish to take that up with Ministers, but there is no sense in which there are any travel bans operating in the United Kingdom, and nor is the system unjust or inefficient.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Drug policies in Holland have delivered a prison crisis in that they do not have enough prisoners to fill their prisons. Drug policies here have created chaos in our prisons and a record number of drug deaths, including psychoactive drug deaths, last year. May we debate which country has got its policies right?
Andrea Leadsom
In the UK we have always been very clear: we do not believe that permission to use drugs is of any benefit whatsoever, and we will continue to make every effort to reduce drug offending and to encourage people to get clean from drugs.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
May we have a statement from the Government on when they plan to reconvene the Joint Ministerial Committee, so that devolved Administrations can be fully involved and consulted on the Brexit process?
Andrea Leadsom
There is a great deal of consultation going on, as the hon. Gentleman knows, between the devolved Administrations and the Westminster Government. That will continue, and there will be plenty of opportunities for further consultation in the weeks and months ahead.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
When Tony Newton was Leader of the House in 1995, in a Conservative Government, he accepted that if the Government lost their majority in the House of Commons they should not have a majority in the Committees of this House considering legislation. Why on earth does this Conservative Leader of the House think that this Government are any different? They have no majority in the House; they should have no majority in the Committees.
Andrea Leadsom
The House is speaking through the usual channels about the business of the House and there will be more discussion about that next week. Motions will be on the Order Paper in good time for the House to be able to consider and discuss it.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
During the recess I met with I Am Me Scotland, an inspiring group working to tackle disability hate crime in Renfrewshire and beyond. With 62,000 hate crimes being committed against disabled people each year in the UK, may we have a debate on this most heinous of crimes?
Andrea Leadsom
It is a very important point to make that it is horrible to see any abuse of individuals, particularly those with disabilities, and I absolutely encourage the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate on that subject.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It was clear from this week’s statement on Grenfell that little progress is being made, especially on rehousing residents, so may we have weekly reports to the House until further notice, to concentrate Ministers’ minds on this issue?
Andrea Leadsom
I think that is really very unfair: Ministers have been very focused on trying to alleviate the suffering of those victims of Grenfell. The Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and others have come before this House many times to update. What they have not wanted to do is force residents into accommodation that those residents do not wish to take. The offers have been made, and there is a total focus on ensuring we do everything we can for those people.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As a Government Minister, the Leader of the House voted to give an additional £16 billion for private renewal and then a £34 billion tax giveaway package for the wealthiest, while maintaining the public sector cap. Will she make a statement explaining why she thinks that is fair and saying whether the UK Government are going to follow the Scotland Government’s lead and scrap the cap?
Andrea Leadsom
To be very clear, what we have to do in any Government is have the right balance in priorities for spending. It has to be right for the people who are doing the amazing work they do in our public services, but also right for the taxpayers who have to foot the bill. When we came into office, we had the largest peacetime deficit ever, and in the ensuing years we have been trying to get back to living within our means. The alternative is that we leave the debts for the next generation, and that would be completely unfair. So balance in spending priorities is absolutely key.
Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)
In 2015, Wales introduced the opt-out system for organ donation. In the following year, there was a 19% increase in kidney donations. Scotland is about to introduce a similar system. Is it not about time that those awaiting organ donations in England were also given a right to live?
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Lady raises a really important point, and I am very sympathetic to it. Last year, we saw the highest ever rates of organ donation, but we want that number to rise further so that everyone who needs a transplant has the best chance of receiving one. This is organ donation week, and the campaign is focusing on the importance of people talking about this and telling their family about their wishes. We are committed to continuing with campaigns that raise awareness, but we will also be looking closely at how the situation in Scotland and Wales affects donation rates. I also want to highlight the need to encourage black, Asian and minority ethnic donors, and we are looking at more ways of doing that.
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House comment on the possibility of including topical questions in the devolved nations’ questions that fall before Prime Minister’s Question Time? We seem to be shortlisted on a number of questions, week in and week out, and we can hold no one to account.
Andrea Leadsom
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, and I am very happy to take it away and discuss it with colleagues.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
May we have a statement on the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority? Its slowness in taking action against sky-high interest rates in the rent-to-own sector has left hard-up families paying through the nose for cookers and for cots.
Andrea Leadsom
It is incredibly important that financial conduct is carried out meticulously, and the regulator has strong powers to ensure that people behave appropriately. There are all sorts of issues around financial conduct at all times, and I think the FCA does a good job, but if the hon. Gentleman wants to raise a particular issue, I recommend that he tries to arrange a Westminster Hall debate on that specific point.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Two years on from the Syrian boy being washed up on a beach in the Mediterranean, there is still a crisis affecting children in Europe. May we have an urgent debate on what can be done to speed up the process of reuniting the child refugees who are sleeping rough in Calais with their families in Britain?
Andrea Leadsom
The situation for children is incredibly harrowing. This country has made huge strides in trying to reunite refugee children with their families, with relatives and with other people in the United Kingdom. We continue to be one of the most generous donors in trying to establish safe havens for children closer to home, to avoid their getting into the hands of people traffickers, making appalling journeys and losing relatives on the way. There is always more to be done, and the hon. Gentleman might well want to arrange for an Adjournment debate on that subject.
Hurricane Irma
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Europe and the Americas (Sir Alan Duncan)
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for this opportunity to make a statement on Hurricane Irma, which is already affecting and is set further to affect Caribbean islands and the south-east United States with devastating effect. Much as I appreciate the wish of the House to move on to the Second Reading of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, I am sure everyone appreciates the importance of informing the House about the latest position on this unfolding catastrophe.
As with any hurricane, one can never be sure of its ultimate effect until the extent and location of its inevitable damage has become clear. However, its predicted force has put everyone on the highest state of alert and preparedness, to which end the Foreign Office crisis centre and Department for International Development planning were all put on to the highest state of readiness over two days ago. The FCO crisis centre has two important functions: one is to organise the fullest possible consular assistance to UK citizens abroad; the other is to monitor the path of the hurricane and co-ordinate every conceivable UK response, in particular to those British territories affected.
Hurricane Irma, having reached category 5—the highest possible category—hit three British overseas territories yesterday: Anguilla, Montserrat and the British Virgin Islands. Today, we expect the hurricane to affect a further UK territory: the Turks and Caicos Islands. The hurricane yesterday also caused damage in the independent Commonwealth countries of Antigua and Barbuda and St Kitts and Nevis, and we expect it to affect the Dominican Republic, Haiti and the Bahamas today. It will most likely affect Cuba and south-eastern Florida tomorrow. The hurricane is heading westwards and remains strong. We have an initial assessment of the severity of the damage it has caused. I will outline for the House what we know so far. Montserrat was swiped by the hurricane yesterday, but our initial assessment is relatively positive. Fortunately, the damage is not as severe as first thought. In contrast, however, Anguilla received the hurricane’s full blast. The initial assessment is that the damage has been severe and, in places, critical. We expect further reports to make clear the full nature of the devastation, and Anguilla’s port and airport remain closed. The British Virgin Islands were also not spared the hurricane’s full force when it passed through yesterday morning. Our initial assessment is of severe damage. We expect that the islands will need extensive humanitarian assistance, which we will of course provide.
The hurricane is expected to hit another British overseas territory later today. The Turks and Caicos Islands lie in the hurricane’s predicted path, and officials in London and in the territories are working intensively on disaster preparedness. They are also liaising with their counterparts in the Cayman Islands for assistance. The French and Dutch territories on Guadeloupe and St Martin have also been hit. The initial assessments are of widespread damage, but the more detailed assessment continues. No British nationals have yet contacted us to ask for assistance from these islands. Two Commonwealth realms were affected by hurricane Irma yesterday. Antigua and Barbuda’s less populated island, Barbuda, was most severely affected. Antigua, and St Kitts and Nevis were less badly affected than many had feared, with only minor damage. We expect that the hurricane will affect the Dominican Republic and Haiti today. It will sweep on through the south-east of the Bahamas later, and tomorrow is predicted to hit Cuba and southern Florida.
Officials in London and the territories have been working throughout the day and night to assess and quantify the needs of our territories, and to co-ordinate a cross-Government response. Officials in London are maintaining contact—although sometimes difficult—with our Governors’ offices in the territories. The Governors’ teams are themselves working closely with the territories’ Governments to respond to the crisis. The Royal Naval ship Royal Fleet Auxiliary Mounts Bay is already in the Caribbean and should reach the affected territories later today. The ship carries Royal Marines and Army engineers, and her primary task is the protection of our overseas territories. She is loaded with a range of equipment, vehicles, tents, stores and hydraulic vehicles specifically intended to respond to such disasters. In addition, DFID stands ready to charter flights to deliver additional supplies as appropriate.
I spoke last night to the London representatives of the British Virgin Islands. I was in our crisis centre yesterday afternoon and last night and have been based there this morning. At 8.45 pm last night, the Foreign Secretary spoke to Anguilla’s Chief Minister Victor Banks. The Foreign Secretary also tried but was unable to contact the Premier of the British Virgin Islands, but Lord Ahmad has been in contact with the Governor this morning. We will be working in support of the overseas territories’ Governments to develop the best possible assessment of their immediate and longer-term needs. To that end, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will chair a meeting of COBRA at 2 o’clock this afternoon. Our priority is to support the territories’ Governments in meeting their immediate humanitarian and security needs, including shelter, water and accommodation. We have four UK Aid humanitarian experts in the region who are helping to co-ordinate the response. We will assess, with the territories’ Governments, their long-term reconstruction requirements, as we have done in the past.
As the House will appreciate, the relationship between overseas territories and their parent countries differs. While French territories are directly governed, that is not the case with our overseas territories. While that means that our responses will, of course, be different, we will seek to achieve the same objectives and are taking immediate steps to do so.
The Prime Minister called President Macron this morning to discuss our respective responses to Hurricane Irma. They agreed that the devastation the hurricane has wreaked is terrible, with unconfirmed reports emerging of a number of fatalities. The Prime Minister updated the French President on our response, noting that DFID humanitarian advisers have already deployed to the region to conduct damage assessments and provide humanitarian support, and that RFA Mounts Bay is already near the area. They agreed to co-operate closely, including with the Dutch, to understand the extent of the damage and to co-ordinate our relief efforts.
We will all do our utmost to help those affected, and I undertake to keep the House updated as required.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for allowing me to see it in advance. I start by associating myself with his remarks in sending the House’s deepest sympathies to the people whose lives and livelihoods have been lost to the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma.
Many thousands of British tourists visit the Caribbean every year for their holidays. What is the Government’s estimate of the number of UK nationals currently in the countries that have been hit by Hurricane Irma, or that are likely to be affected in the coming days? What requests for consular assistance has the Foreign Office received from British nationals in the countries affected? What assistance are the Government ready to provide in response to such requests? What efforts are the Government making to communicate with British nationals across the region to make sure that they know what help is available to them?
Of course, holidaymakers are by no means the only people who will have been affected: the damage for those who live in the region will be both profound and lasting, particularly because of the effect on the tourism industry. Many of those people may also be British, given the number of UK overseas territories in the Caribbean.
The Minister has given us the Government’s initial assessment of the impact of Hurricane Irma on overseas territories such as Anguilla, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands, but what discussions has he had, or does he intend to have, with the Governments of those territories about the effects of the hurricane? And what discussions has he had with the Governments of countries such as Antigua and Barbuda that have also been affected? What efforts are the Government making to work with the authorities in those areas on their reconstruction plans? What reassurances can he give that the UK stands ready to provide not only the immediate humanitarian and security relief that is needed so urgently but a sustained commitment to reconstruction, which will be so important in the longer term?
Finally, I am sure the Minister will commit to providing regular updates to the House on the progress of reconstruction efforts, and particularly on the steps the Government are taking to assist with those efforts. I am also confident that the Government will update the House following the Cobra meeting this afternoon.
Sir Alan Duncan
I am grateful to the hon. Lady both for what she said and for the tone in which she said it, because the House will want to send a united message of concern. We all just want to do the very best for those who, in many cases, have been devastated by the ferocity of this hurricane.
Of course, many tourists will have left because there was some notice that this hurricane was likely to come, and this is not peak tourist season. We have not yet had any direct individual requests for consular assistance, but we all have concern that, beneath the rubble, there will be cases that require our urgent personal response.
Our focus, of course, is not just on tourists; it is on everybody. We have complete overall concern, particularly for our overseas territories that are affected, and to that end we have £12 million immediately available through our rapid response mechanism for disaster relief and recovery. The Secretary of State for International Development is here with me, and her Department, like the Foreign Office, is on full alert and is doing its utmost. The Department has a great wealth of expertise to deploy, and I speak not only as a Foreign Minister but as a former DFID Minister. In the long-term, we will of course always meet our full legal obligations under the International Development Act 2002 to our overseas territories. I assure the House that we are pulling out all the stops to make sure that we do our utmost to provide urgent assistance, once we, using the professionalism DFID has, have carried out the assessment to make sure we know who is in greatest need. We can then use our adeptness and flexibility urgently to address those who most need our help.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, for the comprehensive nature of the response we appear to be preparing and for the undertaking that we will provide all necessary immediate humanitarian assistance. I welcome the fact that he has spoken to the London representatives of the BVI. Will he confirm that he will be happy to act as the personal contact of the London representative of the Government of Anguilla, too, so that she can keep him personally updated? For the longer term, there is some anxiety that the overseas territory of Anguilla does not receive direct aid from DFID; it receives it only indirectly through the European Union. May I take it that the welcome notification about the £12 million will mean that we are equally as committed to the long-term recovery and reconstruction of Anguilla as we are to meeting the immediate humanitarian need?
Sir Alan Duncan
First, let me say that we are endeavouring to contact everybody, although this is difficult in some cases. There is always a distinction between DFID funding that is Official Development Assistance-eligible and that which is not, but we will make all the assessments we possibly can, in order to give the help that we would like to give wherever we find that the need is severe. We will, as my hon. Friend requests, focus on all the help, and we have dealt with many hurricanes and typhoons in the region before. Indeed, four years ago, as the Minister, I gave some assistance to St Lucia and St Vincent, which had had all their bridges swept away. It was because we had the professionalism required to assess the damage that we knew how best to respond to it. Our response is flexible, which again reflects DFID’s professional competence.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
I, too, am grateful for advance sight of today’s statement. There is no doubt that the devastation across the Caribbean is both grave and a tragedy. Naturally, our thoughts and wishes go out to all those waiting to find out whether or not they are in the path of Hurricane Irma—those in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, the Bahamas and Florida; and to those who have already been hit in the Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Puerto Rico and St Martin, which we hear is “almost destroyed” and in Barbuda, whose Prime Minister says that the island is “totally demolished” and “nearly uninhabitable”. We encourage the Minister to send as much urgent aid as possible to them.
The upgrading to hurricanes of storms Jose and Katia, making it three in the Caribbean basin, is terrifying. The prospect of Jose hitting locales we have already seen hit, amid the devastation, is unthinkable. The world is witnessing the increased prevalence of hurricanes. In the past three years alone, Texas has had three 100-year to 500-year events, leading to warnings that this is the “new normal”. We are seeing the major impact of climate change, and we must step up actions on this at the highest priority. Gaston Browne, the Prime Minister of Barbuda and the larger, neighbouring island of Antigua, told the BBC’s “Today” programme:
“The science is clear. Climate change is real, in the Caribbean we are living with the consequences of climate change. It is unfortunate that there are some who see it differently.”
Will the Government express our solidarity and sympathies with the communities affected, especially those on the devastated island of Barbuda, through communication with their Prime Minister? What efforts have the Government made to note how many UK nationals have been caught up in the path of this devastating hurricane?
Finally, as part of the UK’s much-vaunted “special relationship” with the United States, what pressure are the UK Government putting on Donald Trump to change his stance on the Paris climate change agreement, and to be part of the solution and not the problem?
Sir Alan Duncan
I of course hear what the hon. Gentleman says about climate change. There is no doubt that many parts of the world are facing a greater incidence of severe weather, but I hope he will allow me to confine myself to the urgent nature of our response to people in desperate need, rather than engage today in a debate on the broader issues. Our priority is primarily the overseas territories, but it is not confined to them. Thus, we will be focusing in the first instance on the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla and, by the look of it, the Turks and Caicos Islands. That is why the crisis centres in the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development are working joined at the hip to ensure that our response is as effective and as rapid as possible.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I would like to add my thanks to the Minister for coming to give a statement to the House today. Clearly this is a very devastating but unfolding situation. Can he reassure us that he will continue to keep us updated on the work and progress of his Department and those involved?
Sir Alan Duncan
I am happy to give that assurance. I can tell the House that in my experience these things come in phases. We have to start with the urgent cases of injury and homelessness and the need for food and water. Then there is the very important process of the follow-up to ensure that issues of infrastructure and reconstruction are properly planned for and delivered.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I spoke a few moments ago to Kennedy Hodge, an Anguillan student who has arrived just today in Chesterfield. He laid out the scale of the devastation in Anguilla, which is quite unlike anything they have seen before. The Minister was at pains to explain the difference between our relationship with our overseas territories and that of the French Government with theirs, but if he is to make good on achieving the same objectives that the French have set out, he will know that we need a great deal more resource. The French Government have put a lot more into St Martin than we have into Anguilla. Will the Minister lay out the resources we will be able to provide not only militarily to deal with the immediate humanitarian catastrophe, but to support the Anguillan Government with the help they will need with schools, hospitals, the airport, the prisons and all the devastated infrastructure? They will need that support to get back on their feet.
Sir Alan Duncan
I quite understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying in respect of Anguilla, because there have been some comments in the media comparing our response with that of the French, but I very much hope I can give him and the House genuine reassurance. We are very well practised in emergency response. We place a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel in the area almost every year—I think it is every year—in anticipation of hurricane risk. In this case, the hurricane has been extraordinarily severe, but the advantage of having the Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel is that we do not trap response resources in a country or on an island when they might be more importantly needed on a neighbouring island.
The Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel has flexibility. It has the ability to make and deliver water. It has bulldozers and a helicopter. Crucially, we may have resources on an island and the roads get blocked, but if we have a Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel with a chopper, we can get to the people in need very quickly. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel is a fantastic resource of which we should be very proud. It has marines, military engineers, resources, food and supplies, and it can deploy flexibly according to the urgency and need caused by the devastating path of a hurricane, because we never know where the need is greatest until the hurricane has happened. I say again that we can supplement the initial urgent response with other relief flights provided by DFID out of the disaster relief funding we have. Over time, the House will see that our response proved effective and good for the people we are there to look after.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
My thoughts go out to people such as Victor Banks, Orlando Smith and Don Romeo, whom I worked closely with and have been trying to contact. Does this immediate crisis not highlight a conundrum? While the overseas territories have preferential treatment and first call on the DFID budget, the nature of middle-income status does not recognise the real environmental risks that small island states have. How can the Minister leverage his time at DFID and the Foreign Office to ensure that that little conundrum can perhaps be solved under his time and service?
Sir Alan Duncan
May I first acknowledge my hon. Friend’s service as a Foreign Office Minister? He has great knowledge of this field. He is really asking me to dissect and explain, or even give an intellectual thesis on, what one might call the “ODA conundrum”, in which some cases qualify for overseas development assistance funding but not others. When it comes to hurricanes and typhoons, the argument may well be, “We wish you had spent money in advance,” and so on. I am sure that greater thought will be given to the issue, but DFID will do its utmost with the resources it has to address need wherever it is able to do so.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
A Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor states that had Hurricane Harvey happened 20 years ago, it would have been a “1-in-2,000-year event”. We now have Irma, with a new trail of devastation and loss of life, as well as appalling deadly floods in south Asia. Helping those in danger rightly has to be the immediate priority, but will the Minister engage with the wider question of what the Government are doing to get global climate change action back on track? It is vital and urgent that we do, and we are currently failing.
Sir Alan Duncan
That priority cuts across the Government. Our main focus today is on emergency relief, but preparedness for severe weather incidents is part of many DFID programmes, to ensure that flooding is reduced, buildings are solid and infrastructure holds up. The kind of the advanced work to which the hon. Lady implicitly refers is deeply entrenched in many of the programmes around the world on which DFID spends its money.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The Foreign Office crisis centre and DFID have done us proud by springing into action, and I welcome the £12 million fund that my right hon. Friend mentioned earlier. However, the devastation caused by Hurricane Irma will be exacerbated by another storm: Hurricane Jose. Has the Minister had the time to take into account the extra damage that Hurricane Jose could cause and what that might mean for any relief efforts in the region?
Sir Alan Duncan
I have been concentrating very much on Irma, but I shall go immediately and find out what I ought to know about Jose. The serious point is that the Government wanted to come to the House at the earliest possible opportunity to let the House know what we know and to share, openly and transparently, a clear picture of what we had prepared and what we wish to do. As I said earlier, I am sure we will update the House in due course, or as appropriate, to explain what we have done subsequently.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
First, I was involved in getting aid to Montserrat in the past; will the Minister explain further what damage the hurricane has done to the island? He said it was swiped by the hurricane, but I do not know what that means. Secondly, there was an interesting BBC science programme last night on preparing to go to Mars, with scientists in the United States seemingly well advanced in the process. If we are preparing to go to Mars, why can we not predict hurricanes much earlier? The Minister may not be able to answer that question, but it is an interesting one.
Sir Alan Duncan
The right hon. Lady will forgive me if I focus more on Montserrat than on Mars. I am very familiar with Montserrat, which of course had its own problem with the volcanic eruption many years ago. The damage assessment we have is that fortunately Montserrat has not been severely hit. The hurricane passed over and did not cause the widespread disruption and demolition that at first we feared.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Our attention is currently on those countries affected by the hurricane, and it is right that the Government’s focus should be on them. However, back in 2015, Storm Desmond initially had a great impact on America before subsequently having a huge impact on this country, particularly affecting the lives of many people in Carlisle and Cumbria. Will the Minister confirm that, although his priority is clearly the countries in the Caribbean, other parts of the Government will ensure that this country is prepared for the potential fallout from such hurricanes and future ones?
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, I would like to think that, as a sophisticated first-world country, we do as a matter of fact always have contingency plans—plans for a civil response of that sort. I am sure that the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes. As regards a specific backlash from this hurricane, I am sure that the scientists will be working on it very energetically already.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Our heart goes out to all those who have been affected. Some of the very poorest people will be those who have lost absolutely everything in this, as so often happens. The rich will be able to rebuild their mansions, but the poor will not. The Minister is right to focus on the immediate issues, but if we are to build resilience—there will be another incident like this—do the British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos not need to have a broader tax base in the end?
Sir Alan Duncan
As a Minister in the Department for International Development, I focused in great detail on the Turks and Caicos Islands, which was pretty well bankrupt and its deficit was growing. So, yes, part of the set of conditions that we set down for them for restoring their finances was to improve their tax base. I can point to a very positive record of this Government, answering exactly the question that the hon. Gentleman has asked. Implicit in his question is that, if we are to reconstruct a devastated island, we must ensure that it builds things that will withstand hurricanes in the future. If we have rivers that will not flood, riverbanks that have gabion baskets to make sure that they can contain the water and houses that can withstand a greater ferocity of wind, then out of this disaster can come an opportunity for better resilience in the future.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for his statement, which, in its comprehensiveness and succinctness, was a model that other Ministers would be well advised to follow. In relation to his last point, we have an absolute duty to protect our overseas realms and territories from environmental disasters. Is there a plan to hurricane-proof as much as possible key infrastructure in these realms and territories?
Sir Alan Duncan
I like to think that being short and precise is my hallmark.
Across many of DFID’s programmes around the world—for example, ones in Bangladesh, which suffers from flooding—building in resilience is a crucial part of its entire philosophy. In as much as that can also be incorporated into a country’s planning, it must be both welcomed and encouraged. I must point out to the House that we do not govern those countries, but we can encourage them to govern themselves in a way that introduces exactly the sort of standards that my hon. Friend has described.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have been shocked to see the absolute devastation in places that I have personally visited. Having been through a hurricane and a tornado myself, I know just what a frightening and unpleasant experience it can be. It is absolutely shocking, and our thoughts and prayers are with all those people. I welcome very much what the Minister has had to say, particularly about RFA Mounts Bay and the facilities that it can provide. Will he look at the possibility of a second RFA vessel going into the region one or two weeks later with necessary infrastructure supplies and relief efforts, particularly if there is further devastation in the Turks and Caicos? Are our search and rescue personnel on standby to provide assistance? They do an excellent job in these crises. Have they been used yet?
Sir Alan Duncan
On search and rescue, the answer is, yes, those personnel will be deployed. The Cobra meeting at 2 o’clock this afternoon will discuss all those options. Sitting in the crisis centre this morning, looking at the auxiliary vessel going, I can say that one of its great advantages is that it has a helicopter. One issue that we are looking at very urgently is trying to get a second helicopter. Then we will consider supplementary relief flights and possibly a second naval vessel—I am not committing to that now. In the hope that we might be able to do that when we look at the disaster and assess it, then, hopefully, the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question will be yes. We must appreciate that this is a massive, perhaps unprecedented, natural disaster. We have not seen a hurricane on this scale in our lifetime, so we will have to assess the damage and respond as best we possibly can, knowing that this is—as I would put it—a whopper.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and the commitment made by the Government to help those who are suffering. Clearly, in advance of the hurricane the United States ordered the complete evacuation of Key West. That was not practical on many of the islands that have been devastated, but has there been any request, for example, for Barbuda to be completely evacuated given that reports suggest that it is uninhabitable?
Sir Alan Duncan
We are not in power to demand the evacuation of countries that are self-governing, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption]—but we do our best to ensure that they are fully informed, and modern science does help inform people. People have had greater prior notice of the danger than they would have had even two decades ago.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to immediate relief, but, with respect, I think that today is precisely the day on which we need to talk about those broader causes. As we have just heard, Gaston Browne, the leader of Antigua and Barbuda, is talking about climate change today. Will the Minister reassure the House that we will not have to wait for a hurricane to hit the UK before we have the policies we need from this Government to tackle climate breakdown? Without that, we will not see the climate leadership that his Government like to claim in theory being shown in practice.
Sir Alan Duncan
First, Mr Speaker, I apologise for demoting you—you miraculously reappeared in the Chair and I did not see you out of the corner of my eye.
I think that the hon. Lady has deeply misjudged the tone of the House today. We are seeing people in deep and urgent immediate need and we are also leading the world on climate change. She ought to show a bit more urgent and immediate humanity, rather than making the point that she has made today.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. On rescue and relief, the Minister says that Royal Navy ships are en route and will reach the area later today. The United States has carriers there already, as well as choppers and field hospitals. Are we in touch with the US to ensure that we have a joint operation, so that all that can be done is done at this difficult time?
Sir Alan Duncan
One of the positive elements of such a grave international phenomenon is that countries do their utmost to work together. We are working with France and the Dutch, and I have no doubt that there will be close co-ordination with the Americans, but they will of course be primarily focused on Florida. I hope that where one country can help another, they will all do so, and I am sure that there will be such incidents in the days ahead.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I appreciate the speed with which the Minister has come to the House to update us on what is happening. In his statement, he talked briefly about Haiti, and all reports say that the storm will be travelling there, so what will the Foreign Office and DFID be doing to improve relief for Haiti as and when the storm hits? He will appreciate, as will the Secretary of State, that Haiti has had multiple disasters over a number of years with difficult terrain, so what is he doing to address that?
Sir Alan Duncan
This is such an enormous hurricane, which is hitting so many islands and so much landmass, that there will need to be a massive and comprehensive response. We have deep and extensive experience of going into Haiti following hurricanes in the past, but I say again that our first priority will be to protect and assist British overseas territories.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I, too, welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, his commitment to keep the House updated. May I invite him once again publicly to thank all those working at the FCO crisis centre? He has seen their work first hand, but so often it goes unseen, particularly their important work in communications and ensuring that British citizens are safe—or as safe as possible—when they are abroad.
Sir Alan Duncan
I particularly appreciate what my hon. Friend has just said, and it applies equally to DFID, where officials have been working throughout the night. As I say, I was at the crisis centre yesterday afternoon, at about half-past 8 last night and again early this morning. They have been manning this round the clock, and they are constantly in touch with the overseas territories and other political groupings to ensure that we can be as co-ordinated as we possibly can. I publicly thank them all, and I am sure that everyone in this House would do so, too.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I absolutely appreciate the importance of the immediate humanitarian effort and hope that at the Cobra meeting this afternoon the Government will consider the possible impact of Hurricane Jose, as the reports we are receiving are quite alarming. May I also urge Ministers to consider seriously the issue of climate risk insurance in future? I know that there were efforts to move this forward at the G20 and it does need to be on the political agenda.
Sir Alan Duncan
Yes, I can give a positive answer. This is a positive and ongoing policy stream within DFID. The UK and DFID are in the lead on this across the world, so I can confidently reassure the hon. Lady.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
The hurricane has been devastating but the islands will recover. Past experience tells us that they often recover well before they are perceived to have recovered. Will we therefore help to provide assistance in communicating that fact and promoting the islands once they are in a position to communicate that they are open for business again?
Sir Alan Duncan
Well, let me do my bit now by saying that I hope people will still plan to go on holiday to all the islands, which will be pieced back together again. The worst thing that could happen to them is that they face a long-term economic cost because people turn their back on them. I urge everyone not to turn their back on the islands but to think positively of going there to get some sunshine and to share in the recovery.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am greatly encouraged by the Minister’s comprehensive and substantial response. He has set an example for other Departments and offices to follow; I am sure they will try to emulate his efforts. What support is available for British nationals on holiday in the path of Hurricane Irma? There are more hurricanes on the way so, of course, they are concerned. Some of my constituents are in rented accommodation in the region now. What discussions have taken place with the embassy to get safety advice to people in those places?
Sir Alan Duncan
The advice is very clear from the public media. There is also travel advice on the Foreign Office website. We have not yet had any direct requests for consular assistance, but our crisis centre is there on full alert to ensure that we can respond to maximum effect if we do receive such requests.
Points of Order
Thursday 7th September 2017
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that a huge number of people have put in to speak today and on Monday. Hurricane Irma is a tragic and deadly event, but it is not heading towards our shores as Wind Brexit is. Whether that wind is just a gentle touch on the cheeks or a storm will depend on our efforts here. I urge the Government to try to desist from bringing statements to the House on Monday, so we can hear from a record number of Back Benchers. Indeed, I urge them to be generous with the House of Commons both in information and in time on every occasion.
Mr Speaker
I agree with that view. It is one that I have articulated to the Government Chief Whip, and one to which I understood and understand he is sympathetic. For my own part—trying to be helpful—I can say that, notwithstanding my enthusiasm to serve the House in granting urgent questions where appropriate, colleagues will understand that the bar for urgent questions on Monday will be very high.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Has the Chief Whip explained to you if there is any reason why we are not suspending the 5 o’clock rule this evening? There is no chance of any Division taking place on the first day of a two-day debate. It really is rather absurd that Members are told to confine their remarks to three minutes or some equivalent when we are discussing such enormous issues of such long-term significance.
Mr Speaker
An explanation has been offered to me on that point. I am sympathetic to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and I hope that account will be taken of it, not least in relation to Monday. Although I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks in support of the rights of all his colleagues, I hope he is at least moderately mollified to know that there is no question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman today—or probably in a speech at any other time—being confined by the Chair to a mere three minutes.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was wondering whether you could give your views and advice with regard to the matter of Big Ben. Many tears have been shed across both sides of the House at the silencing of the bongs of Big Ben, but the issue I raise is much more serious than that.
The construction company that has been awarded the pre-construction and scaffolding contract for Big Ben is Sir Robert McAlpine. We understand that it has been awarded the main contract to fix the bongs and do the refit of Big Ben. We had a debate about blacklisting earlier this week in Westminster Hall. Sir Robert McAlpine was one of the firms that founded the Consulting Association, which was responsible for the blacklisting of more than 3,000 construction workers, depriving them of a livelihood and facilitating their systematic discrimination and victimisation.
Mr Speaker, what message do you think it sends to the victims of this gross injustice for this House to award a contract to a firm that not only funded the Consulting Association, but provided its first chair and another chair? I would also be interested to know to what extent this decision is made by the House and to what extent it is made by the Government. I note that the Prime Minister is in her place. I think many people would want to hear from her on this matter.
Mr Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The House will not want a dilation on the matter. Suffice it to say that an initial contract was awarded. As I understand it, the contract for the main works has yet to be awarded. Nevertheless, I take head-on what the hon. Gentleman perfectly legitimately and reasonably puts to me. The House of Commons Commission considered this issue yesterday, and we are seeking reassurance from the company, not least in the light of the facts that the hon. Gentleman has just articulated and in the light of his remarks in the Westminster Hall debate yesterday, which colleagues and I have studied.
As I believe the hon. Gentleman indicated, blacklisting is now illegal. This House will expect any contractor to observe the letter and spirit of the law. That is point one. Point two is that any contractor will be expected to conform to the highest standards in such matters. I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that I cannot be expected to say more than that today, but I am not knocking what he said. It is important. We are sensitive to it and we will be conscious in the days ahead of the reputational importance of what he has raised. Perhaps I can leave it there for now.
Bills Presented
House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
David Hanson, supported by Clive Efford, Matthew Pennycook, Barbara Keeley, Bill Esterson, Jack Dromey, Louise Haigh, Kate Green, Lyn Brown, Liam Byrne and Paul Blomfield, presented a Bill to amend the House of Lords Act 1999 to remove the by-election system for the election of hereditary peers; to provide for the exclusion of hereditary peers from the House of Lords over time; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be a read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 104).
Pensions (Review of Women’s Arrangements) (No. 2)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Carolyn Harris, supported by Tim Loughton, Caroline Lucas, Stephen Lloyd, Ian Blackford, Christine Jardine, Maria Caulfield, Peter Aldous, David Hanson and Chris Elmore, presented a Bill to establish a review of pension arrangements for women affected by changes made by the Pensions Act 1995 and the Pensions Act 2011; to require the review in particular to undertake costings for a compensation scheme and consider the operation of section 1(4) of the Pensions Act 2011; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be a read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 105).
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr David Davis)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
When I introduced the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill earlier this year, I said that that Bill was just the beginning—it was the beginning of a process to ensure that the decision made by the people in June last year is honoured. Today we begin the next step in the historic process of honouring that decision. Put simply, this Bill is an essential step. Although it does not take us out of the European Union—that is a matter for the article 50 process—it does ensure that, on the day we leave, businesses will know where they stand, workers’ rights will be upheld and consumers will remain protected. The Bill is vital to ensuring that, as we leave, we do so in an orderly manner.
Let me start with a brief summary of the Bill before going on to set out its key provisions in more depth. The Bill is designed to provide maximum possible legal certainty and continuity while restoring control to the United Kingdom. It does so in three broad steps. First, it removes from the statute book the key legislation passed by this Parliament in 1972—the European Communities Act 1972. That Act gave European Union law supreme status over law made in this country. It is therefore right that it be removed from our statute book on the day the UK leaves the European Union, bringing to an end the supremacy of European law over laws made in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the Bill takes a snapshot of the body of EU law that currently forms part of the United Kingdom legal system and ensures that it will continue to apply in the United Kingdom after we leave. This is to ensure that, wherever possible, the same rules and laws will apply the day after exit as they did before. Without that step, a large part of our law would fall away when the European Communities Act is repealed.
But simply preserving European Union law is not enough. There will be many areas where the preserved law does not work as it should. So, as its third key element, the Bill provides Ministers in this Parliament and in the devolved legislatures with powers to make statutory instruments to address the problems that would arise when we leave the European Union.
Mr Davis
I will give way to both right hon. Gentlemen in a few minutes.
Following this, it will be for United Kingdom legislators to pass laws, and for the United Kingdom courts to adjudicate those laws.
The Bill enables us to leave the European Union in the smoothest and most orderly way possible. It is the most significant piece of legislation to be considered by this House for some time, and it will rightly be scrutinised clause by clause, line by line on the Floor of the House.
Mr Davis
I will give way in a moment.
I stand ready to listen to those who offer improvements to the Bill in the spirit of preparing our statute book for withdrawal from the European Union.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) likes to remind me of my past incarnation as a Back Benchers’ champion and my dedication to holding the Government to account. I have not changed my views one jot. Let me be clear: this Bill does only what is necessary for a smooth exit and to provide stability. However, as I have repeatedly said, I welcome and encourage contributions from those who approach the task in good faith and in a spirit of collaboration. All of us, as legislators, have a shared interest in making the Bill a success and in the national interest.
Ian Murray
The Secretary of State mentioned in his opening remarks that the Bill gives Ministers the power to change laws through statutory instruments and other mechanisms. Does that include changing laws in terms of devolved Administrations?
Mr Davis
Again, I will go into that in some detail. There is one exception to this, but the primary aim behind the Bill is to maintain policy as it is now. The only exception to that is under the withdrawal arrangements, and that will be time-determined and limited. I will detail that in a second.
Stephen Timms
George Osborne, in his headline in the Evening Standard last night, referred to the Secretary of State’s approach as “rule by decree”. Why is the Secretary of State taking this high-handed approach to the practices of this Parliament?
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if the Government wish to make a change by statutory instrument, that is a parliamentary process? It would be entirely in Parliament’s control. It is a synthetic nonsense to suggest that Ministers are bypassing Parliament.
Mr Davis
My right hon. Friend is entirely right—it is a point I will elaborate on later—and the editor of the Evening Standard should know that from his own experience.
The key point of this Bill is to avoid significant and serious gaps in our statute book. It ensures that consumers can be clear about their protection, employees can be clear about their rights, and businesses can be clear about the rules that regulate their trade. Workers’ rights and consumer and environmental protections will be enforceable through the UK courts, which are renowned the world over. The Bill provides certainty as to how the law will apply after we leave the European Union, and ensures that individuals and businesses will continue to be able to find redress when problems arise. Without this Bill, all those things would be put at risk.
The Bill must be on the statute book in good time ahead of our withdrawal so that the statutory instruments my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) referred to, which will flow from the Bill, can be made in time for exit day—the House will have time to look at them—and so that we are in a position to take control of our laws from day one.
The Bill provides a clear basis for our negotiation with the European Union by ensuring continuity and clarity in our laws without prejudice to the ongoing negotiations. Without this legislation, a smooth and orderly exit would be impossible. The shape of any interim period will need to be determined by the negotiations, but we cannot await the completion of negotiations before ensuring that there is legal certainty and continuity at the point of our exit. To do so would be reckless.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State confirm his view that not transposing the EU charter of fundamental rights will have no impact on the actual rights of the British people, their interpretation or their enforcement in the courts?
Mr Davis
Again, I will come to that later, but if the hon. Lady remembers, when the White Paper was presented to this House I said to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, my opposite number, that if any powers were missing, people should come to the Government, tell me and tell the House, and we would put that right. I have not had a single comment since on that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
If my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, I will not for the moment.
Let me now talk the House through the Bill’s main provisions. The first clause repeals the European Communities Act on the day we leave the European Union, ending the supremacy of EU law in the UK and preventing new EU law from automatically flowing into UK law after that point. When the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson led the debate here in May 1967 on the question of the United Kingdom’s entry into the European Communities, he said:
“It is important to realise that Community law is mainly concerned with industrial and commercial activities, with corporate bodies rather than private individuals. By far the greater part of our domestic law would remain unchanged after entry.”—[Official Report, 8 May 1967; Vol. 746, c. 1088.]
I think the passage of time has shown that he was mistaken. European Union law touches on all aspects of our lives, in a far wider way than the drafters of the European Communities Act could have envisaged. That means the Bill we have before us today has a difficult task: it must rebuild United Kingdom law in a way that makes sense outside the European Union.
Mr Davis
In a moment.
To do that, the first step the Bill takes is to preserve all the domestic law we have made to implement our EU obligations. That mainly means preserving thousands of statutory instruments that have been made under the European Communities Act, with subjects ranging from aeroplane noise to zoo licensing. It also extends to preserving any other domestic law that fulfils our European Union obligations or otherwise relates to the European Union.
Equally, the Bill converts European Union law—principally EU regulations, all 12,000 of them—into domestic law on exit day. It also ensures that rights in the EU treaties that are directly effective—that is, rights that are sufficiently clear, precise and unconditional that they can be relied on in court by an individual—continue to be available in UK law.
I have no doubt that there is much about EU law that could be improved, and I know that this Parliament will, over time, look to improve it. [Interruption.] Including the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), who laughed just then. But that is not the purpose of this Bill. It simply brings European Union law into UK law, ensuring that, wherever possible, the rules and laws are the same after exit as before.
Just as important as the text of EU law is the interpretation of that law.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
In a moment.
For that reason, the Bill ensures that any question as to the meaning of retained law is to be decided on in UK courts in accordance with the Court of Justice’s case law and retained general principles of European Union law as they stood on exit day. That approach maximises stability by ensuring that the meaning of the law does not change overnight and that only the Supreme Court, and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland, will be able to depart from retained EU case law. They will do so on the same basis on which they depart from their own case law. Any other approach would either actively cause uncertainty or fossilise EU case law for ever.
Mr Davis
I will make this point and then give way. Future decisions of the Court of Justice will not bind our courts, but our courts will have discretion to have regard to such decisions if they consider it relevant and appropriate to do so, in just the same way that our courts might at the moment refer to cases in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada. I give way to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who has been patient.
Stephen Doughty
Given the scale of the task that the Secretary of State is setting out in his introduction to the Bill, and the huge impact that our relationship with the EU has on every aspect of our lives—our economy, our workers’ rights, our environmental rights, and our security and law relationships—can he explain why we are only getting eight days to discuss the Bill in Committee when the Bill that took us into Europe had 22 and the Maastricht treaty had 20?
Mr Davis
The first thing I would say is that eight days is quite a long time for this sort of thing. Perhaps the most relevant comparison is with the Lisbon treaty, which recreated—[Interruption.] Yes, it is, because it recreated the European law on a major basis. This Bill does not do that. It does not aim to change law, with a tiny exception that I will come back to; it aims to maintain the laws that we currently have—it is primarily technical in that respect. If the hon. Gentleman sees it as being any different, then I will give way to him again.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The trouble with relying on secondary legislation is that it is unamendable and gets only one and a half hours of debate. Would it not be sensible, particularly in relation to any secondary legislation brought through under clause 9, to allow a new form of secondary legislation where we can amend it and have substantial debate?
Mr Davis
In essence, remember, the aim of the Bill is to translate European Union into UK law and to make sure that no problems arise, whether that means references to bodies that we are no longer subordinate to, whether it means that the language is different, or whether it applies to reciprocal rights. Much of this will be very straightforward and relatively simple. The point that the hon. Gentleman should look at is that the Bill seeks to make the type of secondary legislation, whether under affirmative or negative resolution, proportionate to that. If he wants to talk about the issue further, I am happy to talk to him. As I have said before, I am not going to reinvent the constitution at the Dispatch Box.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
What conclusion should the electorate draw about respect for democracy from other parties’ refusal to give the Bill a Second Reading?
Mr Davis
I am not going to presume ill intent from the start. I say to everybody in the House that the electorate will draw their own judgment as to whether people are addressing this in a sensible way to maintain the rights of British citizens and to maintain the continuity of British law in good time for our departure from the European Union—which is, after all, a fixed date—or whether they are simply using it as a cynical political exercise. That is not a decision for me to make; it is a decision for the electorate to make, and make it they will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
In a moment.
There are some elements that simply will not make sense if they remain on the UK statute book once we have left the EU and in the years and decades to come. It would not make sense, for example, for the Bill to preserve the supremacy of EU law or to make the preserved EU law supreme over future legislation passed by this Parliament. Laws passed in these two Houses after exit day will take precedence over retained EU law.
We also do not believe that it would make sense to retain the charter of fundamental rights. The charter applies only to member states when acting within the scope of EU law. We will not be a member state, nor will we be acting within the scope of EU law, once we leave the European Union. As I said to the House when I published the White Paper on the Bill, the charter catalogues the rights found under EU law that will be brought into UK law by the Bill. It is not, and never was, the source of those rights. Those rights have their origins elsewhere in domestic law or relate to international treaties or obligations that the UK remains party to—for example, the European convention on human rights.
Mr Davis
Let me be clear: the absence of the charter will not affect the substantive rights available in the UK. As I have said before at the Dispatch Box, if an Opposition Member or anyone in the House—I am thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve); I will come to him in a minute—finds a substantive right that is not carried forward into UK law, they should say so and we will deal with it.
Mr Davis
In the several months since I said that, no one has yet brought my attention to a right we have missed. It may be that that will happen in the next two minutes—I will start by taking the intervention of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and then come to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield.
Yvette Cooper
The Secretary of State will know that the key issue is not what Ministers say is the aim of the Bill, but what are the actual powers in it. So can he tell the House what safeguards there are anywhere in the Bill—in proposed statute—that would prevent Ministers from using clause 7, clause 9 or clause 17 to completely rewrite extradition policy in future, in relation to the demise of the European arrest warrant, without coming back to Parliament with primary legislation?
Mr Grieve
I understand my right hon. Friend’s point about the charter, because I agree with him that general principles and the charter should be identical—although that does raise the question of why, in those circumstances, the charter should go—but schedule 1 says quite clearly that after we have done this:
“There is no right of action in domestic law on or after exit day based on a failure to comply with any of the general principles of EU law.”
He must agree that that means that the right of the individual to challenge on the basis of the principle of EU law—the law that will be imported into our law by the Bill—will no longer be possible. That is in our own courts—forget about the European Court of Justice. That seems to me a marked diminution in the rights of the individual and of corporate entities.
Mr Davis
I am afraid that my old and dear right hon. and learned Friend and I are going to have a difference of opinion. We will put in the Library a letter on this specific issue, as we have already said. [Hon. Members: “When?”] Today. But the simple truth is that these rights, as he should know as well as anybody, have a whole series of origins. Some are from British common law, some are from EU law that we will bring in ourselves, and some are from the European convention on human rights—which, he will note, we are continuing with. All these things will provide those undertakings. Why on earth we need an extra layer of declaratory law I do not know. It was brought in under the Blair Government—perhaps that explains it.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
Not for a moment. I will make some progress and come back to the hon. and learned Lady.
The conversion of EU law into UK law is an essential measure to ensure that the UK leaves the EU in the smoothest way possible. However, that action alone is not enough to ensure that the statute book continues to function. Many laws will no longer make sense outside the EU. If we were only to convert EU law into UK law, our statute book would still be broken. Many laws would oblige UK individuals, firms or public authorities to continue to engage with the European Union in a way that would be both absurd and impossible for a country that is not within the European Union. Other laws would leave the European Union institutions as key public authorities in the UK—a role they would not be able to perform or fulfil.
The problems that would arise without our making these changes would range from minor inconveniences to the disruption of vital services we all rely on every day. In practical terms, they would range from a public authority being required to submit reports on water quality to the European Union, to disruption being caused to the City by the removal of the supervision of the credit rating agencies entirely. It is essential that these issues are addressed before we leave the European Union, or we will be in breach of our duty as legislators to provide a functioning and clear set of laws for our citizens.
That is why the Bill provides a power to correct problems that arise in retained EU law as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union. This is clause 7, the so-called correcting power. Unlike section 2(2) of the European Communities Act—this goes straight to the point that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford raised—which can be used to do almost anything to the statute book to implement EU law, the correcting power is a limited power. It can be used only to correct problems with the statute book arising directly from our withdrawal from the European Union. Ministers cannot use it simply to replace European Union laws that they do not like. It is designed to allow us to replicate as closely as possible existing European Union laws and regimes in a domestic context. It is also restricted. It cannot be used, for example, to create serious criminal offences, amend the Human Rights Act, or impose or increase taxation. We have ensured that it will expire two years after exit day so that nobody can suggest that it is a permanent attempt to transfer power to the Executive.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr Davis
No.
I accept that proposing a delegated power of this breadth is unusual, but leaving the European Union presents us with a unique set of challenges that need a pragmatic solution. Using secondary legislation to tackle such challenges is not unusual. Secondary legislation is a process of long standing with clear and established roles for Parliament.
Joanna Cherry
Following on from the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the Secretary of State has asked for concrete examples of rights that will be lost to UK citizens as a result of the Act, so I would like to give him one and ask for his undertaking that he will amend the Act to make sure that this right will not be lost.
Earlier this summer, a man called John Walker relied on EU equality law to bring his successful challenge to a loophole in UK law whereby employers could refuse to pay same-sex partners the same pension benefits as those paid to heterosexual couples if the funds were paid in before December 2005. The Supreme Court—our Supreme Court, not the European Court of Justice—agreed that there was a loophole in UK law that was a violation of the general principles of non-discrimination in EU law. Mr Walker was able to use his right of action under the general principles of EU law to close that loophole, so that he and his husband could enjoy the same rights as a heterosexual couple. That would not be possible under this Bill, because, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very lawyerly intervention, which is not altogether surprising in view of its genesis, but I am looking for the question mark.
Joanna Cherry
I am coming to the question, Mr Speaker, but the Secretary of State asked for examples. A challenge such as the one I have described would not be possible under this Bill, because there will be no right to sue. Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he will close this loophole in the Bill if we bring forward an appropriate amendment?
Mr Davis
With respect, we have had one lengthy intervention, and I have to make some progress.
Our current estimate is that the UK Government will need to make between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments to make exit a reality in UK law. That may seem, in some ways, like a large number—it is a little less than one year’s quota, as it were—and I understand that Members have concerns about scrutiny of that volume of legislation, but let me contrast that with the 12,000 European Union regulations and 8,000 domestic regulations—20,000 pieces of law—that have brought forward new policies while we have been members of the European Union.
This one-off task is very different from the flow of new law from the European Union in the last 40 years, and it is ultimately about ensuring that power returns to this House. The people who complain about using secondary legislation should remember that of those 20,000 pieces of law, 8,000 went through under secondary legislation and the remaining 12,000 went through without any involvement from this House at all, because they came as regulations. They changed the law rather than maintaining it.
Mr Davis
No. All these changes must happen quickly to maintain stability as we leave the European Union. Many of the changes will be minor and technical, replacing, for example, references to European Union law or to other member states. It would not make sense, nor would it be possible, to make these numerous changes in primary legislation. Some of the changes will, by nature, be more substantial and demand more scrutiny. An example would be a proposal to transfer a function currently exercised by the Commission to a new domestic body that needs to be set up from scratch. We hope to minimise the need for such bodies, but where they are needed I readily accept that such changes require fuller parliamentary scrutiny. That is why the Bill sets clear criteria that will trigger the use of the affirmative procedure, ensuring a debate and vote on the statutory instrument in both Houses. Over the course of the two days we spend debating this Bill, I am sure that we will hear calls for the secondary legislation to receive greater scrutiny—
Mr Davis
In a moment.
I am sure that we will hear calls for secondary legislation to receive greater scrutiny—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has already made such a request—along the lines of that given to primary legislation. I am clear that the way to make significant changes is through primary legislation. That is why the Queen’s Speech set out plans for several further Bills to follow this one, including Bills on immigration, trade and sanctions. Bringing in significant new policy changes is not the task at hand. With this power, we are making corrections to the statute book rather than bringing in new policies to take advantage of the opportunities offered by our withdrawal from the EU.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
I will give way in a second.
These corrections need to be made to ensure that we have a functioning statute book. As far as we can see, the power we have proposed is the only logical and feasible way to make those corrections. Our approach remains the only viable plan—we considered others—put forward in this House. Although we have heard complaints from the Opposition, we have not heard any alternatives from them.
Wes Streeting
The central premise of the Secretary of State’s argument is that in order to ensure a smooth exit we need to maintain as much of the status quo as possible on the way out. But this Bill goes much further, because the changes contained in clauses 5 and 6 would effectively rule out being within the customs union and the single market for a transitional period. That represents the single biggest risk to our economy, and that is what is in the Bill.
Mr Davis
The hon. Gentleman is quite right in one respect: that is clear Government policy. That is, in fact, the decision that was taken by the British people last year. They wanted to leave the European Union, which means leaving the single market and leaving the customs union. That point is clear. I know it is confusing for Labour Members, because their deputy leader appears to have a different view from the rest of the party.
Let me make some further progress after that rather silly intervention. The Bill also contains a limited power to implement the withdrawal agreement by statutory instrument if that proves necessary.
Mr Davis
In a moment.
The Government’s aspiration is to agree a new deep and special partnership with the European Union. Under the article 50 process, we are negotiating a withdrawal agreement with the European Union. Provisions of that agreement will need to be implemented in domestic law, and some of that will need to be done before exit day. Given the timetable set by article 50, it is prudent to take this power now so that we are ready, if necessary, to move quickly to implement aspects of an agreement in domestic law. That will be particularly important if the negotiations conclude late in the two-year period. This power will help to ensure that the UK Government and devolved Administrations can implement the outcome of the negotiations. The power is limited; it will be available only until exit day, at which point it will expire. It is aimed at making the legislative changes that absolutely need to be in place for day one of exit to enable an orderly withdrawal from the European Union.
Lady Hermon
I have listened patiently to the Secretary of State, who has waxed lyrical about these regulations and delegated legislation being just standard. They are not just standard. I would like him to say something about the status of the delegated legislation made under clause 7, which gives it the status of an Act of Parliament. This is an attempt by the Government to oust review. I would like him to elaborate on that very important issue.
Mr Davis
I am afraid that that is not correct. The point was made by another Member—it may even have been what the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie) wanted to say—about the ability to change bits of primary legislation. The simple truth is that that is a fairly standard set of words used in such legislation. The Enterprise Act 2002 and the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010—both Labour Acts—contain such wording. It is the normal routine, because we want to make sure that nothing in the Bill prevents us from entering a transition phase, for example, or going into the next phase of negotiations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
Forgive me; I will make some progress. The exact use of the power will, of course, depend on the contents of the withdrawal agreement. For example, a power could, depending on what the withdrawal agreement says, be used to clarify the status of UK cases at the CJEU that started before exit but will not yet be concluded on exit day. It could also be used, for example, to enable regulatory approval for UK products that was pending at the point of exit. It will align with the proposals set out this summer in the UK’s position paper on continuity in the availability of goods in the EU and the UK. Those sorts of fairly technical but important issues need to be capable of being changed.
Mr Davis
I will give way in one second to my right hon. Friend.
We have already committed to bringing forward a motion on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded. That vote is in addition to Parliament’s scrutiny of any statutory instruments that we propose under these powers. It is also in addition to the enormous amount of debate and scrutiny that will be applied to the primary legislation, which will cover each and every major policy change relating to our exit from the European Union. Parliament will therefore be fully involved in taking forward a withdrawal agreement.
Anna Soubry
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way.
“One of the most offensive kinds of provision that appear in our domestic legislation is the Henry VIII clause, as we call it.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 179WH.]
Those are not my words, but the very wise ones of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) in 2013. Long-standing, real concerns about statutory instruments have been expressed for many years by Members on the Government Benches.
To allay those concerns, will the Secretary of State look at what is called the triaging of the proposed statutory instruments? Many thousands of them will be completely uncontroversial and could be dealt with very quickly and efficiently, but those that really must be considered fully in this Chamber—in this place—could be so considered if we had triaging. Will my right hon. Friend please agree to look at that principle? It will solve many of the difficulties with the Bill across all these Benches.
Mr Davis
I thank my right hon. Friend for her suggestion. There will not be many thousands of statutory instruments, but between 800 and 1,000. The estimate has come down from several thousand because we have taken out much of the most serious legislation to put into other primary legislation. I will happily talk to her about mechanisms for making sure this is a fully democratic and open process. I will talk to her about it, and let us come back to that.
Hilary Benn
Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the powers in clause 9 to implement the withdrawal agreement will not be exercised until Parliament has had an opportunity to vote on the agreement?
Mr Davis
I am just thinking through the logic of that. It seems to me to be logical, in truth. Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me a few moments to review the matter? It seems to me to be perfectly possible that I could give such an undertaking, but I will not just do it on the fly in case I have missed something. [Interruption.] No, no. He is right. Let me say to the House that he is right about one thing in that the two issues—the overall judgment on the outcome and any withdrawal arrangements—run together. The withdrawal arrangements are most likely to come up if it arrives late, and that is why I will have to think through the possible timetable. He will remember that when we talked about how the House will be able to review the negotiated agreement, we said we would use our best endeavours and that we intend and expect to get it to the House before anybody else. That is what we intend, and we had to use that form of words because we were not sure about the timing. However, I will talk to him and come back to him on that matter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Davis
I want to move on to another subject, if I may, which is the subject of devolution. This relates directly to some of the things Opposition Members have been saying, so let me now deal with the Bill’s approach to devolution.
As I have set out, the overall approach of this Bill is to provide for continuity wherever possible at the point of exit, not to seek to initiate reforms immediately. That is the approach that guides the devolution provisions as well. Let me be clear: this Government have a strong track record on devolution. Our commitment to strengthening devolution settlements is clear from the statute book—most recently, the Wales Act 2017 and the Scotland Act 2016. If I remember correctly, the Scotland Act gave tax-raising powers of about £12 billion to the Scottish Parliament, which is not such a small thing. Leaving the European Union allows us to make sure that decision making sits closer to the people than ever before, and we expect a significant increase in the decision-making power of the devolved institutions.
The current devolution settlements have always created common frameworks within the United Kingdom by reflecting the context of the UK’s EU membership, so in areas subject to European Union law all parts of the United Kingdom currently follow common rules and principles, even where matters are otherwise devolved. For example, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each pass their own laws relating to food policy, but each nation has to ensure it complies with European Union rules on food hygiene.
When we leave the European Union, it is not in the interests of people and businesses—those living and working across the UK—for all those arrangements to disappear, or for there to be new barriers to living and doing business in our own country. The Bill therefore provides certainty and continuity for people across the UK by recreating in UK law the common frameworks currently provided by EU law, and providing that the devolved institutions cannot generally modify them.
The Bill also ensures that every decision that the devolved Administrations and legislatures could take before exit day, they can still take after exit day. This is a transitional arrangement. It is an arrangement that ensures certainty and continuity while the United Kingdom undertakes negotiations with the European Union on its future relationship and the UK Government and devolved Administrations discuss precisely where we need to retain common frameworks in the UK in the future.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
What the right hon. Gentleman is therefore describing is not devolution but reserving powers to this Parliament. It is a fundamental breach of the principles of the original Scotland Act. Will he tell us whether any statutory instruments affecting the devolved Administrations that go through this House as a result of the Bill will be subject to legislative consent in those institutions?
Mr Davis
I have said already that we will put our overall negotiation through legislative consent motions; I have made that point previously. Let us come back to the core of the argument. The argument being put is that everything that belongs to the European Union now belongs to the devolved Administrations, but that clearly does not work, as I will come on to say in a minute.
The common frameworks will be important as they will enable us to manage shared resources such as the sea, rivers and the air, and they will enable the continued functioning of the UK’s internal market. They will allow us to strike ambitious trade deals, administer and provide access to justice in cases with a cross-border element and enter into new international treaties, including on our future relationship with the European Union.
Mr Davis
I will not give way for the moment.
For example, the common frameworks will mean that a business in Wales knows that it needs to comply only with one set of rules on food labelling and safety to sell to the rest of the United Kingdom, or that a farmer in Scotland is able to sell her livestock in other parts of Great Britain, safe in the knowledge that the same animal health rules apply across that geographical area. Certainty on common approaches will be critical for the day-to-day life of people in the United Kingdom on the day we exit the European Union and on into the future.
Stephen Gethins (North East Fife) (SNP)
If this is a smooth transition, I am not sure how much worse it is going to get. On the points that the Secretary of State is raising—he is making a very good case for the European Union—I do not see in the Bill any reference to the immigration powers that Scotland was promised during the referendum process. Will he explain?
Mr Davis
I do not remember any such promise. When I was going through the list of practical things that apply to the citizens that SNP Members are supposed to represent, what did we hear? Wow! They do not care; what they are interested in is devolution and political power for themselves, not the interests of their own constituents.
Just as important are the areas where we do not need to keep common approaches in the future. We do not expect that we will need to maintain a framework in every single area the EU has mandated. We can ensure that our common approaches are better suited to the UK and our devolution settlements. The Bill therefore provides a mechanism to release policy areas where no frameworks are needed.
Mr Davis
No, I will not give way at the moment.
The Bill gives time for us to work with the devolved Administrations to determine where we will continue to need common frameworks in the future. Crucially, it will not create unnecessary short-term change that negatively affects people or businesses. Before the summer recess, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State wrote to the Scottish and Welsh Governments to begin intensive discussions about where common frameworks are and are not needed. In the current absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, equivalent engagement has taken place at official level with the Northern Ireland civil service. We will bring forward further detail on the process underpinning these discussions in due course for Parliament to decide on.
Certainty in devolved legislation affected by EU exit is also vital. The key delegated powers in this Bill are conferred on the devolved Administrations so that the task of preparing the devolved statute books for exit can rightly be led from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government are committed to ensuring the powers work for the Administrations and legislatures. For instance, I have already confirmed that we will always consult the Administrations on corrections made to direct EU law relating to otherwise devolved areas of competence. I firmly believe that the outcome of this process will be a significant increase in the decision-making powers of each devolved Administration and legislature. It will mean that decisions and powers sit in the right place and closer to people than ever before. Crucially, the Bill means that our UK businesses and citizens have confidence and certainty that the laws will allow them to live and operate across the UK as we exit the EU.
As the Prime Minister said in January, the historic decision taken by the British people in June last year was not a rejection of the common values and history we share with the EU but a reflection of the desire of British people to control our own laws and ensure that they reflect the country and the people we want to be. The Bill is an essential building block. It lays the foundation for a functioning statute book on the basis of which future policies and laws can be debated and altered. The Bill itself is not the place for those substantive changes to the frameworks we will inherit from the EU—we will have many more opportunities to debate those, both before and after we leave.
I hope that all Members on both sides of the House will recognise that we are acting responsibly in leaving the EU by prioritising, first and foremost, a functioning statute book. In bringing forward the Bill, we are ensuring the smoothest possible exit from the EU—an exit that enables the continued stability of the UK’s legal system and maximises certainty for businesses, consumers and individuals across the UK. As we exit the EU and seek a new deep and special partnership with the EU, the Bill will ensure that we do so with the same standards and rules. In the Bill, we are not rejecting EU law but embracing the work done between member states over 40 years of membership so that we might build on that solid foundation once we return to being masters of our own laws. I hope that everyone in the House recognises the Bill’s essential nature: it is the foundation on which we will legislate for years to come.
We have seen this morning the Opposition’s reasoned amendment. I have just emphasised the critical nature of the Bill. A vote for the Leader of the Opposition’s amendment is a vote against the Bill, a vote for a chaotic exit from the EU. It suggests that the Bill provides a blank cheque to Ministers. That is a fundamental misrepresentation of Parliament and our democratic process. Using the Bill’s powers does not mean avoiding parliamentary scrutiny. Secondary legislation is still subject to parliamentary oversight and well established procedures. In no way does it provide unchecked unilateral powers to the Government.
The Government agree that EU exit cannot, and will not, lead to weaker rights and protections in the UK, as I have just said to hon. Members. We have been clear that we want to ensure that workers’ rights are protected and enhanced as we leave the EU. The Bill provides for existing legislation in this area to be retained. After we leave the EU, it will be for Parliament to determine the proper level of rights protection. On devolution, I have just explained in detail the approach we will take.
Finally, the argument that the Bill undermines any particular approach to the interim or transitional period for the implementation of our new arrangements with the EU is completely wrong. It will provide a clear basis for our negotiations by ensuring continuity and clarity in our laws without prejudicing those ongoing negotiations. Without the Bill, a smooth and orderly exit is impossible. We cannot await the completion of negotiations before ensuring this legal certainty and continuity at the point of our exit. To do so, or to delay or oppose the Bill, would be reckless in the extreme.
I have in the past witnessed the Labour party on European business take the most cynical and unprincipled approach to legislation I have ever seen. It is now attempting to do the same today. The British people will not forgive Labour if its end is to delay or destroy the process by which we leave the EU.
Mr Speaker
I must inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. I remind the House that Front-Bench speakers can speak without a time limit but must be sensitive to the number of people who wish to intervene on them. I merely note—colleagues can make their own assessment—that on current progress probably somewhat fewer than half of those who wish to speak today will be able to do so. Colleagues obviously need to help each other.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I beg to move,
to leave out from ‘That’ to the end of the Question and add ‘this House respects the EU referendum result and recognises that the UK will leave the EU, believes that insisting on proper scrutiny of this Bill and its proposed powers is the responsibility of this sovereign Parliament, recognises the need for considered and effective legislation to preserve EU-derived rights, protections and regulations in UK law as the UK leaves the EU but declines to give a Second Reading to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill because the Bill fails to protect and reassert the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty by handing sweeping powers to Government Ministers allowing them to bypass Parliament on key decisions, without any meaningful or guaranteed Parliamentary scrutiny, fails to include a presumption of devolution which would allow effective transfer of devolved competencies coming back from the EU to the devolved administrations and makes unnecessary and unjustified alterations to the devolution settlements, fails to provide certainty that rights and protections will be enforced as effectively in the future as they are at present, risks weakening human rights protections by failing to transpose the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights into UK law, provides no mechanism for ensuring that the UK does not lag behind the EU in workplace protections and environmental standards in the future and prevents the UK implementing strong transitional arrangements on the same basic terms we currently enjoy, including remaining within a customs union and within the Single Market.’.
The Secretary of State is keen to portray the Bill as a technical exercise converting EU law into our own law without raising any serious constitutional issues about the role of Parliament. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I will start with clause 9. As the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister know, the article 50 negotiations are among the most difficult and significant in recent history. Under article 50, the agreement will cover all the withdrawal arrangements and take account of the future relationship between the UK and the EU—a backwards look and a forwards look on something that might last for decades. We know that phase 1 will have to cover EU citizens, Northern Ireland, UK citizens in the Europe and the money, and that phase 2 will cover security, cross-border crime, civil justice, enforcement of judgments, fisheries, farming, Gibraltar—you name it, we hope it will be in the article 50 agreement. We want it to succeed; we need an agreement. It will also include our future trading arrangements—hugely important—including any transitional arrangements, if there are any, and much more.
Arguably, the arrangements will extend to every facet of national life—not my words, but I will come back to them. The article 50 agreement will be voted on, but it will then have to be implemented. It is a colossal task likely to involve a host of policy choices and to require widespread changes to our law—on any view. So how will that be done? Enter clause 9:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate for the purposes of implementing the withdrawal agreement if the Minister considers that such provisions should be in force on or before exit day.”
It is very likely to have to be in force before exit day, because otherwise there will be a gap, so that means the whole of the agreement, including transitional measures, being implemented under clause 9. It cannot be implemented after exit day, otherwise there will be a gap.
Let us be clear about how widely clause 9 is drawn. We have had some discussion about Henry VIII. Subsection (2) states:
“Regulations under this section may make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament”—
it is a true Henry VIII clause; it can modify Acts of Parliament—
“(including modifying this Act).”
The delegated legislation can amend the primary Act itself. That is as wide as any provision I have ever seen.
What are the limits and safeguards? Under clause 9(3), the regulations may not impose taxation, make retrospective provisions—they are usually a very bad idea—create a criminal offence or amend the Human Rights Act. Everything else is on limits under clause 9.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will make this point and then give way.
Given that the clause is drawn so widely, one would expect an enhanced procedure or some other safeguards—surely not just ordinary old delegated legislation.
Keir Starmer
I will make this point and then give way to several hon. Members.
What are the procedures? Are they enhanced? No. The opposite. Part 2 of schedule 7 deals with clause 9. It makes it clear that unless the delegated legislation creates a public authority, or the function of a public authority, affects a criminal offence or affects a power to make legislation, it is to be dealt with by—what? The negative procedure for statutory instruments, which means the least possible scrutiny: it means that the widest possible power, with no safeguards, will be channelled into the level of least scrutiny.
That is absolutely extraordinary. Let us be clear about what it means, because I am sure that the Secretary of State and others will say that notwithstanding the number of statutory instruments for which the schedule provides, they can be called up and annulled, and Parliament will have its say. I looked up the last time a negative-procedure statutory instrument had been annulled in the House, and it was 38 years ago. I do not know how many Members have been in the House for 38 years, but many of us will not have had that opportunity. So much for “taking back control”.
There is no point in the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister saying, “We would not use these powers: take our assurance.” If they would not use them, they are unnecessary, and if they are unnecessary they should not be put before the House for approval today.
Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
The case that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is making is for an amendment to clause 9. He is not making a case against the principle of the Bill, which is what Second Reading debates are about, and as he and his party are determined to vote against the principle of the Bill, he ought to make that case.
Alison McGovern
The Secretary of State made great play of the claim that the Bill was necessary for certainty. Given the legal situation that my right hon. and learned Friend has just excellently elucidated, does he agree that the powers that the Bill gives Secretaries of State to regulate every aspect of our lives mean that it is a charter for uncertainty for ordinary British people?
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I will press on. I know that Members want to intervene, but I heard what you said, Mr Speaker, about the number of Members who want to make speeches. I will take interventions at intervals, if that is satisfactory to the House.
Clause 7, “Dealing with deficiencies arising from withdrawal”, takes the same approach as clause 9, as does clause 8, “Complying with international obligations”. All those provisions are channelled into the negative procedure with the least possible scrutiny: they constitute a giant sidestep from parliamentary scrutiny on the most important issues of our day. But let me top it off. If you think that is bad—and I do—try clause 17. Subsection (1) states:
“A Minister of the Crown may by regulations make such provision as the Minister considers appropriate in consequence of this Act.”
So anything in consequence of the Act can be done under clause 17. Again, this is a proper, robust Henry VIII provision. Let us look at subsection (2). It states:
“The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may…be exercised by modifying any provision made by or under an enactment.”
That means amending primary legislation. In case anyone is in doubt, subsection (3) states:
“In subsection (2) “enactment” does not include primary legislation passed or made after the end of the Session in which this Act is passed.”
So the Government can amend any legislation whatsoever—primary legislation—including legislation in this Session. Everything in the Queen’s Speech that is coming down the track could be amended by delegated legislation under clause 17. I have never come across such a wide power, although I have come across consequential powers. The Secretary of State will no doubt point to other statutes that provide for not dissimilar powers; I have looked at them, but I have never seen one as wide as this.
Members should not just take my word for it. A minute ago, the Secretary of State said that no one could suggest that this was a legislative blank cheque for the Government. Let me read out what has been said by the Hansard Society—not a political body, not the Opposition, but the Hansard Society—about clause 17.
“Such an extensive power is hedged in by the fact that any provision must somehow relate to withdrawal from the EU, but given that this will arguably extend to every facet of national life, if granted it would, in effect, hand the government a legislative blank cheque.”
Those are the words of the Hansard Society.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Keir Starmer
I will complete this part of my presentation, if I may.
What is the scope and extent of that legislative blank cheque? How many pieces of delegated legislation are we concerned with? As the Secretary of State said, the White Paper suggested that there would be between 800 and 1,000, the vast majority of which would be dealt with via the negative procedure route. I do not think that the White Paper could, or did, take into account the further instruments necessary to implement the withdrawal agreement, but there could be very many more—well over 1,000 pieces of delegated legislation, given the least possible scrutiny.
Keir Starmer
I will complete this point, and then I will give way.
I was glad to see that the Prime Minister was here earlier. Yesterday, during Prime Minister’s Question Time, she told the House that “the approach”—the Government’s approach to the Bill—
“has been endorsed by the House of Lords Constitution Committee.” —[Official Report, 6 September 2017; Vol. 628, c. 148.]
I read the report again last night, and I have doubts about that endorsement.
Keir Starmer
When I have finished this point.
As the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State will know, this morning the House of Lords published a further report on the Bill, which reached the following conclusion:
“The executive powers conferred by the Bill are unprecedented and extraordinary and raise fundamental constitutional questions about the separation of powers between Parliament and Government.”
The report—published by the Committee that the Prime Minister prayed in aid yesterday—went on to say:
“The number, range and overlapping nature of the broad delegated powers…would fundamentally challenge the constitutional balance of powers between Parliament and Government and would represent a significant—and unacceptable—transfer of legal competence.”
Far from being an endorsement, that is an explicit and damning criticism of the Government’s approach.
Mr Leslie
I entirely agree with my right hon. and learned Friend, who has pointed out what a joke the Bill is. It sets out all those supposed safeguards, but, as my right hon. and learned Friend correctly pointed out, Ministers can make regulations to modify it. We are disappearing down an Alice in Wonderland rabbit-hole of legislation. Is it not also true that it does not matter when Ministers—the Prime Minister, or the Secretary of State—say, “Trust us: we will not use these regulations”? They could be here today and gone tomorrow, and the hon. Member for the 18th century—the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg)—could be Prime Minister. We could be totally in his hands, and there would be all these powers.
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we can short-circuit this. The hon. Member for North East Somerset has often been noted to observe that the 18th century is altogether too recent for him.
Keir Starmer
I will give way to both the Members who have been trying to intervene.
Anna Soubry
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that under clause 9, what is being called “the divorce bill”—the amount of money that we may have to pay to the European Union when we leave—could be agreed by a Minister, or by the Government, without this place having any say in the amount that was paid?
Keir Starmer
If it did not come under clause 9, it would certainly come under clause 17.
Keir Starmer
I give way, and I apologise for giving way to the two Members in the wrong order.
Vicky Ford
As a new Member, I also looked at advice on how Parliament has looked at statutory instruments, and I, too, saw that the last time such instruments were annulled by this House was back in 1979. The issue then was the cost of paraffin, and I remember 1979 and the high cost of fuel; it was a significant issue. However, given that the Secretary of State has said in response to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) that he is prepared to consider a sifting process, which means serious issues do come back to this House, what is the right hon. and learned hon. Gentleman’s alternative—what is he proposing?
Keir Starmer
It is not as if this point is being made for the first time today: these are the points that have been made since the White Paper was published—the moment we dealt with it. That was in March, the Bill was published in July, and there have been numerous reports since then, and I raised at the time the significant issues I am raising now, and there has been no move from the Government.
Chris Bryant
The key point about clause 9 is that the Government have asked Parliament to allow them to alter the Bill themselves by secondary legislation once it has been enacted. If we look through the history of the 20th century, we will not find a single Bill that has ever sought to do that—not in time of war and not in time of civil emergency. In fact, every single emergency powers Act has expressed said that there shall not be a power for Ministers to alter primary legislation.
Keir Starmer
I am on my feet answering the last intervention, which powerfully makes the point that this Bill is unprecedented in its scope. That is significant because the Secretary of State will point to some of the safeguards under the Bill for the exercise of some of these powers, but if delegated legislation can amend the Bill’s powers once enacted then notions of exit day, how far the delegated legislation goes and which procedures are used could be amended by the delegated legislation. So it is a very real point.
Several hon. Members rose—
Keir Starmer
I am going to press on.
Let me turn from parliamentary involvement to the protection of rights. Many rights and protections derived from the EU are protected in delegated legislation under the European Communities Act 1972. Because they are underpinned by EU provisions, they have enjoyed enhanced protection—44 years’ worth. They include some very important rights: the working time rights of people at work; the rights of part-time and fixed-term workers; the transfer of undertakings provision, which affects everybody who is at work if their company is taken over, so that their contracts are preserved, which is something we all believe in; and all health and safety provisions have been handled by delegated legislation under the 1972 Act, too. It did not matter that it was just delegated legislation, because they had enhanced protection because of the 1972 Act and our membership of the EU. The same is equally true of important environmental rights and protections for consumers. Under this Bill, the Secretary of State says they survive, and I accept that, and he does have a commitment to rights at work, but they do not survive with their enhanced status; they survive only in delegated form. From the date of this Bill, they are amendable by delegated legislation. All of those rights at work, environmental provisions and consumer rights are unprotected from delegated legislation.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
On health and safety protections, the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, of course, that there is a 1974 statute—the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974—which gives not just employees safety protections, but members of the public who are affected by conditions in the workplace. Surely that in itself acts as the primary protection to workers in this country under health and safety provisions?
Keir Starmer
No, I am afraid it does not. The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 all post-date that, and in any event that does not deal with all the other rights I have mentioned.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an excellent speech. On environmental standards, does he agree that there is another problem—a governance gap? With the lack of the ECJ and the Commission, there is nothing to enforce those environmental standards, and therefore we need a new legal architecture; judicial review is not enough.
Keir Starmer
I am very grateful for that intervention, because one thing that is not on the face of the Bill is any enforcement provision for rights currently enforced in one or other way through EU institutions, or even reporting obligations. It is fair to say that there is the provision in the Bill for the creation of public authorities—by, guess what, delegated legislation—and maybe that could be used for remedies, but it is by no means clear on the face of the Bill, and that is an important deficiency.
Let me complete this point: does it matter that these rights have lost their enhanced protection? Yes, it does. Taking back control obviously carries with it that this Parliament can change those rights, as the Secretary of State rightly set out, but this is to change them by delegated legislation, not primary legislation; that is an important distinction.
Does it matter? Would anybody have a go—surely not in the 21st century? Well, in June 2014 the current Foreign Secretary called for an end to “back-breaking” employment regulations, specifically the collective redundancies directive. The current International Development Secretary during the referendum campaign called for the Government to halve the amount of protection given to British workers after Brexit. And the International Trade Secretary—[Interruption.] I am addressing the question of whether it is conceivable that a Conservative Government might change this; I am reading out the statements of three Cabinet members. In February 2012 the International Trade Secretary—I know the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has heard about this quote already this morning—wrote:
“To restore Britain’s competitiveness we must begin by deregulating the labour market. Political objections must be overridden. It is too difficult to hire and fire and too expensive to take on new employees. It is intellectually unsustainable to believe that workplace rights should remain untouchable while output and employment are clearly cyclical.”
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has a proud record on human rights and protections of people at work, but these are the statements of Cabinet colleagues, and this power in this Bill allows these rights to be overridden by delegated legislation.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Is there not a fundamental contradiction in what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been saying? A moment ago he was worrying that power would be lost from this House; now he is saying that power should in fact be with the European Union. Is not the fundamental point of this Bill that it is better that laws should be made by our Government and our Parliament than by an unelected EU bureaucracy?
Keir Starmer
I am obviously a very bad communicator: I thought I was suggesting that workplace rights, environmental rights and consumer rights should only be capable of being taken away by primary legislation. If there is any doubt, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I say primary legislation I mean legislation in this House; I thought that was taken as read.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Does not the last intervention point to the fundamental misunderstanding that some have about this Bill—and I am afraid the Secretary of State mentioned it earlier? The point is whether the UK is going to become a rule-taker rather than a rule-maker. Our membership of the European Union has allowed us to influence the directives and regulations which have then been taken on board in this House and through our laws. What we are doing in this Bill—I will expand on this in my remarks—is not repealing, but reintroducing European legislation into this country, contrary to the intentions of those who wanted to leave the European Union.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful for that intervention and agree with it.
May I move on to other rights, because they are dealt with more severely? Clause 5(4) singles out the charter of fundamental rights for extinction. There are thousands of provisions that are being converted into our law and will have to be modified in some cases to arrive in our law, but only one provision in the thousands and thousands has been singled out for extinction—the charter of fundamental rights. As the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) argued in an article published yesterday, the principles of the charter provide
“essential safeguards for individuals and businesses”.
That has been particularly important in the fields of LGBT rights, children’s rights and the rights of the elderly.
The Secretary of State asks why this matters. I have here the High Court judgment in the case of David Davis MP, Tom Watson MP and others v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department. This was in 2015, when the present Prime Minister was Home Secretary. David Davis the Back Bencher was bringing to court the now Prime Minister. He will recall that he was challenging the provisions of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. He was concerned that they would impinge on the ability of MPs to have confidential communications from their constituents. He continued to make that point in debates that we were having a year or two ago. In his argument, he cited the charter. His lawyers made the argument that the charter was important because it went further than the European convention on human rights and therefore provided added protection.
I will not read out paragraph 80 of the judgment, although I am sure that the Secretary of State is familiar with it. As he knows, the Court found in his favour—he was right: the charter did enhance his rights—and rejected the arguments of Mr Eadie, the distinguished QC representing the then Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister. So when the Secretary of State asks whether this move will make any difference, the answer is yes. We can see that from his case. I suspect that if he were still on the Back Benches, he would now be talking to me and others over a cup of coffee about how we should fiercely oppose clause 5(4) and ensure that it came out of the Bill.
Mr Grieve
The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. Reading the mind of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I think he asked why this mattered because he would insist that the general principles of EU law being preserved would replace the charter. However, if they are not justiciable because we do not found a cause of action in our courts, the ability to assert those rights would evaporate.
Keir Starmer
That is exactly the point that was made earlier. To say that the changes do not matter because we can find that right elsewhere, but then to remove the right to do anything about an effective remedy, would mean that the exercise had achieved absolutely nothing.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to explain why other distinguished gentlemen—namely, Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith—fought so resolutely to exclude the charter of fundamental rights from the Lisbon treaty and, furthermore, failed because their protocol did not actually work?
Keir Starmer
No. I spent 20-plus years as a human rights lawyer interpreting and applying provisions such as the charter and acting for many people to whose lives it made a real difference, as the Secretary of State will know.
I want to move on the question of devolved powers. At the moment, EU law limits the powers of the devolved institutions. On withdrawal, the default position ought to be that the devolved institutions would have power over matters falling within the devolved fields, but clause 11 prevents that and diverts powers that ought to go to Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast to London, where they are to be hoarded. That is fundamentally the wrong approach, but it is totally consistent with the Government’s approach of grabbing powers and avoiding scrutiny.
On that topic, let me deal with exit day, a crucially important day in the Bill. It is the day on which the European Communities Act will be repealed. It is also the day on which the role of the European Court of Justice will be extinguished in our law, and that matters hugely, whatever anyone’s long-term view, particularly for transitional arrangements. I heard the Secretary of State say this morning that he wanted transitional arrangements that were as close as possible to the current arrangements. I think he knows, in his heart of hearts, that that will almost certainly involve a role for the European Court of Justice—although he will say that it would be temporary.
Exit day, the day on which the role of the Court is extinguished, is crucial. Without it, we might not be able to transition on the terms that the Secretary of State was suggesting this morning. He knows that. Control over exit day is therefore hugely important. Who will have that control? People talk about bringing back control, and they might think that Parliament would have control over this important issue. But no. Enter clause 14, which states that
“‘exit day’ means such day as a Minister of the Crown may by regulations appoint”.
This will be in the sole power of a Minister. Anyone simply passing this Bill must be prepared to be a spectator on the question of what the transitional measures should be and how they operate. That is a huge risk to our national interests.
Wes Streeting
The Secretary of State said earlier that it was “silly” of me to raise the transitional arrangements in relation to our continuing to be in the single market and the customs union. If the Bill is enacted and we are outside the purview of the ECJ and not subject to EU law, we will effectively be ruling out membership of the single market and the customs union during the transition. How will that bring stability and certainty to British businesses? Why is this provision in the Bill?
Keir Starmer
This is the conundrum that the Secretary of State and the Bill have created. If exit day is in March 2019, it is difficult to see how we could transition on terms similar to those we are now on. What could we do? We could choose to push exit day two years down the line. [Interruption.] No? Well, if we did not do that, but we recognised that the ECJ was necessary to the process, we would end up repealing what was once this repeal Bill, only to have to bring it back in again. That is the extent of the absurdity of the powers in the Bill.
Joanna Cherry
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making an outstandingly concise and forensic speech dissecting the difficulties in the Bill. He has drawn our attention to the problem with the definition of “exit day”. Does not that problem also feed into the delegated legislative powers? Clause 7(7) states that Ministers cannot make regulations
“after the end of the period of two years beginning with exit day.”
If exit day is going to disappear down the line, as the shadow Secretary of State has suggested, would not the power to make delegated legislation continue for even longer than the Government are now proposing?
Keir Starmer
It certainly could. The only way out of that would be to have multiple exit days. Members might think I am joking, but someone who drafted the Bill has thought of that, and it is conceivable that there could be multiple exit days, all chosen by a Minister and not by Parliament.
The combined effect of the Bill’s provisions would be to reduce MPs to spectators as power pours into the hands of Ministers and the Executive. This is an unprecedented power-grab—“rule by decree” is not a mis-description—and an affront to Parliament and to accountability. The name of the Bill was changed from the great repeal Bill to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. The word “great” should have been preserved, however. The title should have been changed to the great power grab Bill. Labour voted for the article 50 legislation, because we accept the referendum result. As a result, the UK is leaving the EU. That we are leaving is settled. How we leave is not. This Bill invites us to surrender all power and influence over that question to the Government and to Ministers. That would betray everything that we are sent here to do. Unless the Government make very significant concessions before we vote on Monday, Labour has tabled a reasoned amendment and will vote against the Bill.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Opposition spokesman has just reminded us that this Bill was trailed for a long time as the “great repeal Bill”, which is a very unlikely title. Fortunately, it repeals hardly anything at all, which is one blessing. One thing that it does repeal, however, is the European Communities Act 1972, which is a particular irony for myself and, no doubt, for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), as we well remember that Act. I was then a Government Whip and engineering, mainly by co-operating with the Jenkinsite faction of the Labour party, how we were to get the vote through against the rebellious, imperialist Eurosceptics who were then on our Back Benches. It is therefore an irony that a complete mirror-image debate now presents itself to me rather many years later.
My starting point is where the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) finished. I have to accept that we are going to leave the European Union. I accept that because this House passed the legislation to enact article 50 by a large majority. I argued and voted against it, but it went through, and it is idle to pretend that it is politically possible for that to be reversed. The question now is how we leave. I quite accept my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s basic premise that technical legislation is required to ensure that it is practicable to get a smooth legal transition, but I do not think that the Bill confines itself to that aim, as has just been said. A Bill of this kind is necessary, and we will have to vote for it, but the question is whether this particular form of the Bill is remotely acceptable.
I studied the amendments tabled by the official Opposition, and indeed those tabled by large numbers of other Members, and my conclusion was that I found myself agreeing with the overall majority of the sentiments and opinions in all of them. The one thing that gave me a problem was that they all suggest that the House
“declines to give a Second Reading”
to the Bill, which would stop any possibility of our making the required changes. However, minded as I am to contemplate voting for Second Reading, I will need some assurances before we get there, in particular that there will be sufficient movement on some of the unanswerable points being made about parliamentary democracy and a smooth transition to whatever the alternative is, so that the Bill becomes something other than wrecking legislation if it proceeds. I have not decided yet—I am actually going to listen to the debate, which is a rare feature in this House, because if we were to defeat the Second Reading, the Government would be obliged to bring back another Bill to try to achieve the same purpose. If the Government will not move in the next two days of debate, we may have to force them to go back to the drawing board and try again to produce a Bill that is consistent with our parliamentary traditions and that gives this House the control that leaders of the leave campaign kept telling the British public during the referendum campaign they were anxious to see.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr Clarke
I will not, because large numbers of people want to speak and I want to touch briefly on the time constraints. During the proceedings on the 1972 Act, I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Bolsover, like me, sat through days and days and weeks and weeks of very high-quality debate. It was a historic moment and it was not constrained by these Blairite notions of family-friendly hours, timetables and so on. I do not want to go back to the all-night filibustering and some of the nonsense that led to those practices being discredited—that is not suitable in the 21st century—but this Government began this process by trying to argue that the royal prerogative enabled them not even to bring article 50 before the House. They have been trying to reduce parliamentary scrutiny and votes ever since the whole thing started.
As a simple example, I raised with you a few moments ago, Mr Speaker, the question of the 5 o’clock rule. Apparently we all have to stop at 5 o’clock this afternoon. It would reassure me about the Government’s intentions if the opportunity were taken to lift that limit now. The Leader of the House only has to rise at some time in the next hour or so and say that the 5 o’clock will not be invoked today, and all the time constraints that we face will not be a problem. I hope that the Bill’s programme motion will not confine debate to a comic number of days. The speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras showed how complex some of the debates will be, and we do not want to be told that we have to give legal analysis in five minutes flat or be cut out by some quite unnecessary timetable. We have at least until the end of 2019 to get these procedures right.
There are two broad issues. One of them I will leave alone because the concerns have been dealt with brilliantly and will dominate a lot of today: the Henry VII clause, the sweeping powers and the extraordinary nature of the legislation. I will not try to compete with what I think, with respect, was a brilliant speech from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I hope that we will hear some reply to it over the next two days of debate—I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) will touch on it.
My own analysis of clauses 7 and 17 is probably not up to the standards that have already been demonstrated, and there is no point in repeating the case, so I will just say one thing to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues about what I expect in response. We are told that conversations will be held with my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), and I am delighted to hear that. We are told that we will have assurances about how Ministers are going to use the powers, but at every stage in my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s speech he actually defended the wording in the Bill, as he had to, and did not make the faintest concession either to the justifiable concerns about the impact on devolution or to the even bigger concerns about whether we are going to fritter away parliamentary democracy in this House by passing the Bill in its present form.
I know that my right hon. Friend is sincere in his assurances. He is one of the people in this House whom I would trust to seek to deliver what he is offering to us, but the reality, as someone has already said, is that we are all transient in politics. He will come under pressure from some of his colleagues, and we have no idea who will be in any particular post in 18 months’ time. The letter of the law will determine the scope for parliamentary scrutiny. I do not want more assurances or charm; I want positive amendments and changes. The Government will salvage their reputation if they take the lead and produce amendments that answer the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, and if they reassure us that the drafting was a misunderstanding. Better drafting can make it the no-policy-change, technically necessary Bill that I would quite happily support.
The second issue, very briefly, is the question of staying in the single market and customs union during the transitional period. Of course we will have a transitional period, of course it has to be a smooth transition and of course by the end of 2019 we will negotiate a basis for future free trading arrangements, but the Government have to move, just as the Opposition have moved. I made a speech in the Queen’s Speech debate explaining why I am in favour of staying in the single market and customs union at least for the transitional period, and I then answered the various arguments that are routinely thrown out, so I will not repeat any of that now.
There is now only a whisker of difference between us. I do not deceive myself that I converted the Labour party, which has tabled an amendment identical to my arguments in the Queen’s Speech debate, with which it did not then agree, but its proposals are remarkably near the Government’s proposals.
We all know, and British business knows, that we need a smooth transition. We do not need change until we are certain that we have some acceptable new arrangements. The Government’s position paper on customs arrangements—I will not read it all—says:
“This could involve a new and time-limited customs union between the UK and the EU Customs Union, based on a shared external tariff and without customs processes”.
I will not go on, but there is an absolute whisker of difference between the Government’s paper and what the Opposition are now saying, and what everybody of the slightest common sense, in my opinion, is saying—that we should stay in the single market and the customs union until we know that we can smoothly transfer to some new and equally beneficial arrangement. Again, I would like some reassurances on that.
I detect in the wording of the Bill and the Opposition’s amendment that we are crawling towards the cross-party approach that will obviously be required to settle this in the national interest. It is absurd for the Labour party to say that it is all agreed on the new policy it has adopted, and it is absurd for the Conservative party to say, “We’re all agreed on whatever it is the Secretary of State is trying to negotiate in Brussels.” The public are not idiots; they know that both parties are completely and fundamentally divided on many of these issues, with extreme opinions on both sides represented in the Cabinet and shadow Cabinet, let alone on the Back Benches.
Let us therefore resolve this matter. Let us make sure this Bill does not make it impossible to stay in the single market and customs union, and let us have a grown-up debate on the whole practical problem we face and produce a much better Act of Parliament than the Bill represents at the moment.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I commend the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and, in particular, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), for their two outstanding contributions.
This Bill, and the whole Brexit process, not only gives us an opportunity but requires us to go right back and think fundamentally about what Parliament is for and what democracy is about. The Scottish National party supports as a fundamental principle the ancient and honoured tradition that sovereignty over the land of Scotland is inalienably vested in the people of Scotland. That principle is not for sale now, or at any time, to anybody.
This Bill seeks to usurp and undermine that sovereignty in a number of ways, which I will mention later. That fact alone compels me to vote against the Bill on Monday night, and it compels anybody who believes in the sovereignty of the people of Scotland, and anybody who purports to be here on their behalf, to oppose the Bill on Monday night, regardless of the party that is trying to get them to do something different.
As it is Labour’s reasoned amendment that has been selected, we will be supporting it on Monday night with some reservations. First, given that 62% of our citizens voted to remain in the European Union, I am certainly not ready to give up on that for the people I represent. I fully understand and respect the fact that two nations of the United Kingdom voted to leave, but I ask the Members of Parliament from those two nations to respect the fact that the other two nations voted to remain and that their votes cannot simply be cast aside.
Secondly, the reasoned amendment refers to parliamentary sovereignty. I respect that that is an important principle for some people, but it does not apply universally across the nations of these islands.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman not aware of the question that was on the ballot paper? It was a United Kingdom question and a United Kingdom vote, and we voted as a United Kingdom to leave the European Union. That is what we decided. Does he not understand that?
Peter Grant
I do not know which part of “the people of Scotland are sovereign” the hon. Gentleman does not understand. The people of Scotland are sovereign, and I will defend their sovereignty. I urge all Members of Parliament from Scotland to respect that sovereignty when the time comes.
My final concern with Labour’s reasoned amendment is on the transitional period.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Grant
I need to make some progress.
I welcome that we now have a lot more clarity from Labour on the benefits of membership of the single market and customs union, and I welcome that it mentioned those benefits in its reasoned amendment. I am disappointed, given that everybody now knows—the Norwegians certainly know—there is absolutely no reason why being out of the European Union means we have to be out of the single market, that Labour has not yet come round to a position of saying that we should attempt to stay in the single market permanently after the UK leaves the European Union. Having said that, Labour’s reasoned amendment is a vast improvement on allowing the Bill to go ahead unchallenged, so we will support it on Monday evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Grant
I will not give way just now.
In all the reasoned amendments that have been tabled, MPs from different parties have come up with a huge number of powerful reasons for rejecting the Bill at this stage, which tells us that it has a huge number of serious and sometimes fundamental flaws that mean it cannot be allowed to proceed in its present format. If that is a problem for Government timetablers, tough. The interests of my constituents are far more important than the interests of Government business managers.
I will address four particular weaknesses in the Bill, some of which have already been ably covered. First, the Bill proposes an act of constitutional betrayal. It gives a Tory Government in London the right to claw back any powers it fancies from the elected Parliaments of the three devolved nations of the United Kingdom. That is not just a betrayal of those who campaigned for so long for the establishment of those Parliaments, it is a betrayal of the great parliamentarians of all parties and none who have worked so hard to make those Parliaments succeed.
Luke Graham
The hon. Gentleman talks about representing Scotland, but let us remember that 1 million Scots voted to leave. In fact, a third of SNP voters voted to leave. [Interruption.] Those are public stats. What he is actually saying is that, if he truly wants to represent his constituents, he should respect the democratic will of the United Kingdom, which is what he, like all of us, is in this Parliament to do. If SNP Members want to be stronger for Scotland, I suggest that they engage by tabling detailed amendments rather than trying to create a wedge between the nations of the United Kingdom.
Peter Grant
I will happily see the hon. Gentleman’s 1 million Scottish votes to leave the European Union and raise him 1.6 million Scottish votes to leave the United Kingdom, not to mention the 2 million or so who voted to remain in the United Kingdom, because he and his colleagues promised unconditionally that that was the way to protect our membership of the European Union.
Several hon. Members rose—
Peter Grant
I will take no more interventions from people whose position on the European Union has changed so radically over the past couple of years.
Returning to the attempt to grab power back from the devolved Parliaments that so many of us worked so hard to establish, many of those who take the greatest credit for their establishment, such as the great Donald Dewar, are not here to see the success of what they created, and I shudder to think what they would have thought of these attempts completely to emasculate all three devolved Parliaments.
We are seeing a betrayal of the promises—one could almost say the “vow”—that certain people made to the people of Scotland just three years ago: the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, they said; Scotland should lead the Union, they said; parity of esteem and an equal partnership of nations, they said. What definition are they using if the Prime Minister, who takes her authority from this Parliament, decides it is beneath her status even to meet the First Ministers, who take their authority from their respective national Parliaments? What definition of “equality” or “parity of esteem” are the Government using? Where is the parity of esteem if the Joint Ministerial Committee, trumpeted by the Tories less than a year ago as the epitome of good relations between our four national Governments, has not met for seven months? I note, however, that, completely coincidental to an attempt by my hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) to have an urgent debate on the matter, the Government have now decided they are going to reconvene the JMC at some time in the autumn. I hope they will not fall back on the claim that autumn finishes on 30 November. I welcome the fact that they have given way to some pressure and are now going to reconvene the JMC, but the fact is they have done nothing, even ignoring a request for a meeting by the national Governments of Wales and Scotland, which they had promised to act on within one month. They broke that promise, as they have broken so many other promises to the peoples, Parliaments and Governments of those devolved nations.
Wayne David
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be simple and straightforward for the Government to accept the reality of devolution and that where there is the repatriation of powers from Brussels in devolved areas they should go directly to the devolved institutions?
Peter Grant
Absolutely—that is what devolution means; if the powers are currently devolved, they should remain devolved.
If we cannot trust the Tories to keep their word on something as simple as arranging a joint meeting of Ministers, nobody in any of the devolved nations can trust their assurances that the draconian new powers in this Bill will not be abused. Our experience of promises from the Tories suggests we cannot take them at their word unless the legislation is nailed down so tightly that they have no wriggle room to go back on their word.
We have heard a lot of rhetoric about some issues needing a “UK-wide approach”. I wonder how the UK-wide approach to agriculture, animal welfare and food standards is going to work in Northern Ireland, because regardless of what the legislative or constitutional position will be, the matter of business survival means that the food industry in Northern Ireland will follow the same standards as are followed in the Republic of Ireland—the same standards as apply in the EU will be followed. So we are talking about different animal welfare standards in Northern Ireland from those in the rest of the UK, and I cannot really see how that is working.
What a UK-wide approach has been shown to mean in practice is that the Prime Minister and a few hand-picked colleagues get the right to dictate to the peoples of these islands and to our elected Governments. For example, the need for a “UK-wide approach” led to Scotland’s fishing industry being sold out by the British Government when we first joined the EU and there is a serious danger that it will lead to those fishermen being sold out yet again as part of the process of leaving.
My second concern is about the all-encompassing powers set out in clause 9, which was superbly torn to shreds by the shadow Secretary of State a few minutes ago. One of the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers, the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), described this on Wednesday as an “unprecedented power grab”, and there is no other way it can be described; 649 elected MPs will be expected to stand by and watch while a single Minister, with a single signature, can make new legislation. This includes the right to make legislation that should require an Act of this Parliament. The only requirement there will be on the Minister is that she or he thinks the legislation is a good idea. When we have Ministers who think that welching on the Dubs amendment and introducing the rape clause were good ideas, I am looking for a slightly harder test than a Tory Minister thinking that something is a good idea.
These new powers are often referred to as Henry VIII powers. Henry VIII was a despot with no interest in democracy, who thought Scotland and Wales were just places to be conquered and trampled on, so perhaps this is not such a bad name for something this Government are doing, but using that nickname hides the danger of these proposed powers. Despite his murderous deeds, a lot of people see Henry VIII as a figure of fun and pantomime villain—someone who even got to star in a “Carry On” film. But the fact is that the powers in this Bill are more “Nineteen Eighty-Four” than “Carry On Henry”. The powers that bear his name are anything but funny. They represent a significant erosion of parliamentary democracy; indeed to those Members here who believe in the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, I say that the powers in this Bill are utterly incompatible with that idea. This is not about taking back control to Parliament and resuming parliamentary sovereignty for those nations of the UK where parliamentary sovereignty exists. This Bill threatens to destroy it, once and for all. The powers are designed to allow Ministers to bypass all pretexts of parliamentary scrutiny. It is even possible that we could see an Act of Parliament receive Royal Assent one day and then be repealed by a Minister the next, simply because they thought it was a good idea.
The Government will argue that delegated powers are an essential part of modern government, and I agree. We do not have an issue with the principle of using delegated legislation. We do have an issue with allowing delegated legislation to be abused in order to bypass proper scrutiny. The only way this House can be satisfied that the powers will not be abused is if the Bill is reworded to make it impossible for them to be abused in that way.
The third significant weakness in the Bill has been touched on and it relates to our membership of the biggest trade agreement in the world. We are going to throw that away. We are talking about the loss of 80,000 jobs in Scotland and the loss of £11 billion per year coming into our economy as a result. The figures for the rest of the UK will be proportionate to that. This is being done simply to pacify the extreme right wing of the Conservative party and their allies, whose obsession with the number of immigrants has blinded them to the massive social and economic benefits that these EU nationals have brought to my constituency and, I suspect, to every constituency in the UK. The sheer immorality of the isolationist, xenophobic approach that the Conservatives are trying to drag us down is there for all to see, but it is not just immoral—it is daft. It threatens to destroy our economy. Already we are seeing key sectors in industry and key public sector providers struggling to recruit the staff they need. It was reported a week or two ago that a private recruitment firm is being offered £200 million just to go to persuade workers to come to the UK to work in our health service. I have a hospital in my constituency that we could rebuild for £200 million quite comfortably, yet this money is going to be handed to a private firm to try to undo some of the damage that has been done by the Government’s obsession with the immigration numbers. With the collapsing pound making British wages are worth a lot less to European workers than they were before, with the anti-European rhetoric and hysteria that we still get from Government Members and with the Government still refusing to give European nationals the absolute, unconditional and permanent guarantees that they deserve if they choose to come and live here, those recruitment difficulties are going to become much, much worse before they get any better. The Secretary of State wants our EU partners to be innovative, imaginative and flexible. I urge him to apply these same qualities to his Government’s attitude to membership of the single market.
I have mentioned the plight of EU nationals, and another major concern, which again has been raised, particularly by the shadow Secretary of State, is that this Bill threatens to undermine the rights of not only EU nationals but of everyone, regardless of their nationality or citizenship, who lives on these islands. I hear the promises from the Government, but we have had promises from this Government before. They are not worth the paper they are written on, even if they are not written down on paper at all.
At yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions we had the usual charade of a Tory Back Bencher asking a planted question so that the Prime Minister could confirm how successful the Government have been in bringing down unemployment. She went so far as to say that unemployment in the UK is at its lowest for more than four decades, so let us just think about that. The Prime Minister is telling us that unemployment is lower now than it was when we went into the European Union and the single market. How can the Conservative party boast about having almost done away with unemployment altogether and then say that immigrants are to blame for the huge unemployment problem? The fact is that the free movement of people—free movement of workers—and membership of the single market has not caused unemployment; it has caused employment. It has benefited our economy and helped our businesses to thrive. It keeps schools open in places where they would otherwise have closed. All the evidence suggests that the most successful, wealthiest and happiest countries in the world—those with the highest standard of living, whether material or in the things that really matter, are countries that are open and inclusive. The Government are trying to move us away from that to become one of the most isolationist and isolated economies in the world. Only five countries are not part of a trade agreement, but none of them is a country we would want to see as an example.
The Government’s mantra on Brexit has been about taking back control, but that will not happen—at least not in the way that the people who voted to leave hoped it would happen—because it is not about taking back control to the 650 people who collectively hold a democratic mandate from our constituents to represent them; it is about taking back control from this Parliament and putting it into the hands of a few Ministers. It is about taking back control from the devolved and elected national Parliaments and Assemblies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and putting it into the hands of a few chosen Members of a political party that cannot get elected into government in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The Bill allows Ministers to usurp the authority of Parliament and gives them absolute power to override the will of Parliament.
A lot has been said about the UK Government’s red lines in the Brexit negotiations, and I will give the Minister one red line from the sovereign people of Scotland: our sovereignty is not for sale today and will not be for sale at any future time—not to anyone and not at any price. The Bill seeks to take sovereignty from us, probably more than any Bill presented to this Parliament since we were dragged into it more than 300 years ago. That is why I urge every MP who claims to act on behalf of the people of Scotland, who believes in the sovereignty of the people and who believes in the sovereignty of democratic institutions to vote with us and against the Bill on Monday night.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will endeavour to be brief. In rising to support the Bill in principle and in many cases in fact, I also offer my support to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). He remembers that in the lead-up to the Maastricht debate, we had quite a long Second Reading.
Mr Duncan Smith
Exactly. I wonder whether, through my right hon. Friend’s good offices, the powers that be might make it possible to have a further extension on Monday to give more Back-Benchers an opportunity to speak. I say that because I remember the Maastricht debates, where we went through the night on the first day and ended the second day at 10 o’clock. Everyone got to speak—as many people wanted to speak then as now—and there was no time limit, as I recall, Mr Speaker, although I make no criticism of your imposing a time limit on me, as I am sure I will manage to fit within it. I just gently urge that there might be some scope for such an extension, even by Monday.
I support the Bill because it is clearly necessary. Let us start from the simple principle of how necessary it is. We have to get all that European law and regulation and so on transposed into UK law so that it is applicable, actionable and properly justiciable in UK law, and that requires a huge amount of action. There are very many pages of laws. I was looking at them the other day and I said, “If we were to vote on everything in that, we would have to have something in the order of 20,000 different votes.” There is no way on earth that that can possibly happen.
I listened with great care to the arguments of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I thought he made a very well-balanced speech and made his case for the need for change within the Bill rather well, but I would argue that the Labour party’s position does not fit with his speech. I go back to Maastricht, when John Smith led the Labour party. Because he was a strong believer in the European Union, the Labour party voted to support the legislation, but it then acted separately in Committee, where it opposed elements of the legislation that it did not agree with or thought needed changing. That is the position that the Labour party should adopt.
In other words, the reasoned way that the Labour party should behave is to reserve its position on Second Reading and then, subject to whatever changes it thinks necessary in Committee to the detail of the Bill, make a decision about what to do on Third Reading. To vote against the principle of the Bill is to vote against the idea that it is necessary to make changes to European law in order to transpose it into UK law. That is the absurdity that the Opposition have got into.
I know what it is like; we have been in opposition. There is a temptation to say behind the scenes, “I tell you what: we could cause a little bit of mayhem in the Government ranks by trying to attract some of their colleagues over to vote with us against Second Reading.” Fine—they fell for that, but the British public will look at this debate in due course and recognise that the Labour party ultimately is not fit for government.
In a sense, the detail of the Bill is not the issue; it becomes the issue once we have got through Second Reading. I accept and recognise that the Government have talked about possibly making major changes to the Bill. I observe that we are therefore not in disagreement about the need for the Bill. That is why the House should support the Bill’s passage, but there may be elements in it that need some change.
I note also that paragraph 48 of the report by the Select Committee on the Constitution, published this morning, which the right hon. and learned Member mentioned, states:
“We accept that the Government will require some Henry VIII powers in order to amend primary legislation to facilitate the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union”.
However, the report goes on to say that there also need to be
“commensurate safeguards and levels of scrutiny”.
So the debate is not about the need—
Sir William Cash
I would just like to mention, if my right hon. Friend will allow me, that it would not be unuseful to look at the names of the members of the Constitution Committee and make a judgment about their enthusiasm for leaving the European Union.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am grateful for that intervention by my hon. Friend. I know he will be able to make a powerful case in support of the Bill, and he is right, but I will come back to that point.
The basis on which people are arguing—that there has never been a great sweep of powers coming through Henry VIII procedures—is completely and utterly wrong. The reason why I became so concerned about what was happening under the European Union treaties is that section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 clearly states that all the rules and regulations coming through treaties
“are without further enactment to be given”
immediate legal effect and
“shall be recognised and available in law”.
It goes on to say that
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council”—
Order in Council, which is not the procedure in this Bill—
“and any designated Minister or department may by order, rules, regulations or scheme, make provision”.
We have sat with that for 40 years, and we have been content to let rules and regulations be made in that way.
To those who talk about rule-takers and rule-makers, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), I say yes, that was the case up until the Maastricht treaty, when qualified majority voting came in. We became rule-takers under that provision, and there has never been a more powerful one in British legislative history. I just sound a cautionary note to some of my colleagues on either side of the House who go on about this being the first time; it is not so.
Mr Grieve
I have great sympathy with my right hon. Friend’s critique of European Union law. It is one of the reasons why the Brexit referendum ended up in the way it did, but that cannot be a justification for two wrongs making a right. The fact is that we do not need to legislate in this fashion in order to carry out the technical task of leaving the EU, and I remain utterly bemused as to why the legislation has been drafted in this form.
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not asking for two wrongs to make a right; I support the principle of the Bill and the need for it, but I recognise that in Committee there will be need to review how some of those checks and balances are introduced, and I hope that is done properly and powerfully. What my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden said at the Dispatch Box gave indication to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) that there is scope to look at that. So the argument is not about the powers in the Bill; the debate is about how we reassure ourselves as a parliamentary democracy that the checks and balances exist such that, given the very profound nature of what is happening, we can achieve a balance and not delay the necessary changes.
The Opposition are in a peculiar position, but the Scottish nationalists are in a ridiculous position. For years and years they have sat by, content to see all the powers exercised in Brussels exercised there without their having any say. The moment we talk about leaving the European Union and bringing those powers back to the UK, they are up in arms because they feel betrayed that they do not exercise those powers. Where were they over the last 40 years when those powers were given away?
Mr Duncan Smith
I am not going to give way; I do not want the hon. and learned Lady to embarrass herself any more with the ridiculous argument that her party colleagues make. The truth is that they will leap on any excuse. My response to them is that those powers are not being stolen away; they are being reassured that what the Government then devolve back down to them will be more than they have ever had before. That reassurance has been granted and given.
The Constitution Committee paper is rather good. It makes another important point, which relates to the three closing recommendations I wish to make. I hope the Government will look at three areas. The first is the application of statutory instruments. The Government have accepted that we should have an explanatory memorandum that tells us what was in place before and what will happen afterwards, but they should also accept the recommendation that the Government should provide an explanation as to why an instrument is necessary. It is important that people can recognise quickly what the Government intend. I hope the Government will think about that.
When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, a statutory body called the Social Security Advisory Committee had the role of looking at legislation as it was about to be introduced. Sometimes that is awkward when one is the Secretary of State, but none the less it makes recommendations. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State look again at such a process? It may offer the Government a way to reassure people that the things they are about to do may well be absolutely necessary.
Here is the deal. We are asking that whatever is done under the purposes and powers of the Bill is done for one simple reason: to transpose existing law with existing effect, so that that effect does not change. If the single exam question is asked of a body like the Social Security Advisory Committee, “Is this instrument doing that?”, that might help to reassure Parliament. I urge the Government to consider that because it works in one area of detailed and consequential legislation, so I wonder if it might work in this area, too.
I am not going to go into a lot of detail, but my final recommendation is on the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras about the exit day. I am one of those who think we ought really to have that in the Bill, because he is right that on it hinges just about everything. For example, the Government have moved a long way on the sunset clauses, for which I thank them, because it is important to put an end date on the powers that exist in the Bill. The question is about the two years, but the real question is: when does the two years start and thus when does it end? That would answer a lot of the questions that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised about how far the Government might go in changing future legislation and everything else. As a strong supporter of the Bill, a strong supporter of the Government and a strong supporter of the principle, and as a big supporter of the idea of leaving the European Union, I urge the Government to think very carefully about what they do about that date.
In conclusion, I simply say that I absolutely support the Government on the principle of the Bill, as well as on the vast majority of the practicality and how it will be implemented, but I recognise that, in Committee, the Government will look again carefully at some of the need to provide some checks and balances as assurances to the House. We all want that, because none of us wants to defy the will of the British people, which is to leave smoothly, in a manner that does not bother business or upset individuals over their rights and their accepted ways of working.
I urge the Government to listen, but I congratulate them on getting to this point and getting us out of the European Union.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
First, I just say to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that this is not about defying the will of the British people; it is about how sensibly we are going to give effect to it. The referendum campaign seems a long time ago now, but during it we heard endless assertions that the process of leaving the European Union would be easy, straightforward and all those things. Anyone who looks at the Bill will see with their own eyes just how wrong the people who said that were. Despite the brave face that the Secretary of State habitually puts on things, it must now be dawning on Ministers that their assertion that they would be able to negotiate the whole thing—a comprehensive agreement covering all the things we need and all the benefits we want—by the end of the article 50 process is not now going to be possible. The reason why both those assertions have failed to survive contact with reality is not for want of effort, but because of fundamental disagreements in the Government about what the policy should be, which has resulted in delay, and because the task is Byzantine in its complexity. I do not envy civil servants, who are working hard, or indeed Ministers, and I do not envy the House the task that confronts us, but we have a duty to be honest with each other and with the British people about the choices that we face, their consequences and the fact that we have to do all this against the ticking clock.
Apart from the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972, the Bill is not about whether we leave the European Union—a point the Secretary of State made in his opening speech—because that decision was taken in the referendum and given effect by the triggering of article 50, and we will leave at the end of March 2019. The Bill is about trying to ensure that our law is in shape when we leave. We all accept that there is a need to do that, and we all therefore accept that a Bill is necessary. But that does not mean that Parliament should accept this Bill, which is the 2017 equivalent of the Statute of Proclamations of 1539. I gently remind the Secretary of State that the Exiting the European Union Committee did urge him to publish the Bill in draft. Had he done so, he would be having fewer difficulties now, because its flaws and weaknesses are fundamental—they were brilliantly exposed in the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). The Bill is not about taking back control. If Ministers continue to fail to take Parliament’s role seriously, we will have to continue to prod, push and persuade or, in the case of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), to gently threaten, so that Ministers understand that in this Parliament—this is a new Parliament; it has been christened the Back Benchers’ Parliament, and rightly so—they are going to have no choice but to listen to what Parliament has to say.
On the detail of the Bill, if they remain unamended, clauses 7, 8 and 9 would grant Ministers new and unprecedented powers. Ministers are asking us to give them a legislative blank cheque; we should not do so. How can we accept a Bill if on the one hand Ministers get up and say, “Look at the safeguards; they are in the legislation,” and on the other they propose in another part of the Bill to give themselves the power to remove every one of those safeguards, if they are so inclined? How does that build a sense of confidence and reassurance? I accept that there is a balance to be struck between giving Ministers the latitude and flexibility to do what needs to be done and Parliament having control to scrutinise and decide, but as they stand, the delegated powers do not achieve that balance, which is why the Secretary of State is going to have a very long queue of Members outside his office wanting to have a conversation. If he wants to save himself some time, he should come forward with his own amendments.
Chris Philp
It sounds as though the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle and thrust of what is being attempted here but has some comments on the detail and the mechanics. Will he therefore vote for the Bill on Second Reading and seek to address some of his concerns by amending it in Committee?
Hilary Benn
No, I will not—unless the Government move on this—because the flaws are so fundamental that they should go away and do their homework again. Not a single person in this Chamber does not accept that legislation is required to undertake the task; we are just saying that it is not the legislation before us.
There is a huge difference between a statutory instrument that proposes in some regulation to delete the words “the Commission” and insert the words “the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” and a statutory instrument that will, for example, give responsibility for the oversight and enforcement air-quality legislation, which derives from an EU directive, to an existing public body. What assurance can Ministers give us that whichever body is given that responsibility will have the same effective enforcement powers as the Commission has had, including ultimately taking case to the European Court of Justice, and will give the public the same power to hold that body and the Government to account if there is a continuing lack of progress in making sure that our air is pure enough to breathe? If that is not provided for, Government cannot argue that the Bill’s aim is to produce exactly the same situation the day after we leave as existed the day before. Therefore, as many people have said, the Bill will have to produce a mechanism for sifting. We need to sift the proposals that come forward, so that we can distinguish the absolutely straightforward and non-controversial and those that raise really quite important issues of policy, so that we as Parliament can do our job.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
I have a very simple question for the right hon. Gentleman. Does he agree with the proposition put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that the Social Security Advisory Committee is a clear model of such a mechanism?
Hilary Benn
It was an interesting proposal, but, personally, I think that others can give advice, but in the end the sifting must be done by Parliament or a body established by Parliament and made up of parliamentarians. That is my clear view.
Anna Soubry
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the existing Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments could be that very body to do this exact work of triaging and sifting?
Hilary Benn
That would be one possibility. I hope that the Government will listen to all these suggestions and come forward with a proposal. I welcome what the Secretary of State said in response to my point about the relationship between Parliament voting on the withdrawal agreement and the exercise of the powers under clause 9. He was kind enough to say it was a logical point, so will he reflect on putting it in the Bill?
On how EU principles will be incorporated into our law and interpreted, I agree absolutely with the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) about the charter of fundamental rights: it needs to be brought across into our law not least because, as we have heard, the Secretary of State relied on it in the case that he brought. The same argument applies to the environmental principles that were set out in the Lisbon treaty. If Members look at the explanatory memorandum, they will see that it has an illustrative list of directly effective rights that derive from EU treaties that the Government say they intend to bring across under clause 4. However, it does not include the provisions of article 191 of the Lisbon treaty, which cover environmental principles and protection, and that will need to be remedied.
Finally, I want to turn to the state of the negotiations, which will have a huge impact on the way in which the Bill is used. The Secretary of State told Andrew Marr last Sunday that this is
“the most complex negotiation probably ever, but certainly in modern times.”
He is of course right, which raises the question: why do ministers, I am sorry to say, still pretend that a comprehensive relationship can now be negotiated in the 10 and a half months that now remain? Here we are, 15 months after the referendum and six months on from the triggering of article 50, and, as we know from the Secretary of State’s statement on Tuesday, the Government have not yet sorted out the money, citizens’ rights or Northern Ireland.
Michel Barnier has been absolutely clear that the negotiations must be completed in 10 and a bit months’ time, so that everyone involved can look at the deal. We have to take a view, as do other bodies such as the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers. The Government must now have realised that it was never going to be possible to negotiate a special bespoke deal that will cover all the issues that need to be addressed. Given that there will inevitably be many outstanding issues come the end of the talks in October 2018, and given that leaving without a deal would mean falling off a cliff edge, with all the disastrous consequences for the British economy, surely it is now plain that we must have transitional arrangements and that they will have to involve staying in the customs union and the single market for a period if we want to avoid the kind of disruption that businesses have repeatedly warned the Government about.
I realise that this self-evident truth will come as a shock and a bitter disappointment to some people. I do not know how Ministers will break it to them—presumably, gently bit by bit—but it will have to happen because only by doing this will we as a nation have the chance and the time to negotiate a comprehensive free trade and market access agreement that our businesses want and on which our economic future depends.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In British constitutional history, there are few examples of Bills of such historic significance as this. Since the mid-1980s, I have been arguing for our legislative sovereignty in respect of EU legislation, even under the premiership of Margaret Thatcher, as was seen in my amendment of 12 June 1986. Even then, I was not allowed to debate it, let alone move it. Then we had Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon. Together with other colleagues—I pay tribute to them all again—we fought a huge battle and here we are now.
Today, at last, we have the withdrawal and repeal Bill, an original draft of which, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I circulated in the House of Commons even before the referendum. It said two very simple things: we need to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 and transpose EU law into UK law when the treaties cease to apply to the United Kingdom under article 50. However, contrary to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, this Bill—the Government’s Bill—will emphatically protect and reassert the principle of parliamentary sovereignty precisely because it is an Act of Parliament, or will be if it goes through. It will repeal the European Communities Act, sections 2 and 3 of which asserted the supremacy of EU law over UK law. That is the central point.
Indeed, the referendum Bill itself was authorised by an Act of Parliament, by no less than 6:1 in the House of Commons, and as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the article 50 withdrawal Act was another reassertion of sovereignty, which was passed by 498 to 114 votes in this House. All or most Members of the Opposition voted for it. That result was reinforced in the general election, when 86% of the votes for all political parties effectively endorsed the outcome of the referendum. This is democracy and sovereignty merged in its fullest sense and acquiesced in by the official Opposition, who are now putting up a reasoned amendment against endorsing the very decision that they themselves have already not merely participated in but agreed on. We should therefore be deeply disturbed that they should now seek to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading, cynically claiming that they respect the EU referendum result. In fact, their amendment defies belief. As the snail asserts in “Alice in Wonderland”, they
“would not, could not, would not, could not, would not join the dance.”
This is a serious dance. This is not Alice in Wonderland, but a real dance implementing the democratic decision of the British people—the United Kingdom as a whole.
The Opposition’s reasoned amendment fails to comprehend the simplest fact, which is that parliamentary sovereignty is no less embedded in this Bill than in the European Communities Act itself, which, in the very pursuance of parliamentary sovereignty, repealed our then voluntary acceptance under sections 2 and 3 of the 1972 Act. Indeed, Lord Bridge in the Factortame case made the basis of that Act crystal clear even to the point of the House of Lords striking down an Act of Parliament—namely the Merchant Shipping Act 1988—because of its inconsistency with the 1972 Act.
In 1972, therefore, by virtue of the historic invasion of our constitutional arrangements, we acquiesced in the subversion to the European Union of this House—and all without a referendum, which we did have this time when we got the endorsement of the British people under an Act of Parliament passed by 6:1 in this House.
Furthermore, the 1972 Act absorbed into our jurisprudence not only a vast swath of treaties and laws but the dogmatic assertions made by the European Court of the supremacy of EU law over our constitutional status. I would mention Van Gend en Loos, Handels- gesellschaft and so on—a whole list of cases asserting, through the European Court, EU constitutional primacy over Parliaments, including our Parliament and its sovereignty. That was made even worse by the White Paper that preceded the 1972 Act and pretended—I almost say by deceit—that it would be essential to our national interest to retain the veto and never give it up, because without it the fabric of the European Community would be impaired. The then Government understood what it was all about; they knew that it would destroy the European Union if a restriction was imposed on our ability to veto legislation. Since then, the EU’s competencies have been vastly extended.
As for the Henry VIII procedures in the Bill, I hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) said about what I said in 2013, but I am talking about the EU-specific legal jurisdiction and the context in which we are discussing the subject, which is the 1972 Act. Yes, we could have reservations about elements of Henry VIII procedures, but the biggest power grab of all time in British constitutional history has been the 1972 Act itself. It incorporated all the EU laws made and accumulated from 1956 right through to 1972, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) was running around as a young Whip cajoling people to move down the route of subverting our entire history and constitutional arrangements through these new arrangements. They subverted the constitutional supremacy of this House.
Mr Kenneth Clarke
May I remind my hon. Friend of his contribution to the debates on the Maastricht treaty? He made most of the arguments then that he is making now, but I do not recall him being so enthusiastic for legislation to be speedily passed through this House with no proper powers retained over any of the detail. When did his conversion to this new prompt procedure take place?
Sir William Cash
I am so glad that my right hon. and learned Friend has made that point, because I would like to endorse what he was saying earlier—I would like to see proceedings extended beyond 5 o’clock tonight. I will not have the opportunity to make a speech as long as that which I made on Second Reading of the Maastricht Bill—I think it lasted something like two hours—but for the reasons that have already been given, I think that this Bill is quite different in character. Then, we were dealing with extensions of competencies and here we are dealing with the principles of repeal, sovereignty and democracy.
Mr Duncan Smith
I hesitate to ask my hon. Friend to give way, but simply want to make the point that as he will recall, during Maastricht we were told time and time again that although we had long procedures for debate the outcome could not be in doubt, because to be a member of the European Union meant that all of what was agreed in the Maastricht treaty would come straight into UK law regardless of what this Parliament decided it was against.
Sir William Cash
Absolutely. That is the cardinal principle.
The Henry VIII arrangement in this Bill is a mirror image in reverse of what was done in 1972 to absorb all the European legislation into our own law and apply it so that it could never be changed. It cannot be amended—there is the acquis communantaire, and it cannot be repealed until we have this Bill. That is the point. I ought to add that it would be impossible for us to translate all the European legislation through primary legislation, although, as has already been said, we will have important primary legislation on subjects such as immigration and fisheries. The Government have already promised that.
Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act allows EU law to have legal effect in UK domestic law by secondary or delegated legislation. Read with section 2(4) and schedule 2 to that Act, that secondary legislation, by sovereign Act of Parliament, is expressly given the power to make such provision as may be made by the Act of Parliament itself. There are hosts of examples—including, if I may say so to the Opposition and the shadow Secretary of State, section 75 of the Freedom of Information Act, where the amendment was made within the Act and passed by the Labour party. Let us not get hypocritical about this under any circumstances; this procedure is not as unusual as it is made out to be.
Indeed, the Minister on Second Reading of the 1972 Act, Geoffrey Rippon, acknowledged the novelty of the procedure—it was novel in those days—and added:
“As I conceive it, the power afforded by Clause 2(4) would be used only in exceptional circumstances”.—[Official Report, 15 February 1972; Vol. 831, c. 285.]
We now know that, according to the EU legal database, at least 12,000 regulations have been brought in since ’73, with 7,900 instruments derived from EU law. It is a wild assertion that the Henry VIII provisions contained in this Bill are an infringement of parliamentary sovereignty, and for that reason the Opposition amendment should be completely disregarded.
Furthermore, Henry VIII powers have been used in enactment after enactment. Indeed, we had them in the recent Energy Bill and Immigration Bill, which contained 22 separate Henry VIII powers. There is, however, another important point to be made. The European Scrutiny Committee report “Transparency of decision-making in the Council of the European Union”, published in May 2016, goes to the heart of the manner in which the policies and laws of the UK have increasingly been invaded, not merely in process but in practice, which we will reverse—abolish—through this Bill. The Committee established that although majority voting prevails by virtue of the treaties, the decisions are taken by consensus behind closed doors without any proper record, proper speeches or transparency. No votes are recorded, as they are in Hansard. That is the fundamental difference. It is a travesty of a democratic decision-making process and a reason why the Bill is so necessary. The people of this country have had legislation inflicted and imposed on them that is made behind closed doors without anyone knowing who has made it, for what reason and how.
There are political undercurrents that need to be brought out, because the question of who makes those decisions behind closed doors in the Council of Ministers is incredibly important, as Professor Vaubel, professor of economics at Mannheim University, made clear in his work “Regulatory Collusion”. Another report, by VoteWatch, demonstrates the extent to which the UK has been on the losing side an ever increasing proportion of times leading up to 2015. I am bound to say that the UK has been on the losing side more than any other state over that time.
I have made my point on the charter. The Opposition have no credibility on that question whatsoever.
Finally, let me say that this is an historic moment and I am glad to be part of it at last.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who has spent more time scrutinising EU legislation and directives than all of us. I am pleased to have been a member of the European Scrutiny Committee for some years now, although we have often felt very alone. We have been up in the Committee Rooms going through documents after documents, realising that we could change very little. The public watching us today will see all this interest. They will look at the time we are spending discussing intense scrutiny and worrying about Henry VIII clauses and statutory instruments, and they may well think, “If only a quarter of that time had been spent by Parliament examining some of the thousands of EU directives and regulations that have simply been imposed on the country.” We have had very little say. As the hon. Member for Stone said, much of what happened in the European Union was behind closed doors. As just one of 28 countries, we were always being outvoted. We had to take those decisions on board many times without being able to change them.
There is genuine concern among many of my colleagues and some Conservative Members about the scrutiny process, including the use of some Henry VIII clauses and statutory instruments. I agree very much with the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) that there are mechanisms by which we could bring people together. One problem is that those of us who voted to leave and were pleased with the result genuinely feel that, although a lot of people are saying, “Oh yes, we accept the result of the referendum”, they are doing every little bit of work they can behind the scenes not necessarily to prevent us from leaving, but to make it as difficult and tedious as possible. They want the public to think, “Oh dear. Have we done the right thing?” That comes through from the media and all the people who were strongly in the remain camp, and it does a disservice to our country because, when we are negotiating with the EU, we need to show that both this country and this Parliament are united.
Whatever happens and whatever people in my party say, we will be leaving in March 2019. We want to leave in a way that will maximise certainty and confidence in business. We want to maximise the confidence of the people, many of whom voted remain but who have now decided that they want to get on with it and are saying, “Let’s just do it.” Let us speak up for all the positive things that are happening. We should now recognise that all the dire warnings about the things that would go wrong were, in fact, wrong themselves. We need to be as positive as possible.
I look back on the last Labour Government in which many current Members of Parliament served. In that time, we actually doubled the number of statutory instruments to introduce new laws, so Labour Members are being a little hypocritical. I know there are people in the Labour party who are genuinely so upset that we are leaving the EU, but we should be putting the country’s interests first at this time. We should be deciding that we want to work with the Government, which means that the Government also need to want to work with us. That requires a positive attitude from the Opposition Front Bench. I have been pleased to say that there have been positive attitudes over the past few months, but I now worry about us going against the principle by voting against Second Reading. No matter whether some people genuinely feel that it is the right thing to do, it will be seen by Labour voters in the public—many of whom came back and voted for us, having fraternised with the UK Independence party for some time—as though we are not really serious about leaving the European Union.
I am very disappointed that we will not be supporting the Bill on Monday night. During the course of the debate, I hope that some of my colleagues will actually feel that they should support the Bill, even if they are going to support the reasoned amendment because this Second Reading is the principle. We can then probe with our amendments and new clauses some of the problems—undoubtedly, there are some—with the scrutiny process.
Michel Barnier goes on about the clock ticking, and many people have mentioned that today. It is ticking. But it is actually ticking for the European Union just as much as it is ticking for us in the United Kingdom. It now seems that the only thing at the top of the European Union negotiators’ minds at this moment is money. That is not necessarily true of the individual countries. Over the next few months, I think we will see changes in some European Union countries that really want to get a good deal with us because they know it is in their interests. But the European Union negotiators know how much they will miss our money, and that tells us something about what the European Union has been all about. They want to keep our money coming in for as long as possible. I will accept any kind of transition period only if we stop paying any more money from day one that we leave the EU. That is not to say that there might not be some really legal things, but I would like to see the detail—I would like the European Union to come up with every dot and comma of why it thinks we should pay something back. We need to be clear that we are not going to pay anything more after we leave the European Union.
John Redwood
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Does she agree that the EU probably does not want to talk about trade, because, in practice, it will want tariff-free, barrier-free trade if it is at all sensible, and it thinks it can get money out of us for that, when it has to have it for itself?
Kate Hoey
The right hon. Gentleman is right: money seems to be the crucial thing the EU is using in the negotiation. I hope our negotiators will stand up to that and stop allowing the media and others to make every little bit of negotiation into some kind of conflict, saying that it is always the EU negotiators who are doing the right thing and that we are somehow not doing the right thing. I want it to be the other way round: I want us to be positive about our negotiations, because, in the end, we can get a good deal by just proclaiming how strong the United Kingdom is, how well respected we are, how strong our City of London is and how, despite the fact that we are leaving in 2019, companies are still coming to invest here. There is a very positive message, but it is not getting out.
I know that lots of people want to speak, so I will end by saying one thing. I am not a lawyer, although there are a lot of lawyers in here who are loving every minute of this, because it is the kind of thing they love. However, I am not a lawyer, and the vast majority of the public are not lawyers. They will be watching today, and they will be judging all of us, whatever our party politics, on whether we are doing what is in the long-term, best interests of our country. I do not believe we should be playing some kind of political game about not voting for the Bill because it might make it look to some people in our party as if we are standing up to the Government. This is about the future of our country. Labour Members should vote for the Second Reading of this Bill on Monday night, and then challenge and change things, if we can, in Committee.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey): we have no legal obligation to pay more money, and there is no moral obligation. There is also no diplomatic advantage in offering money; indeed, if the EU gets the idea that we might pay it a bit of money, it will be even more unreasonable, because that would be the way to try to force more money out of us.
What I wish to say in this very important debate is that the Bill should satisfy most remain voters and most leave voters. I understand that it does not satisfy some MPs, who have their political agendas and political games to play, but they should listen to their constituents, and they should think about the mood of the country—the mood of business and those we represent.
We have had crocodile tears shed for myself and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wanted leave and who are very pleased with leave by those who tell us that we must surely understand that we are not getting the parliamentary democracy we wanted as a result of this piece of legislation. I would like to reassure all colleagues in the House that I am getting exactly the piece of legislation I wanted, and it does restore parliamentary democracy.
What is in the Bill for leave voters is that, once the Bill has gone through and we have left the European Union, the British people will have their elected Parliament making all their laws for them. We will be able to amend any law we do not like any more, and we will be able to improve any law. We were not able to do that.
What we like about the Bill is that it gets rid of the 1972 Act, which was an outrage against democracy, because, as we have heard, it led to 20,000 different laws being visited upon our country, whether the people and Parliament wanted them or not, and whether their Government voted for them or against them—the Government often voted for them reluctantly because they did not want the embarrassment of voting against them and losing. This is a great day for United Kingdom democracy. A piece of legislation is being presented that will give the people and their Parliament control back over their laws.
John Redwood
Let me just explain why this is good for remain voters and then I will give way to someone who is probably of that faith. It is good for remain voters because during the campaign a lot of them were not fully convinced either for or against the European Union, but on balance thought we should stay in. They quite often liked some elements of European legislation, standards or requirements. In particular, the Labour party and its supporters liked the employment guarantees that were offered by European employment law, and other parties and interests liked the environmental standards. This Bill guarantees that all the things that remain voters like about European legislation will continue and will be good British law, so they will still have the benefits of them, with the added advantage that we might want to improve them, as well as full assurances from the Government that we do not wish to repeal them.
Ruth George
I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is saying how delighted he is that so many rights and responsibilities will now come under delegated legislation. I am not sure if he recalls that on 1 September 2012, as a member of the Delegated Legislation Committee on the criminal injuries compensation scheme, he, with all the other Conservative members of the Committee, called for the then Minister to withdraw the measure before them, and that did not happen. A second Committee was set up—
Mr Speaker
Order. Forgive me, but colleagues must have some regard to each other’s interests. There are a lot of people wanting to speak. Interventions must be brief; they should not be mini-speeches.
John Redwood
Let us come to the secondary legislation point. First, all statutory instruments are subject to a parliamentary process. I am quite happy that there is parliamentary control. If Ministers seek to abuse the power under the legislation that they are offering to the House, then all the House has to do is to vote down the statutory instrument. If it is a so-called negative resolution instrument, surely the Opposition are up to being able to say, “We intend to debate and vote on this issue.” I remember doing that as a shadow Cabinet member. I called in things that the then Government were trying to smuggle through and made sure that there was a debate and a vote. If it is the view of Parliament that Ministers have misbehaved, then they will lose the vote and have to come forward with something else.
That is parliamentary democracy, and I do not understand why my colleagues find it so difficult to understand. Ministers will be bringing forward bits of secondary legislation in areas where they are fairly sure that it is the will of the House that they go through because they are technical, or sensible, or obvious. They will all be in pursuit of the fundamental aim, which is to guarantee all these rights and laws, which are often more admired by Opposition Members than Conservative Members, but which we have all agreed should be transferred lock, stock and barrel, and which in certain cases are protected by pledges in manifestos. For example, my party, as well as the Labour party, has promised to keep all the employment protections and improve on them, because that is something we believe in. We offered that to the British people as part of our manifesto for the last election.
Lady Hermon
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that those who voted for remain, as I did, should be happy with this Bill because it brings over all EU legislation. Yes and no. On the stroke of midnight on exit day, we lose the general principles of EU law such as proportionality, non-discrimination, and respect for human rights. [Interruption.] No, with respect—the general principles go. Does he agree that we should lose those very sound, good, valuable general principles?
John Redwood
I think that those excellent principles are already reflected in both European law and British law and will therefore be built into our statutes. They will be inherited from European law through this Bill, and they will often inform the judgment of our judges. I am very happy to trust our Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Justice.
The Supreme Court has not always made judgments I like. I did not like one of its judgments quite recently, but we accepted it and lived with it. We are now in a stronger position as a result, as it happens, because we had a nine-month referendum debate in this House after the country had made its decision. I am pleased to say that after a very long and extensive rerun of the referendum—day after day we were talking about the same subject, having been told we never did so—Parliament wisely came to the decision, by an overwhelming majority, that it did have to endorse the decision of the British people and get on with implementing it.
John Redwood
I am afraid that time is now rather limited.
I am very much in favour of our Parliament making these decisions. The admirable principles we are discussing will often be reflected in British law. They are already reflected in many of the bits of legislation that are the subject of this Bill, and our judges will often be informed by them. If the judges start to use a principle that we do not like very much, it is in the hands of those of us who are in Parliament to issue new guidance to those judges— to say that we are creating more primary legislation to ensure that we have a bit more of this principle and a bit less of that—on our area of disagreement with them. In a democracy, it is most important that we have independent courts, but also that, ultimately, the sovereign people through their elected representatives can move the judges on by proper instruction; in our case, that takes the form of primary legislation.
Much has been made of how we implement whatever agreement we get, if we have an agreement, at the end of the now 19-month process in the run-up to our exit on 29 March. I think people are making heavy weather of this, because the main issue that will eventually be settled—I fear it will be settled much later than the press and Parliament would like—is how we will trade with our former partners on the date on which we depart.
There are two off-the-shelf models, either of which would work. In one, the EU decides, in the end, that it does not want tariffs on all its food products and cars coming into the UK market, and it does not want us creating new barriers against its very successful exports, so it agrees that we should register our existing arrangements as a free trade agreement at the World Trade Organisation. That would be a ready-made free trade agreement.
I do not think that there is time to make a special free trade agreement that is not as good as the one we have at the moment. Either we will have the current arrangements, as modified for WTO purposes, when we are outside the Union, or we will not. If we do not, we will trade on WTO terms when we are on the other side of the EU’s customs and tariff arrangements. We know exactly what that looks like, because that is how we trade with the rest of the world at the moment as an EU member.
The EU imposes very high tariff barriers on what would otherwise be cheaper food from the rest of the world, but if it decided on that option, its food would, of course, be on the wrong side of that barrier as well. We would have to decide how much we wanted to negotiate tariffs down for food from other countries around the world, which may offer us a better deal. It would be quite manageable; food is the only sector that would be badly affected by the tariff proposals under the WTO. More than half our trade would not be tariffable under WTO rules, and services obviously attract no tariffs. I have yet to hear any of the other member states recommend imposing tariffs on their trade with us, or recommend a series of new barriers to get in the way of other aspects of our trade. We will have to wait and see how that develops.
Nicky Morgan
Is my right hon. Friend saying that one of the largest and most basic amounts of its income that any household spends—the part that it spends on food—could be affected by these proposals, but that that is okay?
John Redwood
I am saying that either way, we could get a good deal. If the EU decides that it wants to impose tariffs on its food exports to us, we will be able take tariffs off food that comes from other parts of the world. Under WTO rules, it is always possible to take tariffs off. We could start getting from the rest of the world food that is cheaper than that which we currently get from the EU, even though it does not attract tariffs. I want to look after customers.
The other thing is that if we just accepted the full WTO tariff rules, we would have about £12 billion of tariffs, and I would recommend that all of that £12 billion be given back to our consumers. They would be no worse off at all, because we would return the money to them. They might even be better off, if we did free trade deals that brought down the price of food from other parts of the world.
My final point to the Government is that there is an issue about how we decide the date of our departure. I think it is clear that our date of departure will be 29 March 2019. It will definitely be so if we do not have an agreement, which is still quite possible, but I think we should aim to make sure that we leave on that date even if we do have an agreement. We still have 19 months left, and that should be the transition for most of the things that need it. That is, surely, what the time is there to achieve. I recommend that we have the argument of substance over that date now, and that it be put in the Bill now. I recommend very strongly that we aim for 29 March 2019, because in one scenario that will be the date of our exit anyway, and in any other scenario it would be highly desirable.
People are always telling me that we need to reduce uncertainty. If we told them not only that all the laws would remain in place—getting rid of any uncertainty about the law—but that the date of our exit would definitely be 29 March 2019, we would have taken a lot of uncertainty out of the system. I think that that would be very welcome. I find that businesses now, on the whole, just want to get on with it. They are very realistic, and they want to know what they are planning for. They have got some of the details, but they want as many details as possible. If we put that firm date in, we would make it easier still, so I would recommend that change to the Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Immediately after the next speaker, the time limit on Back-Bench speeches will be reduced to five minutes.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
This has been a very thoughtful debate, and I hope that the Government are in no doubt about the scale of parliamentary concern about the way in which the Bill concentrates powers in the hands of Ministers.
In his opening speech, the Secretary of State recognised that the Bill is not what will take us out of the EU; Parliament has already voted for article 50, which will take us out of the EU—and rightly voted for it, as well. However, Parliament also has a job to do to hold Ministers to account and the Bill, as drafted, stops us doing that. It stops us standing up for democracy in this House, and it stops us making sure, frankly, that the Government do not screw up Brexit in the process they put it through and the decisions they take.
Many of the purposes behind the Bill are right. Parliament will need to repeal the 1972 Act, and Parliament will also need to transfer EU-derived law into UK law. As the Chair of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), has already said, we will have to have a Bill, but not this Bill. There is a choice about the way in which we do this, and we do not have to do it in a way that concentrates so much power in the hands of a small group of Ministers.
Let me run through some of our concerns. The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), set out a very forensic and powerful account of the Bill and the detailed powers that it will give Ministers, with no safeguards in place. There are the powers in clauses 7 and 17, as well as those in clause 9, and there is the fact that it will reduce British citizens’ rights. Far from allowing Brits to take back control, the Bill weakens protection for employment rights, equality and environmental standards; it weakens remedies and enforcement; and, crucially, it reduces the right of redress. It is both sad and telling that Ministers have chosen to exempt the charter of fundamental rights. I hope that that will be reversed, and that they will change their position.
The greatest concern—I want to focus on this point—is the concentration of powers in a way that, frankly, is not British. Parliament will not be able to do its job to stand up for citizens’ rights against a powerful Executive if the Bill goes through in the way that it has been drafted. The unprecedented powers given to Ministers in certain clauses—clause 7 and, in particular, clause 17 —are powers that would make a Tudor monarch proud. Everyone realises that the sheer extent of the provisions means that we will need both primary and secondary legislation as part of the process, but not to this scale, not with this lack of safeguards and not with this concentration of power in Ministers’ hands.
The Bill will give Ministers the power to change primary legislation for an incredibly broad range of reasons, and the test will simply be whether they think it is appropriate. The test is not whether a change is needed, proportionate or essential, but only whether Ministers consider it to be appropriate. The Bill also includes the power—the Secretary of State made slightly disingenuous remarks in the way he presented this—to create new criminal offences so long as sentences are not more than two years. That is a serious power to give Ministers on such a broad area without parliamentary scrutiny.
Let me give some examples of the things that the Bill would do. I raised the European arrest warrant with the Secretary of State, and his response to my question about what safeguards there would be was simply to point to the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act—by the way, Conservative Front Benchers have pledged to get rid of it—is not a sufficient safeguard. We know that we should not rely on the courts to have all the safeguards, and that we in Parliament should provide some of them as well. We also know that within the scope of the Human Rights Act there is a huge range of potential policies on extradition on which Parliament should have a say.
On my past record, I suspect that I am probably closer to the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary on what the extradition policy should be than many of their Back Benchers. I still do not think, however, that they should have unlimited powers to decide extradition policy without having to come back to Parliament.
We debated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 forensically—in fact, it was an example of Parliament at its best. We gave that Act detailed consideration that balanced security and liberty and changed it as it went through. Given, however, that some of the Act’s genesis depended on ECJ judgments and its relationship with EU legislation, the Bill today could give Ministers the power to reopen the Act and change the primary legislation that we put forward with great care, and—again—to do so through secondary legislation only, without there being proper safeguards and checks in place. Ministers will have the power to rip up the working time directive, too, if it does not fit with what they think should happen under the appropriate arrangements after Brexit.
I do not trust the Prime Minister and the Cabinet with these immense powers. One would expect me not to do so, but no parliamentarian should trust them with these powers. None of us knows who the next Prime Minister will be or who will be in the next Cabinet. This is about the powers in principle, not who is doing the job right now. Clause 9 is particularly disturbing; it should not even be in the Bill. We should be legislating separately for the withdrawal agreement. We should have a separate Bill—and, yes, it would need to provide for secondary legislation; we should not be doing it now, when we have no clue what the withdrawal agreement will be, when we have not had a vote to endorse the Government’s negotiating strategy—we do not even know what it is on a whole series of different areas—and when there is not even a statutory commitment to a vote on the withdrawal agreement.
We could start legislating later, in the summer perhaps when we have a bit more of a clue where on earth this is all going, or perhaps in the autumn when the withdrawal agreement supposedly will have been signed. Then we could put the exit date, which some Government Members are concerned about, into primary legislation and legislate without giving Ministers any more powers than is strictly necessary, rather than hand them unrestricted power to do the job.
John Redwood
Does the right hon. Lady not accept that the Government are conducting the negotiations? Parliament can say, “We like the result,” or “We don’t like the result,” but we cannot amend it; it is what the negotiation is.
Yvette Cooper
I am not comfortable with the right hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for giving the Government blank cheques. Even if he is happy to support the Government and let them do whatever they want on the negotiations, he should be deeply uneasy about giving Ministers unrestricted powers to implement the withdrawal agreement in whatever way they so choose.
The Prime Minister has no mandate to do it this way. To be fair, she asked for one—that is what the election was all about; it was about subverting the Cabinet, her party and this Parliament—but she did not get one. In fact, the Conservative party lost seats. We now have a hung Parliament, and it would be even more irresponsible for a hung Parliament to hand over such huge powers to the Executive than it would be in any other circumstances.
We do not need to legislate like this. This is about more than just Brexit. It is about the precedents we set. Many hon. Members have quoted precedents about different kinds of secondary legislation, but that only strengthens the argument: we should not be setting a precedent in Parliament that hands this stonking great lump of powers into Ministers’ hands without any safeguards. This is about who we are. It is about what kind of democracy Britain should be.
Even before the Brexit legislation, the former Lord Chief Justice warned about the steady diminishing of Parliament, about the handing over of power and control, year after year, to the Executive—to be fair, that includes previous Governments, not just this one—and about the number of statutory instruments and the fact that since 1950 Parliament has said no to only one in 10,000 of those laid before it.
Henry VIII’s Parliament had an excuse. The man had a habit of chopping off people’s heads. What is the excuse for this Parliament? How can we possibly, in this generation, allow ourselves to become the most supine Parliament in history by handing over powers on this scale? We sit in the Chamber and listen to maiden speeches with great respect because we all still think that there is something special about being sent here by our constituents—sent with the power of democracy; sent on the wings of all those many thousands of ballot papers folded up with the crosses by our names. We think that we have a responsibility to hold the Executive to account, and not to hand over to Ministers, in an unrestricted way, all the power given to us by our constituents to do what they like with. Yet that is what the Bill is doing.
History will judge us for the decisions that we make now, for the precedents that we set and the choices that we make. Six months ago, I voted for article 50 because I believe in democracy, but now it is that same faith in democracy that means I cannot vote for the Bill. Let us not choose to be the most supine Parliament in history. Let us be the parliamentary generation that stands up for Parliament: the generation that pursues the article 50 process, but does so in a way that holds Ministers to account.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. The five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches will now apply.
Sir Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) (Con)
This has been a fascinating debate so far, and I am delighted that a little bird tells me that the Chief Whip and the Leader of the House are conspiring to try to make arrangements for it to be extended to midnight on the second day.
One of the most fascinating aspects of the debate has been the appearance of logic in what was said by not only the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), but the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), and the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). What they said sounded forensic and logical. The structure of their argument, as I think other Members will recognise, is as follows: “We do not like clause 9, we do not like clause 17 and we do not like schedule 7, and therefore, instead of waiting to see whether they will change in Committee before voting on Third Reading, we will reject the Bill on Second Reading.”
That is not what logicians call logic; it is what they call a non sequitur, which prompts the question, “Why the non sequitur?” The answer is that the three people whom I have just mentioned are among the cleverest people in Parliament. They understand logic perfectly well, and they understand what a non sequitur is. The reason they are engaging in such an argument is that they hope to make some combination of trouble for the Government, or for the Brexit process. Conservative Members should pay not the slightest attention to such “un-arguments” and should get on with the business of examining the Bill as it is.
Having said that, I rather agree—in fact, I strongly agree—with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), and, indeed, with some of what was said by the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry). There is a lacuna here, and we do need to look at those clauses again. I suspect that much of the remedy will lie in the use of a combination of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments as the ultimate body and, for instance, the Social Security Advisory Committee to do the detailed work on what will probably be near on 1,000 technical statutory instruments before the House comes to consider the really serious matters that will need to be dealt with in one way or another.
There is, however, one point that I want to make in advance of the Committee stage in the hope that the Government will consider it between now and then. One fundamental issue has not been addressed in the debate so far. It relates to what we used to call the European Court of Justice or the Court of Justice of the European Union. Members who have read clause 6 will have noticed that, as the Secretary of State pointed out, subsection (4) states that
“the Supreme Court is not bound by any retained EU case law”.
That seems to be a fairly important statement, but it is not quite as important as one might think, because the Supreme Court is not bound by itself either: it is the kind of court that can always depart. So I think that it is more of a ritual utterance than anything else.
According to clause 6(3),
“Any question as to the validity, meaning or effect of any retained EU law is to be decided…in accordance with any retained case law and any retained general principles of EU law”.
In case anyone has any doubt about whether that might be just a drafting error, I should point out that the Government’s own document describing the Bill states:
“Questions on the meaning of retained EU law will be determined by domestic courts in accordance with preexit CJEU case law.”
In other words, those parts of the Bill, as currently drafted, enshrine the CJEU, with its expansionist teleological jurisprudence, as the basis for deciding what the law of the land is.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I am sorry, but I will not. I do not have much time. I do not believe that that is a very good way to do it, but if it were a good way to do it, we should certainly remove the reference to the Supreme Court not being bound by it, because it is not one solo parliamentarian who has no legal expertise, but is, rather, the retiring president of the Supreme Court, whom we do have to pay some attention to, who has pointed out that there is an ambiguity here.
Mr Grieve
It is by no means the only ambiguity in this Bill, but I agree entirely that to ask the judiciary to carry out an interpretation of something that is so oddly and, I have to say, vaguely worded is a recipe for disaster and is something this House should avoid doing.
Sir Oliver Letwin
I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend about that and hope that in Committee we will be able to address that head on. My personal belief is that we should address it in the form of changing clause 6(3), to ensure that it is open to—indeed, that we give an inducement to—our courts to move back to the plain words of the texts of the treaties and directives, so far as they judge that can be done without injustice to individuals. That is the principle that most people who voted for leave, and indeed many of us who voted on balance to remain but have been extremely sceptical about the activities of the ECJ and the Court of Justice of the European Union for many years, would wish to see enshrined in this legislation. I suspect that I might even carry my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe on that point, because he was, somewhat surprisingly, very sceptical about the ECJ on many occasions—I say surprisingly, because, despite his enthusiasm for the EU, which I never quite managed to share, actually he is a very good parliamentarian and a very good lawyer and recognises that we do not want a court that makes its own law. So I think we have a way forward that we can seek to follow in Committee.
None of that should obscure the fact that this is a good and necessary Bill. Nothing that the Opposition have said has suggested that there is any structural deficiency. Therefore, I will vote for it, and I hope all my friends and colleagues on the Conservative Benches and, indeed, many on the Opposition Benches will do the same.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
It is a great privilege to make my maiden speech as part of this special and important debate. Many people—especially me—were completely stunned on the morning of 9 June to wake up and find that a new red dot had appeared on the previously entirely blue political map of Kent. I am still recovering from the shock, but am also determined to bring as much positive difference as I possibly can during my time in this place.
Before I speak a little more about my constituency, I want to mention the so-called “trolling” of my, mostly female, colleagues over the summer. I have already experienced a fair amount of trolling myself. This ranges from ill-informed, badly researched articles published as fact to unpleasant personal messages late at night, and vile, vitriolic insults from a small, but persistent, handful of activists from other parties posted online.
I acknowledge the efforts being made by the inspirational women in Parliament who are working hard to raise this issue and are fighting against it even though that usually results in much more abuse being thrown their way. I want to make special mention of my friend, the Newham councillor Seyi Akiwowo, who has endured, fought back against and now campaigns against the lowest form of racial abuse; and, of course, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary, who has shown incredible dignity and remarkable strength in the face of the most unacceptable and disgusting abuse over her decades in this House.
Groups such as Glitch UK and Reclaim the Internet, led by my colleague my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and many of my other friends and colleagues in this House, are deserving of our support. We must continue to fight against this and highlight the problem; it is entirely possible to engage in passionate political debate without resorting to name-calling, death threats and abusive language. Let us restore respect and manners to our online behaviour.
As the first woman ever to have been elected in Canterbury and as a single mother, I want to be a champion for equality not only for women, but for the disabled, people of every ethnic and racial background, the young and the old, the LGBT community and people of all faiths and none. It is a scandal that in this day and age there is still inequality in pay and discrimination in many forms. All such prejudice has no place in our society; I will challenge and fight it wherever I find it.
My constituency, Canterbury, is famous as a place of pilgrimage. It is also known as part of the garden of England. Today, as we sit here in the Palace of Westminster, the farms surrounding my constituency are filled with apples, hops and plum trees. In some ways, nothing has changed since Chaucer and his pilgrims went walking through those same fields, but in many ways, everything has. In those fields today, many of the fruit pickers are European. Every day, in the streets of my city and the nearby seaside town of Whitstable, we hear European languages being spoken by schoolchildren visiting from France, Spain, Germany and Belgium.
At the top of the hill that overlooks Canterbury city lies the University of Kent, which prides itself on being the UK’s European university, and standing outside the nave doors of Canterbury cathedral, you are closer to Paris than you are to Sheffield. This is just my way of emphasising how much the Canterbury constituency has benefited, and continues to benefit, from economic and cultural exchange with our European neighbours. It is undoubtedly true that the Kent economy has benefited from immigration and tourism from across the channel, and we hope to continue to do so well into the future.
If there must be a Brexit, I want only the sort of Brexit that protects the rights of EU nationals to work in the UK, that promotes trade across borders and that is proud of our many students and academics who come here to study from across the world. For example, we want to continue to welcome the foreign doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals who have worked in our hospitals. There is real anxiety in the constituency I now represent about the future of our local NHS and, in particular, the Kent and Canterbury Hospital. Over the past decade, it has lost vital services. We now have absolutely no A&E, and the maternity unit, which gave me such wonderful care when I had my two boys, has gone. Only a few months ago, the K and C lost three major services—those covering heart attacks, stroke and pneumonia.
But let us remember that the threat to our hospital is not happening in isolation. The problems facing our NHS arise from Government policies affecting the whole of England. The first of these is budget cuts. Our local hospital trust does not have a deficit of £40 million because of overspending; it is caused by underfunding. Putting the shackles of austerity on to an already weakened NHS is a deliberate political choice made by this Government.
I must speak up to save our nation’s sickest patient, because that is what the NHS is. Our NHS is the nation’s sickest patient, and the Government must be careful that, while burying their heads in Brexit, they do not leave her to die. Yesterday, I was out in Parliament Square supporting NHS staff and other public sector workers who are having to resort to protest in the face of the ongoing pay cap. Some nurses I speak to regularly are having to rely on food banks. What sort of country is this, when we cannot look after the very people who look after us?
In around 1370, long before he wrote “The Canterbury Tales”, Geoffrey Chaucer was sent to Italy by the King to negotiate a trade agreement between Genoa and England. Historical documents show that it was a very successful trade agreement indeed. I can only wish that our current Brexit negotiations with the EU will be as successful. You would think that after nearly 650 years, we would have picked up a tip or two! I hope the current Government are listening to the whispers of history, and indeed to today’s shouts from up and down the United Kingdom. People want a good deal. They do not want no deal; this is not a television game show with a snappy title. We must come out with a deal that does not send us back into the economic dark ages.
As is the tradition in maiden speeches, I would like to thank my predecessor, Sir Julian Brazier, who served the people of Canterbury well as their Member of Parliament for 30 years—some 10,955 days. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will acknowledge what a remarkable act of dedication and service that was. He and I fundamentally disagreed on many issues, such as equal marriage, Brexit and a woman’s right to choose, but I sincerely wish Sir Julian well for the future.
I love Canterbury. I love her surrounding villages such as Littlebourne, Chartham, Blean and Bridge. I love the working harbour of Whitstable and the pebbles of the surrounding Kent coast. I am humbled by the people of my constituency putting their trust in me, and I want to work hard for all the people in my area. I believe in unity and togetherness, and that love and trust can transcend borders. I believe in progressive and thoughtful socialism in which we work for and think of our neighbours without prejudice. Thank you for listening, Mr. Speaker, and for allowing me to have my first moments fighting for the people who elected me. I will not let them down.
Mr Speaker
Thank you; many congratulations to the hon. Lady. The five-minute time limit is now restored.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
I congratulate the new hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on an excellent and confident maiden speech. I was sorry to hear about the online abuse that she has already experienced but pleased to hear about the support she has received. She talked about unity and togetherness, and she might have found the House at a challenging time for such things, but we will hopefully find a way through these debates. Her predecessor was a doughty champion of the armed forces, about which he spoke often in this House.
So it starts—the real process for getting us out of the European Union. The Bill is needed. It is needed legally to disentangle us and to make many people really believe that we are actually going to leave the European Union, something that I have not had difficulty believing. Like many colleagues who share my views, I have been clear since 24 June 2016 that it was going to happen because, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, we believe in democracy in this House of Commons. However, the Bill contains two major ironies. First, as was said earlier, it is not a repeal Bill but a reintroduction Bill, and those who wanted to get away from EU law now seek to bring it all over here. Secondly, those who wanted to take back control showed no concerns about the amount of Executive power that will be wielded as a result of the Bill until a number of the rest of us started to highlight such issues, and they now claim to be happy with the amendments that might be discussed in Committee.
In the limited time available, I want to draw attention to two parts of the Bill that have already been discussed. It is worth putting them on the record again so that Ministers are in no doubt about the parts of the Bill that they are going to have to discuss with colleagues throughout the House and agree amendments to if they want the Bill to pass. The first is the Henry VIII powers in clause 9, which could theoretically bite on the Bill itself and allow Ministers to amend the very legislation that the House is now debating and being asked to assent to. We might ask why we are going through the troublesome and time-consuming business of getting the Bill into shape when Ministers can use clause 9 to reverse the changes they dislike with speed, efficiency and a minimum of parliamentary oversight. The Secretary of State’s response to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee, about the fact that the withdrawal agreement should not be implemented until this House has had its say, is incredibly important.
Anna Soubry
Will my right hon. Friend advise ardent leavers, possibly those on the Government Benches, that there is a real danger that the amount of money that might be paid to the European Union by way of what we call this divorce bill could be decided by the Government without report or redress in this place by virtue of clause 9?
Nicky Morgan
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She is absolutely right. As a former EU budget Minister, I can say that money will be paid to the European Union, and I disagree fundamentally with the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). As one of our MEPs, Dan Hannan, said, this country pays what it owes. We have made financial commitments to the European Union until 2020, and we should pay what we owe. As the Secretary of State has said previously, we may well even decide to pay more towards some elements in order to have access to them, in particular Horizon 2020 and so on.
The second issue is the power for the Ministers to specify the date of the exit day, which will be subject to no parliamentary scrutiny procedure whatsoever. Interestingly, the Secretary of State started his remarks by saying that the Bill does not take us out of the European Union. I did think about intervening, but it was very early in his remarks and I thought that he might clarify things. The difficulty with what he says is that clause 1 baldly states:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
If the 1972 Act is repealed, the UK leaves the European Union, so if this Bill is passed and its provisions are enacted, we will leave the European Union. Article 50 is a process for giving notice to start the discussions. I am afraid that the Secretary of State was not correct about that.
Why does scrutiny of statutory instruments matter so much? I suspect that Members have been having discussions with businesses and others who rely on EU law to go about what they do, and they are telling us very clearly that what will make their life easier and a transition possible is regulatory convergence, which means sticking to the regulations and rules we have been following for years, whether we are talking about pharmaceutical companies, financial services companies, food exporters, farmers, universities or many other different sectors.
To those who seek to say that we have been rule takers, not rule makers, I say that successive Ministers, including me, have sat at the European Council table and had those debates. The point is that if we want to have regulatory convergence after March 2019, which is what we are hearing, we will have to take the rules without having had any influence on them.
Finally, I am a proud parliamentarian, and the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury has just reminded me of how special it is to be elected to this place. Parliamentary scrutiny is not an affront to democracy; it is its very essence. The true saboteurs of Brexit are those who would sanction the exclusion of Parliament from this process. The debate on this Bill has only just started.
Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on a speech that was fluent, forceful and, at the same time, generous to her predecessor. Her speech has also made me determined me to visit Canterbury, which sounds such a delightful place.
I have a few points: on why people voted to leave in the referendum; on where the Bill stands in relation to why people voted to leave; and on how all the other aspects of Brexit are going, and how they relate back to why people voted as they did. There may be other areas, but there are three that I think are most relevant. First, people voted to restore the sovereignty of the United Kingdom. However they define that sovereignty, the issue was certainly debated forcefully, and it was occasionally raised on the doorstep—I use the word “occasionally” advisedly.
Secondly, people voted to restore some kind of economic independence. People felt that we were spending too much money in Europe and that we would be better off outside, where we could negotiate better trade arrangements with the rest of the world—everything in the garden would be rosy. Thirdly, the issue most commonly raised with me on the doorstep was immigration.
I will briefly address those three points. On the first issue of sovereignty, the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) can dance on the head of a pin all they want about what the Bill actually does but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) so forensically demonstrated, the Bill is a transfer of power from Parliament and towards the Executive. That certainly is not what the people in my constituency voted for.
Secondly, on economic independence, apart from the fact that it will potentially cost us £70 billion just to walk away, people did not vote for a worse trade deal and for worse economic relationships within the European community. Okay, I accept that the Prime Minister says, “You can’t leave and, at the same time, be a member of the single market. You cannot leave and, at the same time, be a member of the customs union.” I am sure she is right, but let us be honest about what we know the Government are seeking to do.
Peter Grant
Please will the right hon. Gentleman explain Norway’s arrangement? Norway has never been in the European Union but is a full member of the customs union and single market, as are Iceland and Liechtenstein. It is a complete fallacy to suggest that being outside the EU has to mean a country is outside the single market—unless it chooses to be.
Mr Howarth
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The one I was going to make is that if we are being brutally honest, we all know what is going to happen. The Government, through the negotiations, are going to find a set of arrangements as close as possible to being part of the single market but without being a member of it and something approximating the customs union. If they do not do that, they will not be looking after the best interests of this country. That much we know, which leads me on to the question about immigration.
If the Government are going to achieve anything approximating the customs union and some sort of relationship with the single market, the price they are going to have to pay is to agree some sort of approximate arrangements about the free movement of labour between the UK and the EU. Ministers might say, “Well, we can do that.” No, you can’t. The reality is that if the people negotiating on behalf of the EU were to say, “Okay UK, you can have something that approximates the single market and customs union, and you don’t need to worry about any free movement of labour”, they would soon be removed from their negotiating positions. This idea is not realistic.
Where are we in this audit of what we have achieved since the referendum? First, we have a set of arrangements in this Bill that are less democratic, and that give less power to Parliament and more power to the Executive. That is hardly what was promised in the referendum. Secondly, we are likely to be paying £70 billion for the privilege of leaving—not getting £350 million a week to put back into the health service. Finally, if we get anything like reasonable arrangements on our economic relationship with the EU, we are going to have to accept some level of free movement of labour. Everything people voted for is going to be betrayed.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I join the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) in congratulating the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her excellent maiden speech. We were all thoroughly in tune with her on the abuse she has suffered and I hope she will work with other Members on that. She paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, Sir Julian Brazier, who was a fine parliamentarian for many years.
Some 17.4 million people voted in the referendum to leave the European Union and 16 million voted to remain. Polls show clearly that a large percentage of the 16 million now want us to get on with it. If we do not, catastrophic damage will be done to confidence in the integrity of all of us and the UK political establishment. We must progress taking back control to our democratic institutions of our laws, borders and money. In February, 494 Members voted to trigger article 50, and we will exit at midnight on 29 March 2019. What we are debating today is a crucial stage in that process, because article 50 states:
“Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.”
That requires us to repeal the European Communities Act 1972—good riddance to it; we will be a better country without that Act.
Today, we have seen a strange mixture of “Project Fear” morphing into “Project Humbug”. I had the pleasure and honour of serving as a junior member on the European Scrutiny Committee for several years. I clearly recall being shocked by the piles of papers imposing burdens on our citizens, which we could not debate or amend. One day, a couple of Labour members were ill and a Lib Dem member got stuck in the lift, so we were able to vote for a most pernicious measure affecting the dairy industry in my constituency to be debated on the Floor of this House. We could not have amended it, but we could at least have debated it. However, the then Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), stood up in business questions and cancelled the debate. All that will stop; from now on, we will have the power to debate these measures. We will not impose law on our benighted citizens that we have not debated.
There is all this talk about “Project Fear”. As a founder member of Vote Leave—I was one of the first three MPs to join—I remember discussing changes to employment rights with the hon. Members for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who is in her place, and for Bassetlaw (John Mann). I reassured them that at absolutely no stage had any Tory Member considered changing employment rights. I cannot remember any discussion, private or public, where it was raised. It is pure “Project Fear”. Employment rights will be brought back into the control of democratically elected politicians in this House.
I thought the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), made a very interesting argument, taking the very worst case. I hope that the Government will listen to concerns about how some of the so-called Henry VIII clauses might be amended. I suggest that clause 7(7) brings in a sunset clause of two years. I think more judicious use of sunset clauses might be valid, but we must press on, because we need a smooth transfer of power. According to EUR-Lex, 3,055 agriculture measures may need transposing. In fisheries, one of my previous responsibilities, there are 786 measures. In total, there are 20,319 measures. Businesses need smooth continuity.
Some years ago I looked at the history, having had a private Member’s Bill on the disapplication of EU law, the European Communities Act 1972 (Disapplication) Bill, and there are many historical precedents. The colonies of Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, North Carolina and Massachusetts all took the then English and Welsh common law into their corpus of law. When Australia and New Zealand left our jurisdiction, they also did that. Interestingly, India did exactly the same in 1947, and it is still amending its law. Only in 2016 did it pass an Act amending 90 Raj-era Acts, including the Elephants Preservation Act 1879.
What we are doing is setting up a continuous process, and Labour’s position is wholly ludicrous. Some 162 Labour Members voted for article 50. Labour’s manifesto said:
“Labour accepts the referendum result.”
That manifesto also said that Labour wanted to leave the internal market and the customs union. The Labour leader has to be the most contumacious leader of any party.
Mr Duncan Smith
This intervention is not about the Elephants Preservation Act 1879. Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the most complex area here is within the remit of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because so much of it was run by the European Union? Many of those laws will need to be changed and added to, and that is why some of the powers in the Bill are necessary.
Mr Paterson
My right hon. Friend is spot on. That is why the Government sensibly are going to bring forward primary legislation in this House on agriculture, fisheries and the environment.
I ask the Labour party to look at its position. It is ludicrous. It has a leader who has rebelled against his party 617 times and has to be the most contumacious leader in this country’s political history. It accepted the referendum in its manifesto and voted for article 50. The sensible measure is for the Labour party to vote for Second Reading and then see reasoned amendments put through in Committee. Many of us would agree that the Bill can be improved, but the public will not forgive Labour if it is seen to be monkeying around with the political process, playing cheap political games when 17.4 million people voted to leave and take back control of our laws, our money and our borders. I will be voting for Second Reading on Monday.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) talks about promises made, but I think we all remember the promises made by those campaigning to vote leave in the referendum, resulting in the Bill we have before us. They promised £350 million a week for the national health service, and I am still waiting to see that clause in the Bill. The Secretary of State for International Trade said that it would be the easiest thing in the world for us to have all these fantastic trade deals and that by now we would be halfway towards trade deals 10 times the size of the European Union. And yes, as the right hon. Member for North Shropshire helpfully repeated, they promised that if we held that referendum and got that result, we could take back control. Well, here we are, with this Bill before us, and it is indeed the case that some are taking back control, but it is not Parliament; it is the Prime Minister and the Executive—those on the Crown payroll.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said earlier, it is unacceptable with respect to the British constitution that we should be asked almost to create one of the most supine Parliaments that has existed around the world, as we are in the shape of the provisions set out in the Bill, particularly clauses 9 and 17, which will gift such wide-ranging powers to Ministers. As I indicated when the Secretary of State opened the debate, it is all very well for Ministers to promise, “Don’t worry, I give you an undertaking that we won’t misuse this power in this particular way. Just because it says that we can take any order-making power if we deem it appropriate, we won’t abuse it in any way,” and it is all very well that the legislation says the Government will use the super order-making power, which will allow them to make an order for a month without reference to Parliament even through a negative statutory instrument, only if it is urgent, but that definition is entirely in the hands of Ministers, and of course Ministers are here today, gone tomorrow.
Ministers can come and they can go. Members from all parties need to imagine their worst-possible scenario for who could be Prime Minister. Stranger things have happened. They should think about whether they want to vest in the hands of that individual—he or she—those massive and sweeping powers, perhaps for a prolonged period. It is true that clause 9 says there might be a two-year limit for some of these powers, but of course that clause will allow a Minister to reform this Bill itself when it is an Act. The Minister can simply say, “Two years—no, I have changed my mind, let’s go for three. Let’s go for five years.” It is a completely ridiculous open-ended measure.
We will not have much time to debate the Bill. We have a ridiculous programme motion that gives only eight days for scrutiny in Committee. The Bill gives carte blanche in so many ways. By the way, the Ways and Means and money resolutions on which we will vote on Monday grant powers for “any expenditure” under the withdrawal agreement, possibly including that £30 billion, £40 billion or £50 billion—who knows?—divorce alimony settlement. It is ridiculous that Parliament would take away its own powers in this way. We have to be able to see the withdrawal agreement and the seven pieces of Brexit legislation before we hand to Ministers such sweeping order-making powers.
The Bill is not just about process and processology in this place. I sometimes wonder whether the public look at us and think, “Why are you officiously checking the air pressure on the tyres before you get in a vehicle and drive it over the cliff edge?” The debate is very much about whether Britain leaves or stays in the single market, because the Bill will delete the European Economic Area Act 1993. It is very much about whether we have a good free trade arrangement without tariffs and customs barriers, because the Bill will take away many of the arrangements we have for a common commercial alliance with our European partners. It is about jobs, business and austerity, because the Treasury needs the revenues from a decent economy to pay for public services. That is what we are fighting for, so the Bill needs to be opposed.
Mr Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield) (Con)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield) on her maiden speech, which I greatly enjoyed. Canterbury is a city I know well: it is where I spent many of my early years at the Bar, cutting my teeth as an advocate. I hope I can remind myself of some of the lessons I learned there in contributing briefly to this debate.
I shall support the Government in the vote on Second Reading. The Bill is vital: we cannot leave the European Union sensibly without such a Bill on the statute book. The Government need support, and they will have it from me. Nevertheless, I regret to have to say to my right hon. and hon. Friends that unless the Bill is substantially improved in Committee, I will be in no position to support it in its current form on Third Reading.
In many respects, it is an astonishing monstrosity of a Bill. Its first failing is its entreatment of EU law itself. I do not much care for EU law—I did not much enjoy practising it, although I had outings to the European Court of Justice when I was Attorney General—but it is a different form of law from our own, which we imported, and which, in many ways, has filled vast areas that otherwise we would have developed in our own domestic law. So we need to nurture it, because we cannot get rid of it overnight without leaving enormous gaps. In addition, there are safeguards within EU law that do not exist within our law and need to be retained, because otherwise EU law will act unfairly. Again, they are different from our own.
I have a number of areas of concern. The Bill does not deliver clarity. Its importation of EU law is hedged around with ambiguities that undermine one of the key pillars of the rule of law, which is certainty about what the law is. One example is given by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), but there are numerous others. For example, Clause 2(1) is so widely drawn that retained EU law will include domestic law that was implemented entirely domestically but has a link to the EU. That would then make something like the Equality Act 2010 susceptible to change by statutory instrument in clause 7—something which I suspect everybody in this House would regard as completely unacceptable.
Sir Oliver Letwin
Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we could address that in Committee not through a change to clause 2, which is pretty fundamental, but through changes in clauses 7, 8 and 9, with which we are already concerned?
Mr Grieve
Absolutely. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. These are all curable, and readily curable, with just a little bit of will.
There is another example on which we have already touched. EU law never used to be divided between primary and secondary legislation. Interestingly, it is all being treated as primary, which has the nice merit—I am sure that someone in Whitehall dreamed this up—that none of it would be susceptible to be quashed by a challenge under the Human Rights Act. That may not matter, but it is capable of causing unfairness when it is linked to the fact that the other area of challenge that would normally be available, which is a challenge because something is in breach of the general principles of EU law, has been delicately removed along with the charter of fundamental rights.
I hope that I may be forgiven for saying this about my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have had some wonderful times with him—journalists once said of him that he used to stand up and club Labour Home Secretaries over the head and then I would come along and dissect them in public with a legal scalpel—but I just slightly detect that he was looking a bit like a fugitive as the legal scalpel started to move in on him. I do not know where that idea came from, but somebody will have to sort it out. We will have to do it at the Committee stage of the Bill. There are other examples that I could give, but I do not have the time to do so right now, so I shall leave them for the Committee stage in which I intend to participate actively.
Let me move to the Henry VIII clauses. The current situation is ridiculous. I recognise that there will have to be Henry VIII clauses. Of course we cannot carry out this massive revolutionary transformation by primary legislation alone, but we can ensure that we have the necessary safeguards in place. The most obvious one is to have an established parliamentary system of scrutiny to ensure that the different types of statutory instruments that will be needed are correctly farmed out. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend is right that the vast majority of them will be technical and of very little account, but some will be extremely important and will need to be taken on the Floor of the House. We need to have a system in place to do that.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr Grieve
No, I must make progress. There is another issue with Henry VIII clauses. We need to look at the ones we have, as some are much too widely drawn. For example, clause 7 talks about “any deficiency” in an EU measure. It is one thing to say that it is inoperable, but quite another to say that it is deficient. Frankly, I could find arguments to suggest that every single law in this country is deficient. I am afraid that these will have to be changed.
Finally, let me turn to the question of the programme motion. I have no objection to programme motions; they are very important and, in my view, a properly structured programme motion can work well. I am prepared to support the Government on such a motion as long as I have an assurance that, so long as it is not because of filibustering, if we run out of time we will get more. That is vital. With that, I wish the Bill well. I hope that I might be able to improve it and I look forward to being able to support the Government on Third Reading and bring this important constitutional measure to completion.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There were some excellent speeches after the Secretary of State’s. Things went slightly downhill after that but things started to look up with the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Rosie Duffield). I have just one slight criticism: she did not mention Barham in her list of villages, which is one I know very well. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) for his speech and his reference to the monstrosity that is this Bill.
The Liberal Democrats believe that Parliament must be given comprehensive sovereignty and scrutiny over this process. This opinion is widely supported, not just by many Members on both sides of this House but by organisations such as the Law Society, which states that the Bill
“must respect parliament’s role in making and approving changes to UK law”.
Parliament must drive the future of the United Kingdom and of Brexit, not Ministers using Executive—indeed dictatorial—powers to exercise total control over the legislative process. The Government’s decision to provide just two days for Second Reading means that Members will have just five minutes in which to make their points and eight days in Committee for a Bill that unravels 40 years of closer EU co-operation, shows the extent to which Parliament is held in contempt by Ministers.
The Secretary of State and other Ministers might be quick to dismiss Lib Dem criticism of the Bill, but before they do I would encourage them to think back to 2008 and the by-election triggered by the Secretary of State, the catalyst for which was Labour’s highly illiberal plan to increase pre-charge detention from 28 to 42 days. A build-up of attacks on our civil liberties led him along that by-election path and there is a widely held view, which I share, that this Bill represents a major attack on parliamentary sovereignty and therefore a present and future risk to our civil liberties. I am not alone. A legal expert at Bryan Cave, commenting on the Bill, said that it will give
“powers allowing ministers to fast-track the implementation of certain EU laws into domestic law through regulations without parliamentary debate.”
Liberty’s analysis is that the Bill
“could be used by Ministers to ride roughshod over UK citizens’ human rights”
leaving
“gaping holes where our rights should be.”
There are similar concerns from the Fawcett Society that the Bill could be used to alter UK laws on equality and human rights without parliamentary scrutiny.
Indeed, some Government Members, if they pride themselves on holding consistent views, should also be alarmed. Thirteen Government Members and five from these Benches, some of whom are here today, wrote to The Daily Telegraph in January 2016, stating:
“Whatever one’s views on the EU debate, many will agree that parliamentary sovereignty should be the key focus in any renegotiations.”
They now have an opportunity to demonstrate by their actions rather than their words that they value parliamentary sovereignty more highly than ministerial expediency. Will any of them have the courage of their convictions, or did their commitment to parliamentary scrutiny have an expiry date of 23 June 2016?
The truth is that the Bill was always going to be a sow’s ear, because the Government started the negotiations without clear objectives or outcomes in mind so the Bill had to cater for any eventuality or scenario, deal or no deal. What started with democracy must not end with a stitch-up by Ministers. The Liberal Democrats believe that the people, as well as politicians, must have a meaningful vote on the final deal. If they do not accept the deal negotiated by the Prime Minister and her Cabinet, they should have the option to remain a member of the European Union. The Bill must provide for this, but instead it denies Members of Parliament our right and duty to scrutinise and takes powers away from devolved Governments. It gives unbridled power to Ministers and makes a mockery of Brexiteers’ rallying cry of “Take back control of our laws.” It must be resisted at every turn.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) pointed out, this is an historic Bill by any standards. In fact, it is hard to think of a clause 1 of any Bill more momentous than:
“The European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”
But beyond that, it is possibly not such a dramatic piece of legislation.
I was quite pleased when the original working title of the “great repeal Bill” was abandoned because it is not, beyond clause 1, a repeal Bill. In fact, it is the great preservation Bill. It carries out a workaday, almost prosaic function but, nevertheless, an important one: to preserve in United Kingdom law the European law we have absorbed over the past 44 years to ensure that there will be a working statute book in this country on the day of exit, which will very probably be the stroke of midnight on 30 March 2019, Brussels time. This should not be a contentious matter. All Members of this honourable House should be anxious that we have that certainty for business and the citizens of the country when we leave the European Union. I am surprised, therefore, that the Opposition have decided to table a reasoned amendment in which they make it quite clear that they intend to wreck the Bill.
I really wonder whether the Opposition have given any consideration to the impact that their decision may well have on the interests of business and commerce in this country. We have to ensure that the statute book works on the day of exit. Frankly, the only way that we can achieve that in the timescale by which we are constrained, and which is set out in article 50, is to have a flexible and pragmatic system such as the one laid out in the Bill. That does not mean that the Opposition supinely have to accept everything without possibly considering amendment, but it really is quite reprehensible simply to go along a course of trying to wreck the Bill.
We certainly have to consider the mechanisms that are to be employed. Listening to the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and other Opposition Members, the overall impression I get is that the concern is not so much about the methodology of ensuring continuity of legislation. It is rather the issue of scrutiny of the measures that will have to be brought forward under secondary legislation. Some measures will certainly be prosaic and straightforward. For example, I cannot think that anyone would object to a measure that would replace a European institution with a British institution as needing anything more than a piece of secondary legislation under the negative procedure. Other measures will certainly be of greater moment.
The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras mentioned today’s report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee. An earlier report of that Committee in March this year came up with certain sensible suggestions for scrutiny. One example was setting up a Joint Committee of both Houses, an idea that my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) also touched on. I would have thought that, rather than seeking to destroy the Bill—with all the adverse consequences that would have on the national interest—Opposition Members should possibly give consideration in Committee to putting forward some enhanced form of scrutiny of the sort that was contemplated by the Constitution Committee in its report. That is the proper way forward.
Simply to seek to destroy and wreck the Bill does nothing for the reputation of this House, and we have heard so many speeches this afternoon about preserving that reputation. I, for one, am happy to support the Bill on Second Reading and I urge other hon. Members to vote for it.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I will support the Bill on Second Reading for two reasons—one relatively small and personal, and the other to do with the general principles of democracy.
The first is that, when I joined the Labour party as a very young man, my Labour MP, Paul Rose, who was the youngest Member of Parliament elected in the 1964 Parliament, was one of the 69 Labour rebels who voted with Ted Heath to implement the 1972 Act. I have been smouldering with quiet anger over the 45 years since that happened, so it is a personal delight to be able to vote to repeal that Act—Paul Rose certainly made his constituents and constituency party very angry at the time.
The much more substantial reason, however, is that we had a referendum last year, and people voted by a majority to leave the European Union. Although this is not the Bill that takes us out of the European Union—that is done under article 50—it is absolutely fundamental to leaving the European Union. Having made their decision, and many of the people who voted remain having come to the conclusion that we should get on with it, I do not think people will understand the Labour party’s tactical position of voting against the Bill, having said in the general election only three months ago that we would implement our manifesto. That is not a principled position, and I do not think the electorate like it. I think the Labour party has made a serious mistake in coming to the conclusion it has, and I hope it can reverse it between now and the vote on Monday evening.
Having said that, I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who led for the Labour party, made some substantial points about flaws in the Bill, as did other speakers. While I will vote for Second Reading, I hope Ministers are listening carefully to what has been said and will come forward with compromises. It is not healthy to have so many Henry VIII clauses. Every Government has had Henry VIII clauses, but not of this substantial nature.
I have never liked self-amending regulation, which was one reason I went through the Lobby against the Lisbon treaty with the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. The Lisbon treaty contained passerelle clauses, which effectively allowed bureaucrats in Brussels to change our laws without any response from Parliament. To respond to what the previous Attorney General said earlier, I do not believe that two wrongs make a right, but I do believe in consistency: it was certainly wrong to have passerelle clauses and huge Henry VIII clauses before, and it is wrong now. I hope the Government will listen to the reasonable points that have been made.
A great many points have been made, and one cannot, in the short period of five minutes, cover all the positions that have been set out. I would make one point, because there has been genuine concern on the Labour side about the loss of protection from environmental laws and changes to trade union laws. What lies underneath that is a belief that everything that has come out of the European Union has been good for trade unions and the environment. That simply is not true. If one looks at the Laval judgment from the European Court of Justice or the Viking judgment, one sees that they undermine minimum wage legislation and the definition of what constitutes a trade dispute. If one looks at the width of environmental legislation, one sees that there is a lot in the history of the EU that has done serious damage to the environment. The issue that comes to mind most is the fisheries policy, which nearly denuded the North sea of cod and other fish.
I hope that the Government are listening and will come forward with some compromises, and if it is necessary to give us more than eight days, I hope that that time will be given.
Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)
I will curtail my remarks to focus on the parts of the Bill that deal with the transposing of EU laws and regulations as they concern environmental protection.
I have every faith in the Government’s determination to transpose the full suite of regulations that have been successful in protecting many aspects of our environment and in Ministers’ frequently stated wish that we will leave the environment in a better state than we found it. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for DEFRA has made a superb start, and what he says about the environment warms the cockles of my heart. However, what we are talking about here is for ever—certainly for the foreseeable future decades ahead, and it can be amended by future Governments. Who knows what forces will be pulling on Governments of the future that could result in much-valued environmental protections being dumped?
We therefore need to implement measures that are backed by a new architecture of governance. I find myself attracted to some of the remarks being made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). That is probably to the consternation of some of my colleagues, but I think her sentiments are right. We might disagree on what that architecture is, but she is right to raise the matter. We want to prevent future Governments from playing fast and loose with protections that have cleaned up our beaches and our rivers, started to clean our air, and could and should be extended to our soils, our seas and other fundamentals of our very existence and the future of our economy.
One measure that is, on the face of it, impossible to replicate in the Bill is the process of infraction—fines with lots of noughts on the end that are imposed on a member state’s Government for failure to comply with a directive. I can assure hon. Members that this is something that keeps Ministers awake at night. For example, the potential failure of the UK to comply with the urban waste water treatment directive has resulted in a £4 billion-plus scheme to build a new sewer a few yards from where we sit to clean up one of the greatest rivers in the world running through one of the greatest cities in the world. When I was a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in 2010, infraction hung over me and the Government. It ensured that every action the Department took was compliant with the directives of the EU. If it was not, we would face the risk of a huge fine.
While I am glad that the Government intend to transpose all EU law into UK law, as set out in clause 2, the question then emerges of how we can properly enforce those changes. The water framework directive is the only show in town in terms of cleaning up our rivers. Only one fifth of the chalk streams in this country are fully functioning eco-systems—a national disgrace, to my mind. But we are on a glide path to correcting that through the clear and unequivocal measures set out in that directive. A supra-national body like the EU is obviously able to fine a member state for failure to comply, but it is hard to imagine circumstances where a Government could, or would, fine themselves. It concerns me that judicial review seems to be seen in the Bill as sufficient on its own. In fact, to ensure that the environment is protected, a proper body with the ability to audit the Government, working with non-governmental organisations, needs to be put in place.
As I have said, I have great faith in people like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others to protect the directives, but I fear that future Governments may not be so rigorous. Our constituents need to have the reassurance that we are protecting the protections. We need assurances that we can fill the gap that the loss of measures such as infraction would create. I have no silver bullet to solve that, but I am looking to achieve it through the progress of the Bill and possibly future pieces of primary legislation.
I believe that it is our absolute duty to scrutinise the Bill. I utterly reject some bizarre comments I have seen in the press saying that scrutiny somehow undermines the will of the people. I intend to vote for the Bill on Second Reading. I believe it can be improved in Committee. It is absolutely vital that we assist the Government in trying to make something that is workable not just now but for the very long term.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I agree with a number of the points that the right hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) has just made. George Osborne was right in his headline in the Evening Standard yesterday to describe the effect of the Bill as “rule by decree”. That headline was prompted by an article written by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), and I pay tribute to him for his article and his interventions in this debate. I agree, in particular, that this is
“an astonishing monstrosity of a Bill.”
Unlike him, however, I do not intend to vote in favour of it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise concerns about the explicit intention in the Bill not to put into our law the charter of fundamental rights. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was right to tackle that earlier. Ministers have told us that they do not intend the Bill to dilute employment rights, environmental protections or other things that we have, but there is no assurance at all in the Bill that those dilutions will not go ahead. We need much more reassurance than we have been given.
I want to raise with the House a very practical example of a problem with not putting the charter of fundamental rights into UK law. Article 8 deals with the protection of personal data. It says:
“Everyone has the right to the protection of personal data concerning him or her… Such data must be processed fairly for specified purposes and on the basis of the consent of the person concerned or some other legitimate basis laid down by law.”
That article underpins data protection law, and it underpins the legal frameworks permitting the free flow of data across European borders. It is absolutely essential that the Government secure an adequacy agreement from the Commission, confirming that data protection in the UK is adequate from a European standpoint, so that UK businesses can continue to exchange personal data with EU countries.
If Ministers do not achieve such an agreement, they will have removed the basis for the lawful operation of countless British businesses. TechUK has pointed out the extent of UK leadership in this field: 11% of global data flows pass through the UK and 75% of that traffic is with the EU. But Ministers will not get an adequacy agreement if this commitment is not contained in UK law. We need article 8, or an equivalent affirmation of the same principles. I see no justification whatever for not taking that article or, indeed, the rest of the charter into UK law.
It is a real mystery to me why Conservative Ministers have become so impervious to the basic needs of British businesses in their handling of Brexit. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) was absolutely right to point out in his response to the Secretary of State at the start of the debate that we have to stay in the single market and customs union for at least the duration of the transition phase. On taking office, the Secretary of State told us that his negotiation would secure “barrier-free access” for UK businesses and consumers to the EU single market. He does not say that any more.
The Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), who is in his place on the Front Bench, said at Brexit questions earlier today that we will have the “minimum of frictions” in our trade with the European Union. The reality is that we need barrier-free access. We need access to the single market for UK businesses and consumers that does not involve tariffs or non-tariff barriers, and the only way that we will get that before the conclusion of the negotiations is if we stay in the single market and in the customs union. I very much regret that Ministers have rejected that idea—the Secretary of State told us that they did think about it—and I think that that is one of the reasons why we need to reject the Bill.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), but let me also say how much I agree with so many of the comments in Conservative Members’ speeches about the folly of the Opposition’s decision to oppose the Bill at this stage. Opposition Members will vote against it without seeing that it actually has to be done. They say it has to be done, and indeed, it does have to be done: we must transfer all the regulations, directives, laws and so on. There are, as we all agree, many faults in the Bill, but Opposition Members will be letting down many of the people in their own constituencies who voted leave, and who will see this for the playing politics that it undoubtedly is.
I fully endorse and totally adopt all the contents of the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) and for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin), for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) and for Newbury (Richard Benyon). I very much note the outbreak of unity on the Government Benches, and indeed across the House as well. There have been some excellent speeches, and some very good points have been made by right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. Notably, I have also taken into account the wise words of my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) and for Clwyd West (Mr Jones).
There is growing concern about the Bill, and my biggest concern is the power grab, as I would put it, by Ministers—the transfer of powers to Ministers with very little, if any, influence for debate in the Chamber and decision making in this place.
Anna Soubry
I will in a moment.
I want to thank my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State, who have clearly already listened to the many concerns expressed by Government Members. I and others will be having a meeting with the Prime Minister, and I look forward to that. I also look forward, in due course, to some serious Government amendments being tabled, or perhaps the adoption of amendments that will no doubt be tabled by right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches.
As the House will know, I share the real concerns about clause 9. Frankly, I think it should simply be withdrawn. Clause 17 is certainly open, if not to withdrawal, at least to some serious, considerable and fundamental amendments. I am concerned about the delegated legislation for the reasons I have outlined in interventions and for those given in other Members’ excellent speeches. As I have said, I think we can find other mechanisms for delivering the delegated legislation while making sure that we scrutinise it properly. We have existing Committees that we can either strengthen or increase in size so that we can filter consideration out through so-called triaging. That is probably an appalling abuse of the word, but we all know what it means. It is a good idea, and it is gaining much support among Government Members as well as Opposition Members.
May I just say something that I think needs to be said? I say this to all the perfectly reasonable and sensible people, not just those in my constituency of Broxtowe, but the many millions throughout this country who voted leave on 23 June 2016. If anybody tells you that people like me are doing everything we can—in scrutinising legislation, tabling amendments and perhaps even voting for them—to thwart the will of the people, they are telling you lies. I am not going to put up with it any longer, because this needs to be said. We are leaving the EU. Even my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe accepts that we are leaving the EU. Some of us voted for doing that by triggering article 50, flying in the face of everything we have ever believed in, because we promised our electors that we would honour the result, and that is what we are going to do.
I would say to the millions who voted leave: you should not just question the motives of those who tell you that people like me want to thwart your decision, but look at the other things they promised you before 23 June 2016. They told you it would be this great opportunity to get rid of all the rules and regulations, the miles of red tape and all the things that were strangling British business and the economy, but we are going to take those very same things and place them lock, stock and barrel into substantive British law. They told you that you would get an extra £350 million for the NHS, and you will not. They told you that you would take back control, but if this Bill is not amended, you can forget that, because the people will not be taking back control in this place, but giving it to Ministers. That may not just be a Conservative Government; it could—God forbid—be a Labour Government led by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). Finally, they told you it would all be so easy, and as you now know, it is not just challenging but a blooming nightmare. However, we will do our best to deliver it, and if it all goes wrong, do not forget that we will be here to clear up the mess, and do not forget who misled you and told you lies before 23 June 2016.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
Leaving the EU means that we need to convert decades of EU law into our domestic legislation. A Bill that can do that in a timely and effective manner is essential. That is not what this debate is about. The real question is whether the Bill is fit for purpose, and I am afraid that it is not. The Government claim it will restore sovereignty to Parliament and secure certainty post-Brexit, but that is not the case. It transfers huge powers to Ministers, not to Members of the House, over issues vital to people’s lives, such as maternity and paternity leave, holidays, environmental standards and a range of other issues. I fear that the Bill could increase uncertainty, including the likelihood of legal challenge and judicial review, because the powers in it are so broadly drawn.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) have forensically exposed the reality of the key clauses in the Bill. Clause 7 gives Ministers the power to change EU-derived law that has failed or is deficient, without any definition of what that means; clause 9 could be used to amend the powers in the Bill after it is enacted; and clause 17 gives Ministers sweeping powers to make changes that they consider appropriate in consequence of the Act.
The Brexit Secretary claims, of course, that the Government will not use the powers to make major policy changes, which raises the question: why include them in the first place? Many people, myself included, fear that the powers will indeed be used to water down or remove workers’ rights and environmental standards. Some Government Members have tried to brush these concerns aside. Often they are the very same Members who have railed against the use of delegated powers in the past. For years, the Brexit Secretary argued vociferously against the
“trend from representative democracy to presidential oligarchy”.—[Official Report, 22 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 932.]
Oh how times have changed! The right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has strongly criticised the use of delegated powers, and let us not forget the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who in 2011, his pre-Brexit and pre-leadership contender days, said:
“It is the perpetual, almost the eternal, job of this House to try to keep the Executive, Her Majesty’s Government, under check”
and urged Members to take
“tough decisions to hold the Government to account”
even
“when it is a Government whom we support”.—[Official Report, 5 December 2011; Vol. 537, cc. 57-60.]
I think that consistency in one’s political values and beliefs is vital, however difficult the circumstances, and I urge Government Members to remember the courage of their previous convictions.
As I said, a Bill is necessary to achieve Brexit, and as always I want to be constructive. I urge Ministers to bring forward measures to circumscribe more tightly the powers that the Bill delegates and to strengthen the scrutiny procedures for the most widely delegated powers. If they bring forward amendments along those lines, they will have support across the House.
Brexit presents us with a Herculean task. It encompasses not just transferring half a century of EU law into UK legislation or even agreeing the initial article 50 deal, but finances, the rights of EU and UK citizens, and Northern Ireland, which is already proving a huge challenge for the Government. It is about defining the future relationship between the UK and the EU for years to come.
Yesterday, the Brexit Secretary said that no one pretended this would be easy, but that is precisely what they did. Before the referendum, the Environment Secretary claimed:
“The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and we can choose the path we want.”
Just last month, the International Trade Secretary said that a free trade agreement
“should be one of the easiest in human history”
to agree. Such comments are not just misleading but deeply misguided. They will not build respect or trust with our negotiating partners, and they will not bring Britain together. I fear that we are as divided now as we were at the referendum. Remain voters are angry that their views are being ignored; leave voters are frustrated at progress and worried that we could be tied up in knots for years. We need more honesty about the challenges we face and the inevitable trade-offs and compromises that will have to come. That is the leadership Britain now needs. The Government should step up to the mark.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not used to being called so early in a debate.
Like many other Members, or perhaps all of them, I have received numerous emails and letters from constituents who have heard the comments and read the articles. They have heard that the Bill is about creating ministerial decree—fiat—as a result of Henry VIII clauses, and that it is an unnecessary power grab which jeopardises their rights and undermines their Parliament. I take those concerns seriously, as all of us should.
The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who made a superb speech today, highlighted the complexity of the Bill and some of the many questions that I should like to be addressed during its passage, but it needs to be given a Second Reading because, in my view and on the basis of what I have heard this afternoon, the principle is unquestionable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, the Bill itself is not so egregious or deficient that it does not provide a clear basis for its future stages—far from it.
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Gentleman says that the principle of the Bill is good. What we have been discussing today is the principle of undermining parliamentary democracy. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that that is the principle that is at stake, and that is why we are against the Bill in its present form?
Robert Jenrick
I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured by the comments that I shall go on to make.
Let us not get ahead of ourselves. Speaker Lenthall is not in the Chair, although we have a perfectly good successor in you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Charles I is not on his way with a warrant for the arrest of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), although some might like to see that. Statutory instruments are a parliamentary procedure. They are not fiat; they are not Orders in Council. They can be debated. We can go and speak about them, and we can vote on them. Parliament may treat them as a Cinderella whose job is to read emails or sign paperwork, but that is our choice. It reflects on the recent history of this place rather than on the procedure itself, or how it should be in the future.
The purpose of the Bill is explicitly to replicate what we have in European law, not to change it. I understand that at least 50% of the statutory instruments will make immaterial technical changes about which no Member in his or her right mind—I know that some Members may not be—would have any concern. There needs to be a mechanism to sift based on materiality, and that point has been made eloquently by many Members today. I hope that such a mechanism will be created in Committee. There will be some material issues—issues on which I have some expertise, or issues that my constituents care about—and I should like to speak about them and ensure that we make the right decisions, but they will not be the majority. I am sure that the whole House can and will find a sensible mechanism during the Committee stage.
Constituents have also emailed me to ask, “Is this necessary?” Of course it is necessary. This is an unprecedented challenge. As we heard from the Chair of the Exiting the European Union Committee, the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), it is byzantine. However much some of those who campaigned in favour of leave would like to hide the fact, it is undoubtedly the most complex challenge that has faced the country in my lifetime, if not before. We therefore need a step like this to move the vast majority of European law, if not all of it, on to the UK statute book before we leave.
Let us be honest: there is no easy way to do this. Although the shadow Secretary of State made an excellent speech, highlighting details, deficiencies and concerns, he did not really set out an alternative way of doing it. In fact, no one has done that today: no one has set out an alternative to the Bill that would require any of us to vote against it. The deficiencies and concerns that have been highlighted must and will be ironed out in Committee. That is the truth, and beyond that, I am afraid, it is all party political activity. The Bill, or something extremely similar to it, is necessary, so let us move forward together.
When I explain this Bill in principle to my businessmen constituents and others back in Newark, and appear before the Newark business club, as all of us have—well, many Members will have been to Newark, but not necessarily to visit the business club—they nod, because it is obvious that we need a Bill of this nature so that on the day we leave the EU they can have confidence that nothing substantial will have changed. That is why we need to proceed.
In closing, and perhaps as a rebuke to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I say that we can love Parliament and want to jealously guard its rights and privileges created by our predecessors but still show pragmatism in the national interest when the times demand it, because that is politics. That is life; that is the job we are sent here to do. That is poetry and prose, romance and reality; that is what we are sent here to achieve. So every Member who wants a smooth transition and to give our constituents the certainty they are crying out for, and everyone who may have concerns about the deficiencies of this Bill but wants to work together in the national interest to iron them out in Committee and on Third Reading, should vote for this Bill on Second Reading.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
I do not want to repeat many of the excellent points made from the shadow Front Bench and elsewhere, but I do want to make one observation and two points—one legal and technical on clause 6, and one that is more substantial on clause 9.
First, I want to make an observation. I am sorry, but I disagree with the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has just spoken: what is proposed in this Bill is unprecedented, as we see from the reaction on both sides of the House.
There is an absurdity in this debate. I spent much of the time during the EU referendum debating against Conservative Members campaigning to leave. More often than not, the core of their argument was about a Brussels elite exercising power, yet I have sat in the Chamber for most of today and listened to them become arch-advocates of transferring power to another elite in this country.
It is a shame that the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) is no longer in the Chamber. He talked about his participation in the Maastricht debates of the 1990s, and the hon. Members for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) and for Stone (Sir William Cash) were also involved. The Prime Minister of the time had a word to describe them all, which I will not repeat today. They were constantly invoking parliamentary sovereignty and the importance of this House determining the future of our nation. It is funny how silent they are on upholding that argument now, and have been over the last few hours of this debate.
Let us be honest about the reason for this and for the absurdity of their position in this debate: they promised Brexit in terms that simply cannot be delivered in the timeframe the Government envisage. That is why we see these unprecedented, extraordinary powers envisaged in this Bill for the Executive. It is entirely right for us to keep reminding people of what the promises were and whether they are being delivered.
My technical point on clause 6—
Chuka Umunna
I will not give way, I am afraid, because of the time. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he is not silent; he is certainly not silent.
The Secretary of State today said that the Government wish the transitional arrangements to be as close as possible to the existing arrangements. The EU27 are really only going to entertain membership of the single market and a form of customs union, if that is what the Secretary of State means, but they will also expect the rules on the transitional arrangements to be uniform and similar to those we have at present. The problem with clause 6 as drafted is that it does not give a clear enough instruction that after the exit date the judiciary should interpret UK law in a way that complies with EU law. The Institute for Government states that the ambiguity on this point risks leaving judges stranded on the frontline of a fierce political battle. I can say, as someone who practised as a lawyer for the best part of a decade before coming here, that that must be addressed.
The Bill cannot be allowed to come into force unless this House has approved the deal that is envisaged. The Bill does not state whether any withdrawal agreement will need the consent of both Houses before the powers can be used. The Government have said that we will get a vote on a final deal, but that does not appear to be within the Bill. Rather, it will take place by means of a motion, which would of course not be legally binding. So we have a promise of a vote, but it will have no teeth. That will deprive this House of its proper say not only on the withdrawal agreement but on a situation that the Prime Minister has described in which an affirmative decision could be made to walk away without any deal at all. We are somehow supposed to be passive spectators in that situation. It must be written on the face of the Bill that Parliament will have a part to play in all those scenarios, and that no powers in the Bill will be exercised until Parliament has had its say through a debate written in statute. We have been given many guarantees and assurances by those on the Government Front Bench, but these measures have to be put on the face of the Bill. We are asking for these assurances and scrutinising the Bill in the national interest, and we are entitled to do so without our motives being questioned.
Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)
I echo many of the sentiments expressed by the hon. and right hon. Members who support the Bill, and I support many of the points that they have made. I voted to leave the EU, as did 67% of voters in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. During the campaign, it became quite clear that there was disillusionment with what the EU had become. The message I got loud and clear from constituents on the doorstep was that, yes, there was a degree of concern over uncontrolled immigration, but the overriding frustration was around our sovereignty and the consequent ability to control our own laws. The Bill will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 from the day we leave, bringing a welcome end to the supremacy of EU law in the UK, and I support its main purpose of ensuring that the UK has a functioning statute book once we leave the EU. That is obviously in the national interest.
I saw at first hand the negative impacts that EU laws and regulations can have on our local economy during the 20 years I spent running my own small business. Many of the regulations and laws that affected my firm stemmed from Brussels, yet I was unable to trade with its markets. To put this into context, only 5% of our businesses export to the EU, yet 100% are caught by its red tape, with small businesses usually disproportionately affected. During the referendum campaign, research across west midlands small businesses showed that they represented 99% of employers, employing 58% of local people. By a ratio of 4:1, they thought that EU laws made it harder to take on staff. By a ratio of 2:1, they believed that EU regulation hindered them, rather than helping them. A massive 70% of them thought that the UK, rather than the EU, should be in charge of negotiating trade agreements.
I am mindful, however, of the fact that we need to create an environment that works for everyone, not just those of us who voted leave, so I ask the Government to take into account the following two points as the Bill moves forward. First, businesses are already making decisions in preparation for March 2019 and they require legal certainty in order to meet their commitments to customers once we have left the European Union. Given that much of the detail of the new legal framework will be brought forward through secondary legislation, it is vital that the process of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the programme of statutory instruments be prepared well in advance of March 2019, to provide them with the confidence they need.
Secondly, in order to avoid a legal vacuum on leaving the European Union, it is important that any inconsistencies within existing EU legislation are addressed prior to its transposition into UK law. I therefore stress the need for the Government to consult fully with stakeholders throughout the process of drafting and laying statutory instruments, to ensure that any inconsistencies between EU and UK legislation—especially in relation to their practical implications—are fully addressed by these measures. I firmly believe that there are exciting times ahead for the UK outside the EU, and that if due consideration is given to the issues I have mentioned, the Bill will provide the pathway to the smooth exit that we all want to see. I will be backing it in the Lobby on Monday, supporting the democratic decision of my constituents and the UK to leave the EU.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I want to focus briefly on the Government’s wilful misinterpretation of what Brexit means and the constitutional car crash that this Bill entails. Article 50 has been triggered and we are leaving the European Union, but sense can prevail if the Government guarantee our future within the single market, customs unions and the pan-European agencies that are the foundation of Wales’s economy. Stating that we can have those advantages by another name is self-deluding. The benefits of continuing our membership of the customs union and single market are well rehearsed, but they warrant an abridged version, because they guide my party’s principles.
Wales’s export-led economy is reliant on European markets, where 67% of our products find their final destination. Wales is a net beneficiary of European funding to the tune of £245 million. All in all, 200,000 Welsh jobs are inextricably, crucially and vulnerably linked with the great institutions of European economic co-operation. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the dozens of economists, exports and I are scaremongering and that it is not 200,000 jobs that will disappear from the Welsh economy, but perhaps only half of that or a quarter. Will Ministers please be precise and quantify how many Welsh jobs they are willing to sacrifice in pursuit of the UK’s brave new role at the vanguard of some globalist utopia?
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the shadow Secretary of State, was eloquent today and concentrated on the Government’s attempted constitutional sleight of hand. Despite the various contradictory push-me, pull-you position of numerous shadow Cabinet members, I believe that their official position is evidently simply to delay the pain and pull us out of the customs union and single market following a period of transition.
Beyond the single market and customs union, there are upward of 40 pan-European agencies that form the basis of our international relations across a range of policy areas. Whether ensuring that planes can safely take off and land, the regulation of life-saving medicines or the safety and security of nuclear material, it seems as though the Government are willing to sacrifice all the advances made by our membership of those agencies, but for what? We are now staring down the barrel of an extreme Brexit gun, and the truth is that the two Westminster parties have their fingers on the trigger. My party exists to serve the people of Wales and that is why I felt it important to re-emphasise what the consequences will be for Wales in particular.
My hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) will discuss this in greater detail, but we are seeing a constitutional power grab not just here with the Henry VIII powers, but in the powers that have been handed to our devolved nations. The way in which they will be handled in future is frankly shameful. I will not apologise for defending my country from the disastrous dystopia that will be created by this Government’s Brexit strategy, and I will be voting against this Bill’s Second Reading.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Debate to be resumed on Monday 11 September.
Hive Stadium
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to raise the sale of the Hive playing fields and to see the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), on the Front Bench to respond. I well understand if he has problems in answering the debate, given the mix-up between the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities and Local Government on who should respond, but I am delighted that the right person will do so.
Via your good offices, Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise this issue tonight.
This is a tale of mystery, obfuscation and financial mismanagement by both Harrow Council and Camden Council, and of attempts by obscure private organisations to take over a public asset. On repeated occasions I have raised Barnet football club’s abuse of the Hive and its failure to adhere to a single one of the management agreements that have been in place for the playing fields for the past 10 years.
Tonight, my key concern is with the creeping transfer, without any checks or balances, of this essential public asset, over which public authorities have attempted to exert control, to private companies that frankly have a history of abusing the commitments they have made.
I will start with a brief history of the site, which was originally known as the Prince Edward’s and Watson’s playing fields. For some reason that I have not yet been able to fathom, the site was owned by the London Borough of Camden, which took the decision in November 2001 to transfer the asset to the London Borough of Harrow. That was a sensible move, given that the site is wholly in the London Borough of Harrow and always has been, so why it was ever in the hands of the London Borough of Camden is still a mystery to me.
The key point is that the transfer took place, and we can understand why because, obviously, the maintenance of playing fields is a cost to a local authority, and Camden transferred it knowing that Harrow would have to pick up that cost. Under the land transfer, however, the agreement was that the London Borough of Harrow would pay the London Borough of Camden half of the value it received, plus 4 percentage points above the Co-operative bank base rate, if the site were to be sold before 2041. Here we are in 2017 and the site has been sold, but I understand that the London Borough of Camden has not received a penny piece.
If capital were to be generated in excess of what was required to maintain and develop the site, the London Borough of Harrow would have had to pay the London Borough of Camden the money as I have detailed. That agreement was clearly to protect a public asset from falling into private hands and being subject to development as, for example, a housing estate or a commercial development.
When I approached the London Borough of Camden through a freedom of information request, it initially denied ever owning the site or ever transferring it to the London Borough of Harrow, and therefore, of course, it had no consideration on the site, which smacks to me of the London Borough of Camden not seeming to know what has gone on with the assets it has transferred. It responded to the freedom of information request only yesterday by advising that it had no outstanding ownership of the site, but that it owned the freehold until 21 November 2001, when it transferred the site to Harrow for zero consideration.
Basically, the London Borough of Camden has only just woken up to the fact that it had owned the site and that it should be entitled to some funds were the site to be sold, yet it denied owning the site in the first place, so there is some confusion.
When the site was transferred, Harrow Council attempted to maintain it and bring it back into proper use for the public, and there was a part development of a football stadium on the site. That was a disaster; it went to rack and ruin. As a result, an agreement was made with The Hive Foundation Ltd—this goes back to 24 June 2007—when the idea was that these playing fields would be brought back into public use, with youth facilities, educational departments, and schools in Harrow and in Camden having the opportunity to use the facilities on the site. Over the past 10 years that has been outstandingly successful, with youth teams and schools having been able to use the site, which I warmly applaud.
That agreement was projected to run for 50 years, giving the London Borough of Harrow control over what happened on the site. Unfortunately, then comes the unfortunate tale of the involvement of Barnet football club. Originally, the team played in Barnet, at Underhill, which it eventually left following relegation from the Football League. Despite the fact that it was using the Hive as a training ground and despite a strict management agreement that no professional football could be played at the Hive, by Barnet FC or anyone else, that did not stop Barnet FC. When it left Underhill in 2013, it immediately started playing its professional games at the Hive, completely ignoring the management agreement in place with the London Borough of Harrow. A dispute then occurred between Barnet FC and Harrow Council as to what constituted “professional football”. In my view, the football Conference is professional football, and that is where Barnet football club was playing its football, so it was in breach of the management agreement. However, Harrow Council decided not to enforce it, so Barnet FC just carried on.
I took up this issue because in 2013, when Barnet FC started playing its professional matches at the Hive, the impact in the local area was huge. No consultation took place with any of the public or the stadium’s neighbours. What happened then—this continues to happen on match days—was that the whole area became surrounded by traffic, as, funnily enough, most of Barnet FC’s supporters come from Barnet. Our area’s public transport has a radial system of spokes on the tube. Barnet has the Northern Line, and Harrow has the Jubilee, Bakerloo and Metropolitan lines. There is a good service on the Jubilee line, but Barnet FC supporters coming to the stadium from Barnet have to travel into the centre of London and then back out again in order to take the tube. There is a bus service there, but most people do not want to use it and do not do so, which means that they drive. The car park at the Hive charges for the privilege of parking, whereas the streets are free—so guess where the supporters park. Since 2013, the residents around the stadium have been severely impacted as a direct result.
Barnet FC has refused point blank to respond to any of my letters or phone calls for more than four years. I have never had a reply from the club to any of the queries I have raised with it, which demonstrates its complete contempt for democracy and the local residents, whom I seek to protect. Indeed, a resident alerted me to the fact that Barnet FC has now obtained the site’s freehold from the London Borough of Harrow, and not a single member of the public has ever been consulted about the implications of what has happened.
The key point is that I have encountered a litany of problems that have occurred with Barnet FC. Harrow Council has always said that its management agreement allowed it to exert pressure on Barnet FC to do the right things and to make things right, but let me go through one or two of the problems we have faced. Under the agreement Barnet FC had an obligation to plant trees to mitigate the noise and nuisance it is causing to local residents, but not a single tree has been planted. That agreement goes back five years, yet not a single tree has been planted—Barnet FC refuses to do so and resists all attempts to make it do so.
When Barnet football club was promoted again from the Conference to the Football League after a year, it carried on playing its professional football and Harrow Council took no action whatever. Even though that was without question a breach of the management agreement, the club just carried on. We also had the challenge of Barnet football club applying for a 24-hour liquor licence on the site. I can understand that after football matches and during games there might be a need for hospitality for supporters and for other events to have an alcohol licence—that is perfectly reasonable—but there is absolutely no need for a 24-hour licence for the site. Barnet proceeded to push that, so that it could attempt to increase its income on the site, causing noise and nuisance to all the surrounding residents.
We had other breaches of planning permission, and the erection of floodlights without planning permission. Residents now do not have to pay for the cost of lighting their homes, because on dark nights their homes are illuminated by the floodlights, although of course a direct result of that is that they and their children cannot go to sleep. Barnet erected a west stand that is twice the size it was permitted to build, and Harrow Council failed to take any action. Originally, the council turned down the subsequent planning application after the stand had been built, but then withdrew the enforcement action under the threat of legal action. Now that Barnet football club has complete control of the site, it has put in a major planning application that has given great concern to residents about the massive stadium that could be built.
The London Borough of Harrow sold the site to Football First Ltd for £2 million and a few extra pounds on 17 March 2017. That referenced the original transfer from the London Borough of Camden to the London Borough of Harrow, but still no action has been taken about whether the London Borough of Camden should receive any compensation. There is a covenant not to build on the site before 21 November 2041 for any purpose other than sports-related activities, but the reality is, can we have trust as to what may happen on the site in the future?
A service level agreement exists between the London Borough of Harrow and Football First Ltd. It is explicit and lasts for 50 years. Indeed, if there are five breaches within the first 24 months, the London Borough of Harrow can cancel the agreement. What is not clear in the legal documentation is what happens if there are breaches and the service level agreement is cancelled. What would happen to this previously public asset? Would it transfer back to the London Borough of Harrow and therefore public ownership, or would there just be no service level agreement on the site for schools and other groups? There is an agreement that children under 12 and living in Harrow should have access to free tickets for Barnet football matches.
We have a position in terms of transparency where the London Borough of Harrow and the London Borough of Camden basically ignored my initial freedom of information requests. They reluctantly then acknowledged that my office was correct and they were wrong. The London Borough of Harrow has not yet responded to my second FOI request, and we are still awaiting the details from that. We have a publicly owned asset that has been transferred to a private enterprise with no consultation with the public, no agreement, no controls on parking and no controls on what happens on the site. We still have the mystery about what happened with the transfer of the land from Camden to Harrow, but Harrow has gradually relinquished the site, year by year. That raises a question about how councils manage public access, which should be for the value and benefit of the public.
The residents in immediate proximity to the stadium are extremely unhappy. Indeed, I think all Harrow residents will be angered by how council tax payers had to stump up to develop the site, only for the council to sell it off at well below the market rate for land like this in Greater London. Local authorities should manage public assets in a professional and transparent manner. Harrow Council has clearly failed to realise its obligation, and by selling the land it has allowed this asset to be transferred to a club and a series of private firms. We do not know what they will do with it or what controls can be exercised over it, and the residents around the site are extremely unhappy.
I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister’s response to some of the issues I have outlined, although I will completely understand if he is not able to deal with all the points I have raised. If that is the case, I would be happy with an exchange of correspondence or a meeting at an appropriate date to get to the bottom of these issues.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
The easiest request for me to respond to that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) made was for a meeting: at the outset, I will commit to having that meeting with him to discuss these important issues at more length.
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. It is clear that there are several ongoing issues relating to the matters he has raised and that they have been causing considerable local concern. I give credit to the efforts he has made to follow-up on these matters and note his having previously mentioned his concerns in the House several times.
We have had a fantastic summer of sport and, indeed, football: England’s women’s team reached the semi-finals of the European championship; we are the FIFA under-20 and under-19 world champions; and the task of World cup qualification continues at some pace for all the home nations. It is therefore somewhat frustrating that we have first convened in the Chamber not to celebrate that success but to come down with a bump and discuss these long-running issues that surround the intersection of council, community and club.
At the heart of the matter is Barnet football club, which saw its 106-year residency at the Underhill ground in Barnet come to a close under a cloud of difficult relations with Barnet Council, particularly with respect to the access conditions on the freehold sale and the expansion potential within the borough. My hon. Friend spoke at length about the various interactions time between Barnet football club and Harrow Council since then, as well as the part played by Camden Council as the previous owner of the site.
It may help if I say a few words about the disposal of public assets. The Local Government Act 1972 that governs the disposal of assets that are owned by local authorities. It gives councils the power to dispose of land in any manner they wish, including by selling their freehold interest, granting a lease or assigning any unexpired term on a lease and granting easements. The only constraint is that a disposal must be for the best consideration reasonably obtainable, unless the Secretary of State consents to the disposal. The provisions of the 1972 Act should be followed when assets such as the topic of this debate are sold and any land in that sense is disposed of.
My hon. Friend can represent better than any of us the frustrations of local residents when he outlines the detail of the development at the Hive site both in terms of how their concerns have been considered and how planning policy has been enforced. Although I am not able to comment on the specific planning cases that have been mentioned, I would agree that, in terms of the approach to planning generally, consideration of, and engagement with, the wider community alongside the local development plan are an important part of the process.
Applications submitted to a planning authority must be determined in accordance with the local development plan for the area unless material considerations indicate otherwise. All planning applications must be considered on their own merits and subject to statutory periods of consultation to allow third parties to view and comment on them. My hon. Friend mentioned consultation a number of times during his comments.
All representations received during the period of consultation must be considered and taken into account in determining any application. That can include the views of local residents. However, local opposition or support will not necessarily result in the local planning authority refusing or granting planning permission; rather the decision maker will determine what weight to give to any material considerations.
Should any construction not abide by the planning permission obtained, the local planning authority has a wide range of discretionary enforcement powers to deal with unauthorised development, with strong penalties for non-compliance. Effective enforcement is extremely important in maintaining public confidence in the planning system.
Local planning authorities have responsibility for taking whatever enforcement action may be necessary, in the public interest, in their particular administrative areas. Other high-profile clubs are in the process of redeveloping, or proposing to redevelop, their grounds, building brand new state-of-the-art facilities or otherwise moving to pastures new. It is of course only natural that clubs will want to bring the live viewing experience to a larger fan base and to benefit from enhanced match day revenues.
There are also other potential benefits around modernisation of facilities and improved infrastructure, but the impact on existing residents in that area should be an important consideration. I am extremely pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. It should be incumbent on any council in the future—especially in relation to future applications in relation to the subject matter this evening—that those factors are considered around the development of stadiums. We all know that, in addition to enhancing the experience for those people who support a particular football club, there are also the neighbours of that club. Some may well be fans of the club in question, although that is not always the case when a football club moves from one area to another. There are also many people who live by football stadiums who may not be fans. I suspect that, in the situation that my hon. Friend has raised, some of those people may have lived there long before the ownership of the ground changed and the subsequent developments took place.
As I understand it, the current home of Barnet Football Club, the Hive, has abided by all the conditions that the English Football League required of them, but that is not to say that a wholesale move of a club is not contentious. As a long-suffering supporter of Coventry City, I can attest to the fact that ground moves can be extremely contentious, and that certainly has been the case in this instance. Another example is when Wimbledon moved from Wimbledon to Milton Keynes when their ownership changed.
Some lessons have been learned from club relocations in the past, and football has put in place regulations to require planning, consultation and the justification of any plans to sever a club from its local community. The English Football League ratified Barnet’s move to the new home at the Hive, and I understand that the team continues to abide by the conditions required by the Football League.
A football club cannot exist in a bubble, however. It is part of a wider community not just of fans but of neighbours. There have been significant steps recently to promote and protect not just football clubs and the places where they play but other assets with which a community might have some affinity. There would perhaps not have been the opportunity with the Underhill ground, but it might have been possible in the case of Barnet’s current home to register the assets as of community value. That process emanated from the Localism Act 2011, and the community might have had more of an opportunity had those assets been registered when they were disposed of.
Through the work of the Government’s expert working group on football supporter ownership and engagement, members of the English Football League have also codified a minimum level of fan engagement that clubs must undertake. This has been in place since 2016-17 and brought a baseline standard of expectation for off-pitch success, but largely targets the engaged communities and supporters clubs. My fellow Ministers in DCMS and I in DCLG are happy to keep the broad issue of football clubs as part of their communities under consideration as we have discussed tonight. That is a conversation that we are willing to have with the relevant football authorities.
I welcome the debate and am more than willing to discuss these matters further. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand as regards the planning aspects and the sale of the ground that I cannot discuss the specifics of particular cases, but there are clearly procedures that need to be followed in both areas. If he wants to discuss these requirements, I am more than happy to do so.
Bob Blackman
I thank the Minister for his answers and I understand if he cannot answer this tonight, but will he confirm that the Secretary of State has not given approval for the sale of this asset outside the general rules that apply to the sale of public assets?
Mr Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, in this debate I have covered the requirements for assets that are sold for which the best consideration is not obtained. In this sense, I asked my officials whether any application was made to the Secretary of State in this case and I was informed this afternoon that no such application was made.
On that note, I shall bring my comments to a conclusion and I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend on this matter at a later date.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
BBC Transparency
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the transparency of the BBC.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Bone. I am grateful for this opportunity to highlight my concerns about the lack of transparency in the BBC’s use of public money in Northern Ireland and, I am sure, more widely. I secured a debate on the subject on a previous occasion but had to withdraw it for a variety of reasons. My concerns are not unique to Northern Ireland, but my speech will focus on BBC NI.
The BBC’s mission is
“to inform, educate and entertain audiences with programmes and services of high quality, originality and value.”
It used to be considered a reliable source of news and informative programming. It was the broadcaster to go to in times of crisis or turmoil—the dependable, publicly funded broadcaster. I am sorry to inform the House that as a result of events over the last few years, the BBC’s standing has been diminished.
Correspondence from MPs frequently goes totally unanswered or is met with a reply that avoids the issues. Questions about the use of public money are ignored or have a veil of secrecy pulled over them. I have concluded that the BBC fat cats in Belfast are either incredibly arrogant or incredibly shifty. What they are not is open and transparent. I have written to the BBC, but have had to come to this Chamber to raise these serious issues. I use the term “fat cats” because some of the best people in the BBC are the lowest-paid: the foot soldier producers and editors who work long shifts and arrange all the programmes.
I have long argued for maximum transparency from the BBC. I have several concerns. The first relates to pay transparency. The BBC nationally has long resisted the public demand for pay transparency, but it eventually agreed to publish the salaries of 96 stars, as they are called. Their combined salaries were almost £30 million. The public are now somewhat better informed about how their money has been used; we now know that the BBC believes that men should get more money than women for doing the same task. There was an outrageous gender pay disparity. It took a decade for the BBC to be dragged to the point of publishing all salaries of more than £150,000 per year.
In recent months, the BBC has indicated that more staff will be moved off the direct payroll and will therefore not feature in any published list next year, even though they are paid in excess of the £150,000 benchmark. So much for greater transparency. Whether that is motivated by the desire to reduce BBC staff’s personal tax liabilities, to avoid public scrutiny, or both, it is a shameful insight into the BBC top brass’s complete disregard for transparency.
An outrageous double standard is at play. While BBC presenters question elected representatives and others paid by the public purse about their salary and office costs, they hide behind a veil of secrecy about their own publicly funded annual salaries of £200,000, £300,000, £400,000 or more. I am glad that the salaries, overheads and so on of those in this Parliament are accessible to the taxpayer for scrutiny; that is how it should be. Why should the public money funding the BBC be treated any differently? I do not agree with BBC staff avoiding tax by channelling money through obscure personal service companies. This House should consider the ethics of that practice with respect to public money.
My second concern about transparency relates to complaints. A constituent of mine made a very simple freedom of information request:
“I request the number of complaints recorded against matters carried by BBC Northern Ireland for the following outlets: BBC Good Morning Ulster, BBC Nolan (radio), BBC Nolan Live (TV), BBC TalkBack, BBC Evening Extra, BBC Newsline, BBC NI website”.
That was not an unreasonable request. How many complaints have been launched? My constituent received the following reply:
“The information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’ The BBC is therefore not obliged to provide this information to you and will not be doing so on this occasion.”
So much for transparency. That reply was sent by Mr Mark Adair, BBC Northern Ireland’s head of corporate and community affairs. He told my constituent that he holds the information but needs it
“for the purposes of ‘journalism, art or literature.’”
That is clearly nonsense. Why would a publicly funded media organisation not be prepared to make public the number of complaints about its programmes from members of the public?
My third concern relates to the commissioning of programmes. Across the UK—though I will deal with Northern Ireland—the BBC commissions independent companies to produce programmes. However, independent production companies, editing companies and camera and lighting specialists are concerned that they are not getting a fair deal. I have heard stories of slow or reduced payments and a culture of fear. Those stories are fresh in my mind, because I heard them at first hand from those affected when I began to probe the commissioning process.
I wanted to establish what auditing mechanism exists for programmes, both when the contract is awarded and after the finished product has been delivered and broadcast. I also wanted to know how the BBC, as the main contractor, could be sure that subcontractors such as camera operators, lighting operators and editors were paid for their work under the contract. I asked some simple questions of Susan Lovell, the head of multi-platform commissioning for BBC Northern Ireland. I have yet to receive satisfactory answers to those 18 numbered questions, but I was offered a private briefing. The links in her response were so numerous that my printer ran out of ink and paper before I could print them all. The briefing is a nice offer, and I am sure I will take it up, but I would prefer answers.
On Tuesday I emailed Susan Lovell again, knowing that this debate had been tabled. I made my email even more succinct. I asked three straight questions:
“1. When programmes are commissioned and public money granted, how is the use of this money audited?
2. Is an external auditor employed to ensure this public money is appropriated in an ethical manner?
3. If a Commission is granted, can the contracted production company then seek additional monies for travel and other unforeseen production costs?”
Setting aside the fact that I am an MP, I would have assumed as a viewer that that was a perfectly reasonable set of queries.
I received a reply yesterday. It is funny how quickly minds can be exercised when a debate is about to be held; it takes weeks and months otherwise. The reply said:
“Expenditure profiles are a routine feature of programme proposals and allow us to make an informed assessment”.
I always get fearful when I hear answers from large companies that talk about informed assessments, but this was an informed assessment of
“value for money; and we routinely audit our work and output against a range of metrics.”
The key words there are “we routinely audit”; one of my questions was whether an external auditor was employed—I think I have got an answer to that question, even if indirectly. When a programme is commissioned, delivered and broadcast, invoices relating to that contract should then be published online. That happens in many other areas of public service.
I turn to a specific example. In October 2014, a BBC Northern Ireland series, entitled “Story of a Lifetime”, was broadcast. According to the credits, it was produced for BBC NI by a company called Third Street Studios. However, according to Companies House,
“Third Street Studios was incorporated on 2 December 2014, after the series was delivered”.
Almost one year ago, I cited this example and asked the BBC some questions:
“1. To whom and when did BBC NI award the contract for the 2014 series ‘Story of a Lifetime’?
2. What address did BBC NI use to communicate the commission to ‘Third Street Studios’?
3. Did BBC NI check if ‘Third Street Studios’ was incorporated before the programme was commissioned?”
To date, neither the company involved nor the BBC have been able to tell me where the Third Street Studios office is, how much the contract was for and to whom the contract was awarded.
I understand that a director of Third Street Studios is a BBC presenter. Indeed, according to the map on the Third Street Studios website, its office is at Belfast city hall. The “about us” section of the website declares:
“We pride ourselves in understanding mass market television. We don’t do ‘niche’. We do ‘massive’”.
This production company is so massive that I cannot find its office in Belfast. In fact, when I went online, according to the Google map provided, the company’s location is fairly prestigious: in front of Belfast city hall—at a taxi rank. Again, we have some questions that need answering.
When I emailed the company and its director, he said:
“I don’t think that it would be helpful, or appropriate”
to answer my questions. For clarity, I asked about the procurement process, the contract value, the date the contract was awarded and the tendering process for appointing subcontractors. Remember, this is about a series that has already been broadcast on BBC television. The company director said that
“my work…could only properly be understood if equivalent information about all other production companies and their contracts with the BBC were to be placed in the public domain.”
So “I’ll go if you get everyone else to go”—that is effectively what he was saying.
That is further evidence of straightforward and simple questions being ignored. We need full transparency in BBC commissioning, and we need evidence that BBC commission contracts are externally audited.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a very sound case about the BBC, but does he agree that it was this Government who called for increased transparency—maybe not in the areas that he is covering, but certainly on pay rates? They have actually unlocked many of the things that we will debate today, so this Government are definitely holding the BBC to account. Perhaps they should do more, but they are definitely working in this area.
Mr Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree with her: the campaign over the past years to get further transparency is a work in progress, and we are much more advanced than we were 10 or 12 years ago. However, as I am outlining, there is much more work to do.
The fourth area that I want to cover is BBC accuracy and honesty. The BBC prides itself on posing questions, and all of us here are subject to those questions, but it is not very good at providing answers. In two instances during the past year, there have been very serious questions for the corporation in Northern Ireland to answer.
A green energy scheme with an initial potential overspend of public money is currently subject to a public inquiry; I do not intend to trespass on issues that are best dealt with in that inquiry. However, the Executive in Northern Ireland were collapsed by Sinn Féin under the pretext of what they claimed was the mishandling of that scheme. Early this year, a BBC Radio Ulster programme carried this topic for 56 consecutive days. The presenter of that programme, who just happens to be the director of Third Street Studios, used inaccurate and outrageous commentary. I will briefly give two quotes. He said:
“One of the biggest financial scandals to have ever happened in Northern Ireland: under the government’s watch, £400million of your money has been allowed to go up in smoke”.
He also said:
“What it means is that hundreds of millions of pounds of your money cannot go into schools, education, other departments in our country because the money has been squandered, the money has been wasted.”
This situation continued for a prolonged period until I appeared on the programme and confronted this deliberate misrepresentation. As the scheme had only just begun and was scheduled to last for 20 years, I asked why the presenter kept saying that the public’s money had been “wasted” and gone “up in smoke”. Only after my appearance, which was accompanied by strong letters of protest from my party to the BBC hierarchy, was the use of this reprehensible language stopped.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is making a surprisingly compelling argument, but did not the scandal that he is referring to bring down the Northern Ireland Government? As such, was it not entirely newsworthy for 56 days—or more?
Mr Campbell
I have no objection whatsoever to any media organisation concentrating on events, particularly events of such import, but when it scandalously misrepresents things, as those comments and the comments of others did, and then the comments are changed after I and others confront the presenter about his misrepresentation, it proves that the BBC knows that it overstepped the mark in its initial comments. Nevertheless, I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. I have no quibble or argument with the BBC deliberating at length on the subject, but the issue was compounded by the presenter’s gross misrepresentation of the facts.
A substantial complaint about those inaccuracies was lodged with the BBC, and that is ongoing; the BBC has not yet comprehensively responded to the complaints, which are from eight months ago. The complaints process is obviously laborious and bureaucratic; for those who have not yet embarked on it, I can attest to that.
I will give another, very insidious example. “Spotlight” is an investigative programme in Northern Ireland that has won awards through the years. In October last year, BBC NI television broadcast an edition looking at people who had been victims of alleged shooting by police officers in the early stages of the troubles. It was critical of the police, and both serving and former officers were concerned about the one-sided picture that it portrayed.
Shortly after the broadcast, I was contacted by someone who informed me that the reporter who had conducted the interviews and carried out the broadcast on the BBC had been a serving police officer, so I wrote to the reporter in the following terms:
“I write to confirm some details regarding a recent BBC Spotlight programme. I would be grateful if you could answer the following questions.
1. Have you ever served as a police officer in Northern Ireland? If yes, please outline the circumstances that led to you leaving the police?
2. Have you ever been known by any other name than—”
And I named her. I continued: “If so, what?” My understanding was that she had married and that her surname had changed since the programme was broadcast. I continued:
“3. As the presenter of an investigative programme which was critical of the police, do you believe that you had a conflict of interest?
4. Did BBC NI ask you to complete the declaration of interest prior to this programme?
5. How much public money was paid to you for your services in that programme?”
The sixth question was the most critical:
“Does the below BBC News story from 10 years previously relate to you?”
That news story was about a serving police officer who was in court and faced a charge—not a terrorist charge. In his concluding remarks, the judge said to that police officer that she should have known better than to give her sister’s name instead of her name. He bound her over to be of good behaviour for a year on her own bond of £500, and warned her that she could forfeit some or all of that money if she breached the order. I am informed that the person who was in court subsequently left the police, joined the BBC and did a programme that was critical of the police. No explanation has been given as to why it is critical, or why that reporter did what she did. Did she state on a declaration of interest that she was a former police officer? Did the BBC know that and then allow her to do a programme that was critical of the police?
I leave you to guesstimate, Mr Bone, what would happen in the public arena if it was discovered, after I or anyone else in this House raised an issue, that we had an interest in it that we did not declare. That is why we, and the BBC, have declarations of interest.
I did not receive an answer to any of those questions. I did not even receive an acknowledgment. I submitted a request for this debate in March, but it did not go ahead at that stage. I asked the same questions, but did not receive a response then either.
Strange to say, this week, after I had applied for the debate a third time, I received a reply from the aforementioned Mr Mark Adair, who said:
“We have been made aware of your emails to a named BBC journalist”.
Nine months after I began this process, and 24 hours before a debate, I receive a response saying that the BBC has become “aware” of my emails! The reply continued:
“the BBC has robust arrangements in place to avoid any potential conflicts of interest…we would be grateful if you direct any future correspondence about BBC staff and/or policy to me or to our Directors Office.”
That avoided the question again.
The fifth and final area I wish to cover is declarations of interest. In Parliament, MPs, Ministers and civil servants are very aware of the need to declare interests and, as I said, the BBC also has a process for its journalists to declare any interests. When a constituent, using freedom of information powers, asked to see the declarations of interests of some BBC presenters and senior staff, the reply said:
“All staff are required to complete a Declaration of Personal Interests upon joining the BBC”.
That is good as far as it goes, but it went on to say:
“We will not be disclosing...because the information that you have requested is excluded from the Act because it is held for the purposes of”—
guess what?—
“‘journalism, art or literature.’”
That seems to cover everything. When someone does not want to answer questions, they use the cloak of “journalism, art or literature”.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Many people have contacted my hon. Friend and me with concerns about so-called news programmes. The issue is that programmes often now straddle news and entertainment. Many members of the public have contacted me with the concern that a narrative and agenda is set, and then programmes set about getting participants who support that narrative, which is emphasised with key messages throughout the programmes. My hon. Friend makes a particularly important point about declarations of interests, because unless the public know what those interests are, we cannot scrutinise properly whether a public service broadcaster is carrying out its public duties appropriately—regardless of whether the producers are contracted in or not—being fair and balanced, and presenting the facts and all perspectives so that the public have the best opportunity to come to their own conclusions on these important matters.
Mr Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She is right, and we have noticed that the BBC—particularly in the last three or four years, for some reason—has become much more sensationalist.
I ask a straightforward question, which most people—even the BBC—should be able to answer: what is the point of having a declaration of interests, if no one knows what is in it? What is the point of that? Why would the BBC do that? Why would it ask people to declare any interests, but if anyone wants to find out whether somebody making a programme has an interest, say: “We’re not going to tell you, under”—the great catch-all—“the auspices of journalism, art or literature”? It is an entirely reasonable request that all BBC presenters’ declarations of interests be published.
I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond definitively today to every avenue that I have taken the debate down, but these matters need to be aired, so that the hierarchy in the BBC, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister are aware of what has happened and the lengths to which some of us have gone to try to get answers to straightforward questions. The bottom line here is that the BBC needs to radically alter the way it carries out its business—using our money. That is the point: it is using public money. Its procedures need overhauling, its lack of transparency is appalling, and the case for change was never more apparent.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
It might be helpful for Members to know that I think five Back-Bench Members who wish to speak. I do not intend to impose a time limit, but the wind-ups will have to start at 2.30 pm.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this important debate.
First, I welcome the fact that the BBC has this week announced an equal pay review. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for women in Parliament, and as a former member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I am profoundly passionate about ensuring that women are properly recognised for their abilities. I was therefore deeply disappointed that the BBC felt it appropriate to have such a large pay gap between its male and female employees, and frankly that it took them so long to notice it—we do have equal pay legislation.
I was, for a short time, the very proud owner of a BBC pass. I must put on record how much I enjoyed my time working in BBC local radio and how hardworking and committed all my colleagues were and, in the case of some of them, still are, particularly across local radio. It really was a wonderful time in my career. The hon. Member for East Londonderry mentioned the value of BBC employees and I was one of those foot soldiers—early starts, late hours, juggling work around young children, diverse and difficult shifts. We should remember that that is the backbone of the BBC and its staff. We hear about the fat cats, but there are a lot of people making sure that the BBC is true to its core values. I was honoured to work for this revered organisation.
One of the issues that I became aware of in my brief time at the BBC was how the diverse and wide-ranging nature of the broadcaster makes it difficult to know what the left hand and right hand are doing. In Government, I think we can all recognise that sometimes that is difficult, but there is a growing perception of a lack of transparency. That transparency is undermined by the way the organisation has grown and, in some ways, has had to reflect the internet and our changing media consumption and frankly, as we heard, fake news. The BBC, as we well know, has its challenges.
Let us turn to top talent; I do not think I could put myself in that category, but I always hoped someone would say that. Having previously worked in the broader media industry, I fully understand the importance for any broadcaster of attracting and retaining the very best talent—in particular, the pressure on the BBC—and pay packets should be able to reflect that. However, although I am an avid supporter of many of our media outlets, including the BBC, I am also aware that many talented women at the top of the industry are regrettably not properly recognised or rewarded by that institution. I trust that, through this process, that is going to change. In the broader industry, too many continue to work for free or for peanuts in the hope of a big break and of being the next big thing. We have to challenge our notions of how we get people into the media industry, what we expect of them and how we retain them.
Most surprisingly in this day and age, there is a huge disparity between the pay of men and women at the BBC, which has finally been highlighted by the senior leadership. We now have the chance to correct that, but one has to ask whether the BBC would have uncovered that scandal if it had not been for the Government’s transparency drive and the agreement reached through the BBC charter process. I am delighted that my party and the Government are not shirking the challenges ahead.
As I said earlier, I was delighted to sit on the Women and Equalities Committee; I would like the BBC to ensure that the review looks at diversity more widely, not just equal pay. DCMS is looking to do that across the media sector. We must also look at the support we give to older women in the industry. Channel 4 and other broadcasters have done incredible work on diversity, but can the BBC really look itself in the eye and say that it has stepped up on that issue across the board? This is the chance for it to do that.
For too long, even our most talented public figures have been deemed to have a sell-by date. However—let us be honest—that could not be further from the truth when it comes to the BBC’s Mary Berry. She is a prime example of the amazing talent—not least her cooking—that the BBC has at its disposal. I hope this is an opportunity to look at women with equal levels of talent. I have been listening to and admiring women broadcasters—they are broadcasters; the fact that they happen to be women is irrelevant—from afar on the radio. Gender has no relevance to how we remunerate people. We all admire Jane Garvey from afar, and she should be remunerated accordingly.
It is also important that older women in regional positions have a chance to shine. I worked in regional radio, and some people have committed a lifetime to it. We should recognise those people and support them through our national broadcaster. We should use the talent within the BBC to bring them to a wider audience. I have seen some progress. Some time ago, I worked with a wonderful mature lady who is now training as a continuity announcer. That gives me hope, because for broadcasters the fear of wrinkles and the looming feeling of being past it is scary. When I worked in the media industry, I was getting quite old for local radio, but here I am the youngest—well, not really, but in comparison. [Laughter.] I was an ageing commercial radio presenter, but I am a very young MP—how has that happened?
Once again, I congratulate the Government on the transparency drive that they introduced through the BBC charter process, which led to the BBC’s recognising and acting on the unjustifiable inequality at its heart. I believe that colleagues will agree that, if the BBC does that, it will continue to be a truly great British institution. We all have our failings, and the BBC must step up to address its. I will continue to be there to support it through that process. If it does that, it will continue to be in the hearts of the public across the land. What work are the Government carrying out to ensure that even greater transparency across the BBC and the whole of the media industry? Specifically, how can this debate and the Department’s work encourage the retention and promotion of older women across the media industry and promote a broader diversity agenda?
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
I am delighted to take part in this debate. In fact, given my majority of 249, I am delighted to be anywhere. It is a great pleasure to follow the very passionate and informative contribution of the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies). I want to talk about three issues relating to the transparency of the BBC: the transparency of the regulation of the BBC, its finances and Northern Ireland.
The transparency of the regulator is absolutely important. Parliament and the Government took a really big step when they set up an independent regulator of the BBC—Ofcom. I was surprised over the summer to see that the Secretary of State had written to the regulator to say that she is rather in favour of more quotas for TV and radio content. A DCMS spokesman or spokeswoman said that a number of stakeholders had made representations —I do not know whether that was at Wimbledon or some other event over the summer. Perhaps the permanent secretary was away when that letter was sent, because that seems bad practice. The regulation of the BBC has just become independent in its totality, and we must have confidence in it. I hope the Government will exercise more restraint and will respect the regulator’s independence in the future, now that we have set that up.
On the issue of the BBC’s finances, pay gaps and so on, I welcome the fact that the BBC publishes an extensive annual report. It is now subject to the National Audit Office in its entirety, and there are many value for money surveys. The BBC is absolutely right to recognise that it has to press down on top pay—whether executive pay or talent pay. My scrutiny of the BBC’s accounts leads me to think that pay for the top talent is down by about 10% over the past year, and for the very top talent it is down by about 40%. Clearly, the revelations over the past few months have shown a completely indefensible gap between the pay of men and women.
Incidentally, which other broadcaster in the world would lead day after day on that issue, as the BBC did? There are only so many “Today” programmes about Jeremy Vine’s pay that someone can wake up to and take an interest in, but the BBC did that day after day. I do not think News International would focus on the pay of Sky presenters in quite the same way.
John Grogan
Or its owners.
It is now the responsibility of Tony Hall, who said—he will be held to this—that by 2020, which is not very far away, the pay gap has to go. That is on screen and off, as I understand it.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the BBC pay gap is 10%, but nationally it is 18%? The BBC has commissioned an audit of pay to resolve issues relating to pay. It has offered to deal with any issues that arise in the long term.
John Grogan
No, I was not aware of that. My hon. Friend has informed and educated me with that contribution.
In bearing down on top talent pay, the BBC has got to be aware of its own strengths. I take a great interest in sports rights. I think the BBC has got better at dealing with rights holders and saying, “We’ll give you lots of exposure, even if we can’t pay you as much.” It is the same with top talent. Gary Lineker, for example, gets an awful lot of money—perhaps a little too much money—and an awful lot of exposure. He is a cultural icon—a national treasure, some people would say. Compare him with poor old Jake Humphrey, who was on the BBC and has now disappeared to BT Sport. His Wikipedia entry says he was best known for presenting Formula 1 on the BBC seven or eight years ago. The point is that top BBC presenters get a lot of offers to host events, endorse products and so on, and the BBC must take that into account when negotiating top talent.
I just want to make a couple of other points under the general heading of finance. We have to recognise that BBC Studios has now been asked to compete for every TV programme. The whole of BBC output is open to competition, so BBC Studios will be just like lots of its commercial competitors in trying to get slots on BBC television. It should be subject to exactly the same rules as its commercial competitors. I hope that it retains an awful lot of the output, because if the BBC is to continue its training function for the industry and its creativity, it needs a big in-house broadcast capacity.
My last point about BBC finances is that I hope Tony Hall and the other BBC management will look closely—as the hon. Member for Eastleigh mentioned—at giving commitments to some of the foot soldiers in broadcasting about setting targets for bringing up pay at the bottom, as well as bringing down pay at the top. It is a sign of the times that the people at the bottom need to be considered—that is the zeitgeist among the political parties across the House.
I am obviously not as knowledgeable as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) about BBC Northern Ireland. In fact, I like to sit behind the Democratic Unionist party in the main Chamber, because that is where the power really lies in this Parliament, and I like to know what is going on. I did once sit on the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, but I do not have the hon. Gentleman’s level of expertise. I have noticed all sorts of rows about BBC impartiality, including in Yorkshire. Last year I think he or one of his hon. Friends advocated the case for Carl Frampton, the Northern Ireland boxer who was excluded from the sports personality of the year shortlist. I feel the same about Joe Root, the great Yorkshire cricketer: that he should one day be BBC sports personality of the year—we all have such concerns.
Seriously, however—I will end on this—we should recognise that BBC Northern Ireland journalists have had a very difficult wicket over 30 or 40 years. They came under a lot of pressure during the time of the troubles, from Government, terrorists on occasion, political parties and so on, but they still produced—as I think they do now—high-quality journalism to inform the people not only of Northern Ireland, but of the wider United Kingdom and of the world beyond.
To conclude, it is very fashionable to decry the mainstream media, but I agree with the hon. Member for Eastleigh that the BBC is a cultural institution to be proud of: it inspires many people to take an interest in things that they would never otherwise know about; and it unites the nation and gives access to information in ways that would not otherwise happen. I have limited personal ambitions in this Parliament, but if it lasts for five years, we will then have reached 2022 and the centenary of the BBC, which should be a proud day for every Member of this House.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), with his passionate speech, and I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for bringing this subject to the Chamber.
The BBC, as almost everyone would agree, is a unique and much-loved organisation, revered for so many programmes, such as news, gardening—I do not know whether that is sad—and, in particular, “The Archers”. I simply could not live without “The Archers” and, sometimes, I catch the same episode three times a week, because I hear the programme in the evening, again at lunchtime and then on the Sunday catch-up. That is how sad I am, but I love it.
The BBC, however, has to be held to account and to the highest standards because of the unique way in which it is funded, and we must do something when it is found wanting, so I am delighted that this Government are insisting on high standards, including of transparency and high quality. Part of reporting and programming is what the public expect and what they deserve. Clearly, the Government’s new insistence is giving the BBC a bit of a shake-up, which I think we would all agree is a good thing. The BBC charter implemented at the start of this year goes further than ever before in promoting fairness and transparency, and in ensuring the value for money that we deserve.
I wanted to touch on one of the points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry on the commissioning of programmes. I had a crack at getting commissioned when I ran a production company. Frankly, I gave up. I wasted so much time going to the constant round of briefings on what the BBC wanted, might like or did not want—mostly what it did not want was the kind of thing I wanted to make—and logging in online. It all took up so much time that I gave up and devoted my money-making activities to other areas of the media, and many other independent companies did likewise.
Indeed, many I met when on the round of consultations and briefings turned out to be no more than hobby producers: they said they could not earn enough money simply from commissions to make life viable. I do not know if there is any way to address that, unless it is through more bidding for programmes—so perhaps it will be addressed now—but it is certainly something I noticed. I would like to think that the BBC charter and the Government will hold the BBC to account for such things, if we are to get more people into this very important creative industry.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
My hon. Friend made a point about one thing that is close to my heart and that we have to careful about. I agree, totally, that we have to look at the BBC, but we must preserve its independence. That is what everyone appreciates about the BBC, so we have to be very careful when we bring the might of Government to bear, although I am pleased that we are getting involved. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) rightly said, programme makers sometimes come along with a narrative, and we very much noticed that in Jaywick in my constituency. The Channel 4 team—not the BBC—arrived with a preconceived idea of what they wanted to shoot. They wanted me to get involved in the programme, but they shot not what was there on the ground but only what reflected their preconceived narrative. The programme makers—
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but we are pressed for time. I was pulled up for this when I first started; interventions have to be short, especially when we have such strict time limits. I am sorry.
Rebecca Pow
Only this week I have faced the issue of preconceived ideas; I will mention this example. I launched my new environmental pamphlet from the Conservative Environment Network, which I thought would make an interesting and wide story. I encouraged my local BBC people to come to the launch, but they rang up to ask, “Will this be Rebecca Pow saying that the Government do not do enough for the environment?” That is what they wanted their headline to be—they had not even read what the pamphlet was about. I said, “Absolutely 100% not; it is the opposite of that”, so they did not come. That was a preconceived idea, but had they come, they would have discovered an interesting groundswell of an idea going on, which would have made a good and informative story for the public.
Rebecca Pow
I will give way—as long as the hon. Gentleman is brief, Mr Bone.
Kevin Brennan
That is a matter for the Chair. Is there not some difficulty with what the hon. Lady is saying? She is putting the emphasis on the Government holding the BBC to account, but by doing so is she not undermining the proper role of Parliament and its Select Committee? Indeed, the Chair of the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport is the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), her hon. Friend, and that is his job, not that of Government.
Rebecca Pow
All I will say is that public money is funding the BBC, so we need to ensure that it is run in an effective way, with value for money and transparency, so that we get what the BBC was set up for in the first place.
I will move on and focus on the pay discrepancies that have been revealed, which have received a lot of media attention, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) referred. I am pleased that they are being highlighted in the debate. It is right that the BBC has taken action, but the proof will be in the pudding. I am pleased that the assessment and consultation on the issue have been launched this week, although it has got to be said that across the whole of the BBC there is a good balance of male and female—52% men and 48% women, which is pretty good compared with lots of other organisations.
Many years ago, I remember going to produce and present “Farming Today” on Radio 4, and I was only the second ever woman to do so. I will not tell the Chamber how long ago it was, because people might work out how old I am—
Rebecca Pow
I will not respond to that. Now “Farming Today” has an all-female team—what a turnaround that is. When I went to the programme, farming and all that were considered very much part of a male world, so I applaud the BBC for a good thing.
Let us not be completely hijacked by the gender pay gap among those at the top of the BBC. I think most of us would agree that the high-profile women at the top actually are pretty well paid. It is wrong and scandalous that, on the whole, the men receive more, but in truth those women are quite fortunate. Let us not forget the many women all over the country whose unequal pay deserves just as much attention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh mentioned. I commend the Government, who are doing more than ever to sort this out and make sure that we even up pay, which is still not equal enough across the board. That goes to the heart of the issue of publicly funded bodies. For example, in 2016, only 20% of permanent secretaries in the civil service were women. Perhaps we should look at the issue in a much wider context. We are holding the BBC to account; surely the same standards must be applied across the public sector.
I want to return, just for a minute, to the BBC and the gender pay gap. I venture to suggest—I mentioned this to the Minister earlier in the week—that all the attention on women and the gender pay gap has slightly clouded how much these high-profile presenters are paid overall, which I know many members of the public are questioning. Some are paid huge sums, and some people on the list do not put in that many hours for their pay. I will not name them, but one or two really make the blood boil. Some work very hard for their money, but the way the money is spread seems completely unequal.
The total budget for all BBC local radio stations—the hon. Member for East Londonderry raised this subject—is £152 million. That is not a huge sum of money for the phenomenal work they do and what we get back. That needs to be looked at, too. Some people at those stations—particularly the presenters who get up every morning to do breakfast shows—really are not paid very much. I have BBC Somerset right on my patch and I am a great fan; the people there work very hard. Obviously, they always try to hold me to account and catch me out, but that is their job. We get very good value from that. Local radio stations are constantly having to tighten their belts. That needs to be considered as well, because they provide an excellent service.
In conclusion, it remains for the BBC to address the problems we have highlighted, and the public expect that. I reiterate that I am pleased that the BBC announced its review this week. Let us not forget that the Government unleashed all this debate; they must be praised for that. I would like assurances from the Minister that the Government will still hold the BBC’s feet to the fire, because we expect fairness, equality and transparency, but above all good service and value for money for the taxpayer.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for initiating this debate.
Much has been said about transparency. It is astonishing that the BBC got away with—I use that term advisedly—not publishing the salaries that it pays to its highest-paid stars. As we have heard, even the salaries that are published are not the full and true picture, as many salaries are paid via production companies. Quite understandably, the public see that as a deliberate way of avoiding full transparency, and it is simply not good enough. Indeed, some people have said how suspicious it is that the BBC chose to publish those salaries at the point of a parliamentary recess to try, again, to avoid scrutiny and questions on the Floor of the House.
Surely the BBC—that liberal, trusted organisation—would not go to such lengths to avoid scrutiny. Surely that organisation can explain why it pays its male stars significantly more than its female stars. We are all waiting to hear why. Some people would say that the BBC could well explain those matters, but I contend that there is a crisis of public confidence in the BBC.
The problem is that people must pay the licence fee regardless of whether they view BBC programmes at all; there is no opt-out. That on its own should breed humility and respect for the licence fee payer, but for too many people it has instead bred arrogance and complacency—the same arrogance and complacency, many would argue, that allowed Jimmy Savile to stalk the BBC corridors uninterrupted despite the numerous complaints and opportunities to stop that serial abuser. A report that the BBC itself commissioned found that it actively shielded Savile, if not facilitated his abuse. Sadly, the organisation was also guilty of pulling a report that was to be broadcast on “Newsnight”, even though it knew all about Savile’s activities and the allegations against him. Journalist Meirion Jones alleges that he and the late journalist Liz MacKean were told that they would
“never work for the BBC again”
if they co-operated with a “Panorama” investigation into the scandal, and he says that lots of efforts were made to block the “Panorama” programme, “What the BBC knew”.
The BBC is supposed to report independently, without fear or favour, but in the light of what I have just said, does it really sound like it does? Many people in Scotland are of the view that the BBC’s political coverage is significantly partisan. The BBC has repeatedly denied that, as we would expect, but it does not really matter whether it is true; what matters is that the people who pay the licence fee believe it to be true. That means that there is a problem. Even the newly appointed director of BBC Scotland, Donalda MacKinnon, has conceded that that perception exists, but without a detailed plan for rebuilding trust, I do not know what the way forward is for BBC Scotland’s political coverage.
There is no doubt that there is a deficit of trust in the BBC, which is seen across the United Kingdom as being resentful of public scrutiny, secretive, politically partial and complacent. The trust that has been lost absolutely has to be rebuilt. I suggest to the Minister that one way forward is for more of the licence fee money that is collected in Scotland to be spent in Scotland. Indeed, even Ofcom has said that that should be the case. Additional funding for delivering quality TV and radio output in Scotland would support the growth of our creative industries and be a real step forward. For every £100 million of production in Scotland, around 1,500 jobs are supported and £60 million is generated in the Scottish economy. That is quite significant. The BBC really has a job of work to build trust with people, and spending in Scotland more of the licence fee money that is collected in Scotland would be one way forward.
The BBC has a lot of sins in its past and there are a lot of things that it has to work through, but the future is not yet written; it can be different. It can be better, and the BBC can make it better. The BBC is a public service, and the public want a more transparent service.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
I will call Justin Madders, who has been waiting patiently, in a moment. In view of the time, I want to let the Front Benchers know that the wind-up speeches will probably now start no later than 2.34 pm.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Bone. I will endeavour to stick to your timetable. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.
The BBC is one of those institutions for which there is widespread affection and support across the country, and it is highly respected worldwide. As a public service broadcaster, it plays an important role in our country. As our society has changed and moved with the times, so has the BBC—certainly in terms of its output. But we are not here to discuss its output, much of which is of course a matter of personal taste, although I must say that I consider its political content far too London-centric. What we are here to consider, though, is transparency. As we have moved to a less deferential and more open society, I believe the BBC also needs to move with the times. It should be more representative of and more accountable to the taxpayers who fund it, regardless of how much or little they use its service. With that in mind, a couple of specific areas need further examination.
The first, which has been touched on today and has been the subject of much media scrutiny in recent weeks, is the pay of top talent at the BBC, which revealed a huge gender disparity. What was also of interest to me, particularly in my capacity as chair of the all-party group on social mobility, was the background of those BBC top earners. The data released by the BBC on its top earners have been analysed, and for those in that category who are on screen, it is estimated that 45% were privately educated—a figure that rises to a staggering 60% when looking at news presenters and journalists.
That prompted me to write to the director-general to inquire about the educational background of the top earners off-screen. I received an impressive reply, telling me about all the things the BBC is doing to increase social mobility, but I did not get an answer to the question. The data that it did show me show that of what the BBC class as its senior leadership team, about a quarter were privately educated. That figure is not as high as for those on screen, but it is still well over three times what it should be, were the BBC to reflect the population as a whole.
It is also clear from the data that the senior leadership team is actually a much bigger pool of people than those earning more than £150,000, so the suspicion remains that those at the very top of the BBC—those on more than £150,000—are even less representative of the nation. It is clear the BBC is doing an awful lot at the entry level to improve social mobility, but that commitment has to go right to the top. I want to see transparency about the educational background of the top earners who are off-screen and a clear strategy to make sure that that section of its staff is more representative.
The other area of interest to me is more on the output side—but it is equally important. It stems from inquiries I made as a result of representations from a constituent who happens to be a professional musician who is concerned about the business relationship between the BBC and the arm’s length administrator of its music assets: a foreign-owned music publisher and supplier of music for broadcast and commercial outlets. He believes that the publisher not only makes considerable profit from administration of BBC assets but controls the supply of music to the BBC from its own resources. Now, I have no idea whether that assertion is correct—I very much hope that it is not—but the obvious, incontestable way in which the assertion could be tested is by the BBC setting out what its musical output has been. Sadly, I have not been able to get any answers on that. The BBC tells me that of course it does not operate in such a way, but it will not publish the breakdown that I have requested.
The BBC has put forward various reasons for that, with the most common one being the sheer scale of the exercise. I am, though, sceptical of that. How can it be that the BBC has no record of the music it transmits? Surely the confident assertion made to me by the director-general that it does not favour music from major companies ahead of smaller independent labels cannot possibly be left unchallenged unless he has assured himself with reference to the facts. I am sure that once he would have claimed that the BBC does not discriminate against women, but as we know the recently revealed figures on senior pay highlight a significant gender pay gap.
When the Minister responds, I would be grateful if he indicated whether he has any particular powers to compel the BBC to provide the information needed to establish beyond doubt whether its output is indeed as broad as is claimed. If he does not have such powers, does he agree that as the BBC is a taxpayer-funded organisation, it is in the public interest that it can demonstrate an even hand in its output? Does he agree that it is in fact in its interest to set out its output clearly and unambiguously?
In conclusion, again I reiterate my support for the concept and output of the BBC, but, like every other publicly funded organisation, it has a wider responsibility than simply the service it provides. Accountability and transparency must be at the heart of that responsibility.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
In the interests of transparency, like the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) and Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), I, too, am a product of the BBC, having spent almost a decade of my career as a television producer there. I have many great memories from there, and indeed made good friends during an interesting career. The BBC has many faults, and I have never stepped back from calling it out on those, but I am a critical friend of the BBC who will defend absolutely its editorial independence.
I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate. He raised important issues relating to complaints, commissioning, accuracy and honesty, and the gender pay gap. Although those issues mainly related to Northern Ireland, they do have a resonance across the UK, as we heard in contributions from the hon. Members for Eastleigh, for Keighley (John Grogan) and for Taunton Deane, and from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
The hon. Member for Eastleigh spoke about the gender pay gap and working in BBC local radio. It says something if she is too old for radio, although I do not believe it for a minute. The hon. Member for Keighley talked about looking after those workers at the bottom of the pay scale.
I feel the pain of the hon. Member for Taunton Deane. Like her, I have experience as a struggling independent producer trying to get commissions. We have missed out on many excellent ideas from Oh! Television.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
Order. I have been made aware that there is a sound failure, so Hansard cannot report. I can hear you and we can hear each other, and I do not want to lose the debate, so we will continue.
Rebecca Pow
Slightly in jest, if one did reach that stage, one might put in some proposals to make programmes about one’s life here. Perhaps the BBC might find that entertaining.
Brendan O'Hara
I think it would have to be broadcast after the watershed.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made an important point about how the BBC managed to get away with what it was doing in terms of the gender pay gap for so long. Transparency is absolutely essential. She also mentioned the discrepancy between what is raised in Scotland and what is spent in Scotland, and I agree that that is unacceptable and must be addressed as soon as possible.
We are living in an age in which society quite rightly expects—indeed it increasingly demands—transparency and openness as the hallmarks of our society. Anything and any organisation that benefits from the public purse has to be open and accepting of that scrutiny. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, we in this place, above all, are open to scrutiny and transparency. Going forward, the BBC has to expect those standards as well. At a time when it was emerging from a series of damaging historical scandals, with accusations of it being complicit and numerous attempts at cover-up, it was something of a surprise to many of us that the BBC should be so vehemently opposed to having to publish how much its top presenters earn. Indeed the then chair of the BBC Trust, Rona Fairhead, said that it was “disappointed” that it would have to change and that the decision on the disclosure of presenters’ pay was not, in her opinion,
“in the long-term interests of licence fee payers”.
Even the director-general, Tony Hall, questioned the merit of the Government’s decision, saying,
“this will not make it easier for the BBC to retain the talent the public love”.
He continued:
“The BBC is already incredibly transparent.”
The much-fabled BBC insider fed to the press that it would be a “massive headache” for the BBC if it were forced to publish presenters’ pay. Indeed. Those were prophetic words, because that did give it a massive headache—but for very different reasons from those it first imagined. It must have thought that there would be a day of voyeuristic tittle-tattle in the office when it came out. It did not realise that that frenzy of indignation, which it thought would pass in 24 hours, would take on arms and legs in the way it has.
By forcing the BBC to reveal its salaries, it revealed its gender pay gap. It must have been living in some kind of time warp not to have realised what it was doing. The disparity between top-earning men and top-earning women is and was shocking. It is something that the BBC, as a publicly funded broadcaster, had no right to hide from the very people who finance the corporation. The BBC, as we have heard, is in a privileged and unique situation, and therefore it has to undergo a level of scrutiny far beyond those in the commercial sector. The gender pay gap, the scandal and the attempt to cover it up, at a time when the BBC’s popularity, particularly in Scotland, was on the wane, are mind-boggling. The decision to force the BBC to disclose its top salaries has been vindicated, because had it not, the gender equality issue would have remained hidden and unrecognised, and therefore unchallenged.
I realise that I am running short of time; I conclude by saying that the gender pay gap is not the only problem. I urge the BBC to look, as a matter of urgency, at the pay gap that exists within its own structures. What also emerged during this scandal was the massive pay gap that exists between the top and bottom earners within the BBC, with the Broadcasting, Entertainment, Cinematograph and Theatre Union reporting that 400 BBC employees earn less than 1% of its top-earning presenter. That is a scandal, and it should be addressed immediately. I look forward to the BBC taking it on and making a better job of that than it did of the gender pay gap.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
At times this afternoon, the debate has felt like a reunion of former BBC employees. There have been certain complaints about BBC journalism, and at one point I thought we were going to hear the accusation that it was responsible for turning off the sound system and stopping our comments being broadcast to the nation—or the dozens of people following us on the BBC Parliament channel as we speak. Perhaps it is not dozens of people.
As many hon. Members have said, transparency is extremely important. Since I know the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is digging deep on this issue, I should reveal my interest in the matter, which is in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have received payments over the last year or so for my work as a musician from the TV channel Dave, which is owned by UKTV, which in turn is 50% owned by the BBC as part of its attempts to raise money from sources other than the licence fee, which of course it does in considerably greater amounts than it originally did. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He raised a lot of issues that I know he feels strongly about in relation to BBC journalism, and in particular the coverage of the issue that, as he pointed out, brought down the Administration in Northern Ireland, which we all hope will be up and running again soon. He raised points about transparency and salary, declarations of interest and other matters, including the vague answers he got to his questions from the BBC.
I will go on to make some positive remarks about the BBC as well, but I think it is better to give clear answers to Members of Parliament—they should be directed to the management, by the way—rather than the sort of vague answers that the Government routinely give to parliamentary questions. I would much rather the BBC answered questions directly, because a lot of the answers the hon. Gentleman gave from the BBC sounded like the sorts of answers I get when I table parliamentary questions. I do not know whether other hon. Members have had that experience when tabling questions to the Government, but I certainly have, and it necessitates further questions, freedom of information inquiries and so on.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) spoke very well, as always, and said that—rather like the Government—the BBC’s left hand sometimes did not know what the right hand was doing. She rightly explained the importance of the BBC ensuring pay equality. One thing that came out in the recent publication of BBC staff’s salaries was the issue of gender inequality, and indeed other forms of inequality. It is absolutely right that that information should be published and made transparent, and that the BBC should take urgent steps to address the issue—as should other broadcasters that are not subject to freedom of information requests, and do not have to make an annual report to Parliament in the way that the BBC does. All those in the private sector should also be looking to ensure gender equality, and other forms of equality, when it comes to pay and personnel.
I have known my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (John Grogan) for 37 years, and he has been top talent himself all that time. He made a good point about the exposure that high-profile BBC presenters get, and the fact that that has huge value, beyond the salary that they are paid. I completely agree. He also rightly pointed out the difficult job that journalists have had to do in Northern Ireland, and that we should remember that at all times.
The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) told us that she could not reveal her age to us, despite this being a debate about transparency. I intervened on her, because we should be careful about the language we use when we talk about Government “holding to account” the BBC. It is worth reminding ourselves that the BBC is an independent organisation, established by royal charter. If we think for a moment, it is vital that it is not ultimately the Government’s role to hold the BBC to account for its journalism and impartiality, for example, because the Government are extremely partial themselves.
It is a dangerous thing in those countries where the state broadcaster is in effect controlled by the Government. We know the implications of that in countries such as Russia. We want a publicly funded, transparent BBC that is accountable. The proper ways for it to be accountable are: to us as politicians via Parliament and the Select Committee, which is ably chaired by a member of the hon. Lady’s party and has a number of my hon. Friends as members; and through, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley pointed out, an independent regulator, whose job is to make sure that the BBC fulfils its role under the charter, which is negotiated and in partnership with Government, and sets out that broad scope. That is the point I was making: it is a fundamental principle that we should not lose sight of.
Rebecca Pow
Perhaps I did not express it well, but my point was that clearly that system was not working well enough, hence the Government had to step in to require more transparency, which is now having an effect.
Kevin Brennan
We do not have time to rehearse exactly what happened and how all this came about, but I wanted to make that point with force.
The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said something that caused me concern; it was about whether the BBC’s reporting was perceived to be biased. She said—I think I quote her accurately; I am sure she will tell me if I do not—that it does not really matter whether it is true that the BBC’s reporting is fair and unbiased; all that matters is the perception. In other words, if she is saying that it is not about fake news but false perception, that is fine, but she seemed to imply that the perception is right, and that the BBC does not report impartially on politics in Scotland.
Patricia Gibson
For clarification, my point is that it is a problem if the BBC’s paying customers do not have any faith in the way that it reflects their reality.
Kevin Brennan
Of course, the hon. Lady provided no evidence that that was a problem.
Kevin Brennan
I do not have time to give way. Surveys of the public perception of BBC impartiality over time suggest the exact opposite. It is important that we stand up to the Donald Trump-like approach to media when it comes to the reporting of the news.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) made some fair and responsible points about the importance of transparency and accountability. Time is short, and there is so much more that one could say; I am sure that the Minister will say some of it. On this occasion, we might even agree on a few things relating to the BBC, much though it would pain him to admit it.
I make a general point about the BBC. We all have our criticisms of it, and we have all been victims of its vigorous journalism from time to time. It once named me on “Panorama” for accepting hospitality at an event that it had invited me to. When I pointed out to the BBC that its right hand literally did not know what its left hand was doing, I felt the pain that other hon. Members have in being taken to task in their role from time to time.
The BBC will make mistakes, but it is important that we remember that it is still genuinely envied and admired, and has a huge reputation across the world. In the words of Joni Mitchell, from “Big Yellow Taxi”:
“you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone.”
In our quite appropriate debate about the transparency that is absolutely necessary for the BBC and the accountability it should have as a publicly funded organisation, let us not lose sight of the fact that it is an extraordinary British institution.
The Minister for Digital (Matt Hancock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I am so sorry to have kept you away from the debate on the withdrawal from the European Union—a subject that I know is very close to your heart.
I would like to thank the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this important and over-subscribed debate about transparency in and of the BBC. He gave a number of examples of concerns with the BBC, many of which relate to specific accusations within BBC Northern Ireland. I am sure that the BBC has heard his concerns loud and clear; he was certainly transparent about his frustration. I understand that the BBC has offered to meet him, and I encourage him to take up that offer, but I also encourage the BBC to respond in substance to his concerns.
As many Members have said, the BBC is one of our most treasured institutions. I declare no financial interest, but I do declare that I love the BBC and think it is a very important British institution. It is an engine for creativity and growth, and I am proud of its role here and around the world.
The BBC receives £4 billion of public funding every year through the TV licence fee, which is a tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) said, the BBC, as a public service broadcaster funded by the public, must be as open and transparent as possible. The public rightly expect the BBC to be scrutinised effectively and to know how it spends our money—and I say “our” not as a Minister, but as a licence fee payer.
I strongly support the transparency that has been brought to the BBC through the charter settlement. It will improve the BBC and bring it into line with other public services, other parts of Government and, indeed, our politics, which has got radically more transparent in recent years. Improving efficiency and transparency was central to the charter review, and we have insisted on a whole series of changes in the charter to address these issues.
I agree with those who said we were right to introduce that transparency. Alongside it was effective, modern governance. It will be the responsibility of the new BBC board to deliver further transparency and greater efficiencies across overheads, including what needs to be done to lower the pay bill, where appropriate. The National Audit Office has become the BBC’s financial auditor for the very first time, as it is for the rest of the public sector. It will be able to do value-for-money studies on the BBC’s commercial subsidiaries, which return profits to the BBC, thereby generating public money. Of course, Ofcom is now independently regulating the BBC. A point that was brought up and has strong cross-party agreement is that it is important that an independent regulator regulates the BBC.
I was surprised at the comments of the hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan), and by the Labour Front Bench’s opposition to seeing more diversity and distinctiveness at the BBC: we have had complaints by the Labour party about our calls for more diversity in the BBC. Of course I have a view on the level of diversity in the BBC, and I just wish the Labour party would join in. Where I do agree is that the BBC needs to look at pay across the piece, at all levels. I had much more sympathy with the point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) about the powers to insist on transparency for the BBC in other areas of diversity.
Kevin Brennan
On a point of order, Mr Bone. I think the Minister might have inadvertently misled the House by saying that the Labour Front Bench, during the course of the debate, had opposed levels of diversity within the BBC.
Matt Hancock
I did not say that it did so during the debate. It did when the deputy leader of the Labour party, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, wrote to us attacking our insistence on more diversity at the BBC. Maybe the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) needs to have a word with his colleague and try to bring him into line. We are in favour of more diversity. At the moment, the Labour party is not, and I suggest it does something about that.
Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)
That was a point of order. Is the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) satisfied?
Matt Hancock
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to go and sort that out with his colleague. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston made—
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Bone.
Matt Hancock
I said West Bromwich because when I got to the end of saying it, I could not remember which I was referring to, but I was indeed referring to West Bromwich East.
Anyway, Ofcom has powers to insist that the BBC be transparent, and the charter gives Ofcom specific powers to consider the distinctiveness of music output on Radio 1 and Radio 2—not just the number of plays, but the size of the playlist and whether it is a peak or off-peak time. I suggest that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston takes his point, which has a lot of merit, up with Ofcom, because it has those powers; the Government do not, for the reasons discussed during the debate.
The Government also require the BBC to disclose details on staff and talent where salaries are over £150,000. That was the meat of the debate today. The latest pay disclosure really shines a light on some practices that have been going on for a long time in the BBC, and not least on the gender pay gap, as discussed. I am very proud that we have introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting for organisations with more than 250 employees, because that will help the organisations. I have an awful lot of sympathy with the statement put out by BBC women yesterday, which said:
“The Director General must be in no doubt about how serious an issue equal and fair pay is for women across the organisation. The BBC should be the standard-bearer for this.”
That is incredibly important. In fact, I think that on issues of diversity and gender equality, we should hold the BBC to a higher standard, if anything, than other organisations, because it literally reflects the nation and broadcasts to the nation.
All of us who cherish and support the BBC must strive to make it more transparent and hold it to account. That does not weaken the organisation; it improves an organisation, because where there is a problem, sunlight is the best disinfectant. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) asked powerfully what further will happen on transparency. Mandatory gender pay gap reporting for the BBC, as well as for other organisations, is due by April next year, and we expect the BBC to take action to close that gap, which it says is 10%.
Of course, it is not just about the gender pay gap. As my hon. Friends the Members for Taunton Deane and for Clacton (Giles Watling) said, it is about the level of pay. It is also about equal opportunities—people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds are under-represented among the BBC’s top earners—and transparency on social mobility, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston set out.
The BBC should be leading the way. I welcome the director-general’s commitment to closing the gender pay gap by 2020. I was pleased to hear yesterday about his plans for an independent equal pay audit of all BBC staff in the UK and a separate report on the gender pay gap. I look forward to seeing those reports in the coming months and expect to see an improvement on the gender pay gap and diversity in the next set of BBC accounts.
Transparency is the order of the day in this debate, so I am delighted that we heard of the music talent on the Labour Front Bench. I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is regarded by viewers of the Dave channel as top talent, and maybe one day we will see his name in the transparency returns. I agree with him on the importance of impartiality at the BBC and with his robust defence of the BBC against the accusations from some Scottish National party Members. I conclude today’s debate by thanking all Members for their lively contributions. I am sure that the BBC will be listening, and I am sure also that we will return to these important topics many times.
Mr Gregory Campbell
I am delighted that so many Members were able to take part in the debate. I thank the Minister for his response. I trust, as he indicated, that the BBC, at hierarchy level, will respond definitively to not only my questions, letters and emails but those of all other public representatives. We want to see a BBC of which we can be rightly proud—one that is independent, fearless and questions and pursues issues, but that is also transparent and accountable—so that people can defend the BBC locally, nationally and internationally.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the transparency of the BBC.
16-to-19 Education Funding
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered 16 to 19 education funding.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Hanson. I am pleased to move this debate and to see so many hon. and right hon. Members here on a Thursday afternoon to show their interest in this important subject. Let me start by declaring my interest in and passion for 16-to-19 learning.
I have worked in post-16 education most of my life and seen a multitude of times how high-quality learning transforms the life chances of young people. When elected to serve as Scunthorpe’s MP, leaving my job as principal of John Leggott College, post-16 education was in a pretty good place with a relevant, dynamic, personalised curriculum and relatively decent funding to support a broad and balanced education with appropriate extra-curricular activities, guidance and support. Education maintenance allowance acted as a significant driver of ever-improving student achievement and social mobility.
Sadly, in the seven years I have been in Parliament, the challenge for post-16 leadership has become significantly greater, driven by huge, ongoing and accelerating financial pressures. The cuts to 16-to-19 education funding introduced in 2011, 2013 and 2014 have proved particularly damaging. The average sixth-form college lost 17% of its funding before inflation. If John Leggott College, which celebrates 50 years of providing outstanding education to the young people of north Lincolnshire this year, was funded at 2010 levels today, it would have £1.2 million more in this year’s budget. That is astounding.
Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that not only has 16-to-19 education been affected by cuts in funding for that particular cohort but past and current Government cuts in adult learning and English for speakers of other languages impact on further education colleges and other education institutions in providing the sort of curriculum and resources necessary to teach 16 to 19-year-olds as well?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is completely right. Cuts elsewhere in further education budgets make life even more difficult and challenging for people leading those institutions and delivering not only for adults but for 16 to19-year old learners.
Alongside these funding cuts, inflationary pressures have continued to bite and costs have continued to rise. Employer contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme increased from 14.1% to 16.4% in 2015, employer national insurance contributions rose from 10.4% to 13.8% in 2016, and business rates increased in 2017.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
I was contacted about this debate by the principal of Sutton Community Academy in my constituency, who tells me that the budget is over £1 million less than it was three years ago and that the only way to balance the books would be to shut the sixth form, but it is desperate not to do that. My constituents need a leg up. They cannot afford to see a ladder that enables them to move on and up being pulled down.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Giving people a leg up and supporting them, and generating social mobility is exactly what good post-16 education does. She is absolutely right to remind us of the challenges in her constituency, which are reflected across the English education system.
Labour has shown real leadership in arguing for improved technical education to stand alongside the growth in apprenticeships begun under a Labour Government. T-levels have the potential to represent a step change forward, but those of us working in post-16 education have been here many times. The devil is always in the detail of delivery, but one thing is certain. Putting money into T-levels, as the Government are rightly doing, is no substitute for addressing the shortfall in funding the 85% of young people in general post-16 education. I hope that the new Minister, for whom I have enormous respect, will not fall into the trap of reading out a civil service brief that goes on at length about T-levels to avoid the central question that we are considering today—the underfunding of mainstream post-16 education, A-levels and applied general qualifications such as BTEC.
Thelma Walker (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Colleges such as Kirklees College had over 3,000 16 to 19-year olds on full-time programmes last year, but the funding available covered only 15 hours a week per student. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is wrong and that we need fair funding for all 16 to 19-year olds, regardless of where they choose to study?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I want the Minister to focus on getting good value for the vast majority of students and to address the funding inequality that my hon. Friend highlights so well.
In its offer to the British people this year, the Conservative party promised fair funding for schools, but its current proposals wholly ignore post-16 education. This made complete sense when compulsory education ended at 16, but it is nonsense now that the raising of the participation age means that everyone remains in education and training up to 18. It is not being honest with the electorate, who expect the fair funding promise to cover all sixth-formers.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
Does my hon. Friend accept that one of the biggest problems is special needs in further education? Further education has a proud record of taking people who have not been in mainstream education and looking after them from 16 to 19. Unless there is additional funding for those students, they will always be disproportionately affected.
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reality is that the squeeze on funding for education for 16 to 19-year-olds puts pressure on special needs support not only in colleges but in school sixth forms. This issue covers sixth-formers wherever they end up in the system.
Recent research from the Institute of Education describes sixth form education in England as “uniquely narrow and short” compared with the high-performing education systems elsewhere in the world in places such as Shanghai, Singapore and Canada. Our sixth-formers are now funded to receive only half the tuition time of sixth- formers in other leading economies. As my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) pointed out, as little as 15 to 17 hours of weekly tuition and support has become the norm for students in England, compared with 30-plus hours in Shanghai. Students in other leading education systems receive more tuition time, study more subjects and in some cases benefit from a three-year programme of study rather than two.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some incredible points. Students are rightly now staying at school until 18 and those extra two years are important in tackling the country’s skills challenges. Does he agree that we need to invest properly because otherwise we will be reduced to a core curriculum rather than the expansive experience that young people need to prepare them for life beyond school?
Nic Dakin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tragedy is that already the post-16 curriculum has shrunk so we are already in danger of getting to where my hon. Friend describes, and there is concern about where we might be going in future.
The funding that schools and colleges now receive to educate sixth-formers covers the cost of delivering just three A-level or equivalent qualifications, and little more. As a result, the wider support offer to students has been greatly diminished. That means it is increasingly difficult to address properly the concerns expressed by employers that young people lack the skills to flourish in the workplace. The CBI’s 2016 education and skills survey, for example, expressed concern about the current education system, with its emphasis on grades and league tables
“at the expense of wider personal development”.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to continue to commit and invest more in the sector to ensure that it does not shrink further.
I think everybody would agree that programmes of study in which students have too much free time are not effective at getting the best out of them. The students are in transition from a fairly directed pre-16 learning environment to the independent learning of HE and the world of work. That transition needs to be properly and appropriately supported.
On a recent visit to Scunthorpe’s brilliant North Lindsey College, the excellent principal, Anne Tyrrell, remarked on how the demands from students with mental health problems had grown exponentially in recent years. Many schools and colleges lack the resources to address the sharp increase in students reporting mental health problems. That is a real issue that has been compounded by cuts to NHS and local authority budgets. The charity Mind recently found that local authorities now spend less than 1% of their public health budget on mental health. We know that students with better health and well-being are likely to achieve much better academically and that participation in extra-curricular activities has a positive effect on attainment. Such things are interlinked and related.
It is clear that the student experience in schools and colleges is deteriorating as a result of the funding pressures that hon. Members have drawn attention to in their own constituencies across England. For example, two thirds of sixth-form colleges have already shrunk their curriculum offer; over a third have dropped modern foreign languages courses; and the majority have reduced or removed the extracurricular activities available to students, including music, drama and sport.
Even more concerning, almost two out of three colleges do not believe that the funding they receive next year will be sufficient to support students that are educationally or economically disadvantaged. So the underfunding of 16-to-19 education is fast becoming a real obstacle to improving social mobility.
As costs continue to rise, the underfunding of sixth- form education is becoming a major challenge for all providers. Schools increasingly find themselves having to use the funding intended for 11 to 16-year-olds to subsidise their sixth forms, which risks damaging the education of younger students. Small sixth forms in rural areas are increasingly unviable, lacking the economies of scale to provide students with the rounded education that we all believe in.
Grammar schools are increasingly raising their voices in serious concern about the underfunding of 16-to-19 education.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that sixth-form colleges such as St Brendan’s in my constituency are particularly hard hit because they do not even have the 11 to 16-year-old funding that might better enable them to support 16 to 19-year-olds?
Nic Dakin
Sixth-form colleges are particularly affected, as my hon. Friend describes, and they cannot claim back VAT in the way that schools do, so that puts them at a significant disadvantage overall.
The treatment of 16-to-19 funding is in stark contrast to the pre-16 funding that was protected in real terms under the coalition Government and protected in cash terms during the previous Parliament. The Secretary of State’s recent announcement of an additional £1.3 billion for schools does not apply to students aged 16 to 19; nor does the minimum funding guarantee for students in secondary schools. That puts them at a disadvantage, with 16-to-19 education being very much the poor relation.
Yet the average funding of £4,530 per student received by colleges and school sixth forms is already 21% less than the £5,750 per student that is received to educate 11 to 16-year-olds in secondary schools. That compares with average spending on students, once they go into higher education at 18, of £8,780 per student. Perhaps we can learn from the private sector. In private schools the funding of students actually increases post-16 to £15,300 per student to reflect the additional cost of teaching 16 to 19-year olds. As we approach the autumn budget, now is the time for the Government to focus on this very real problem and resist the temptation to hide behind the glib arguments they have used in the past. After all, the new Minister is well grounded, practical and sensible: the very antithesis of glib. We look forward to her response.
It is welcome that there is now a single national funding formula for 16-to-19, but that does not compensate for its inadequacy. There is still inequality, as I have mentioned, between schools that can claim back VAT and colleges that cannot, leaving the average sixth-form college with £385,914 less to spend on their students. There is no evidence base for the Government’s assertion that the funds provided are sufficient. That is why I support the joint call from the Association of School and College Leaders, the Association of Colleges and the Sixth Form Colleges Association for the Government to conduct a proper review of sixth-form funding to ensure it is linked to the realistic costs of delivering the rounded full-time education that we all want our young people to have.
The Government’s other assertion that success in school is the best predictor of outcomes in 16-to-19 education has not been supported by any evidence either. I know from my own experience how students who have struggled pre-16 can make spectacular progress with the proper support post-16. Bluntly, the Government have provided no evidence to justify reducing education funding by 21% at age 16. The chronic underinvestment in academic sixth-form education is bad for students, for our international competitiveness and for social mobility.
It is the students that matter. We are at real risk of letting them down. That is why I am calling on everyone to get behind the ASCL, AoC and SFCA’s excellent Support Our Sixth-formers campaign, and I ask the Government to respond positively to their two clear, simple asks: first, to introduce an immediate £200 uplift in funding to improve the support offered to sixth-form students; and secondly, to conduct a review of sixth- form funding to ensure it is linked to the realistic costs of delivering a rounded, high-quality curriculum. A modest annual increase in funding of £200 per student would help schools and colleges to begin reassembling the range of support activities required to meet the needs of young people.
The uplift is affordable. It would cost £244 million per year to implement, and it could be largely funded by the underspend in the Department for Education’s budget for 16-to-19 education, amounting to £135 million in 2014 and £132 million in 2015. At a time when 16-to-19 education is in dire need of additional investment, schools and colleges should at least receive all the funding that the Government put aside for 16 to 19-year-olds. As funding rates for sixth-formers have been fixed since 2013, such a modest uplift would also help schools and colleges to deal with the inflationary pressures and cost increases that they have faced during that time.
It is time for all of us, including the Government, to support our sixth-formers and give them a fair deal. In her response, the Minister can make a good start by saying that she is determined to champion high-quality general sixth-form education as well as T-levels and apprenticeships. She could also commit to ensuring that both the £200 funding uplift and the fundamental review are carefully and properly looked at as part of the autumn Budget process. She is tenacious and determined. She is capable of ensuring that the Government stop letting sixth-formers down and start investing in them properly for the future of all of us.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Hanson (in the Chair)
Order. Self-evidently Mr Dakin’s debate has given me a challenge. At least 13 Members want to speak; I must call the Scottish National party spokesperson at 4 pm, and there are the Labour party spokesperson and the Minister to get in, so there is a limited time. Given the enormous Opposition interest, I think that Opposition Members in particular will have to restrain their comments severely.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate. He is the right person to lead it, because of his distinguished career before he entered this place as the principal of a further education college.
The years from 16 to 19 are of critical importance in everyone’s life; they are the transition years between school and the workplace. If we get things right in this place, young people go on to have successful and fulfilling lives from which they and their families benefit directly—as well as society and the economy. If we do not put down the right framework, lives can be unfulfilled, society can become fractured, and the economic productivity gap widens. Proper, stable funding is the cornerstone of a good, enduring 16-to-19 education system. In Waveney, 16-to-19 education is provided at Bungay High School, Sir John Leman High School in Lowestoft, East Coast College—the former Lowestoft College, which recently merged with Great Yarmouth College—and Lowestoft Sixth Form College. Students in the area also go to East Norfolk Sixth Form College in Gorleston, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis). All those colleges and schools produce good results, often in challenging circumstances, and staff all go the extra mile in support of their students.
I will concentrate my comments on Lowestoft Sixth Form College and East Coast College. Lowestoft Sixth Form College opened in 2011. In a short time it has been an outstanding success, owing to the great work of the principal, Yolanda Botham, and her staff. This year, maths and physics A-level outcomes have been in the top 1% nationally. East Coast College was formed earlier this year, following an area review and, under the new principal, Stuart Rimmer, some exciting plans are emerging. Those include a new energy skills centre, for which the Government have provided £10 million capital funding through the New Anglia local enterprise partnership. There are some outstanding successes. Some good initiatives are taking place and some exciting projects are planned. That said, for them to be sustainable and successful in the long term, a secure and adequate revenue-funding framework must be put in place.
As the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has shown, 16-to-19 funding is at present seriously under-resourced. When a student reaches 16, their funding drops by 20%. At current funding levels, students in England receive, on average, 15 hours of teaching and support a week. That compares with 26 hours in Canada, 27 in Singapore and 30 in Shanghai. The House of Commons Library has identified seven challenges that 16 to 19-year-olds face. They are, in effect, being squeezed on all sides. The VAT iniquity means that an average sixth-form college loses £385,000 per annum of vital income. The ability to become an academy helps to address that problem, to a degree, but it is not practical for all sixth-form colleges.
STEM subjects are vital at Lowestoft Sixth Form College, but, worryingly, research shows that 15% of sixth-form colleges across the country have dropped STEM subjects. At the present time, when the nation should be producing more engineers and scientists, that trend must be reversed. The Government’s T-education proposals are welcome, but are likely to cover only 25% of those in education. The solution to the problem, as the hon. Member for Scunthorpe said, is to adopt the four recommendations of the Association of Colleges, the Sixth Form Colleges Association, and the Association of School and College Leaders. I shall not go through them in detail, as he has already set them out.
Colleges are a great British success story. They deliver great results and are an important—vital—lever for social mobility, which is relevant in Lowestoft in my constituency, where there are significant pockets of deprivation. However, colleges cannot continue to perform their role if they are not properly funded. In Lowestoft there are exciting regeneration plans, with the two colleges playing lead roles. If the full potential of the plans is to be realised, 16-to-19 education funding must be put on a sustainable long-term footing.
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this important debate, and on his powerful speech. It is a pleasure to follow the speech that the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) has just made. I, too, urge the Government to adopt the recommendations of the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign.
Enfield is one of the top-performing local authorities for education in the country, with 97% of our schools rated either good or outstanding by Ofsted. This year the borough’s A-level pass rate of 98.2% exceeded the London and national pass rate average, and 96% of students who took a level 3 vocational qualification in Enfield achieved a merit or better. Students, staff, schools and colleges are and should be proud of those outstanding achievements, especially when under the present Government they have faced the largest real-terms cuts to their budgets in a generation. However, as the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign has said,
“the development and progress of young people cannot simply be measured through annual performance tables.”
Extra-curricular activities and non-qualification support are crucial in delivering a well-rounded, high quality education. Careers advice, study skills training and mental health support, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe referred, are important for the wellbeing and personal development of students.
Enfield is the 12th most deprived borough in London and we have the highest number of children—almost exactly a third of our children—living in poverty. That is not a race that we were hoping to win. Additional help and educational support is invaluable for all students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Before the recess, I had the pleasure of attending a careers fair at Enfield County School in my constituency, which reinforced my sense that schools and colleges offering such extracurricular activities are uniquely placed to provide the essential knowledge and skills required by students, so that they can make confident and responsible choices for their future.
However, I know from having visited almost every school and college in my constituency that many head teachers and principals are being forced into taking drastic measures to balance their books. Extra-curricular activities on offer to 16 to 19-year-olds are being cut, the range of subjects on offer for A-levels and vocational training curriculums is being reduced, and the retention and recruitment of teachers and support staff is proving ever more difficult, as pay is held down.
It is students in Enfield and elsewhere who are paying the price for the Government’s misguided funding policy. Sixth-formers have also suffered from a sustained period of under-investment in comparison with other students in full-time education. Given the importance of extra-curricular activities and non-qualification support to that age group, many head teachers and principals I have spoken to cannot understand the justification for an arbitrary reduction in per pupil funding—currently 21%—when students reach the age of 16. I agree. They are being short-changed. As recommended by the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign, the Government must conduct an urgent review of 16-to-19 education funding.
The future success of our country relies on our young people getting the best education and the highest-quality curriculum that we can give them—especially with Brexit looming large in front of us. I know that the second recommendation from the Support Our Sixth-formers campaign—to introduce a £200-per-student uplift to improve the education and support available—would be put to very good use by schools and colleges in Enfield. The Government should take heed of that advice, because those students—indeed, all students—deserve a fair funding deal. A Government decision not to review funding and not to increase investment in sixth-form education will be bad for our young people and our country, at a time when we need to build the best skilled workforce possible.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this important debate, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I was part of a previous Adjournment debate on this matter and have looked forward to this broader debate, which is very welcome.
First, I welcome the huge progress made under this Government on 16-to-19 education as a whole. This year, the percentage of entries awarded the top A* or A grade is 26.3%—an increase on the 2016 results—with an overall UK pass rate of 97.9%. I am particularly pleased that the proportion of entries in STEM subjects has increased and that there are more female than male entries in chemistry for the first time since 2004. Having hosted an event in Parliament in June to promote women in engineering, alongside the Women’s Engineering Society, I am absolutely delighted that we are doing something about that at sixth-form level. Alongside industry, we roundly looked at the challenges in relation to STEM for students of both sexes, with a view to ensuring that they have a chance to have the career that they need post 16-to-19 education. This Government, and certainly my colleagues and I, do not take the challenge post-16 at all lightly.
On top of the excellent secondary schools that offer A-level courses in my constituency, we are fortunate to have the stand-alone colleges. I think the importance of that will come out in the conversation and debate today; they are themselves definitive success stories in many constituencies across the UK. Eighty-seven per cent. are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted—that includes Eastleigh College, with which I have strong links—and 55% of disadvantaged students progress to university, compared with 42% from state schools or colleges. Even better, 90% of students attending sixth-form colleges go on to study for a second year at university, if that is right for them.
Let me take this chance to thank my two local post-16 colleges for the great visits that have allowed me the opportunity to see the work that they do, and their principals: Jan Edrich at Eastleigh College and Jonathan Prest at Barton Peveril College.
Students in my constituency have a great choice. Eastleigh College is packed full of apprenticeship opportunities and is strongly linked to business. It is a leader in air conditioning and gas engineering training. All of that is very much needed. Business leaders in my constituency want work-ready post 16-to-19 students. As a Conservative and a believer in choice, I know it is vital that we give our students such opportunities, so I must ask my right hon. Friend the new Minister to take her opportunity to balance the skills agenda alongside the need for traditional colleges in order that all our students have the right opportunities. I believe that there will be continued strong lobbying from the Sixth Form Colleges Association; it is certainly beating down my door, and I am sure it is beating down hers.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
While the hon. Lady is talking about the importance of such education to employers, will she recognise that education in a sixth-form college is not just about the three A-levels, but is often about the wider experience, including work placements, that colleges give their students, and that that requires resources for the colleges to be able to administer it effectively and properly? That is why the £200 uplift is so important.
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree that a well rounded education is very important; I will come to that shortly. Both academic and pastoral excellence is vital in all our education institutions.
During the summer recess, I was delighted to carry out another visit to Barton Peveril College in Eastleigh and meet the principal, Jonathan Prest. This is a thriving sixth-form college in my Hampshire constituency. With more than 3,000 full-time students, it is one of the 12 largest sixth-form colleges in the country and therefore has a huge responsibility when it comes to preparing our young people for the world of work. It seems that colleges of that size and scale can just about manage when it comes to the finances, but we want to ensure that the opportunities in traditional colleges are maintained, alongside the skills agenda.
I was concerned to hear about the current funding arrangements. The situation was not new to me. I have written to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about post-16 finances and raised the matter with her directly in the main Chamber, and I am grateful to her for spending time with me. Currently, sixth-form colleges and school or academy sixth forms receive £4,531 per student. That is less than we provide for younger students in secondary schools. It is 48% less than the average university tuition fee and about 70% less than the average sixth-form fee in the independent sector. Unlike schools and academies, traditional sixth-form colleges struggle to cross-subsidise—that is probably the best way of putting it. We have also heard about the inability to get VAT costs reimbursed. The issue has therefore been raised today, and I know that the Minister will look at it, because it does affect the learning of our sixth formers.
More broadly on 16-to-19 education and colleges, I absolutely agree about the opportunity to give our kids the cultural capital that they need when they come out of 16-to-19 education. Are we giving them the right opportunities? For example, are they being allowed to study for the Duke of Edinburgh’s awards? Are they going out to see plays? Are they spending time with local businesses? The first thing that business people say to me is, “I can’t get students who are work ready.” Those extracurricular activities are really important; indeed, they are vital. We do not want bored 16 to 19-year-olds; we want work-ready 16 to 19-year-olds. I therefore join colleagues in supporting the benefits of that broader education.
I congratulate the Government on the excellent work being done to support the education of all our young people, but we must ensure that we look at the traditional 16-to-19 stand-alone college. I must personally thank all the colleges and their staff and everyone across the country who is doing this work. I also thank the governors, who are doing so much work as well. They are often forgotten.
I will finish by asking the Minister to consider carefully the concerns raised about funding arrangements for stand-alone sixth-form colleges. I look forward to working further with her on these issues as we go forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
David Hanson (in the Chair)
Order. I am going to call Norman Lamb next, but self-evidently a number of hon. Members wish to speak. To get them in, I will have to impose a time limit, which I will announce after Norman Lamb has spoken. The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) has graciously said that she will cut short her remarks, so I intend the Front-Bench speeches to start at five past 4, and I ask hon. Members to bear that in mind. I will set the time limit once Norman Lamb has finished his hopefully reasonably brief remarks.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I will try to follow that guidance.
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin). I agreed with pretty much everything he said and I very strongly support the campaign for our sixth formers. With that clear, I want to use this opportunity to speak on behalf of the brilliant Paston Sixth Form College in my constituency. This year, it secured an A-level pass rate of 99.3%, with 80% at grades A* to C. It is an institution achieving very high academic standards, yet as a result of a completely flawed area review, it is being forced to merge with City College Norwich. That is a good institution, but it serves a different market and has a different purpose from a sixth-form college with a very strong academic standard. It is a sixth-form college in an area that has a low-wage economy and where there is traditionally a low rate of students going on to university, yet we are forcing it to merge and losing it as an independent, stand-alone institution. That is a crying shame.
I am disgusted, frankly, by the area review, which I think is completely flawed. Why is that? The area review combines further education colleges and sixth-form colleges—two types of organisation that often do very different work—and leaves out school sixth-forms, which are doing the same job as sixth-form colleges. It is totally flawed. An institution that is currently funded for 688 students is deemed to be unsustainable, when there are two new free schools in Norwich—one of which is funded for 201 students and the other for 80 students —which are deemed to be viable. How can anybody justify that uneven playing field, which has forced a brilliant institution to merge and lose its independent status?
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman touches on a subject that also affects me very much. Two local colleges are being talked about in terms of a forced merger. I have written to Ministers and to the educational establishment to try and make sure that it does not happen. I hope that the Minister takes note that we do not want forced mergers, which damage our local systems.
Norman Lamb
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I do not mind diversity. I absolutely advocate diversity of provision, but I want a level playing field. I want every institution to live or die on the basis of the same rules, yet special favours are being given to free schools. There is an uneven playing field between school sixth-forms, which can cross-subsidise from the higher funding for early years education, and sixth-form colleges, which cannot do that. That is unjust. The Government are responsible for the loss of an independent institution that performs brilliantly. I would like to meet the Minister to discuss my very real concern. I have written about it previously, but my plea was ignored and the flawed area review carried on. At some point, if we want to retain these brilliant institutions, we have to be willing to reflect on a flawed system, and decide to look at all institutions on a level playing field.
Norman Lamb
I am conscious that the restrictions from the Chair dictate that other people need to get in, so I will resist the temptation there.
Let us recognise that sixth-form colleges across the country have a very good record of delivering high academic standards. For some reason, it appears that the Government have a negative view of them, and are prepared to see them wither and die in some cases. That is a big mistake. Let us recognise the fantastic performance of sixth-form colleges across the country. Paston is not unique in that regard. Let us make sure we preserve them and give them a bright future.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
I am going to have to impose a limit of three minutes for the moment, which should just about get everybody in before the Front-Bench spokespeople begin their deliberations.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate. It is massively important that we focus on the opportunities for our young people, and on giving them the skills they need to take those opportunities and make the most of their lives. In Somerset we have some great opportunities, but delivering the skills required to take advantage of them is a major challenge in some areas.
I want to thank the Government for their attention to secondary schools within the adjustment of the funding formula that has been proposed. That goes some way towards outlining and improving some of the opportunities, but I think it is absolutely right that this debate has highlighted some of the anomalies in the education system for 16 to 19-year-olds. Secondary schools find some aspects very challenging. For example, in rural areas such as mine, where there is not a major university close by, it is quite hard to recruit staff, and that all has an impact on what can be delivered.
In Yeovil we have a great sixth-form college, which provides terrific opportunities and has done a great job of improving its standards over recent years, but I just want to highlight one or two of the challenges it is facing. We have heard about the VAT anomaly, and I would like to reiterate that. I would also like to say that, in general, applying for funding to renovate existing buildings and capital stock, to keep the experience as we would want it to be, is actually very hard. That is because applications now go from the LEP pot, and unless a particular building has a LEP-approved priority as its basis, it will not get the funding. The sixth-form college in Yeovil is struggling with that.
I would also like to highlight the new regulations that have come into the Insolvency Act 1986, which essentially allow colleges to go bust. That puts pressure on their financing. They are unable to refinance their existing loans without having to pay very large redemption fees, and that limits what they are able to do. I think Barclays and Lloyds are the main players in that business. If the Minister looked at that in particular, I would be grateful.
I am also very grateful for the Minister’s attention to the Somerset Skills and Learning business, and thank her for arranging the meeting on Monday. That has serious challenges, but I thank her for her intervention on it.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my good and hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this important debate. I want to highlight some particular points that apply to my own college, East Durham College. I thank the excellent principal there, Suzanne Duncan, and all the staff, for their hard work and dedication to the students in my constituency, and for giving me an insight into the funding issues facing it and other FE colleges.
I agree with the points that many hon. Members have made about the unfair nature of funding, which has been acknowledged by the Government. Given the Government’s commitment to look again at the schools funding formula, which they described as being out of date, it is a glaring omission not to look at post-16 provision.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend knows, Hartlepool has excellent sixth-form and FE college provision. Hartlepool College of Further Education, which also provides an education for his constituents in Easington and east Durham, offers a diverse range of apprenticeships providing bespoke skills for the future jobs market, and is the second highest performing college in England. Yet it is struggling with debt due to underfunding; several mergers have failed due to the lack of adequate funding. Does my hon. Friend agree with my question—what guarantee can my constituents be given that proper financial resources will be put into the future education of young people in our area?
Grahame Morris
I completely agree. Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill), are really concerned about the impact on their facilities.
There are common threads in the nature of the unfair funding formula. These are questions that the Minister must address, and we are hopeful on this side of the House that she will do that in a fair and open manner. There have been significant cost rises over the last four years and the funding rates within the formula have been fixed. That has led to real-term funding cuts in further education. In particular, in east Durham, an area of high deprivation that I represent, the formula significantly affects resources. By an anomaly referred to as the college age penalty, for each student between 16 and 18-years-old East Durham College receives £4,000, but that is reduced to £3,300 for a student aged 19, even when such students are undertaking exactly the same college courses. East Durham College estimates that this college age penalty costs it over £100,000 a year—the equivalent of three teachers. It would be helpful if the Minister could, in her concluding remarks, explain why educating and training a student aged 19 is seen as less important or valuable than educating an 18-year-old student.
The Government’s funding cuts and rising costs mean that post-16 education is becoming a part-time experience. Other hon. Members have referred to students receiving only 15 hours a week of teaching and support, which is inadequate, and compares poorly with our European competitors. We are failing to fund education. That is short-sighted and detrimental to our young people and our economy.
Subject choices are being reduced and courses cut, particularly those run by colleges with smaller intakes and those that provide services to rural areas, as Members from all parties have mentioned. The current funding crisis will lead to larger class sizes, unavailability of subjects such as music and drama, reduced teaching hours, fewer extracurricular activities and less student support. There will be further sixth-form closures and reductions in A-level courses—although the Government are demanding greater rigour—and more college mergers.
I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe. I ask the Minister to invest in our young people. She should not be the Minister responsible for kicking away the ladders of opportunity that many of us in this House took for granted when we were students. Education is an investment. I hope that she will commit to ensuring that every student can receive a high-quality and comprehensive education.
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on obtaining this important debate. Given the statistics that we have heard, it is no surprise that the two exceptional sixth-form colleges in my constituency have both contacted me to express their concerns.
Winstanley College has a stellar reputation as a high-performing academic institution, but it has now cut German from its curriculum, meaning that that language is now lacking in my borough. St John Rigby College, judged outstanding in every aspect by Ofsted in February 2017, is rightly proud of its inclusivity—85% of its students reside in Wigan—whereas Winstanley is well-known across the north-west, and many students travel for hours to get there.
The Ofsted report particularly praised the extent to which St John Rigby provides extra support to enable students to achieve. That is vital in order for them to excel, but it is unfunded, and as teachers are being asked to teach larger groups for more hours, the capacity to provide such support is diminishing. In my constituency, raising aspirations and building confidence are crucial, but the college principal, Peter McGhee, believes that the funding cuts are having the biggest impact on marginally qualified students. To him, it is an issue of social justice and social cohesion.
To ensure that students who need support and are less independent in their studies receive that support, the college has decided to keep teaching groups at the right size for students, meaning that it cannot invest in the estate or new technology. As funding continues to fall in real terms, its only option is to remove some of the unfunded aspects of provision, but whether it is additional study groups, one-to-one support sessions or supported revision sessions, they are all vital to those students in my constituency. The students who need extra support are the marginally qualified, who just about managed in school. Perhaps they failed a bit or did not get on with the environment, or they have higher anxiety or mental health needs. Often, their only support is provided by the college, due to cuts to NHS and local authority provision.
Unfunded programmes that develop skills and values are also under threat. The Values for Living programme has been praised by Ofsted for changing students’ lifestyles and developing their personal, moral, social and employability skills exceptionally well. Is that not what we want for our young people—to be the best that they can be in all aspects and to have the groundwork laid for a happy, healthy, productive adult life? To do so, students in Wigan need to spend more time in college, not less, as they achieve best when they are busy and engaged in a structured programme. However, that is now unaffordable, and large numbers of my constituents will be deprived of the education and opportunities to which they are entitled. The colleges in Makerfield and I are ambitious for every student, but we need the Government not only to share that ambition but to take practical steps so that it can be achieved.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I shall try to stay within three minutes. I speak as a governor for 24 years of Luton Sixth Form College, a superb college with great achievements. Indeed, we have a great success on my immediate left: my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) was a star pupil at Luton Sixth Form College many years ago, which proves my point. I am also chair of the all-party parliamentary group for sixth-form colleges, so I will focus particularly on those.
In my second ever debate in this Chamber, some 20 years ago, I called for better funding for sixth-form colleges. Since then, funding has been squeezed, cut and cut again despite constant campaigning against such cuts. In that earlier debate, I described sixth-form colleges as geese that lay golden eggs: in my view, they are the most successful institutions in our entire state educational system in educational achievement, teaching and learning and value for money.
All of that is increasingly at risk from funding cuts. We should restore and increase funding for sixth-form colleges, not cut it. Indeed, I have called on numerous occasions for the creation of many more sixth-form colleges. The arguments for such a programme are overwhelming. I ask the Government to consider that possibility again and take steps to expand the sixth-form college sector.
Of the final two points that I emphasise, the first is the need for greater contact teaching hours. It is a disgrace that our sixth-form students have half as many contact hours with teaching staff as their counterparts in Shanghai. As a former student as well as a former lecturer on A-level and other courses in further education, I know that there is no substitute for classroom teaching, tutorial time, pedagogic teaching and endless explanations so that all our students can succeed and achieve to the maximum of their abilities.
Secondly, we live in a competitive economic world. It is vital that our students have the best education possible on all fronts, but particularly in mathematics. Luton Sixth Form College runs intensive mathematics courses for GCSE retakes, with great success, but they must be properly resourced. College funding is crucial. Britain still has a national mathematics problem; many students leave higher education with poor maths skills. Funding colleges of all kinds to raise maths standards for all students is vital in today’s world. I ask the Minister to take those messages back to her Department.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins), I wish to shine a spotlight specifically on sixth-form colleges. Many hon. Members have discussed them in this debate; some have one in their constituency, while others do not, due to the distribution of colleges around the country. I have one in my constituency; there about 90 unequally distributed around the country, but in Hampshire they are an integral part of sixth-form education, with nine colleges in the county.
I often think that sixth-form colleges are the poor relations of the poor relation, because they are classed neither as technical education nor as continuing education in the more traditional sense. They will not get much assistance, for example, from the proposals to increase investments in technical courses, because most students there are studying for academic qualifications such as A-levels, and their distribution means that it is easy for Whitehall to forget about them entirely.
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who criticised the failings of the 16-to-19 education system generally and its funding gaps and discussed the need for review. I fully support the campaign being mounted to close those gaps, but I think that sixth-form colleges need all that and more.
Let me turn to the problems faced by my local sixth-form college in Southampton. It is a first-class college. It certainly does not seek to lose students who do not match an ideal profile, unlike certain places; on the contrary, it welcomes and nurtures students who need some remedial help to pass their A-levels, and it hosts several hundred students in that position. As my hon. Friends have mentioned, that leads to numerous instances, in a three-year sixth-form, in which the college receives not £4,000 per student, insufficient as that is, but £3,300. Nevertheless, the college achieves outstanding results in more than half the Southern Universities Network’s “widening participation” categories, and gets twice the estimated level of university places.
It is, by any reckoning, a great place to study and a caring, nurturing environment in which to do so, but it battles constantly to maintain its standards and curricular opportunity due not only to the per capita funding formula but to a number of other specific disadvantages. I will briefly mention two. Sixth-form colleges, unlike school sixth forms, cannot claim back VAT, as we have heard. That costs my local college in Southampton £300,000 a year, which is absurd. I have been lobbying for that to change for some time. The other issue is that colleges are funding on a rolling basis. That is not a problem if the school can roll out its funding across the years, but in the case of a two-year intake it can be difficult to sustain.
My view of my sixth-form college and its redoubtable principal is that they are miracle workers who battle on to make a deeply flawed system work for the benefit of the students, but something has to change. They desperately need an uplift in per-capita funding. They desperately need to be seen as having a place in the system and a secure future in it. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that plea.
John Grogan (Keighley) (Lab)
I will make just two brief points. On the national situation, I will add one point to the sparkling speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), who mentioned the underspending on 16 to 19-year-olds. The latest figure he cited was from 2015-16, but according to a parliamentary answer given in July, the currently projected underspending is even higher, at about £267 million. That would leave some spare change if his suggestion of an immediate uplift in spending per head were introduced.
I take great heart from the tone of Government Members today. There is a real hint of pressure from Government Back Benchers to moderate the worst of austerity, particularly in this area. I hope the confidence of my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe in the Minister and her boss will be fully justified in November.
On the local situation, Keighley College offers hope, aspiration and opportunity to hundreds of 16 to 19-year-olds each year. It innovates, often in association with Bradford Council, and has close associations with the Industrial Centre of Excellence for Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering and the Fab Lab, which was set up largely under the inspiration of Mick Milner, a local entrepreneur.
Since 2010, Keighley College has been part of Leeds City College. I urge the Minister to look closely at the local area reviews for West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire, because both have concluded that Keighley College should come out of Leeds City College and join up with Craven College and Shipley College to form a new Airedale College. There is a lot of local support for that—it would give the college a greater identity and diminish competition between the three colleges in the Airedale area—yet Leeds City College seems to be holding out against it. I request a meeting with the Minister about that. Leeds City College is putting a high price—possibly above £20 million—on Keighley College, which I understand was gifted in 2010. Leeds City College is frustrating the process. The proposal is backed by the local area reviews in West Yorkshire and North Yorkshire. I am meeting the principal of Leeds City College, as well as the local enterprise partnerships and the various councils involved soon. I hope that they will respond more positively to the local area reviews, which involved central Government, local government and business, and that they will give Keighley College a fresh start so that it can do even more for 16 to 19-year-olds in the future.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate. In Plymouth, the education funding cuts for 16 to 19-year-olds are taking a real toll on many of the most vulnerable and poorest in our community. The excellent work of sixth-form teachers and of the excellent City College Plymouth is being slowly undone by Government decisions to reduce funding. Having spoken to teachers and lecturers in Plymouth, I am concerned that funding is insufficient to give our young people the depth and breadth of study they need, especially those from the poorest backgrounds.
A lot of investment has been put into STEM subjects and training people for the marine jobs that Plymouth excels at, especially at City College Plymouth’s new STEM centre, but overall cuts to education funding for 16 to 19-year-olds are reducing the range of subjects across the city. As the son of a teacher, my starting point is that I want the Government to interfere less and to fund education better, and the latter certainly applies in Plymouth. Plymouth has a diverse tapestry of education, with every type of school, from nurseries and 19 free schools to private schools, FE colleges and academies. They have all shared concerns, privately or publicly, about the impact of education funding cuts on life chances, especially for those from the poorest backgrounds. Curtailing the breadth of study reduces their life opportunities.
The context of our education debate has changed. We need to look carefully at what the post-Brexit environment will mean for education. I would like the Minister to comment not only on the validity of the cases that hon. Members have made, but on how we can make true the rhetoric that I hear from Ministers about how Britain is to be a place of education, aspiration and skills. If the Government continue to cut education funding for 16 to 19-year-olds, we will produce less home-grown talent and will find it harder to attract international students to study from ages 16 to 19, as City College Plymouth does. Nor will we be able to fulfil the potential of the post-Brexit skills environment, which I hear Ministers talk about so positively.
I urge the Minister to look not only at funding schools and FE colleges properly, but at pay rates in the public sector, especially in education. An awful lot of excellent people are going above and beyond—I have seen that at first hand in Plymouth—by doing unpaid hours and working extra to support our young people, especially in areas where funding for special educational needs and expanding horizons has been cut. Will the Minister look at how Brexit will change those environments? Will she make sure that she does not forget about the far south-west, where our education funding is already among the lowest in the country?
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this important debate, in which many hon. Members have championed their local colleges. In Scotland we have a different education system, but I will make some brief remarks.
As a teacher, I know that there are arguably two phases of a young person’s education that have a special significance: the pre-school years and the post-16 years. In the post-16 years, we have a real opportunity to make a difference to young people’s life chances. Scotland does not have the separate sixth-form colleges that several hon. Members mentioned, so we do not have that budgetary shortfall at a particular stage of secondary education. However, I am concerned by the figures that the hon. Member for Scunthorpe quoted, which suggest that large chunks of the budget that the Department for Education has allocated to post-16 education have actually been spent on other areas. The Government should be investing heavily in post-16 education, because it may be the last opportunity to influence the life chances of our young people.
Many hon. Members expressed concern that vital STEM courses have been dropped from sixth-form timetables. That is greatly damaging to our growth and future economic prospects. We need to increase, not reduce, the number of STEM courses and STEM-trained young people.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and others mentioned the possibility of mergers. We heard a positive slant and a more worried slant on the issue, with concerns about losing brilliance from an individual institution.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The important thing with mergers, as I hope the hon. Lady agrees, is that they can be directed by local institutions and local people, rather than nationally or by other authorities.
Carol Monaghan
Sometimes local people are interested in preserving a particular institution but may not see the potential for excellence from a merger. For example, City of Glasgow College in the centre of Glasgow was created from a merger of a number of older colleges, many of which were in buildings that were not fit for purpose or had poor facilities. The new college has two sites, the city campus and the riverside campus, both of which are brand new. It sits between Strathclyde University and Glasgow Caledonian University, and its building is the most impressive of them all. The subjects offered include catering, building trades, engineering and nautical studies, to name but a few. It has state-of-the-art simulators —I had a great shot in one last week—and is training ship staff for all over the world. Gary Maclean, the winner of last year’s “MasterChef”, is training future chefs there. It is a world-leading institution with more than 30,000 students and it has the potential for 10,000 more. It really is at the cutting edge of college education, but it has taken massive capital investment—a step that the UK Government could follow if they are serious about investment in the sector.
The UK Government could take other steps. They could follow Scotland’s lead and reinstate the educational maintenance allowance, which allows young people from deprived backgrounds to remain in education. The hon. Member for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue) mentioned class sizes and the impact of large class sizes on the marginally qualified. Those are the young people who colleges should be reaching out for and making a difference to.
In conclusion, I absolutely support the calls from the Support our Sixth-formers campaign for the £200 per student uplift; that is a drop in the ocean when we are talking about a young person’s educational journey. These young people have our future in their hands. It is important that we give them the tools and the funds for success.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for securing this debate. He has a long track record—it began long before he came to this place —in governing and managing further education institutions. And just look at the turnout that he has got today. It shows the respect in which he is held, particularly on this subject.
I pay tribute to my local college leaders: Lesley Davies at Trafford College and John Thornhill at Manchester College. They run absolutely fantastic colleges, but they face the same pressures as all college leaders up and down the country.
In July, the Local Government Association published a report warning the Government about the failure to address the lack of skills in the UK, which is the fundamental point of this debate. That lack of skills could cost our economy £90 billion a year. The LGA estimates that by 2024 there will be a lack of more than four million highly skilled people to meet the demand for high-skilled jobs. We will have to change.
In Greater Manchester, we are trying to plug the skills gap; I look forward to the discussions that the Department for Education will have about the section 28 designation of the college in the area. Hopefully, the Minister will approve the exciting new plans in the weeks and months ahead.
Those plans need to be approved. With Brexit looming, and frankly a remarkable lack of clarity from the Government on the reciprocal rights of EU workers, there is an urgent need to face up to the skills gap. I normally cover the schools brief. In this country, we have 16,000 school teachers who are EU nationals. We already have a crisis in teacher recruitment and retention, which will only be exacerbated in the future, yet although there is an urgent need to upskill our workforce, since 2010 there has been an overall reduction of £1 billion in the funding for 16 to 18-year-olds. As was highlighted in the debate, the funding for a young person drops by 25% when they reach the age of 16.
According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, education for 16 to 18-year-olds has been the big loser from education spending changes over the last 25 years. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe: the Government did announce £1.3 billion before the rise of the House, but they have not told us how that money will be spent, and it will not even touch the sides of what is required, given the funding cuts hitting schools. For many years after 1990-91, spending per student was nearly 50% higher in further education than in secondary schools, but by 2015-16 it was 10% lower.
According to the IFS,
“spending per student in 16-18 education is set to fall further”.
This funding gap becomes even starker when we consider the impact on teaching hours and make a comparison with other countries, as the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) quite rightly pointed out. The former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), wanted to compare our education system with that of other countries, as set out in the programme for international student assessment. However, as the hon. Member for Waveney said, pupils in Shanghai receive twice as much teaching and face time as pupils in England. That has to change. How can we expect our children to reach the skills level of Shanghai children when we give such limited time to our young people in college?
Despite the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget of plans to invest £500 million in technical education, that money will cover only around 25% of those in education and it will not be fully in place until 2021. It does nothing to impact on the cuts that have already been implemented.
Colleges also face confusion over the apprenticeship levy. The levy puts employers in the driving seat when it comes to funding, and we do not know whether moneys will be passed on to colleges in the future.
Mr Bailey
An issue that has been brought to my notice is that colleges have to make two applications: one for levy work and one for non-levy work. The tendering process is incredibly complex and very difficult for colleges to plan for, and there is also the fear that small and medium-sized enterprises will be put off by it. Does my hon. Friend have any comments to make on that?
Mike Kane
I have, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There is a huge reconfiguration of training going on, and it has not been properly thought out. That puts additional burdens on colleges. He is right to highlight the point.
There is also confusion about students between 16 and 18 who do not hold a GCSE grade A* to C—or 9 to 4 with the changes that have come in this year—in maths or English. In future allocations, these students have to study maths and English as a condition of funding. Therefore, on top of other funding pressures, there is a risk that colleges will fall off a precipice. That is where we are at, and that is why there are so many Members here today. In May 2015, the Skills Funding Agency suggested that there were around 70 financially unstable colleges.
In the few minutes that I have left, I was going to talk about area-based reviews, but the former Minister, the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), spoke very eloquently about the issues we have had with them up and down the country. In Greater Manchester, the process was ably led by the Conservative leader of Trafford Council, Sean Anstee, but these area-based reviews really had no teeth, because colleges have gone away and done their own deals with the Department for Education, even though we have gone through a huge area-based review system up and down the country. The Minister really needs to get a grip on this issue and take a good look at it, as well as taking advice about it from fine council leaders and councillors up and down the land who have struggled to do the right thing but found that the review process just did not work out.
In conclusion, post-16 education faces a perfect storm: low levels of funding per pupil; no acknowledgement of inflationary or cost increases by the DFE, as was ably pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe; the unknown impact of the apprenticeship levy; the maths and English funding condition; and a costly and potentially failed review of post-16 education. If we truly want to meet the challenges of Brexit and address the problems it will create for our economy, we must face up to the country’s skills shortage. We cannot do that by undermining our post-16 sector.
I pay tribute to every Member who has contributed today. I am afraid that I have not got round to mentioning them all, but all of them—from all parties in this House—have ably stood up for their colleges; well done to them for that.
David Hanson (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister to respond to the debate, I remind her to leave, if possible, one minute at the end for the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) to sum up.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Anne Milton)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I have been silenced by the Whips Office for five years, so this is quite an exciting moment for me. Thank you for reminding me to allow the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) a minute at the end of the debate to sum up. I congratulate him on securing this debate and for his kind comments about me; I can perhaps reassure him by saying that the feeling is entirely mutual.
I have been inspired by the commitment of leaders and staff throughout the sector, and I am acutely aware of their concerns surrounding funding; I worked in the public sector for 25 years and I am truly conscious of these concerns. I am also aware that today the hon. Member for Scunthorpe has not touched on the issue of underspends, which he has tabled many parliamentary questions about. As a former principal at John Leggott College, he has particular expertise in this area.
The hon. Gentleman sent me a message today via my officials asking me not to go on about all “the guff” on apprenticeships and technical levels, or T-levels. Time probably prevents me from going on too much about those issues, but I will mention them, not least because a number of hon. Members have talked about preparation for work and acquiring life skills. These two opportunities —apprenticeships and T-levels—will provide exactly those things.
Nevertheless, I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am tenacious—I am like a dog with a bone—and his words have not fallen on stony ground. I did not go to university; I had the opportunity to do what we would now call an apprenticeship. I will certainly not be anything but a champion for this sector and the further education sector.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right that education transforms the lives of young people, but education must start at the beginning of their life—at a young age—to provide the basis for post-16 education. Funding pre-16 education is critical, but it is important to recognise that post-16 education is not just an opportunity for young people to carry on; it can give a second chance to those for whom the formal education sector did not work.
A number of Members spoke about the inequality between pre-16 and post-16 education funding and the issues of young people with special needs. Providers of 16-to-19 education were allocated £300 million, and for students on large study programmes—those containing four or five A-levels—there is additional funding, attracted through the funding uplift. Additional support for disadvantaged students amounted to £540 million in 2016-17.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) spoke about the excellence of his local results and good local initiatives, but rightly pointed out the issues with revenue. He is right that colleges are a great British success. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) mentioned female participation in science, technology, engineering and maths subjects and, as Minister for Women, I particularly join her in welcoming that. As an afterthought, we have had a hugely significant increase in the number of A-level entries in STEM subjects, from slightly more than 225,000 in 2010 to 270,000—an increase of nearly 20%. That is progress. It does not go far enough—particularly with regard to young women—but it is progress. The figures from my hon. Friend’s college on the number of people from disadvantaged backgrounds going to university is testament to the hard work of such colleges.
The right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) raised the issue of area reviews. I am certainly happy to see him and the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins). I do not want to see good educational establishments wither and die. The area reviews have been important, but it is important that we respond to some of the local anomalies—for want of a better word—that crop up. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Fysh) raised financial issues, and I would be happy to discuss them with him.
I am, however, going to include a word about technical education—the hon. Member for Scunthorpe cannot get away without it—because following Lord Sainsbury’s review, the significant changes to the skills system will be very important. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) mentioned breadth and depth, which are extremely important. The changes we are making are intended to grow home-grown talent and fulfil our potential.
Brexit, as we have mentioned, will be critical. A huge amount of work is going on to make sure that we have the skills in this country that we need. That work is not only for the country—we always talk about the country and the economy—but actually for individuals. It is important that they fulfil their potential. Additional funding, rising to more than £500 million per year, has already been announced to enable the delivery of T-levels when they roll out, and the first £50 million will be available to the sector in 2018 to help institutions build their capacity. I should also mention the improved work placements, which are about the breadth and depth of young people’s experience. It is a clear indication of our commitment—it is money going behind policy.
Redesigning the skills system to respond to change and to address the needs of employers and individuals is critical. Many hon. Members referred to gaining work experience, and that will be a key part of the T-levels. The apprenticeship levy is also important. It is amazing to look at some of the apprenticeships that are being put together, and to talk to apprentices. Very often they are young people for whom school did not work, who did not want to go to university or did not get the grades to go. We will be spending double what was spent in 2010-11: £2.5 billion, which is not a small amount of money.
Anne Milton
I am terribly sorry; I know the hon. Gentleman spoke, but I do not have time to give way.
The crucial word is quality. Technical education must be a strong alternative to traditional academic routes. I know funding is difficult on the academic side, and I have noted the recommendations in the document in support of our sixth-form colleges, but I was also pleased to see the results in the reformed A-levels last month, which continue to maintain high standards and improve students’ readiness for the demands of higher education. Curriculum and qualifications reforms that decouple AS-levels will allow more time to be spent on teaching and, I hope, learning—teaching is only half the story; pupils have got to learn it, too—as it allows flexibility for schools and colleges.
Education and training for 16 to 19-year-olds is one of my top priorities. The fact that a record number of young people are now participating in education or apprenticeships says much about changing attitudes to education, but I recognise that finances in colleges are significant. We often talk about funding, but possibly more important are the cost pressures in the system. The additional £500 million funding will mean more hours per student, and will provide support to secure those work placements. That will take technical courses to more than 900 hours a year, which is an increase of more than 50% on the current 600 hours.
The additional funding will benefit FE colleges, which provide most of the technical programmes, but many sixth-form colleges and some school sixth forms will also benefit. At a time when public finances are under considerable pressure, that represents a significant commitment to the 16-to-19 age group, in the context of the wider pressures on finances. I will not spill out political rhetoric, but a strong economy is important and we have had some difficult decisions to make. Our commitment to maintain the 16-to-19 base rate for all types of advisers at current levels until 2020 is important. We have done that, but the Government will keep funding under consideration. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, my job will be to be a champion for the sector. Pre-16 school education is crucial in the success of students post-16, which is why pre-16 schooling must be a funding priority, but it does not end there.
The hon. Member for Keighley (John Grogan) mentioned the contributions from Members on my side, which I noted. I know that although money and results do not always follow each other, money does matter. I got into some trouble at my university hustings for talking about the sector and forgetting to answer the questions that they asked, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as someone who did not go to university, and for whom perhaps the school system did not work terribly well, this will be my opportunity to make sure that every young person in this country gets the opportunity they deserve, and an opening.
Nic Dakin
I thank the 17 or 18 Members of Parliament who have contributed to the debate—on a Thursday, on a one-line Whip. That demonstrates the strength of feeling across the House and the country on this matter.
I thank the Minister for her response. Despite my attempts to encourage her to focus on the 85% of young people who go to general education, her civil servants managed to pull her back towards apprenticeships and T-levels. I understand that the investment she talked about for technical education is scheduled for 2020. Things need to happen now, to support the young people in the system now, because young people only have one chance to go through the system—although, as the Minister rightly said, post-16 education plays a particular role in second-chance education. Cross-party, we will hold her to account on being tenacious, championing, and making sure that when funding is under review, it can go up as well as down.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered 16 to 19 education funding.
Written Statements
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Armed Forces Pay Review Body Appointments
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Tobias Ellwood)
I am pleased to announce that I have invited Brendan Connor JP and Professor Ken Mayhew to continue to serve as members of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a further three-year term of office, commencing on 1 March 2018. I have also invited Rear Admiral (Ret’d) Jon Westbrook to continue to serve as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for an additional one-year term of office, commencing on 1 March 2018. These appointments have been conducted in accordance with the guidance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
[HCWS121]
FCO Services
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Asia and the Pacific (Mark Field)
FCO Services operates as a trading fund of the FCO. I have set it the following performance targets for 2017-2018:
A return on capital employed of at least 3.5% (statutory commitment);
An in-year surplus before financing and dividend costs;
A productivity ratio of at least 80%, measuring actual billable hours vs. available billable hours;
A customer satisfaction result of at least 80%;
An overall improvement on the average 2016 index Your Say score for “Employee Engagement” measuring above 58%; and
An overall improvement on the average 2016 index Your Say score for “My Manager”, measuring above 62%.
FCO Services will report to Parliament on its success against these targets through its annual report for 2017-2018.
[HCWS120]
Lebanon: Border Assistance
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Boris Johnson)
The United Kingdom is strongly committed to supporting Lebanon’s peace, stability and prosperity. Through a long-standing Conflict Stability and Security Fund project worth £22.6 million over three years, the UK is helping the Lebanese armed forces (LAF) secure the Lebanon-Syria border. This includes building 30 border watchtowers and over 20 forward operating bases along the border. Our ambition is for Lebanon to have complete authority over its border with Syria.
In order to reach this objective, in August this year, the British embassy in Beirut placed an order worth £1,818,096.02 for equipment—“Hesco” border defensive barriers—to support the construction of LAF Land Border Regiment towers. The decision was taken to order the materials in August, albeit during the parliamentary recess, to ensure that the materials would arrive in time to allow construction before winter.
The provision of this assistance is fully in line with the Government’s security and stability objectives in the middle east. FCO officials carry out regular reviews of our programmes in Lebanon to ensure funding is not directed to non-state actors.
[HCWS118]
NHS Recruitment
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr Philip Dunne)
I am today updating the House on the future of NHS Professionals Ltd (the company).
The Department of Health has today announced that NHS Professionals Ltd—a company which supplies flexible staffing to the NHS—will remain in wholly public ownership, after offers to buy a majority stake in the company undervalued its growing potential.
In November 2016, the Government decided to instigate a sale of a majority share in NHS Professionals Ltd as a potential path to providing it with the extra expertise, technology and investment it needed to work with more hospitals and drive greater savings for the NHS. However, after careful consideration, the Government have concluded that none of the offers received for the company through the open, rigorous bidding process reflected the company’s growing potential and improved performance.
NHS Professionals was established as a limited liability company by the last Labour Government in 2010, with a specific intention to give it greater commercial freedoms and “prepare it for sale” (Department of Health, “Explanatory Memorandum to The NHS Professionals Special Health Authority (Abolition) Order 2010”, February 2010). It currently holds a bank of over 90,000 workers filling more than 2 million shifts, saving the NHS £70 million every year. However, it only works with around a quarter of trusts, meaning that many others rely heavily on more expensive agencies to supply additional staff. We would like more trusts to work together to fill shifts via collaborative banks, and there will be opportunities for NHS Professionals Ltd and others to support this work.
Since the decision was taken to seek offers for the company, NHSP has significantly increased its performance such that audited profit before tax for the year ended 31 March 2017 was 44% higher than in the previous year. This improvement in financial performance continues to be built upon in the first quarter of the current year. The company’s improved financial and operational performance means it can now invest in improved IT infrastructure, expand its services to the NHS and transform into a world-class provider of flexible staff while remaining under public ownership—generating further savings for the NHS, all of which will continue to be reinvested in frontline services.
The Government are fully committed to providing world-class NHS services that are free at the point of the use, now and in the future.
[HCWS116]
Justice Update
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lidington)
Earlier today, I notified the market via the London Stock Exchange Group that I would today lay a Command Paper “The Personal Injury Discount Rate How it should be set in future Draft Legislation” (Cm 9500) before Parliament.
The paper invites comments on draft legislation to give effect to the Government’s proposals to change the way in which the personal injury discount rate is set in England and Wales. If enacted, the proposals will lead to the rate being:
set by reference to expected rates of return on a low risk diversified portfolio of investments rather than very low risk investments as at present.
reviewed promptly after the legislation comes into force and, thereafter, at least every three years.
set by the Lord Chancellor following consultation with an expert panel (other than on the initial review which would be by the Lord Chancellor with advice from the Government Actuary) and, as at present, HM Treasury.
The proposals have been developed in the light of the responses to the consultation paper “The Personal Injury Discount Rate: How it should be set in future”, which was published on 30 March, and related research. It is not possible to predict accurately now what the rate will be when it is set under the proposals, as this will depend on decisions made in the light of the then current circumstances. Nonetheless, without restricting the future exercise of the proposed power, the Government might expect, based on the evidence currently available and using illustrative assumptions, that if a single rate were set today under the proposals the real rate might fall within the range of 0% to 1%.
I am also publishing today:
the Government’s response to the consultation;
an impact assessment in relation to the proposals prepared by the Ministry of Justice;
the Government Actuary’s Department’s report “Ministry of Justice Personal Injury Discount Rate Analysis” (dated 19 July 2017); and
the British Institute of International and Comparative Law “Briefing Note on the Discount Rate applying to Quantum in Personal Injury Cases: Comparative Perspectives” (dated 20 March 2017).
I will place copies of all these documents in the Libraries of both Houses and they will be available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/personal-injury-discount-rate-how-it-should-be-set-in-future and
https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/personal-injury-discount-rate/.
[HCWS117]
Airports National Policy Statement
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
In my statement on 13 July this year, I said I would set out the next steps of the draft airports national policy statement (NPS) process following the summer recess.
The Government consulted on a draft airports NPS between 2 February and 25 May this year.
We received over 70,000 responses, and work to analyse them is ongoing. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to feed in their views.
In the consultation document, my Department was clear that further work was under way to update the evidence base, including revised aviation demand forecasts and the Government’s final air quality plan. It was intended these documents would be presented for consideration during the initial consultation, but the timing of the general election meant this was not possible.
I am therefore confirming that there is a need to conduct a short period of further consultation to allow this updated evidence to be taken into account. This further consultation will focus mainly on the specific elements of the NPS affected, and is expected to begin later this year.
I appointed the former Senior President of Tribunals, Sir Jeremy Sullivan, to provide independent oversight of the consultation process. I am very grateful to him for his hard work in helping to ensure that the consultation was as open, fair and transparent as possible. Today I am publishing his report on the initial consultation, and can announce that he has agreed to oversee the period of further consultation.
In my statement in July I said that the timing of the election—in particular the need to re-start the Select Committee process—meant we now expect to lay any final NPS in the first half of 2018 for a vote in the House of Commons. This Government remain committed to realising the benefits that airport expansion could bring, and I can confirm that we do not expect this additional period of consultation to impact on the timetable for parliamentary scrutiny of the NPS.
[HCWS119]
Grand Committee
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
British Overseas Territories: Transport and Infrastructure
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Shutt of Greetland
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional resources they plan to commit to address the transport and major infrastructure needs of Saint Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands.
Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)
My Lords, as we meet today to consider matters about overseas territories in the south Atlantic, we must offer our thoughts, prayers and concerns to the troubled people of other overseas territories, in the Caribbean, following the onslaught of Hurricane Irma.
Transport and infrastructure in these south Atlantic islands are interrelated; both are both hugely relevant to the islands’ economies. Saints are hardworking people. The resident population is just over 4,000. Few people are unemployed but 300 Saints work in the Falkland Islands and 600 on Ascension Island—indeed, they are 70% of its residents. It is not unreasonable for these people to want to return home from time to time. From Easter Sunday this year, the regular Brize Norton-Falklands flight ceased to call at Ascension. There has been no call since, the refuelling stop now being in Cape Verde. Why? We are advised that the heavy RAF planes cannot now land on the crumbling Wideawake Airfield runway. Why no earlier maintenance? Even at this stage, should there not be urgency in attending to the runway, rather than waiting until 2020? One wonders what else on the island is in urgent need of repair. How is it expected that Saints working in the Falklands may return home?
Surely emergency arrangements should have been put in place for the returning Saints, for those who have engaged in important environmental and conservation work and for those interested in holidaying on Ascension, particularly for two-island visits—indeed, to keep Ascension Island going. The economy, which is reliant on visitors, is, like the runway, crumbling. The owners of the only hotel are likely to close their doors for good. Following the seven-month gap, a monthly air link is promised to start on 11 November. This will not assist tourism; how many visitors can spend a month away? Nor will it help anyone with business there who cannot afford a month there. I wonder how helpful a monthly service will be to the working Saints.
Ascension Island has been promoted by this Government as a blue belt of marine protection. Surely this promotion is incompatible with the present totally inadequate transport links. What are the Government’s plans for Ascension’s transport and infrastructure? Indeed, what are the plans for the future of the island?
Turning to St Helena, while awaiting the air link, the RMS “St Helena” struggled on beset by breakdowns, but the air link is now but 37 days away. This weekly service will provide, if every aircraft seat of the 76 available is filled, only 80% of the full capacity of berths on the RMS. That will be the position once the air and ship luxury of this next few months ends with the expected withdrawal of the RMS next February. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that the RMS will serve at least until the completion of Voyage 268 at Cape Town on 11 February 2018. Furthermore, is the Minister aware of whether, at a later stage, the carriage capacity of the aircraft can be increased? Is any resolution in sight on wind shear so that larger aircraft may be used? The air service now on offer will not add to the tourist potential of St Helena and the enrichment of the economy. How can it? The airport was supposed to be the gateway to a tourism-led economy, but the creation of that base in terms of infrastructure has barely started. There is much more to do.
Although the island’s newest hotel in Jamestown, supported by the St Helena Government, is due to open in October, all other hotel developments proposed by private interests are stalled. Why? I believe it is due to a lack of confidence in the sufficiency of transport links and the related confidence of lenders to invest in the absence of any guarantee that these links will be robust.
St Helena also needs to enhance other infrastructure, such as its sewerage arrangements, road network, further work in rockfall abatement and the inadequate broadband connections. There are proposals for a south Atlantic cable, which could have a St Helena link. Are this Government disposed to support that? The cost of internet connection in St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha is very expensive, perhaps the most expensive in the world. For Tristan da Cunha—the remotest settlement on earth, where a cable connection is unlikely —it is still vital for education, health, good governance and economic development that there is good access. How is the Minister able to assist to improve these links?
Resources to improve infrastructure can come from several budget lines. Clearly, DfID has an important role, with its enhanced budget and the requirement to attend as a first call to the overseas territories’ needs. Under the 11th European Development Fund, however, these islands have been granted aid of €21.5 million for the period 2014-20. Are these funds guaranteed in European Union departure times? Will replacements be made in this type of funding? I am aware that some of the NGOs are looking to obtain funding from the UK National Lottery for environmental and heritage work. Does the Minister support that aim?
In the last week of our time here in July, I attended, alongside other noble Lords, a roadshow put on by the Commonwealth Development Corporation, or the CDC as it is known. I picked up and studied its annual report and strategic framework to understand its role in development. I was interested to learn that the organisation engages in Africa and south Asia. Sixty-seven countries are listed as to where they may invest: 49 on the African continent—all of mainland Africa—as well as Cape Verde and São Tomé and Príncipe. The St Helena group are not so listed. Surely they can only be part of the African continent; I cannot see them being in any other. The Central Intelligence Agency has helpfully produced a list of 198 countries in the world, showing their gross domestic product per capita. St Helena’s GDP is $7,800, less than half the world average. Of the 49 African countries that the CDC is prepared to consider supporting, 13 have a greater GDP per capita than the St Helena group of islands. I put it to the Minister that the CDC, with its quadrupled financial resources and considerable expertise, is well-placed to be part of the answer to enhancing the infrastructure of St Helena.
The investment in St Helena Airport was a very important achievement, but it is only part of the solution to translate the economy to one based on sympathetic tourism. The infrastructure investment must follow now. This Government, either directly or through their agencies, have the resources, skill and experience to translate these dependent economies to self-sustaining ones. Will the Minister commit today that the Government have the will to do it?
The correspondence I have received prior to this debate, both from St Helena and the many friends of the islands in the UK—and elsewhere—shows the timeliness of the debate. I thank those who wrote for their knowledge and interest. I also thank all noble Lords for taking part and look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shutt—I call him my noble friend because although he is in a different party, he is usually on the same side—on securing the debate. I also associate myself with his remarks about the problems facing our overseas territories in the Caribbean and our friends in independent Caribbean countries. The hurricane seems one of the worst they have faced and I hope we will see the Department for International Development and the UK Government doing as much as they can to help. It would be helpful if the Minister could mention that in his reply.
I want to deal with two issues: the sad saga of St Helena and how it has been dealt with by the British Government, and Ascension Island. I do not want to go over the terrible saga of the airport again; I am afraid DfID does not come out of it well. Getting information, with the help of the Minister—I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Bates, because he has been helpful—out of DfID has been like drawing hen’s teeth. It has been very difficult. The answers to my Parliamentary Questions are like the famous bikini: what they conceal is much more interesting than what they reveal. I do not think it is very clever of civil servants to see how well they cannot answer questions. If I were a civil servant, I would go out of my way to try to help Parliament by answering questions properly.
There needs to be some inquiry into why so much money was spent and wasted in building the airport without proper planning and foresight. We now know that aircraft can go in and out—it is clear that they can. That could have happened from day one if it had been planned properly. There needs to be some inquiry and I hope the Public Accounts Committee in the other place might have a further look at it.
One of the problems is the question of who makes the decisions in relation to St Helena and other overseas territories. It is split between DfID, the FCO, which appoints the governor, the governor herself and the island’s council. I pay tribute to the council: to Lawson Henry and to Derek Thomas, whom I know very well and have sat with on important Commonwealth Parliamentary Association committees. He is a very good man, as is Lawson. They are elected, and yet they are not given a proper place in decision-making in St Helena. The truth is that the man who pays the piper—and usually it is a man; sorry, ladies—calls the tune. In this case, DfID is paying the piper. Some 52% of St Helena’s expenditure comes from a DfID budget. We know that although the fiction is that the governor makes a decision, it is not the governor who ultimately does so but the United Kingdom Government, DfID, in particular.
That is why this plan was devised in the first place: to get away from that and make the island more independent and self-sustaining through tourism, not just from the United Kingdom but from France. A lot of French people want to go to see the reminiscences of Napoleon’s visit to the island. There is great potential there for environmental tourism and a range of other things. That is why the development must go ahead. I hope the Minister will give some indication of what he is doing to support the companies that have already shown an interest and to help the individuals, some of whom have put in their own money and have had no compensation or indication of help. I keep getting a brochure about some scheme; I hope the Minister will not refer to that again because it is not really the kind of help they need. They need more sustained and better help.
I am hearing about problems with the new wharf at Rupert’s. Again, the islanders, who know, suggested that it should be in Jamestown, but DfID, which thinks it knows better, insisted that it should be at Rupert’s Wharf. Now we have problems of potential rockfall. It is about time DfID paid more attention to what the islanders—the people on the ground—say, because they know what is going on. I hope the Minister will give an indication of whether DfID has agreed the funding and business case for the next three years. The islanders need to know that. They need some planning and some foresight. I hope that business case has been agreed.
I must watch my time because I want to come on to Ascension Island. I have some information that I would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, for. The airport has been closed—or so we are told—to everyone except the Americans. How is it that the Americans can use this broken runway? Do they have some kind of aircraft that we do not? Do they have special aeroplanes that can land on broken runways? The islanders there have a suspicion that we are heading for another Diego Garcia and that the United Kingdom will hand over Ascension to the Americans. They already run Wideawake Airfield. I have no doubt that they are very keen to take it over for their own purposes. With the current President we do not know what the hell will happen there. Why is it that the Americans can land there and others cannot?
We have a big interest there, not just Cable & Wireless. GCHQ has a base there. It has potential for environmental tourism as well. I hope the Minister will spell out—I think my noble friend Lord Shutt covered this—exactly what will happen regarding access for aircraft flying in and out, and how frequently we will have them into St Helena and then perhaps up to Ascension. I hope the Minister will give an absolute assurance that there is no intention to withdraw RMS “St Helena” until it is absolutely clear—100% sure—that there are viable alternatives.
My time is up. In conclusion, there is a feeling abroad, in this Committee and in the Chamber down the road, that the Government are so preoccupied with Brexit, with so much attention put into it, that they are not dealing with some of the other important issues, such as St Helena or Ascension. I hope the Minister will give us some indication that he, at least, is concerned about the kind of issues that my noble friend Lord Shutt, I and others will raise today.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Shutt on tabling this Question for Short Debate, which raises an issue that is in some ways seen as slightly niche. I told somebody this morning that I would be speaking about transport and infrastructure in Ascension, St Helena and Tristan da Cunha. They had lost the will to live before I got as far as saying, “And the Falkland Islands”. There has, perhaps, not been sufficient discussion, debate and oversight of what is going on for our overseas territories.
I am taking us slightly further down into the south Atlantic. We have heard so far predominantly about Ascension and St Helena—not so much about Tristan da Cunha. I will talk a little more about the Falkland Islands, partly because last year, under the auspices of the Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme, I had the opportunity of travelling to the Falkland Islands and therefore stopping in Ascension and coming down. That was quite an efficient although slow route, but it is one that operated twice a week and is clearly important to UK forces. We still have the three services in the Falkland Islands; the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army are still based in the islands so we need mechanisms to get our service men and women there effectively. That is a question that possibly needs to go back to the MoD, but I have a few other questions I want to raise regarding our service men and women.
There was an established route that worked for the military and for the civilian residents of the Falkland Islands. If they wanted to come to the UK, they could book on to the twice-weekly Voyager flights. That is quite different from the number of services we are seeing at the moment, which might be available going through St Helena or to Ascension using different routes. I seem to recall that when the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised this issue in the Chamber during a Question, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, suggested that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, should be sent on the first commercial flight in and out of St Helena. I think the noble Lord might be there for some time because clearly the flights are not frequent.
Baroness Smith of Newnham
The noble Lord might say that but I could not possibly comment. However, there is a question about the frequency of the flights and their utility for islanders, whether from Ascension, St Helena or the Falkland Islands.
While I was drafting my notes for today’s debate, I wanted to investigate a little further into Ascension. I looked at the island details online and found a web link for “Flights”. I clicked on it and a message stated, “The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later”. It looks like a dead web page but clearly it also links to the fact that the flights are not functioning either. The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has suggested that we are looking at 2020 before the Ascension airfield will be back in service. That is neither a short nor a temporary break in service; it is a very long time. One question I should like to put to the Minister is: what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the additional costs to HM Armed Forces of the rerouting via Cape Verde?
In answer to a Question for Written Answer tabled on 17 July in the House of Commons, Mark Lancaster stated that it was too early to provide details of the costs related to the rerouting of the South Atlantic Airbridge covering items such as fuel, handling and landing fees, but that they would be tracked and recorded. Is there an answer to that question, because we are looking at at least three years of this rerouting? What is the cost and might it be better to talk to the United States and ask whether the United Kingdom could not assist in the renovation of what is supposed to be called the Wideawake Airfield, although it seems more like fast asleep. As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, it seems closed to everyone apart from the Americans, and that in itself raises questions. Perhaps the USAF uses smaller planes than the Voyagers flying on behalf of the RAF, but why is that happening? There are questions about maintenance and the costs of dealing with the airfield in Ascension.
There remains a wider set of questions about the role that the United Kingdom feels it can play in association with the British Overseas Territories. For months and years we have been hearing that in the light of Brexit, we are looking to go global. Surely the first places we should be thinking about are our territories overseas whose links to the European Union will be damaged by Brexit. The islands have benefited from British membership of the European Union, including EDF funding. So far, under the current 2014-2020 EU budget, some €21.5 million has been assigned for the Atlantic territories. Has that all been spent, and if not, will it be part of the divorce budget that the United Kingdom is facing? If it is, should we not be thinking about making sure that it is spent in useful ways?
Finally, I should like to touch on infrastructure in the Falklands. It is not only a question of the runway on Ascension; it is also about the roads in the Falklands, in particular the road between Port Stanley and Mount Pleasant airfield. Who is affected by that? In part it is the resident islanders, but it also affects our service men and women. RAF staff may be sent on six-month deployments. The roads are dreadful. They are not necessarily made, and at the moment they are being upgraded at the rate of, I believe, a mile and a half a year, which is all that can be afforded. Will Her Majesty’s Government look at ways of improving the infrastructure, given that it affects not just the islanders but, crucially, our service men and women, who go on long deployments and would benefit enormously from safer and quicker road transport? It would enable them to get to Stanley and spend some of their time not just at the airport.
There is a whole set of infrastructure questions that could be dealt with. A final one concerns IT. Are there mechanisms for looking at, again, communications? Cheaper and more effective IT infrastructure would be most beneficial not just to islanders but to our service men and women.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, for people living in remote places, communications are vital. One can only imagine what it must feel like to lose existing air services and links such as Ascension, and anticipated new links such as the airport in St Helena. I have had the pleasure of visiting Ascension to watch the green turtles, before going on to the Falkland Islands, where I have also made a few visits, but I have not yet had the privilege of going to St Helena. I have, however, a long-standing interest and involvement in the overseas territories, going back to the days when they were known as dependent territories. This debate is about helping the overseas territories to remain independent.
The noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has given us a wonderful opportunity to focus on the issues affecting these three tiny territories and has provided a very detailed factual background, for which we must all thank him. This is indeed a timely debate. It is very important to raise awareness of the problems and to seek and suggest solutions, and I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lord Bates on the Government’s thinking and answers to some of the questions raised. Given that the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, has covered the ground so thoroughly, as indeed have others, I wish only to underline and emphasise certain points.
The airport saga in St Helena has indeed been a saga, but the main assurance needed by the people of St Helena—the Saints—is a guarantee for a transitional period, once the airport finally opens in October, and that the RMS “St Helena” will remain as a back-up service for as long as possible. I understand that the aeroplanes to be used at the new airport have a capacity for some 70 people, which is not very great. RMS “St Helena” can transport some 156 passengers, I believe. Given that the high season for tourism is approaching and hotels and other tourist-related activities need some certainty, it is important that such a guarantee is given urgently. Therefore I hope my noble friend the Minister can give us a positive answer on this subject.
My understanding was that there are no specific issues relating to the Falklands in the Falklands themselves other than issues of access via Ascension, as has been said. As for the issues in Ascension and St Helena, the sooner action is taken the better, since we all know that infrastructure costs always rise with time, and there is the added issue of European Union funding, which will no longer be available in the future. I hope that such resources as are required to meet these issues will not be affected by the current tragedy and needs of those overseas territories in the Caribbean—I would mention Anguilla in particular. I join those who have sent their good wishes to the people who are suffering in those places.
I hope very much that, as a result of this debate, we will get some answers to provide reassurance for the peoples of St Helena, Ascension and the Falklands.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I, too, wish to associate myself with the remarks about Hurricane Irma in the Caribbean, which is clearly on an unprecedented scale. In my capacity as president of the Caribbean Council, I know that many of the people whom we are associated with will be affected by it. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Shutt on this debate. I know he has a long-standing interest and has had the advantage of going to St Helena, which not all of us have.
My involvement in this goes back about 10 years. I freely admit that it was only in my capacity as chair of the International Development Committee that it was brought to my attention that the future of St Helena was believed to depend on the development of an airport, which at that time was not at all a firm commitment but a consideration. The process of getting to the final commitment was a pretty convoluted and stop/start one, in any case.
What I remember from that time is this fundamental point, which relates to what has been said about Ascension, too: the survivability of these communities depends on having a functioning economy, albeit maybe a subsidised one. There is a clear worry that these territories will become the 21st century’s St Kilda and that the lack of support, investment and infrastructure will be such that it will be declared impossible to support the communities and they will be abandoned. I would like the Minister to assure me that the Government have a real commitment to ensuring that these communities can and should survive. I do not want to be in any way contentious in saying this but, partly because of the conflict, the Falkland Islands have had a lot of attention and a huge amount of investment, whereas these other communities have, frankly, been almost forgotten. It is time that was redressed.
The point made to me when I was being lobbied, apart from that fundamental one that it was important for the viability, economic development and opportunity of the St Helena community, was that the ship—which was, incidentally, built in Aberdeen—was reaching the end of its life. Rather than build another ship, it was therefore said that it would be better to put the money towards an airport, which is the modern means of communication, although I appreciate the worry about having no shipping. I then heard the objections or issues from various sources, the first of which was the cost of developing an airport, the difficult terrain being very remote and there being no heavy lifting equipment on the island. It all had to be brought in and subsequently removed, which is a problem now, and that consideration made it more expensive.
The second concern was about the environment, both the physical impact on the appearance of the island and the disruption to wildlife—I have heard about other consequences—on the grounds that the ecosystem was part of the island’s attraction, and so should not be damaged or destroyed. There were people actually saying, “Let’s not have the airport”, but the argument was won and it was clear that the overwhelming majority of the community wanted it.
What I never heard about, not once, was the possibility of wind shear. I heard about it only last year, as I think most of us did, apparently when flying into the airport started to be thought about. I have read that there were test flights and calibration measures. I was told that the islanders could tell just by watching the birds that there was a wind issue. There is a question of whether the process of reorganising the landscape to build the airport had any effect on aggravating the wind shear. I have no idea—it would be interesting to know about that—but what is now clear is that the wind shear exists. It also now appears that there is a partial resolution, which my noble friend Lord Shutt referred to, as it is a problem from one way at the airport but not the other. You can land more safely with a tail wind—I have just seen the video—but the problem is that when you land, you keep on going and at the end, there is the sea. It is therefore unsuitable for heavier planes to do that because the runway is not long enough.
That brings me to the question of what to do now. For example, is there a possibility of an extension to the runway, because it is slightly shorter than was originally envisaged? Would that help? Could any other measures be put in place that might affect the wind shear? Again, I do not have the technical knowledge to know whether that is possible. The point about Ascension then comes into play, because it gives you alternatives. Apart from direct flights from Angola, South Africa or Namibia, it would also perhaps be possible, if the runway in Ascension were in use, to take larger planes into Ascension and then have a more regular link service for smaller planes into St Helena, which might deliver volume if the demand developed.
We should step back and recognise that the hope for this was to create a significant opportunity for the island to sustain and grow its economy as a unique tourist destination. It would obviously not be for the mass market; it would be both expensive and special, but it requires reliability of the service, and the knowledge that you can get on and off the island at reasonable intervals. It would require decent accommodation and facilities to enable people, if they are to be there for a week or 10 days, to benefit from what the island has to offer and have reasonable comfort.
The point being made about the developers and the CDC is to get to find a reasonable solution to guarantee an amount of flying capacity on a regular basis. That should give confidence for developers to provide the tourism facilities that would benefit from this. The CDC should reasonably regard that as within its remit.
When I was chairman of the International Development Committee, people asked why we were spending money in this small community, when there is much greater need in Africa and elsewhere. I understand that argument. As a committee, we decided to leave it alone, because we did not want to be seen to be standing in the way of the needs of the St Helenians. The reality is that it is the Government’s responsibility. It qualifies for ODA, so maybe it should legitimately be DfID’s, but it should be done nevertheless and the Government should have a commitment. There should be an assurance that there is a real future, a solution that can be sustained and the ability to support the economy’s development, in the terms that the local community hoped for when the decision to go ahead with the airport was taken.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I also associate myself with the comments regarding Hurricane Irma. No one could not be moved by the remarks on the radio this morning about the devastation. I know the Government have made a Statement in the other place, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give us a brief update on that situation. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for initiating this debate. I cannot believe it is over three years since the first one I was involved in, which he initiated. We had the report about the building of the airport then. It was scheduled for completion in 2016. It was clear that the airport would provide opportunities for growth and jobs but we knew then that, without proper investment, the cost of failure would be high.
Only by developing sustainable enterprise will St Helena be weaned off the budget support of around £25 million to £30 million a year. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, has said the airport business case depended not on rapid development but slow growth over 25 years, going from fewer than 1,000 tourists to 30,000 tourists by 2014. Of course that was based on five flights a week, not the initial weekly flight service that is now planned.
Most noble Lords in the debate have mentioned key infrastructure issues. There is value in cross-learning and development between islands. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, has said that the Joint Ministerial Council is an obvious vehicle for putting that into practice, as is the Overseas Territories Consultative Committee. Can the Minister indicate how that sharing of best practice has been delivered by those committees?
Noble Lords have mentioned the CDC, and I make another plug for it. It is vital for the five-year plan that has just been published that we in Parliament debate the priorities in that plan, and I hope the Minister can tell us that the Government will make time for a proper debate. It is, as noble Lords have said, concerning that DfID did not foresee and address the impact of difficult wind conditions on landing commercial aircraft safely sooner. However, as my noble friend mentioned, I am grateful to the Minister for keeping noble Lords informed of the remedial action taken by the department. In particular, I am grateful that he responded to my questions about the need for clear contingency plans combined with a realistic timetable to remove uncertainty. That includes provision of sea routes while we are assessing the success of the airport.
My noble friend Lord Foulkes also mentioned compensation for residents who have expanded their business, where the uncertainty has affected their investment. The department says that there have not been any claims, but I would appreciate it if the Minister could give us a bit more news on the role of the business support initiative and how it has responded to the needs of those who have invested. We now have confirmation that we will have a scheduled commercial air service. The agreement was signed in July, and I am grateful to the Minister for advising me that regulatory approvals from the South African CAA have been given, that we had a successful proving flight last week and that the service will start on 14 October. That is fantastic news, but it does not alleviate the need for contingency planning, ensuring greater certainty and protecting the investments that have been made.
Another announcement was of a weekly charter service to Ascension, which has now been put into question by the US authorities, who own and are responsible under the Bahamas agreement for managing that airfield, the Wideawake Airfield, which does not seem so wide awake at the moment. Again, I come back to contingency planning. Why was there not more advance notice of this? Why is there not much more effective contingency planning? Why is there so much uncertainty, which is creating stress in those communities’ lives?
I hope that the Minister will respond to the key issue, which is what assistance the Government will provide to residents of St Helena employed in supporting the British military presence in the Falklands. Are we any further forward from the response that the MoD is working to find a solution? We have had three months of that, and it is vital that we hear from the Government today.
The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, said that the response to support people employed in Ascension is for the employing organisations. He acknowledged, however, the considerable logistical challenges created by the current air access issues and said that the Government were “urgently considering” how best they could support those on Ascension with this. That was three months ago, so I should like to hear from the Minister: is he in a position to tell us what support can be given today?
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I first join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for securing this debate on transport and major infrastructure needs of St Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha and the Falkland Islands. He and several noble Lords began their remarks—correctly—by expressing their thoughts and prayers for all the people in the Caribbean, including those on Anguilla, Montserrat, the British Virgin Islands and Turks and Caicos Islands who are dealing with the effects of Hurricane Irma. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referenced the Statement made by Sir Alan Duncan in another place earlier. There will be a COBRA meeting starting at 2 pm today; further announcements will be made following that. The Secretary of State, Priti Patel, has announced that the Royal Fleet Auxiliary “Mounts Bay” is already in the Caribbean and should reach the affected territories today. The ship carries Royal Marines and Army engineers and her primary task is the protection of the overseas territories. She is loaded with a range of equipment, vehicles, tents, stores and hydraulic vehicles, specifically intended to respond to disasters such as this. As I say, we are aware that further action will be needed and it will be forthcoming, as an expression of not only our humanitarian concern but, of course, our legal obligation to those territories.
I will deal with as many of the points that have been raised as possible. My approach will probably be one that is fairly positive. It is in my nature—I am afraid that my blood group is B positive and I therefore live in that positive world. I recall that the St Helena air service is indelibly printed upon my ministerial memory at DfID: I was appointed in the morning and, in the afternoon, I faced my first Question on the issue from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes. I am grateful that noble Lords have acknowledged that we have tried to work together through this. We have had several meetings, which I have been grateful to noble Lords for attending. We have tried to keep noble Lords informed throughout the very difficult progress and as we wrestled to find a solution for this. We met with a quality assurance panel and with the team and have been sharing that information. I hope very much that the conversation we have been able to have with those who are interested in the future of these overseas territories can continue, even beyond the start of the service.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, has already referred to the commercial air service, by SA Airlink, which is expected to start on 14 October. These are exciting times for St Helena. This service will end centuries of isolation for the island. My noble friend Lady Hooper referred to the fact that communications are vital to these remote communities. This connection will be extremely important. For those who are looking for our commitment to these islands, I think the fact that we spend £285 million of British taxpayers’ money on the airport is a real commitment. One thing that we are absolutely sure of is that we want to ensure that not only the Saints but the British taxpayers see that there is good value for money from that very significant investment in the air service. The service will end centuries of isolation for the island which, until recently, had been accessible only by sea.
Some noble Lords commented on the parity between the existing link with St Helena and the number of places that are available. The air service will have an initial capacity of 76, which will increase to 87 in early 2018. Reference has been made to the capacity on RMS “St Helena”, but it takes five days to get to the island. Airlink will get there in six and a half hours. The costs are less: proposed ticket prices start at £804, making it a real, affordable opportunity for people to take advantage of. The service will be extended every month, providing a much quicker connection to St Helena for Saints on Ascension Island. DfID has supported the St Helena Government throughout the process, from designing and building the airport to the commercial negotiations necessary to have reached this stage. We have also supported a substantial programme of technical work to better understand wind conditions on the island. That work has been key to securing significant interest from commercial airlines to operate the service.
St Helena is a beautiful island. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, referred to the ambition for an increase in tourism over the long term, which justified the initial investment for up to 30,000 visitors. We know that will be a significant ask and that significant investment in infrastructure will be required, but we are confident that once people discover St Helena’s amazing scenery, attractive walks, varied bird and marine life—including whale sharks—and Napoleonic and other historical heritage, those numbers will increase.
Enterprise St Helena, the island’s economic development agency, is working on a number of fronts to enhance the tourism product, including assistance for start-ups and expanding businesses, skills development, and improving standards of accommodation, catering and transport services. With the UK’s investment in the airport and the air services starting, we are working with the St Helena Government and Enterprise St Helena to attract further international private sector investment in tourism infrastructure alongside the growth in the airport.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Will the Minister remind us about the frequency of the air service?
Lord Bates
Initially, the frequency of the air service will be once a week. We have said that number. We expect that will increase, but it has to be on the basis of demand. The agreement we have is to support the service and make it viable. That is part of our confidence that once people see the attraction of the island, the service will continue. We are looking at other ways we can talk about the business support operation, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, told me not to mention, but the noble Lord, Lord Collins, asked me to mention. I am happy to reference that operation, through which we can offer support to the organisations and business that have had difficulties as a result of the delays.
In addition to investment in the airport, we have provided £16.5 million over three and a half years to improve the island’s infrastructure, which I know the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, was keen to know about. That investment has enabled the St Helena Government to make improvements to areas such as social housing, education, health and utilities. The investment has improved the lives of the people of St Helena. For example, the level of healthcare available on the island has increased following the refurbishment of the hospital. There have also been improvements to power generation and water distribution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and several others, referred to the internet and to the CDC. We had a very interesting discussion at that point and I know those discussions are ongoing. Sometimes it is not necessarily that we do not want to answer questions, but these matters are very complicated. I assure noble Lords that those discussions and ideas are being taken very seriously. We funded the feasibility programme for the submarine internet connection to the islands because we see it as complementary to our tourism ambitions. We have also continued our support to the core budget of the St Helena Government, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, mentioned as the man paying the piper; in this case, it was Priti Patel, a female, paying the piper. That commitment continues and we have agreed a further project of up to £4.8 million over the next three years to help support tourism and economic development.
We have invested nearly £13 million in Tristan da Cunha’s infrastructure. That has kept the harbour open, allowing access to the island and allowing the lobster catch, which is very important to the island’s economy, to be landed. In addition, the newly built health facility opened its doors in June 2017. This replaced the failing hospital with a facility which offers an improved level of medical care. The UK Government have received positive feedback from the islanders and clinicians.
Turning to Ascension, the rerouting of the South Atlantic Airbridge has clearly had an impact on the lives of people on the island and on operations with the organisations based there. However, the runway remains open should there be a need for medical evacuation and the MoD military flights are still running. I recognise the particular interest which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, has through her Armed Forces Parliamentary Scheme experience. Let me just add, on maintenance of the runway, that it is the US Government who own the runway on Ascension and contract and patch repairs. It is they who have asked that, until further notice be given, the RAF should cease from operating the heavier Voyager aircraft, due to the deterioration of the runway that has occurred during that time.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
The Minister is reading a speech rather than answering the debate. Will he answer the question as to why the Americans are still able to fly in, as they were before, but we are not?
Lord Bates
This is a debate we are having here. I thought it would be helpful for noble Lords to hear what HMG are actually doing in these areas. Discussions with the United States Government are of course ongoing under the terms of the agreement about how this will operate. I am very happy to write to and update noble Lords with the outcome of those.
The majority of those on Ascension are from St Helena. The new once-a-month air service to St Helena, with onward travel to South Africa, will drastically improve travel times, allowing Saints to return home to visit their families and friends, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, requested. The Government are clear about the importance of continued access to Ascension before and during the planned runway repairs. My noble friend Lord Ahmad spoke to the Ascension councillors on 7 July to hear their views, and the FCO is in close contact with the Ascension Government, employing organisations and representatives of the people of the island. Ascension continues to have a role in delivering a number of strategic priorities for the UK and our allies. The UK Government are committed to working with the Ascension representatives to find a sustainable operating model that works.
Travel to and from the UK to the Falkland Islands has been maintained by rerouting the South Atlantic Airbridge through Cape Verde, for which Her Majesty’s Government are very grateful. The responsibility for infrastructure investment on the Falkland Islands is a devolved matter to the Falkland Islands’ Government, which I know the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is interested in.
I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, for calling this debate and to all who have contributed. It shows the depth of support in this House for the people of the overseas territories, to whom we have a special responsibility. I hope the House can continue to support the work of the UK Government in discharging this responsibility to some of the most remote and challenging places in the world, and that the investment which we have placed already and the communication which we have already invested within this House can continue into the future for the benefit of the Saints and other organisations elsewhere.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
The first debate has now concluded and the Committee will stand adjourned until 2 pm.
Brexit: Negotiations
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have to bring regular reports before Parliament on the progress of the negotiations for Brexit.
Lord Dykes (CB)
My Lords, one of the features of my last visit to New York was a snippet of New York traditional humour. I was very impressed that the definition of a real optimist was a 95 year-old man who got married for the eighth time and bought a new house near a school. The Government need even more optimism than that to get through this nightmare of Brexit. The less congenial part of this, for me, is having to sound curmudgeonly to a very distinguished Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We thank her for coming today and we look forward to her responses, but it is always a problem to deal with someone who has such an excellent reputation as a very hard-working Minister. So I apologise in advance for everything I say if the Minister—unsurprisingly— disagrees a little with it.
The Government do not realise how impossibly complicated this process will be. That is why the reports now need to accelerate and be much stronger and more regular in the light of all those coming to speak in this debate. I believe that the two representatives of the EU Committee are the noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Teverson, and I hope they will quite rightly ask the Government to promise that the EU Committee is kept well informed about what goes on. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will soon be back as the chairman.
The Government have lost their original mandate from the decision of 23 June 2016 because of the 8 June election this year. They cannot proceed legitimately—possibly even legally, particularly if we had a written constitution, which of course we do not have. The Bill being debated today in the Commons and on Monday grants those sinister Henry VIII powers on secondary legislation, which will not be accepted by Parliament. A minority Government, which is what they are, dependent on a peculiar DUP grouping of Protestant hard-liners in Belfast, cannot possibly enforce their decisions against the true democratic majority increasingly revolted—as are the public—by this daft plan to leave the European Union. The prospect of leaving is alarming mainly the representatives of UK industry, farming and commerce, and particularly major exporters to the EU. The idea that this will not grow from now on—it will keep coming back to haunt the Government—is daft, if that is what some Ministers still think.
The immigration issues are even more painful. All the way through, it was extraordinary that the Government, unlike other EU member states, for some bizarre reason avoided using the existing powers in the treaty of Rome—now the TFEU—to limit immigration from other EU countries if they wanted to. Guess who was the Home Office Minister in charge at the time: a lady called Theresa May—so it is even more strange.
On 7 March this year I asked the Home Office Minister in the Lords why the powers, mostly under Clause 45, were not invoked, which would have softened the irrational hostility to migrants in this country. She did not answer but said she could not be responsible for what had happened in the past. So much for Tory government continuity on main policy areas. They failed repeatedly to use the treaty three-month rule, and then in a panic reverted to Cameron’s unachievable tens of thousands formula, which, incredibly, is still being repeated by a lady called Theresa May.
I will quickly refer to Article 50 again. In response to Questions in the Lords on 19 December last year, the Minister used the word “instructed”, a word that is illicit or perhaps even illegal—it would be if we had a written constitution—as the referendum was an advisory opinion only. Of course, anti-EU Tories said they would accept the result and act on it. However, the then Government were elected with a net small majority but only by just under a quarter of the qualified voting public, which excluded the youngest voters—hardly a democratic basis in law. In the same exchanges, the peculiar invocation of a red, white and blue Brexit by Mrs May was described as red for the millions of dead in two world wars followed by six decades of peace thanks to the EU; white for the cowardly slide in this country into irrational xenophobia; and blue, representing just the Tory interest, mostly older people—a party which now has a membership base less than one-fifth of that of the main opposition party in the Commons.
The emotional background is even more striking. With Ministers floundering and dreading the growing public revulsion at this monumental disaster looming over this country, we recall the effects of what the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, described as the continuing “cancer” literally threatening to destroy the Tory party in the future. Ministers have ignored the sensible voices and opted to listen only to the dark voices of reaction, prejudice and ignorance, as well as a few genuine believers in a mystical and old-fashioned independence, which no longer exists in reality for any country, even the United States.
For once—and it surprised me at the time—the Prime Minister expressed it with accuracy in her article of 8 January this year in, of all places, the Sunday Telegraph, saying that people,
“did not simply vote to withdraw from the European Union; they voted to change the way our country works … forever”,
and were disgruntled by economic and social setbacks in their lives. Apart from immigration, this is probably the main reason why people did vote—to give the Government a kick, which is what they tend to do in referendums if they are feeling fed up with lots of things, as people are in this country now. That is fair enough but why should the Government take it out on our membership of the most successful trading system in the world?
In the brilliant four-page “Why we are still angry” special in the New European newspaper on 10 to 16 February this year, the second of the four whys reminded us that,
“every one of the reasons given to persuade Leavers to vote for Brexit is a lie”.
Let us note the voices of good old British common sense, of people who are beginning to wake up to what is happening in this country with this daft policy of Brexit, such as John Cole, a citizen from Shipley, West Yorkshire, who stated in the Guardian in January this year that the referendum,
“was only ever advisory. The government had no obligation to act on the outcome, especially when it was so close. Any golf club or musical society requires a super-majority for significant constitutional change … the government has grossly overinterpreted the result”.
He must have been thinking about the fateful utterance of the infamous words after the previous election that “Brexit means Brexit” by an inexperienced and maladroit Prime Minister in the heat of the moment.
There are now very difficult questions facing the Government and they have to be faced up to from now on, with regular reports to Parliament, both the Lords and the Commons. We know that in both places the majority against Brexit is growing. In the Lords I believe the majority against leaving Europe is very large indeed, among all groups and parties.
How do we avoid hard Brexit? As the negotiations have now started at last, some eight weeks later than if there had been no election, the earlier strong fears that Theresa May would be happy to opt for a hard Brexit—a no deal at all kind of outcome—have happily receded somewhat, only because of the gradual evolution of some common sense among some Ministers. I will avoid naming names. It does not apply to all who are involved in this exercise.
As early as 21 February this year, in the debate on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill in the Lords, the highly respected Cross-Bench Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, said that there was “no question” of just ignoring the referendum. However, he rejected absolutely the concept of the hard exit, or Brexit, which had not been mandated. He added,
“there is no way that I am going to vote for triggering a negotiation designed to achieve a hard Brexit, which is likely to be so damaging for our country”,—[Official Report, 21/2/17; col. 222.]
for reasons he went on to explain in some detail. He also went on to attack the approach as a cavalier disregard of the 48% of voters, then and now a figure that is growing, who are against this daft policy.
On 6 July I argued that the original Brexit mandate had lapsed long since the 8 June outcome. Indeed, the results of that election are striking. Even Sky News in its analysis said that there was a built-in majority against Brexit in the overall result of all the electors voting for the political groups. Of course, we had new younger voters coming in for the first time as well, who signalled a very significant change. The Tories are now down to just above the Member numbers for the Liberal Democrat party with their absurd and childish psychodrama which we have all been locked into. When I met senior officials and MPs in Berlin recently, they asked me one of those psychological questions: “Why are they being so childish?”. I was unable to reply so I said that I would refer the question to Ministers here and ask them. I did so, but I never got an answer from the then Lords Minister about it.
In the Financial Times on 18 July, the writer Gideon Rachman put into chilling context that when people say that the vote which occurred on 23 June must be followed they mean,
“the Leavers’ view of democracy is similar to that of a third-world dictator—‘one man, one vote, one time’”.
Thus it can never be revisited. That of course was not the case in the 1975 referendum, which was reversed by the second in 2016. There is now less than a 50/50 chance of a comprehensive agreement being reached by March 2019. My noble friend Lord Kerr wrote on 26 January this year that, “The UK might withdraw its Article 50 notice, as it legally could”. Meanwhile the rest of the EU is paying close attention to the neurotic antics here which shame the reputation of UK politics. All the 27 sovereign member states, who incidentally are proud of the links between their own national sovereignty and the collective sovereignty afforded by EU membership, see more and more people here beginning to back away from the Brexit disaster movie, filmed in black and white.
If anti-Brexit is thwarting the will of the people, by 2019 some 2 million people from the Brexit electorate will have passed away and have been replaced by a similar number of voters aged 18-plus, on top of the 1 million extra young voters in the election held in June this year. Hence we conclude that staying in the single market and the customs union is a legitimate compromise. The Opposition should repeat this all the time and I do hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and others will persuade Jeremy Corbyn to sound a little more enthusiastic about matters European, not only to please members of the Labour Party but others in this country, and indeed many trade union members who are increasingly keen on Europe.
The inexorably looming and increasingly obvious solution is to study the sage words of one of our most brilliant authors, Ian McEwan. Early in June this year he said,
“I am a denialist. Almost a year on, I am still shaking my head in disbelief. I know it’s not helpful, but I don’t accept this near mystical, emotionally charged decision”.
That view will be echoed by others as we see what happens from now on. I wait with interest to hear the response of the Minister.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for initiating this debate. I do not think that any of his speech touched on the subject of the debate, which is about information being given to the House. What we are facing, of course, are very different traditions in Brussels and London. When I held office in the European Parliament, I had a good system for getting documents read: stamp “Confidential” on the top of them and they would be read by every office in the European Parliament within a day.
We have to look at the dissemination of information because this is incredibly complex. I want to stick to the subject of the debate. I do not think that there is any central body in Britain that is actually running what I would called a Brexit website. There are such things in Brussels; in fact, Brussels is overflowing with information. Every day I get two briefings from an excellent outfit called Politico, which tells you everything that is going on. It is thorough. It tells you every bit of news that you need to know, including the fact that today is the birthday of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which I got from that website. Also, at midday I got a thing about Barnier’s statement on Ireland. In other words, the information flow is better co-ordinated, and the Government need to look at how they can co-ordinate ours better.
The Government need to have a contact system for the Lords. When the Minister was at the FCO, she had regular meetings of interested groups. I am always reluctant to put forward solutions that work elsewhere, because generally in this place the reaction is, “British democracy is best and Brussels is rubbish”. I will just mention that the system being used in Brussels, which is working very well, is that the Parliament has a rapporteur—that is aside from M Barnier: it has Guy Verhofstadt. He has what is called a contact group. Every week he meets with a group of parliamentarians representing virtually all of Parliament, although, demonstrating the skill for which it is famous, the Conservative group has managed not to be a member of that particular group—the only group in Parliament that has achieved this. There are two Labour members on it, incidentally. The group meets and Verhofstadt brings it up to date.
The purpose of the contact group, because there are 750 MEPs, is for them to then go away to their political groups and committees and brief them. It is a two-stage process and it happens every week. The second stage is open to anyone who wants to follow what is going on. I would like the Minister to look at that, because making Statements to the House, where you get the usual people jumping up and down with no order and no organisation, is not going to do what we want. We need a structured briefing system for this House. In other words, we need the Minister to look at the system she had when she was a Minister in the FCO, and adapt it to make it work in this way.
My final point is that there is a tendency to rubbish the European Parliament. We should not fall for that. It is following these negotiations very carefully. Ultimately, it has a veto. If it feels that it is not even being considered or taken seriously, it is not going to be as friendly as it might be if it felt that we were fully engaging with it. I have never heard the Minister associated with this negativity, so this is not a criticism, but I ask her to tell her friends in Government to pay proper respect to the elected European Parliament, which contains elected representatives of this country, who, frankly, the Government need to keep on side.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)
My Lords, as day follows day, I get increasingly astonished that people who I know to be intelligent, grown-up politicians accept the result and narrow majority in an advisory referendum on a flawed franchise, with lies and disinformation on the leave side, as an instruction to Parliament and the Government in a parliamentary democracy. They get up and say it on the radio and on television. Do they really believe it? Are they really serious or are they just part of this “Brexit means Brexit” determination, because it is good from a party-political point of view? Even some people on my own side are saying it, which is even more disappointing.
Looking at what is ahead of us, the withdrawal Bill is starting in the House of Commons only today—it has another day next week—and it is the first Bill we are going to consider. Perhaps in her reply, the Minister can tell us how many other Bills there are going to be. We are told there will be a number of them. Forget about the statutory instruments in the meantime; how many other Bills are we going to consider, all of which we have to get done well before 29 March 2019?
I asked the House of Lords Library to look at how many sittings we had when we passed the Single European Act and Maastricht. I remember it well, as does the noble Lord, Lord Dykes. I was in the House of Commons at the time and on the Opposition Front Bench, opposing it. We had 11 sittings on the Single European Act, six of which went well beyond the time of the House, and on Maastricht we had 41 sittings, 18 of which went well beyond that. I understand that they have not even decided yet in the House of Commons whether to have a timetable Motion, but to think that the Government are going to get the first Bill through by—when is it supposed to be?—early 2018 is really astonishing. Perhaps the Minister can tell us from her wisdom how she thinks that is to be done. I really find it astonishing that we are to face this plethora of legislation and information in such a short time.
I also find deeply disappointing the way in which the House of Lords, and the European Union Select Committee in particular, is being treated. On the day I read that my noble friend Lord Jay had expressed concern that David Davis could not come to report to the European Union Select Committee, that same David Davis was appearing at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe in a comedy show with Alex Salmond. I am told that when my noble friend raised it in the House earlier today, she did not get a reply. Perhaps the Minister can give us an indication as to why the Edinburgh Festival Fringe is more important to the Secretary of State than the European Union Select Committee, given what he is paid, and supposed, to do.
I see that we have a huge task ahead of us. It will be very difficult, even with the kind of suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe. It really is clutching at straws to think that any such structure can deal with the plethora—the huge volume or flood—of legislation and other matters that we have to consider. There is no way that it will be considered by Parliament, by the European Parliament, by parliaments overseas and finally, in what we are told will be a meaningful vote, by both Houses of this Parliament. That is my only hope. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, I thought that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, was excellent. It was right on the subject. At the end of this process, if we even achieve getting there—I hope that we do not—we may have a meaningful vote. I hope that that vote will give the British people, and I am right behind the Liberal Democrats on this, the opportunity to consider whether they want the deal that comes out of this—if there is one, which I doubt there will be—or whether they would prefer, as I would, to stay and get the benefits of the European Union.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, particularly with that endorsement of the Liberal Democrats, which I have never heard him make previously. I probably never will again.
There is a mixture of former MPs and MEPs here, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said. When I first became a Member of the European Parliament, some time ago now, I was wet behind the ears as a parliamentarian. I remember an instance of the plenary session, which I think was in Brussels, when a commissioner failed to turn up at the beginning of a debate which he had been called to. My Dutch colleague said, “This is utterly outrageous”. He said that in the lower chamber of Parliament in Holland, if ever a Minister did not arrive in time for a debate, it would effectively be a matter of resignation because of the predominance of parliament. In the European Parliament, I never came across that happening again because of the respect that there was for the Parliament and the parliamentary process. Since I have been privileged to be a Member of this House, for 11 years, I have not found that to be the case in Westminster generally. In my four minutes, some of my criticism will be as much of Parliament as of the Government during this process.
The Government have form on listening to Parliament. I still cannot understand why they decided to fight the Article 50 issue through the courts to the Supreme Court. It wasted time. It was obvious that Parliament was not going to stand in the way of Article 50—partly because of where the Labour Party stood at the time—and it made it look as if the Government were trying to take back control from the British Parliament, when the referendum was about so much else. That court case should not have been necessary because Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, should have insisted. It could have voted to resolve that issue but decided not to. That is a weakness in our parliamentary system.
As a member of the EU Committee, I particularly want to raise—I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will as well—the fact that it was our duty as parliamentarians and as members of the committee, having been appointed by the whole House, to bring the Government to account. That was one of our core roles. Because of that, the committee decided that it would come back during August to hear about the latest round of negotiations from the Secretary of State. I was astounded by the letter that came back from him telling us why he was not doing that. One reason that he gave was because of the parliamentary recess. Yet Parliament—this House, that committee that had been given that responsibility—was willing and eager to come back to keep that dialogue going. The Government are not in recess during August. Ministers do not give up their duties and go on holiday. The process of government does not stop. Yes, Parliament does, but we were prepared to come back and the Government decided not to.
The arrangements that we have in this House and in the Commons are not good enough for what we need for this great change to the constitution of this country. I have said this in EU Committee sittings when the Secretary of State has been there: the more that Government involve Parliament, the more credibility they will have and, I suspect, the more wisdom they will have in their negotiation as they find their way to the end of this process. By keeping things to themselves, by not consulting, by getting into groupthink, the outcome for them, as well as the country, will be far from good.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for initiating this debate and for introducing it so robustly. I am also grateful to the Government for arranging a debate on the implications of Brexit for Ireland, north and south, earlier this week and for scheduling the debate next week on the EU position papers.
As acting chair of your Lordships’ EU Committee, I will speak today about accountability on Brexit to committees of the House. The points that I shall make reflect a letter that I sent yesterday on behalf of the EU Committee to David Davis, with a copy to the Minister. Parliamentary committees, including the EU Committee, are an essential part of parliamentary scrutiny. They meet regularly, they work across party lines, they have experienced support and they build up substantial knowledge of and expertise on their subject matter. Certainly in the Lords, they look at things objectively. If Parliament is to scrutinise effectively something as complex and important as the Brexit negotiations—as it must—committee engagement is essential.
As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the EU Committee has found the Secretary of State’s response to its requests for reports back after each round of the negotiations to be disappointing and unlikely to lead, if I may say so, to the deep and special relationship that we all want to establish with him. He has offered to appear quarterly, which is helpful as far as it goes, but the negotiations are fast-moving and regular reports back really are needed. We understand that the Secretary of State has a heavily charged schedule—in Edinburgh and elsewhere—and may not be able to attend as often as the committee would like, but the committee finds it hard to understand his apparent reluctance to allow his Ministers to appear before it. From my own experience, that would surely be the natural thing to do. That is why I wrote to Mr Davis yesterday, on behalf of the committee, welcoming his commitment to appear before us at least quarterly and formally inviting the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—for whom we all have very great respect—to appear before us after the intervening negotiating rounds. I hope that she will be able to respond positively to the committee’s invitation in her reply to today’s debate.
The Brexit negotiations are the most important and complex negotiations that any British Government have carried out since the Second World War. Proper parliamentary accountability for and scrutiny of them is an essential part of our constitutional arrangements—even if unwritten. It really does matter.
Lord Bowness (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for asking the Question and I also thank my noble friend the Minister for being here in person to answer. It is typical of her, in fact, and we should not be surprised at that. From her previous roles, we have come to know her willingness to listen to our concerns. Some Members may think that the Question asked is irrelevant in the light of the Secretary of State for Brexit’s letter to Members of 9 August promising a Statement after each stage of the negotiations.
However, the Question really is wider than post-event Statements. Many of us were concerned that so many position papers were issued when Parliament was not sitting. While the granting of a debate upon those papers is welcome, I suspect it will be just that: a debate. What we should have is the opportunity to question the relevant Ministers on the detail of each paper—proper parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore put to my noble friend that, before further papers are issued, consideration should be given to having a procedure similar to that which takes place after the making of an Oral Statement, when Ministers can be questioned on that particular topic and that topic alone.
We were told that negotiations would be prejudiced if the Government were put in the position of disclosing its hand. But we have position papers from both sides, press conferences, statements from Cabinet Ministers—to say nothing of leaks—and pending legislation on immigration, fishing and other subjects, setting out what we are going to do immediately post our leaving. How does that not disclose our hand? What is there left to negotiate if we have already published to the world where we are going? My noble friend Lord Balfe has told us about the European Parliament arrangements and I think we could all be rather jealous of those. It seems to me, with the greatest respect, that our Parliament is reduced to the status of a spectator—a noisy one perhaps, but a spectator nevertheless.
The position papers have only increased the need for more parliamentary scrutiny. The papers themselves reveal little, except that we want most, if not all, of what we already have as members of the European Union, save that we just do not want to be members. They are short on how we will achieve this desirable state. We are told by Ministers that imaginative solutions are needed from the European Union. Where is our imagination taking us, I wonder.
The scene is changing, I suggest, if for no other reason than the papers have exposed to the public gaze issues that had no or little serious discussion in the disastrous referendum campaign. I refer not only to the less than frank claims by the leave campaign but to the misjudged campaign to remain. We have seen this over the UK-Irish border—when is a border not a border—a virtual border? The rights of EU citizens have become wrapped up in the ideologues’ loathing of the European Court of Justice; likewise, membership of the single market, the customs union and who knows what else—never mind trying to have your cake and eat it. There must be an increasing number of reasonable people who were on the side of leave, as well as those of us who were on the side of remain, who are beginning to wonder whether this game we were induced into playing is really worth the candle.
All this leads me to the conclusion that Parliament, and the House of Commons in particular as the elected representatives of the people, must be given the opportunity of a meaningful vote at the end of the process, if not, on some key issues, before the end. The choice cannot be just that this is the cake we have baked and we must eat it—half-baked or soggy it may be—or do without any cake at all.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, like other Members, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for tabling this Question for Short Debate and for opening it in such a lively and engaging way. It may have been slightly more hyperbolic and with rather more adjectives than some Members would use, but there was a very clear sense of the passion with which he wanted to make his case.
It is commonplace to say that this is a timely debate. In some ways this week feels the least timely time to have this debate, because after months of famine, when we have had no reporting and there has been no opportunity to scrutinise, we have had a Statement from the Secretary of State finally reporting back on rounds two and three of the negotiations—kindly repeated by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—and a whole set of position papers. All of a sudden there seems to be a little bit of activity and a debate next week on the position papers. But then we have another recess and finally only in October do we begin to get down to the serious business of scrutinising what is going on.
The referendum was in June last year; it will be more than 15 months since the referendum before Parliament can properly scrutinise what the Government are doing. It will be more than six months since the Prime Minister triggered Article 50. She then held an unnecessary general election. When the election was called, I asked the then Minister of State, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, what the Government had done to work out how much time had been lost for parliamentary engagement on Brexit thanks to the election. Needless to say, there was no answer. I suspect that the Prime Minister had not been thinking about that when she triggered the election.
Come October it will be six months since the other place has had any Select Committees. In July the Labour Party nominated members for various committees. The Conservative Party voted only this week. As of last night, the Brexit committee still had not had its membership confirmed. Six months after the triggering of Article 50 there has been no opportunity for the House of Commons to do any proper scrutiny work in committee. Even if the Secretary of State did not have other activities in Edinburgh—perhaps he was going to see Nicola Sturgeon at the same time; maybe he was doing his duty and talking to the devolved Administrations—a key role in Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, pointed out, is that of committees. Clearly, your Lordships’ House’s EU Select Committee is crucial, but the Commons committees matter as well. They had all begun to work on particular reports before the election; all that work is gone.
The Secretary of State has said he wants to report back as soon as possible after the negotiations have happened and yet, so far, he has reported back only once, despite the options to come during the Recess, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. The Government have suggested that they wanted to update Parliament and there will be ample opportunity for both Houses to debate the key issues arising from Brexit.
The White Paper also said Parliament has a “critical role” to play in the process of leaving the European Union. At times it feels that Her Majesty’s Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, do not believe that Parliament should have a critical role at all—critical either in being important or ever challenging anything the Government say. The role of scrutiny, and of Parliament, is surely to hold the Government to account, to ask questions and to raise issues, in order that we can make the right decisions and help the Government make the right decision. Whatever one thinks about the result of last year’s referendum, it is surely part of giving control back to Parliament that Parliament scrutinises the Government. The idea that, somehow, anybody challenging the Government and wanting to amend legislation is going against the will of the people is surely a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, we heard from my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and indeed from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and other noble Lords, in Questions this morning and here this afternoon, of dissatisfaction with the Government’s record of reporting back on negotiations. In that light, our Motion on Tuesday will call on the Government to lay before Parliament a Statement of the strategy and principles which underpin the negotiations on withdrawal, transition and future relationships, accompanied by a plan for the full involvement of the devolved Administrations, together with consultation on consumer, employer and trade union organisations.
It must be clear to everyone who reads the papers that Parliament, business and wider society do not feel they are being listened to. We saw the CBI’s statement this week and the London Chamber of Commerce warning that,
“business confidence has been hugely impacted by uncertainty”.
The telecoms industry is dismayed at being classified as a “low priority” for the negotiations. Those sorts of concerns from outside Parliament are legitimate for us to raise with the Government. Beyond us, there is almost anger from the Welsh Government for their exclusion. There is an absence of any forum for consumer representatives to voice their concerns. All of this points, as the noble Baroness has just said, to a Government who seem unwilling to level with the very people whose futures depend on the specifics of the outcome of the talks.
Indeed, as well as wanting engagement with consumer bodies, the Chartered Trading Standards Institute is concerned that the Government’s hierarchy of priorities may fail to pick up detailed areas where maintaining legislative arrangements in day one of Brexit will not deal with the co-operation between agencies and across networks that currently keeps consumers safe and treated fairly. To raise those sorts of questions is not to question the outcome of the referendum; it is to challenge how the Government are proposing to move us out of the European Union. So it is time for the Government’s “no questions please” approach to stop. Indeed, if I could make one recommendation to the Minister it would be to listen to her noble friend Lord Balfe, because some of his proposals for that dialogue would benefit the whole House.
I also feel that the Government have to stop giving more information to the press than they seem willing to give to us. The leak of the immigration paper may simply be a leak. Harold Wilson said, “You leak, I brief”; it may have been a briefing rather than a leak. Aside from that, we heard from Sky News and the Guardian that Cabinet Ministers, speaking directly to them, seem to accept that the EU will not be able to say in October that sufficient progress has been made in phase one to open talks on the substantive issue of Britain’s future relationship. That may not even happen until Christmas. If that is the case, why not tell Parliament, rather than Sky News and the Guardian, and spell out what this means for a transitional period, as well as for the final agreement, rather than pretend that all is going swimmingly well, in the wonderful definition of optimism?
My plea, to add to that of the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for regular reporting to Parliament, is for meaningful reporting to Parliament. There will be the meaningful vote at the end, though just as I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, said—sorry it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Teverson—if you treat the European Parliament correctly, then it is more likely that it will respect what goes to it. That goes for our Parliament too. We need to be treated with respect so that our meaningful vote at the end is based on the results of good dialogue.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for securing this debate. His exposition of the last year and why he regrets the decision of the British people dominated his speech, but that shows his passion. We understand that. What I want to do, as my respect to Parliament, is to base most of my remarks on the core issue of the Question on the Order Paper. But I will, in doing so, seek to cover many of the issues rightly raised today.
One of those, of course, was from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who joined in the reminiscing of what might have been if there had not been the result in the referendum. He asked a question specifically about legislation. The Queen’s Speech gave an outline of that. Since then, we have been giving greater detail about which Bills are published, and they are now beginning to be debated not only in the House of Commons, but in this House. I waited for 13 years in opposition for the Labour Government to tell us what Bills were about to come: answer came there none. We have given more of an answer about how these Bills will develop. It is important—the noble Lord was not asking an improper question—because as we set out White Papers, as we have said we shall, on immigration and trade, those will be a core part of the discussion in this Parliament about how we proceed after we have left the European Union.
Therefore, Parliament will have a scrutiny role and there will be, I am sure, from my colleagues across departments opportunities to participate in meetings, as I shall do, not only when the withdrawal Bill reaches the House, but in advance. For example, next Tuesday I am having a drop-in meeting for all Peers, not only to hear a brief introduction from me about the Bill, but to be able to hear directly from the Bill team. I felt it was essential for this House to hear that shortly after the finalisation of Second Reading on Monday evening. That is really core to the way I like to operate and I shall continue to do so. I shall return to some of those very helpful comments made by my noble friend Lord Balfe later.
We have heard today the lively, informed, rightful interest in this House on the progress of the negotiations. We are reminded by many that the clock is ticking. It ticks for both sides. As it goes faster, it is faster for both sides. It is important for the European Union also to recognise that they need to be more “flexible and imaginative”. Those are words from the European Council, not made up by us. David Davis is simply reminding our colleagues across Europe what our joint enterprise is. We have always undertaken that we would wish to provide for the greatest possible transparency that is consistent with maintaining our ability to negotiate successfully. In that, we are guided by the Motion that was agreed by the House of Commons that the process should be undertaken in a way that does not undermine the negotiating position of the Government, but there is still much that we can do. We are doing that and we can learn from the debate today, and others, about how we can do more.
In looking at the issues today, I try to set out what we have done so far to report to Parliament, our plans to continue to update Parliament in the wake of future negotiating rounds, including, of course, our support for invaluable scrutiny by Select Committees. and our written publications. In reporting to Parliament, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has committed to update the House after each round of negotiations. Naturally, I will do so in this House, with the leave of the House, as I did earlier this week. Of course, as noble Lords have pointed out, the dates of the negotiation rounds do not always align well with parliamentary sittings. That is a matter for the House to determine but it is a matter of practical fact and I recognise the difficulties it can raise. Of course, it will occur again as the September round takes place, but we have sought to ensure that Parliament was kept properly informed over the summer. That is why the Secretary of State wrote to all colleagues to give details on the progress made during the second round of negotiations. Noble Lords can be assured that they will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government on the next round of negotiations when we return in October.
Of course, Statements to Parliament are a powerful method of reporting. I appreciate that they are not the only method, although I note in parenthesis, thinking back to the question asked this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that when we had the Statement on Tuesday, I was astonished that Back-Bench time was not taken up. There was time at least for two, if not three, further questions at the end. That was a little disappointing.
In the European Parliament the position is different. Of course, there is a constitutional relationship with the Commission; it is a unicameral Parliament. As a result, it has a different way of operating. Therefore, when Monsieur Barnier appears before the European Parliament, as he has just twice, he takes no questions. He appears, speaks and goes. Guy Verhofstadt has been nominated the Brexit co-ordinator there. He does report back and has a role in that respect. It is a different hub: Barnier and Verhofstadt. There is the Brexit steering group, which is more or less a self-appointed group and does not represent all the parties there. That is the group to which Monsieur Barnier goes and has some discussions with on a confidential basis and therefore nobody knows what goes on.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
I have to say, I listened with belief to what my noble friend said on that. I am glad that he said it, not me. We are going to maintain our undertaking to serve Parliament as well as we humanly can.
My noble friend Lord Balfe made a point about the problem with information. Everyone wants it but there is a huge amount of it and how do we get it, particularly in the recesses? I do have an answer. My own department arranges that there is information on its website. It is the go-to place for everything that we do on Brexit. I do not want to put my noble friend off but at GOV.UK/dexeu there are 133 announcements, seven position papers, five future partnership papers and two White Papers. Of course, the European Commission site updates its papers.
The advantage of our website is that after each negotiating round we update the papers. As I mentioned on the Floor of the House this week with regard to the citizenship paper, it means that the joint EU-UK position paper—the annexe that has been published, which shows the red/amber/green system—actually shows how that has been advanced at the latest negotiating stage, not only the further agreement that has been reached but where each of the negotiating groups has agreed that it needs to do more. It is not just us, it is the Commission as well, but we are more forward-leaning. For example, on citizens, after the August round a further 20 lines of detail were added. More than half of those are where we are making more of an offer than the European Commission is.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
We all accept on this side—and, I think, on all sides—that the people who can best deal with the detail are those on the European Union Select Committee. They have all the background, they are working on it week in, week out. The Minister has still not explained why David Davis refused to appear before our Select Committee when we offered to meet—as we know, Select Committees can meet even when Parliament is not sitting. Why did he refuse to meet us?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My next page turns to Select Committee appearances. The key to explaining the Secretary of State’s position is in the letter he wrote on 9 August to the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I am delighted he has been able to participate here. I want to address his very careful points in a moment, but first I will refer briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, because I do not want to run out of time and the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was crucial.
In that letter from 9 August, my right honourable friend said that,
“I want to emphasise that I fully recognise the critical role the Committee plays in scrutinising our withdrawal from the European Union. It is for that reason I am clear that, as the Secretary of State who represents the UK in Brussels, I should personally update the Committee on the progress of negotiations.”
He goes on to talk about how. At the meeting of the committee in July, he made it clear that he would consider how best he could do that and balance that duty against the range of other committees. I would say, very carefully of course, that since my department was created, just 15 months ago, Ministers from my department have given evidence to Select Committees, covering a range of EU exit-related inquiries, on no less than 16 occasions. We will not step back.
I address the noble Lord, Lord Jay, because I feel it is vital to do so in my last two minutes. I thank him for the letter he wrote to the Secretary of State, which he kindly copied to me. I have made it clear that my department and I fully support the work of committees in both Houses in fulfilling their scrutiny responsibilities and that we will continue to value the work of the noble Lord’s committee as it conducts its Brexit-related inquiries.
The Secretary of State has given his commitments to update us after each round and will do so with a Statement, as he said. It is no small commitment to update the House after each negotiation round and, no less importantly, to take questions from Members. I want to give all Members of the House the opportunity to scrutinise progress in the negotiations and the Secretary of State has made it clear that he is happy to give evidence to the committee in the autumn.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jay, will appreciate that the complexity of the negotiations—he was head of the Foreign Office so knows about the difficulties of the issue—demands a level of flexibility to ensure that they are conducted successfully, and that rigid committee appearances at fixed intervals may run counter to that. I appreciate there has been some joshing about what my right honourable friend may or may not do. What he does do is properly respect Parliament and scrutiny. I look forward to seeing the noble Lord, Lord Jay, later today when I am sure I will have the opportunity to explain in more detail why the Government are taking that approach.
Lord Jay of Ewelme
Before the noble Baroness finishes that part of her speech, can she confirm that she will be prepared to accept the invitation of the Select Committee to come before it for meetings when the Secretary of State is otherwise engaged?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Although I am out of time, I crave the indulgence of the Committee. I would like to discuss the matter further. I have set out the Government’s position and, because of the interventions from noble Lords, I have not been able to cover the issue of papers. I hope that I have at least given the way in which noble Lords can access those papers and that information. It is disappointing not to be able to conclude in a fuller way but I can certainly say that we will have plenty of further opportunities to discuss these matters.
Local Government Elections
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Greaves
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of whether the law relating to local government elections is in need of improvement or clarification.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I want to concentrate on the offence of treating, which is a corrupt practice under Section 114 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. Subsection (2) says:
“A person shall be guilty of treating if he corruptly, by himself or by any other person, either before, during or after an election, directly or indirectly gives or provides, or pays wholly or in part the expense of giving or providing, any meat, drink, entertainment or provision to or for any person—(a) for the purpose of corruptly influencing that person or any other person to vote or refrain from voting; or (b) on account of that person or any other person having voted or refrained from voting, or being about to vote or refrain from voting”.
Subsection (3) extends the offence to:
“Every elector or his proxy who corruptly accepts or takes any such meat, drink, entertainment or provision”.
This wording has been passed down from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. The last case law appears to be more than 100 years old. My reason for raising this is to suggest that this 19th century law as it stands is antiquated, uncertain and not fit for purpose in the 21st century.
Over half a century ago, when I learned the trade of running election campaigns, treating was taken very seriously. Candidates and agents were firmly instructed to make sure that any food or refreshments—in committee rooms, for example—were strictly for bona fide party workers and a small contribution should be asked for. Candidates were told to be careful about buying rounds in the pub during the campaign. But the practice has now grown of providing free food, including hot dinners, both in walk-in committee rooms and at public meetings addressed by candidates and their supporters before and during elections, notably in places with large numbers of electors of south Asian heritage. My immediate interest comes from activities carried out by two Conservative candidates in Pendle in the county council elections in May this year.
In brief, the events concerned were that four public meetings were held before the formal four-week election period started but after the candidates had been announced in press releases and the local press, on social media and in leaflets distributed in the area. At these meetings speeches were made by the candidates and other persons in support, including councillors and the local MP, urging people to vote for them. A hot dinner was then provided to the people present, free of charge, including curry and rice and soft drinks. In total, at least 1,000 people attended these meetings, most of them electors in the two divisions. Other than a small number of party officials and councillors, all the people present were Asian men. We estimate that the cost of providing the accommodation and meals and associated publicity, including leaflets, would not have been less than £3,000, and possibly rather more.
I made a complaint under Section 114 and provided a dossier of evidence, which the Lancashire police investigated, and I have no complaints about the work they put into that. I quote the conclusion from a letter that the investigating officer kindly sent to me:
“Unfortunately the decision has been taken that the matter will not be prosecuted due to a lack of evidence. It was deemed that the evidential threshold required to present the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for them to consider charges had not been met”.
He goes on to say:
“As I think we alluded to when we first met, this particular offence presents some unusual hurdles in terms of prosecuting”—
noble Lords will probably realise that I knew more about it than the police did at the time—
“and I found myself hitting these hurdles at regular intervals when looking at the matter through evidential eyes. I agree with your initial observation some three months ago, that perhaps this is an area of law that requires some modernisation”.
The Law Commission agrees. In its report Electoral Law: An Interim Report, published in February 2016 and produced together with its Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts, it proposes in Recommendation 11.3:
“The electoral offence of treating should be abolished and the behaviour that it captures should where appropriate be prosecuted as bribery”.
This follows a discussion about a similar situation which was considered by commissioner Richard Mawrey QC in the Tower Hamlets petition. It challenged the election in May 2014 of Lutfur Rahman as mayor of Tower Hamlets. Similar difficulties arose at that time over the offence of treating, described by commissioner Mawrey as,
“surely an obsolescent if not obsolete concept in the modern world”.
The treating part was then dropped. The Electoral Commission in its response to the whole report said:
“We very much welcome these proposals and believe that they will address many of the difficulties with the current law. It is important that the UK and Scottish Governments now agree that the Law Commissions can begin preparing draft legislation to implement these changes”.
Yet the problem remains, and I am not in any way suggesting that it is a problem for just one party. From inquiries I have made around the country in recent years, it is clear that putting on quite large amounts of free food at public events is a common practice across the parties in areas with large numbers of Asian voters. Of course, outside elections this is not unlawful. It is when it is done in connection with the promotion of candidates that it is at the least questionable. They are practices which have been imported into this country from abroad. The fact that it is happening will raise eyebrows in those other parts of the country where such practices would be regarded with horror. Imagine a candidate hiring a village hall and inviting the entire population of the village to a free dinner on the condition that the villagers listen to speeches telling them why they should vote for him or her. They would, I suggest, soon be up before the beak.
The Electoral Commission in its candidates guide states that,
“treating requires a corrupt intent—it does not apply to ordinary hospitality”.
What is meant by ordinary hospitality? Presumably if a neighbour calls on a candidate at home, it is okay to provide a cup of tea or even a full tea if they are friends who ordinarily do that, but not to invite the whole street for the first time three days before polling day. So is a hot curry dinner for a few hundred people “ordinary hospitality”? Among much ambiguity in this law, the interpretation of the undefined words “corrupt” and “corrupt intent” appear to cause problems. They imply an intention to affect the outcome of the election, but this is far from the clarity that good law requires.
Returning to the hot curry dinners targeted at Asian electors, the College of Policing authorised professional practice manual, Policing Elections—Investigating Electoral Malpractice includes the following:
“Cultural factors can affect this offence in that among many cultures the provision of refreshments is considered to be socially acceptable, and it would be perceived as an insult should refreshments not be provided”.
This seems very close to suggesting that electoral law is different according to the composition of the local community. If you live in a mainly indigenous village or a mainly white town such as Colne, where I live, and you put on free meals for voters, you will be locked up. If you live in a strongly Asian area and provide those meals for Asian electors, or even just for Asian men, as in Pendle, MPs and councillors will turn up and you will get away with it. I wonder whether this advice from the College of Policing has government support and should perhaps now be reviewed.
The law on treating is not fit for purpose. It is antique and it is not clear what it means. It is not clear that a law that was designed to prevent candidates providing food, drink, entertainment and provisions—whatever that means—to voters in the days of Mr Gladstone is able to deal with modern phenomena such as piles of chapattis in committee rooms open to the public to walk in and eat, and hot curry dinners open to anyone who walks in. Above all, candidates and agents in all kinds of areas need to know clearly where they stand with the law. I am not an election agent at the moment but I declare an interest, as I usually am every year. With tongue in cheek, I say that if the provision of hot dinners to voters on a large scale is now acceptable in electoral law, the nature of elections in this country might change quite a lot. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Greaves knows a great deal about elections and how they are fought and won. We have campaigned together in a number of them for almost exactly 40 years, since he came on behalf of what was then the Association of Liberal Councillors to assist in a couple of council by-elections in Liverpool in October 1977. Around that time, I read all my noble friend’s many booklets about fighting local elections and learned a great deal from them, but I learned nothing about the practices which he has just described. He has raised serious issues about electoral law and what he calls treating, which in plain English we know to be better described as bribing the voters. He rightly says that breaches of the spirit, if not the letter, of the law may occur in any party.
Many years ago, I heard of a branch of the Liberal Party that refused to undertake any of the accepted electioneering methods of canvassing and polling day organisation. Instead, it laid on a huge tea with free refreshments in the village hall on polling day, and it was customary for people to visit it after voting. Whether this affected the results, I do not know, but it should not happen. Electoral law should be more explicit about the provision of refreshment to voters and there should be proper policing action to prevent what appear to be major abuses of the law, as just outlined by my noble friend. Perhaps the Minister could share with us the latest thinking about how the Government may now attempt to implement some of the recommendations outlined in the recent review of election laws by the former chair of the Conservative Party, Sir Eric Pickles, since it first responded last December.
In relation to the overall question, I hope that the Minister will agree that there is not a massive amount of cheating in local elections, or in any form of election, in this country. For my part, I accept that we can act to reduce its prevalence, even if it is small, and that fraud would possibly be more common if it were more widely known how easy it can be. It is also important, however, that any action to prevent or deter electoral fraud is proportionate. We must recognise that any measure which might restrict the capacity of people to vote legitimately must be considered very carefully and be balanced by measures which make it more likely that people who are properly entitled to vote are enabled to do so.
My experience of suspecting personation was when I believed that the Liverpool Militants were undertaking the practice when I organised elections there in the 1980s. I was suspicious because of the way in which I noted that Militant supporters would call at doors and, if anyone said they were not voting, they left immediately without argument—the Militant people tended to be rather argumentative. In contrast, other party workers would plead with such people to turn out and vote. But in those Liverpool elections, turnouts were perhaps high because of the approach of the Militant supporters, as they identified names of people who would not be going to the polling station themselves, who may then have had votes cast on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, then a Liverpool Liberal MP, told me how he saw people going into polling stations apparently with names and addresses written on their wrists. Some years later, the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, told me that her investigation into the Labour Party in Liverpool when she was her party’s national organiser confirmed that personation was indeed the tactic of the Militants.
It seems to me, therefore, that a greater police presence at polling stations would have helped, together with a greater number of staff at the polling stations to ask the questions allowed for by law about whether or not people have voted already or are who they say they are. When I attempted in the Liverpool Walton by-election in 1991 to get presiding officers to ask the statutory questions of people turning up to vote who had died or said that they would not be voting, I was told by the returning officer that he simply did not have the staff to do what was legally required of him when I arranged for our agent to make the formal request for him to do so.
However, I do not believe that these tactics are common. Last year the Electoral Commission identified 19 allegations of personation in the EU referendum, some of which proved not to be personation at all, out of more than 33 million votes cast. This is in line with statistics from other national elections and does not in itself suggest that there is a widespread problem with personation requiring measures which may deter people from voting when they are entitled to do so. Voter identification is required in Northern Ireland in order to deal with problems of personation, and it is said not to have reduced turnout, but political passions run strongly there and such measures are perhaps less likely to deter voters in the Province than in Great Britain.
There should be greater awareness of the penalties for personation, greater police presence at polling stations where it may be suspected, and more resources for presiding officers to ensure that the statutory questions can be put. In this age, it should not be difficult to provide presiding officers with details of people who are known to have died, and if a mistake has been made and a supposedly dead voter turns up, they can be provided with a tendered ballot paper, as happens when a second person tries to claims the same vote as one cast earlier.
If any form of ID is ever required, a suitable form of it must be provided free of charge. If poll cards were sent in unmarked envelopes, they should suffice, because it would be hard to steal such a poll card and then impersonate someone. Lost or stolen poll cards could be reported and anyone seeking to vote on the basis of one could be questioned at the polling station. However, there is a danger that the proverbial sledgehammer is provided for the nut, and I could not consider supporting any measures requiring evidence of ID at polling stations without us also addressing the much bigger issue of the many millions of people missing from the electoral registers.
The Government’s position appears to be that people should have to opt in to the right to vote, despite the fact that Parliament has specifically preserved the principle that failing to co-operate with the electoral registration process can be subject to a fine or civil penalty. You do not have to opt in to the right to benefit from the emergency services, nor from many other things approved by law and provided by government, so you should not have to opt in to being able to vote. If you have the right to vote, the process should be automatic and making it so would be a great improvement to our democracy.
Finally, I raise the issue of postal voting. It seems legitimate to question whether a reason should be provided for voting by post rather than going to a polling station. Some years ago, I was responsible for a change in postal vote regulations requiring that the signature of the voter accompanying the postal vote matched the signature on the form applying for the postal vote. I hope the Minister might look rather more carefully than the Government have so far at seeking to amend the declaration to be signed by the voter.
In my view, the declaration should state that: the ballot paper has been completed only by the person entitled to complete it; that that has been done, together with the sealing of the ballot paper in the envelope provided, in conditions of privacy; that the envelope is being returned directly by that person to a post box, the electoral registration officer or returning officer, or a polling station on polling day; that exceptions to those principles should be made only for people who require assistance from someone such as a carer or as is necessary on grounds of disability; and that, in any event, no candidate or representative of a candidate should be involved in the process of returning ballot papers.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, my intentions in taking part in the debate are dual. First, I want to endorse and support the concerns expressed by my noble friends Lord Greaves and Lord Rennard. But secondly, as always, I look forward to the Minister’s contribution with great interest; that is my principal reason for being here. I plead with him to adopt his now-usual practice of going off-piste. I do not know whether that expression was used in last night’s debate on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, but I was told that the Minister was particularly helpful to the House when he left his script. At one point, he said:
“I return to my script”.—[Official Report, 6/9/17; col. 2050.]
After that, things became less interesting, so I hope that he will adopt his previous attitude this afternoon.
I am reminded by my colleagues’ contributions of my own campaigning experience. It is important to recognise that no parties have found it easy to get the clear guidance they require on the issue of treating. I recall one of my first campaigns in Cornwall; I am not sure whether it was the successful or less successful of my early attempts to get elected to the House of Commons. On arrival at a small village on one of those wonderful Cornish hills where one went in at the first floor, the committee room seemed very quiet. There was nothing much going on and one rather sleepy person ticking some things off. I said to my wife, “It doesn’t look very busy here”, to which the sleepy individual replied, “You wait ‘til you see what’s going on downstairs.” Downstairs, seven or eight people were busily producing pasties and putting clotted cream on saffron cake. The significance of it was that they were not treating the electorate, because the two essential credentials for anybody applying for refreshment were that they had already voted and would help with knocking up voters later. Treating helpers is still a rather vague issue. I have not been so well-fed on the campaign trail since then, and indeed have never had to succumb to so many cups of tea—but in Cornwall in those days, one had to. One was always offered a cup of tea but not always the rather necessary forward motions that were required thereafter.
There is a very serious issue which I know the Minister understands: the coming together of a number of concerns about the electoral process, electoral law and the reputation of the whole of our democracy. I know the Minister shares our views on that because we have had many such discussions. The issue that my noble friend Lord Greaves referred to may be a comparatively small part of the overall picture, but at a time when Parliament and the body politic are having a reputational crisis following the referendum—and with the current state of interest taken by the public, particularly young voters, in how they are represented and, frankly, how for the past 10 years the media have approached the whole process in which we are engaged—there is a crisis. It is not good enough to say, “Well, we’ll get round to this one day.”
I refer to the answer that the Minister gave to my question yesterday. I asked, rather naively, whether the Law Commission report would result in a response from the Government,
“soon, shortly or in due course”.
In his inimitable way, the Minister said:
“It is more likely to be in due course”.—[Official Report, 6/9/17; col. 1951.]
It is now quite a long time since the Law Commission made important recommendations, to some of which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred. It was in February 2016. At the time, there was a specific recommendation that we needed a single electoral law. That is particularly appropriate given the recent experience of the Conservative Party with the differing treatment of national and local campaign expenditure. The Conservative Party itself expressed considerable concern back in June at the way in which two quite different statutes were involved in the process, and the lack of clarity and difficulty that all involved had with that.
The Minister, who I suspect is on our side on this, must somehow persuade his colleagues not just in the Cabinet Office but in No. 10 that, despite all the pressures from Brexit—indeed, perhaps because of them—Parliament must be given an opportunity to look holistically at bringing the electoral law up to date. The example that my noble friend gave is but one of many that cause media, public and local concern. The Minister is an adroit political manipulator and influencer in our curiously cumbersome political system and I beg him to do everything he can. He has been so effective in the past in getting people to take issues of this sort more seriously and give them greater priority. Yes, of course Parliament will have a full agenda but that does not mean that we cannot do anything else. The result of the efforts on Brexit and the extent to which the public are prepared to accept it may depend on the reputation of our political system, local and national. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some comfort that these issues are not being swept under the carpet but will be addressed with the priority that they require and deserve.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for tabling this Question for Short Debate today. He raises an important issue, and the short answer to his Question is of course yes, on both counts: the law on local government elections needs improving and clarifying in many areas.
I agree with almost everything said in the three previous contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Greaves, Lord Rennard and Lord Tyler. They are experts in elections and we should listen to what they say carefully. In his remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, concentrated on the offence of treating. These are serious matters and I agree that the provisions need urgent updating. As he explained to the Committee, the matter that he referred to has been through the due process and the evidential threshold has been determined not to have been met. But that does not mean that important points have not been raised, and action should be taken on the whole issue of treating and whether the law is adequate. Some disturbing comments were made about curries, and other things, which were not at all good.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made important points about difficulties and problems in various elections. The Labour Party got itself into terrible difficulties in Birmingham over postal vote fraud, and the individuals there were properly prosecuted. That was a shameful episode and people were properly dealt with there.
I was appointed to my first job in the Labour Party in 1989 by my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton. She then promoted me in 1990 and sent me to Coventry to deal with Militant. I remember her telling me in her office: “Just go and get them, Roy”. Off I went, and I hope that I dealt with them quite effectively. When I came into this House seven years ago, my two sponsors were my noble friend Lady Gould of Potternewton—my first boss in the Labour Party—and my noble friend Lady McDonagh, who was my boss many years later. I very much enjoyed working with both of them.
Many years later, as a senior official of the party, I authorised the prosecution of the Conservative Party candidate who had stood for a council election in Slough. When I first got the phone call from the Labour agent there, I was a bit sceptical. The Labour Party had lost the safest Labour ward in Slough to the Conservative Party and that guy wanted to come and see me. I agreed and he came in with a pile of papers to show me all the applications to register to vote. Then he showed me the houses, and most of them were derelict; nobody lived there at all. Of course we had all the ballot papers checked. It ended up in the courts and we were able to show that it was completely fraudulent activity and the people were sent to prison—quite rightly there, too. Again, we were able to show that it was not right. Picking the safest Labour seat in a borough was probably the daftest thing they did.
Going on to more general remarks, yesterday the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked a Question about the Electoral Commission in terms of the Welsh language. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, what the Government were going to do in respect of the Law Commission and the work they are doing looking at the law. I am very much of the opinion, as other noble Lords are, that our law in the round needs improving, clarifying, redrafting and consolidating for elections. The Government really must find some parliamentary time in the next couple of years for this.
In many areas, our electoral law is not fit for purpose. We have to deal with that; our democracy is at stake here. The law is spread over various Acts, statutes and codes. It has been bolted together over many years and is in a complete mess. All the parties in this Room have been in government in recent years and we have all contributed to that. We are all to blame in some measure for where we find ourselves today, and it is not a good place. I have other general remarks to make but, as I said, the Government must find some parliamentary time for that. We need consolidated legislation that covers elections, referendums, donations, registration of parties and electoral registration, all in one place so that we all know exactly what is going on. I have no idea how many Acts or parts of Acts are still in force over elections. Perhaps the Minister does. I expect that it is a great many.
If we look at our experience in recent years and at changes in technology and campaigning, we can see that the law is in need of extensive updating and, ideally, future-proofing. I accept that that is much harder to do that than to say. For example, we need to look at the use and manipulation of data in campaigning, which is a huge issue. More should be done to clarify what returning officers should and should not be doing. The Electoral Commission needs looking at again and reforming. It needs more teeth in some areas. It should focus on clearly defined issues and doing things. It should probably do a bit less commenting and voicing opinions, and take a bit more action in certain areas. We need a much tougher focus on getting the electoral registration process right and on having the powers to make sure that the service provided is fit for purpose everywhere and that the EROs and the commission are using the powers they have.
Electoral registration and the desire to get people on the register needs reinforcing. The Government have not always seemed as enthusiastic about doing so as they should. It could be suggested that they have been quite partisan in the recent past. We may hear from the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, that they listened to the advice and guidance of the Electoral Commission, which is very good, but they do not always do so. They certainly did not when they removed a number of voters from the electoral register a couple of years ago in looking at the boundary review. Having mentioned the boundary review, perhaps the Minister can update us on that because all the gossip down the other end of the building is that it is dead in the water. Members of all parties down the corridor are all telling me that the Government are desperately trying to find a way to end this review. It may be that that needs legislation. If it does, let us get on with it because it is a complete waste of public money if in fact the Government intend in some way to end the review and go back to having 650 seats.
I have a few other little comments to make before I finish. The nomination process needs clarifying. There are all sorts of issues there. We have to deal with sham nominations. We may have dealt with the Liberal Democrat problem we had a few years ago but there are still issues with sham nominations. When I was an electoral commissioner, I was one of the first political commissioners. We had an issue with a disgruntled Tory candidate attempting to use the old Tory torch logo. We said, “No, it is not your logo”, and got into a discussion. In the end, we stopped him but he believed he could just walk off with a logo that belonged to the Conservative Party and stand as some sort of independent Conservative. That sort of thing goes on all the time and it was good we did that work there. The sham candidates and imposters need to be dealt with. The rule itself is clearly not quite there.
The polling day process is still not what it should be. We need some clear guidance and a single set of polling rules to apply across all elections. There is also the issue of assisting voters to the polls and actually voting. Very elderly people need to have their vote protected, in being able to get to the poll and vote. Equally, they may need assistance. That is a very hard thing to do properly but it also needs dealing with. I would also like to see some standardised rules in respect of counts. It is not always the case in some of the counts we see across the country. I know that we have electronic counting in London and in the Scottish local elections, but it always amazes me that you can normally go to a count for a council or Parliament and they sit there with pens and paper, and get a result really quickly. In the GLA they were sitting there days later. I do not know how you can deal with it, but counting should be looked at.
I just had those few comments to make. I know that the Minister probably cannot respond to all the points raised here today but I am sure he agrees with many of them. I look forward to his comments and if he cannot respond now, maybe he could do so in writing afterwards.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, on securing this debate. We have all enjoyed the reminiscences of noble Lords as they wandered around the country, seeking to secure votes for themselves and their parties. The last time I stood in a local election was 46 years ago, so my experience is not quite as up to date as that of other noble Lords. I certainly do not recall, as I wandered around the streets of Brixton and Lambeth, getting the sort of extensive hospitality that many candidates appear to have received in other parts of the country. I welcome the opportunity to address the important issues that the noble Lord and others have raised today. I will try not to go off-piste; this particular one is a black run anyway, so I will not take any further risks by straying off it.
We are committed to ensuring that the law that governs our elections is clear and operates effectively. I agree with many of the points that have been made: there are areas where we need to make progress, and I will touch on those in a moment. We want to ensure that electors have the opportunity to engage fully and express their views on issues that concern them at a local level.
We take the security of our electoral system very seriously. One point that has not been made is there are now more elections at local level than there used to be, because we now have mayors and police and crime commissioners. It is now even more important that local elections are conducted properly and that we maintain their integrity. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that by any international standards the integrity of the electoral system in this country is good, but that does not mean that we cannot make progress.
We are currently working to strengthen the integrity of our elections, including the piloting of voter ID in polling stations at local elections next year. I will say a little more about that in a moment. As background, I reassure noble Lords that we consider policy for and issues arising in elections at both the local and national levels on an ongoing basis. That is not an issue that has been parked and will be forgotten about; it is something that we are actively engaged in. We are working with the Electoral Commission and other interested bodies, including Solace and the Association of Electoral Administrators, to consider the development and improvement of existing processes.
We are also working with the Law Commission on its proposals for changes to electoral law but, as I listened to this debate, it seemed that the task was even bigger than I thought. A number of issues have been raised, such as nomination, registration, imposters, assisting voters, polling day arrangements and validation of signatures on postal vote application forms. On imposters, someone in Ealing, Acton, changed their name to George Young before one of the parliamentary elections, which caused some confusion. I survived. Of course, there was a time when our parties did not appear on the ballot paper. You stood as yourself. That added to the confusion. Anyway, we survived that particular challenge.
The Government’s view is that electoral fraud is unacceptable at any level. It is vital for our democracy that voters are able to cast their vote safely and securely, and that the outcome of any poll has the confidence of the public. It is important that the law ensures that measures and safeguards are in place to uphold the integrity of the electoral process, and that those who seek to undermine the voting process are identified and dealt with appropriately.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, mentioned the report of Sir Eric Pickles, who conducted a review of electoral fraud last year. His final report, Securing the Ballot, was published last August and set out a number of recommendations covering various aspects of the electoral system. We welcome the report, and I was asked what progress has been made. We published our response, which outlined our intention to work with stakeholders to improve public confidence in the integrity of our elections. A number of those recommendations have already been addressed through guidance issued by the Electoral Commission. We intend to bring forward further measures that will protect anyone who is at risk of being bullied, undermined or tricked out of their vote and democratic right. We committed in our manifesto, in order to ensure that voters have confidence in our democracy, that we will legislate to ensure that a form of identification should be presented before voting. I will say a word about that in a moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, focused his remarks on treating. He is quite right to remind us that under the 1983 Act it is an offence for a person to treat a voter through providing food, drink and entertainment, and there is a similar offence in relation to the bribing of voters. The Pickles report acknowledges that treating,
“is a serious issue and a potential risk of corruption”,
so there is an element of agreement on that point. That report also referred to the Law Commission’s recommendation that the offence of treating be abolished and that of bribery be clarified and strengthened. We continue to work with the Law Commission and others on how best to implement the recommendations of its review of electoral law. I take on board the points that the noble Lord made about bribery. He was good enough to mention that this was not a problem confined to one party, and I will ensure that the particular incidences that he and others have referred to are taken on board in the ongoing discussions between the Government, the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders. On any particular case, if anyone believes that an offence has been committed, then they should of course report that to the police. Again, I take on board the point made by the noble Lord about the response of the police to the particular allegations that he made, and I will ensure that that is also fed into the process.
The Electoral Commission has issued guidance to candidates on spending and donations. That makes it clear that if a candidate does not comply with the legal or regulatory requirements, they may be subject to criminal sanctions. We are considering a way forward on the other recommendations made by Sir Eric Pickles, and will continue to see how we can improve the integrity of electoral processes more generally.
On voter identification, we agree with Sir Eric that the options for asking voters to present identification should be explored through a number of pilot schemes. As many noble Lords will know, that is to be tested at the May 2018 elections. That will shed some light on the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, on the potential disincentive to vote if you have to produce some ID. The whole purpose of the pilots is to test the impact on all aspects of elections in Great Britain of asking voters to present some form of identification at polling stations before collecting their ballot papers, and to identify the best way to take that new requirement forward. The prospectus on ID pilots, published in March this year, has set out in detail our plans for delivering and evaluating pilot schemes, so that they may meet the objectives of reducing the opportunities for fraud and enhanced public confidence in the security of elections in this country. The Cabinet Office is currently working on the details on how the pilots will be run, and is continuing to work with local authorities which are preparing to pilot voter ID in May 2018. We are also in discussion with local authorities who are still considering participation in the scheme for next year, but are not yet fully committed. We will make an announcement later in the year on the planned pilot schemes, once we have confirmed which local authorities are participating.
On registration, the Government have actually done quite a lot to encourage people to register. There have been particular initiatives focused on those groups who are under-registered. The introduction of online registration has made it much easier to register to vote. You can do it in a few minutes, and in fact it is now the preferred form of registration. I hope that that will help to drive up registration. Those of us who were in the debate on the Higher Education and Research Bill have heard about experiments by some universities to drive up registration, and those initiatives are being taken forward. So we are working hard to reach groups that historically have not registered.
I was asked about the boundary commissions. I read the Times, whenever it was. Noble Lords will know that the legal position is quite clear: the Electoral Commission is on a route to complete its report and present it to Ministers and then to Parliament by September next year, and it would require primary legislation to stop that. It would also require primary legislation, having stopped it, to reboot it with a different target of, say, 650. The Government have no plans to change that; our legislation is in the open air. Any initiative would have to take place quite soon if the whole process were to be completed by 2022. Of course, if we do not go forward with revised boundary commissions there is a real risk that the next election will be fought on boundaries drawn up in the year 2000, which I am not sure would be in the interests of democracy. I am not sure I can add to the body of knowledge that people have on the boundary commissions, but the legal position at the moment is quite clear.
Sir Eric made a number of recommendations to strengthen the integrity of postal voting, a point raised by some noble Lords, including limiting the period for which a person may have a long-term postal vote to three years. I will also consider some of the points raised today.
On the Law Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is quite right, as always, in identifying the date when the Law Commission published its interim report in February last year. I do not think anyone has any difficulty with the key recommendation that the current laws governing elections should be rationalised into a single legislative framework, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, described, that is applicable across elections, subject to differentiation due to some justifiable principle or policy. We consider that that would make elections easier to administer and therefore more resilient to errors or fraud.
I cannot add to what I said in earlier exchanges about the timetable but I reassure noble Lords that I have listened very carefully to this debate. I do not know whether this is off-piste, but I detect some impatience in your Lordships’ House to get on with these important initiatives in order to make progress with enhancing the integrity of our electoral system.
This part is in the script. This has been a very interesting debate and I am grateful to noble Lords for the contributions that they have made. We will continue to work to eliminate fraud and tackle improper practices to ensure the integrity of our electoral system and that our democracy is secure and works for all voters.
Cannabis
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Meacher
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they plan to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the evidence supporting the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 or 4.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, chronically sick patients with constant severe pain and other symptoms have suffered for far too long, reliant on prescribed medications that are sometimes ineffective and with intolerable side-effects for many people.
I remind noble Lords, if they will forgive me, of the case of Faye, whose experience was so brilliantly articulated in the Daily Mail on 2 May. At the age of 27, Faye was diagnosed with crippling rheumatoid arthritis. She describes the side-effects of conventional drugs as,
“more disruptive to daily life than the disease itself”,
which is saying something with rheumatoid arthritis. Faye recognised that prescribed drugs are fine for some people, but not for her. Having never used an illegal drug, and rather fearful, she found cannabis, and very slowly came off her prescribed medications. What was the result? She stopped feeling sick all the time—imagine a life of feeling sick all of the time. Now, two and a half years later, taking only cannabis, Faye says that her quality of life is now 98% of what it was before the diagnosis. She works full-time. Not only is this absolutely wonderful for Faye but it is saving the NHS thousands of pounds a year in medications, consultant appointments, GP appointments and so forth.
Under our drug schedules, as all noble Lords in this Room know, cannabis is listed as a dangerous drug with no medicinal value. In reality, of course, cannabis is safer than many prescribed medications and there is growing evidence of its medicinal value for a remarkable list of conditions. Our schedule is simply wrong and should not remain as it is. We need to inject some urgency into the situation. It is unnecessary and in my view cruel for these patients to suffer another two, three or even more years of agonising, sleepless nights and pain-stricken days or risk arrest to get hold of cannabis, which they tell us is the only effective medication with minimal or no side-effects.
For the first time, the UN is on our side and on the side of our Government should they wish to undertake some reform. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime—the UNODC—at the UN General Assembly Special Session on Drug Policy in April last year, made it clear that evidence-based public health policy is here to stay, and that treatment without stigma should be the driver of drug policy. This was a most important statement from the UN body at the centre of international drug policy. After 60 years of drug policy dominated by the notion of a “war on drugs” and the ludicrous aim of creating a drug-free world, the UN is at last asking member states to consider a pragmatic, realistic approach. From now on, countries need clear objectives—how remarkable: let us have some objectives—such as reducing addiction and harm in the consumer countries, and reducing violence and corruption in the producer and transit countries.
If the world is to follow the UNODC lead, countries need to evaluate policies and introduce those for which there is an evidence base. This brings us directly back to medicinal cannabis. We have sufficient evidence worldwide to know that cannabis has very significant medical properties. As I have said, we can no longer justify its Schedule 1 status. At its last meeting, the World Health Organization’s expert group agreed that the widespread acceptance of medicinal cannabis means that the WHO’s insistence on its having no medicinal value appears incongruent, particularly as it relies on 80 year-old data. I believe that is actually progress.
Our own Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, determined last October that products containing cannabidiol—CBD, a derivative of cannabis—are indeed medicines and can be prescribed. How can we say under Schedule 1 that cannabis has no medicinal value when, according to our regulatory body, a part of it does? We cannot. We are fortunate to have Ministers in the Home Office who understand the evidence. A blog by the Home Office Minister Sarah Newton in April stated that the Government’s view is that cannabis should be subject to “the same regulatory framework” as other potential medicines, subject to approval from the MHRA.
The big question—this is very important—is whether the MHRA can accept a special status for cannabis, an inexpensive weed with such valuable medical properties. If cannabis is put through five or 10 years of double-blind random controlled trials, it will finish up so expensive that it will be ruled out from the NHS by NICE. Sativex is a good example. My fear is that Epidiolex, for children with specific strains of severe epilepsy, may also be priced out of the NHS market in another three years’ time when the lengthy trials finally come to an end. It is impossible to overestimate the urgency of treatment for these epileptic children, who suffer severe brain damage with hundreds of seizures every single day. Their brains are being destroyed and that damage will not be reversed.
Another tragedy that we really need to think about in relation to Epidiolex is, I understand, that GW Pharmaceuticals, which has spent £20 million on these trials, now realises that another cannabinoid would be more effective for these children with severe epilepsy than the cannabinoid upon which those £20 million-worth of trials were based. It cannot repeat them all, so a suboptimal medicine will be put to the MHRA for approval. There is something terribly wrong here and I would be grateful if the Minister would meet me to talk about the need to consider a safe—it must be safe—but less costly process of trials for cannabis medicines than is required at present.
Columbia Care, a well-respected company providing reliable, dosable cannabis, may provide an answer. Its products are superior to those accepted in the Netherlands and Germany and may provide a model of trials acceptable to the MHRA. There are other reputable companies providing good-quality cannabis products to Israel and elsewhere. Already 28 US states, 11 European countries and the whole of Latin America recognise that cannabis is a medicine. More states and countries join that list every year. The illegal status of cannabis has undoubtedly discouraged research into its medicinal properties. Oxford University, however, will be funded to the tune of £10 million by Kingsley Capital Partners to investigate our own endocannabinoid system. It is our own system that explains the extraordinary powers of cannabis. I will not go into this but in the meantime Professor Mike Barnes’s report, commissioned by our APPG for Drug Policy Reform, has reviewed all the international data and showed beyond doubt that cannabis is indeed an effective medicine for a number of conditions.
In conclusion, I appeal to the Minister to request the ACMD, under the leadership of its excellent chair, Dr Owen Bowden-Jones, to review the evidence for the Schedule 1 status of cannabis and to make recommendations as soon as possible. The UK will then be prepared to respond quickly to the WHO review. I hope that the ACMD will consider the regulations we would need to support a revision of the cannabis schedule. Obviously, a good set of regulations would be extremely important. Again, I hope the Minister will respond to the urgency of the need for reform for these patients.
Lord Mancroft (Con)
My Lords, in a civilised society, one of the ways by which we are judged is how we look after those who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own: the young, the old, the infirm and the weak. Among them are those who have a particular condition or disability that cannot easily be remedied by orthodox medical care or modern drugs. But if we cannot help them conventionally, nor should we prohibit them from accessing less mainstream treatments if they believe that those treatments can alleviate some of their discomfort or pain. We all know why cannabis is illegal, and whether or not we agree with its prohibition—your Lordships will know that I never have—we can recognise the good motives of those who introduced that legislation and prohibited its use almost half a century ago. That happened some years after the proposal to ban heroin and cocaine was dropped by the Home Office. The Minister responsible agreed, after meetings with doctors’ representatives, to permit those drugs to be categorised as controlled rather than prohibited drugs so that even though they were recognised as dangerous and addictive, they could be prescribed by doctors because of their unique therapeutic value. I know a little about that because my own father was the Minister responsible for doing that in the post that my noble friend holds in the Home Office today.
At that time, no such therapeutic benefit was attributed to cannabis, which is why it was banned. Now we know differently. We live in an age of evidence-based policy, as the noble Baroness said. However, while there is scientific research that demonstrates the value of cannabis, such as that undertaken by Professor Raphael Mechoulam at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, perhaps more importantly there is overwhelming anecdotal evidence from many individuals, some of whom I too have met personally, that their symptoms can be alleviated by cannabis. We would be negligent and, as the noble Baroness said, cruel to ignore that evidence.
I hope my noble friend will not seek to resist the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, by advocating a long and complex process of drug trials. This is unnecessary. In November 2015, scientists in the United States announced the discovery of a drug that cures, without any side effects, hepatitis C—until then, incurable, untreatable and usually terminal. Some 300,000 people in Britain have it today. In less than three years, without any extensive trials, thousands of patients throughout the world, who until then faced an uncertain future, has been completely cured of hepatitis C because of the use of this drug. I have a slight interest in it because I am one of those who has been cured within the last six months, and I am immensely grateful to NICE for the decision it made to allow the prescription of this drug without any of the requirements to go through the usual years of testing required by the MHRA. So it can be done and it has been done.
Whatever regime Parliament puts in place will inevitably be circumvented by those who want to do so. Alcohol, tobacco and opiates are all controlled in different ways by the law but they are all abused in a way that the law does not permit. One cannot stop that. Arguably, the drugs that are most abused and cause the most harm are those that are routinely and quite legally prescribed by thousands of doctors, who should know better. So the argument that cannabis is uniquely dangerous and capable of being abused is not credible and appears simply obstructive for the sake of it. Let us therefore have no humbug today. Rather than looking for excuses to do nothing by citing spurious reasons from a bygone age, and thus needlessly prolonging the suffering of patients whose lives could be immeasurably improved, I hope my noble friend will use this debate and opportunity to make this tiny, reasonable and unique move—at no disadvantage to the taxpayer—and show the world that we are the civilised nation that we aspire to be.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has laid out the case admirably and I support her appeal to the Minister. I will simply tell the Committee about the experience of one person which illustrates how lamentable are the consequences of the present confusion in government policy and the Government’s refusal to remove obstacles to making cannabis-based medication available on prescription in this country beyond the extremely limited basis that now applies.
The person I shall refer to as TW got in touch with me to tell me about her situation. She suffers from advanced degeneration of the lumbar and cervical spine and she experiences chronic neuropathic back and leg pain. It is tough, not just for her but for her husband and children. Over the last 15 years, she has been prescribed some 35 different medications: anti-nausea, antispasmodic, anti-inflammatory and antidepressant medications. At one point she was on the equivalent of 180 milligrams of morphine a day. She has had caudal and facet joint injections. In 2015, she underwent major surgery, which most unfortunately has left her in yet greater pain and disability.
However, TW has been able to come off these high-dose morphine-based medicines and all her other medications, with their horrible side effects, because she has been prescribed, privately, Bedrocan. The active ingredient in Bedrocan is dronabinol, derived from cannabis. Bedrocan is not licensed in this country, though it is in Holland, Finland, Germany, Switzerland and Italy. TW has a letter from Her Majesty’s Customs informing her that she is legally permitted to bring Bedrocan, as prescribed for her personal use, into Britain from Holland. If Sativex, also derived from cannabis, were suitable for her she could, on the other hand, legally collect it on prescription from her local pharmacy. She was previously prescribed morphine, an opioid in same class as heroin and far more dangerous than cannabis, and then Fentanyl, of terrifying power, as we see in the crisis of opioid addiction in the United States of America. Both were on NHS prescription, and she was able to collect those prescriptions from her pharmacy. Yet, as a patient for whom no other medication is effective to relieve her chronic pain without unbearable side effects, TW has to endure an arduous, painful, exhausting and costly journey in her wheelchair, four times a year, to collect her prescription of Bedrocan from a Dutch pharmacy. She very reasonably asks how this can be reasonable.
Cannabis, absurdly, is in Schedule 1, the schedule for controlled drugs deemed to be of no medicinal value. Bedrocan, cannabis-based, is in Schedule 2, the same schedule as morphine, diamorphine—which is heroin—and Fentanyl. Sativex is in Schedule 4. The scheduling is a mess. For the Home Office and the Department of Health between them to force TW and others like her to go to Holland to obtain the only medication that is truly effective for them is to taunt them in their suffering. We should do better, and I look forward to the Minister explaining how the Government will do so.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on this debate and the all-party group on its work and the excellent report that was published on this subject. I need to warn my noble colleague next to me, the noble Lord, Lord Low, that I am going to be very short in my contribution. I put my name down for this debate because I did a little bit of background research again, and the thing that really came over me was the Government’s own 2017 drug strategy. It is an excellent document, which states:
“In 2015-16, around 2.7 million ... 16-59 year olds”—
so on the whole, as Members of the House of Lords, we are not included in this—
“in England and Wales reported using a drug in the last year”.
It is estimated that just over 2 million of those were cannabis users. Of course, included in that are a number of people who had to use cannabis as a medicinal aid for their suffering.
I was also interested to look up the information—asked for by my former right honourable friend, Nick Clegg—that only about 2,000 people are actually arrested over cannabis. The message that this put over to me was that those people who need cannabis as a medicine to help their suffering have to go down an illegal route so that they can either be healed or get help with their suffering. But this is something that the majority of recreational users do not even have to worry about, because the chances of their being arrested or prosecuted are very low indeed. Yet—for all the illogical reasons already given around how other drugs are treated—we demand that the people requiring this degree of assistance from this particular drug have to commit criminal acts themselves to alleviate their suffering. It is crazy and I hope this debate will be a part of stopping the very illogical and cruel situation that we put those users in.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I echo the congratulations offered by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing this debate and for all her tireless work to secure a more rational policy on the regulation of drugs, from founding the all-party group, whose reports we have been reading, to her work and representations at the United Nations and around the world. The noble Baroness, in encouraging me to speak this afternoon, said that it need only be a very short speech. With the time limits, I think we have no option but to make a very short speech.
I declare an interest: I am a member of the aforementioned all-party group, but I was not involved in the inquiry into the medicinal use of cannabis. Cannabis, as we have heard, is classified with dangerous drugs with no medicinal value, yet it is clear that it does have medicinal value. It was perceived to provide great relief by 86% of those responding to an online survey commissioned by the all-party group. More than 90% reported no or only mild side-effects, whereas—as we just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth—respondents using prescription medicines can experience considerable side-effects. The evidence is nuanced as to the precise scope of the medicinal value, but the Barnes review undertaken for the all-party group concluded that there is good evidence for the efficacy of cannabis in the management of chronic pain and the side-effects of chemotherapy.
At the very least, therefore, cannabis-based treatment can provide significant benefit for a group of patients of at least 10,000—and, in some estimations, very many more—suffering from chronic pain where other treatments have failed. This would be reason enough to reclassify cannabis. Schedules 2 and 3 include drugs that may be illegal for recreational use but can be made available on prescription. If cannabis were to be placed in Schedule 2, it would be in the same class as heroin, which is no less addictive—indeed, it is considerably more so, as we know—and there is no evidence of significant diversion of heroin from medical supplies to the illicit recreational market. Moreover, as we again heard from the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, Sativex, which is a proprietary product derived from cannabis, is classified in Schedule 4. In these circumstances, retaining cannabis in Schedule 1 is illogical and perverse.
The overriding reason for moving cannabis to one of the other schedules—this is my main point, really—is that it follows a policy of regulation rather than prohibition. In the reading I did in preparation for this debate, I counted that this has at least six consequential advantages, but I have time to mention only a couple of them. First, since the use of cannabis would now be lawful, patients could take it under medical guidance and supervision. When that guidance and supervision is not available, when people are forced to acquire their cannabis outside the law, the product that they obtain off the street is often much more harmful. How much better to be using it when it provides its benefits under proper medical supervision.
Secondly, the current regime places a stranglehold on research. Carrying out research into cannabis in the UK has been described as a costly obstacle course. It involves a minimum outlay of £5,000 to cover licensing and security, and licence applications can take as long as a year. It has been calculated that research involving Schedule 1 drugs takes significantly longer and costs about 10 times as much as research into other drugs.
In view of all the considerations that have been spoken to in the debate, I hope very much that the Minister will agree that the matter should be referred to the advisory council. Referring the matter for the opinion of an independent expert body, which of course does not commit the Government, is not exactly selling the pass.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on raising this issue and on the way in which she has done it. The Question asks whether the Government “plan to invite” a review of the evidence. It is asking not whether the Government will reschedule cannabis but whether they plan to review the evidence, or at least to have the evidence reviewed. That is the crucial point.
It is six and a half years since I tabled a QSD in which I asked what consideration the Government had given,
“to establishing a royal commission on the law governing drug use and possession”.
I argued the case for evidence-based policy. My starting point was that there was a demonstrable problem and that we needed to address it. I was not advocating that the policy should be adopted but making the case for reviewing existing policy. In reply, the Minister said that there was considerable disagreement on the issue—well, not in that debate; every Peer who spoke, bar the Minister, agreed with me.
In this debate the focus is on the rescheduling of cannabis. As we have heard, there is a particularly powerful case for reviewing the use of cannabis under certain conditions for medicinal use. The MS Society has changed its position on the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes in the light of reviewing the evidence, and its stance is a measured one.
The arguments that have been deployed against change by the Home Office do not stack up, especially under a Conservative Government. If a law is not working and change is resisted on the grounds of sending the wrong signals, then Ministers have little grasp of the Conservative view of law.
I repeat what I said in 2011:
“My case is that we need to explore whether the present law is necessary and sufficient, whether it is necessary but not sufficient, or whether it is neither necessary nor sufficient”.—[Official Report, 9/3/11; col. 1675.]
Implicitly the Government took, and take, the first of those positions. There was and is no critical reflection. Yesterday my noble friend Lady Williams reiterated that she supported evidence-based policy. Now is the time to consider the evidence. Will my noble friend commit to that?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for initiating this debate. I just want to say something about the case of a little boy. I think that some of us have heard from his grandmother but I shall explain the case briefly.
He has a very rare condition—which I think is called non-inherited genetic mutation in the PCDH19 gene—for which so far only a steroid treatment is effective. This is not suitable for long-term use because of the serious health consequences. It is very likely that whole-plant medical cannabis will work and will be without particular side-effects. To get such medical cannabis, the family of the six-year-old boy would have to travel to a country where it is legal for doctors to prescribe medical cannabis. There is a product under test called Epidiolex. It is a cannabis-based product but is not yet available and is subject to a long testing regime, which may be too long for this little boy. There is a need to move quickly to permit medical cannabis to be given to this little boy under medical management.
I now turn to the wider issue of cannabis for people with MS. I should declare an interest in that a member of my family has MS. We have had an excellent briefing from the MS Society, which says that 22% of people with MS have tried cannabis. I only know that a consultant thinks that every one of his patients has tried cannabis, not 22% of them, and I put that to the MS Society.
There is a product called Sativex that might do the business but which is not available to NHS patients, although it should be in Wales. The problem is that there is a dangerous version of cannabis known as skunk. People who are buying it on the illegal market are liable to get skunk, which I understand is not desirable, whereas ordinary cannabis is okay. By making the whole thing illegal, we are encouraging people to go to dealers, who are liable to give them the dangerous stuff rather than the helpful stuff.
Some doctors say that there is no evidence that cannabis is helpful to people with MS. I have a simple answer to that. If a person suffering from a medical condition like MS feels that cannabis is helpful, surely that is enough evidence. I am not anti-scientific and I understand the noble Lord’s comments, but if a patient feels that it is helpful, then by definition it must be. That is the case for me.
Lord Crickhowell (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for getting us this debate and for the work that she has done for the APPG, which has produced a compelling evidence base for policy change. She spoke of the striking evidence of dramatic improvement to their health that some cannabis users have experienced. That, combined with the failure of prescription medicines to relieve their symptoms, has caused patients to try herbal cannabis even though access to it is not lawful. Estimates as to the use of medicinal cannabis suggest that 30,000 patients in this country are using it, most of it coming from illegal street sources. Also striking is the evidence that a majority of users have discussed using a cannabis treatment with their GP or consultant. Whether or not cannabis is legalised, the gain from having a regulated system that does not put both patients and their medical advisers in an intolerable position and vulnerable to the dangers of using street supplies of drugs is compelling.
The background to this debate is HM Government’s 2017 drug strategy, which was published in July. That strategy, which apparently is to be delivered by a board chaired by the Home Secretary, is about abuse and harm. There is no mention of medicinal cannabis. The ACMG has a central role in this. The council, emphasising the health significance of the use of cannabis, has made recommendations for further research. The Motion asks that that research should be extended, but because the evidence produced by the APPG shows clearly that the Schedule 1 listing makes research into the use of cannabis-related drugs and drug trials difficult and expensive, there is a problem ahead. Ministers claim that a clear regime is in place to enable drugs that contain cannabis to be developed and licensed, but they can cite only one example, that of Sativex. Because of the difficulties and costs of applying for a licence, no application has been made in respect of herbal cannabis.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulation Agency has stated that products containing cannabis are medicines. Surely that conclusion and the legalisation of medicinal cannabis in so many countries combined with much evidence that it has not caused an increase in crime, abuse and harm in those countries—probably the reverse is true—provides powerful reasons for the Government to reconsider their policy and look at possible models for regulation. This is a health issue and I really wonder whether the Department of Health should not play a larger role in policy-making, which in my view is too dominated by the Home Office.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I want briefly to look at the body of evidence from overseas which clearly demonstrates that a more sensitive and targeted approach to the use of cannabinoids can bring positive results. In the USA, those states which have medical marijuana laws see lower rates of opiate overdose.
A recent study indicates a much lower use of opiates by pain sufferers using cannabis as treatment. This year a study has shown a reduced incidence of opioid-related hospitalisations in those states and according to the world health rankings the current drug-related death rate, mainly caused by opiate use, for the UK is 3.83 per 100,000. This compares to the Netherlands, which has the most-established scheme for medicinal cannabis in Europe, of 0.63. This means that the UK has a rate for drug-related deaths more than six times higher than that of the Netherlands. Does the Minister have any comment on these figures, or on the letter, published in the Lancet this June, from Dr David Nutt of Imperial? He notes that in his view the UK Government, on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, made two problematic changes to the UK drug control regulations of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. First, they put into effect new very wide-ranging bans against a whole range of synthetic cannabinoids and, secondly, they rejected an appeal by senior UK scientists to remove THCV from Schedule 1, the highest level of control in the Act. Both decisions have substantial impacts on the UK’s research communities.
To make these drugs illegal and prevent others replacing them, the ACMD recommended that the whole chemical series be banned. However, many of this now illegal series are contained in current medicines and to get around this problem the Home Office exempted these and seven other medicines that would otherwise have become illegal. This exemption-based approach has, unfortunately, a fatal flaw: most, if not all, of these drugs were derived from a chemical series that contain precursors from which other medicines might be developed. Now these are illegal, and anyone caught supplying them is liable to up to 14 years in prison. These potential penalties will have a chilling, possibly fatal impact on pharmaceutical drug discovery in the UK, because complying with the regulations adds a vast cost burden to the pharmacology industry and to academic researchers. Dr Nutt found it concerning that the pharmaceutical experts on the ACMD did not appear to foresee this problem. Worse, it appears that the new regulations were not subject to proper consultation with the academic research community and the pharmaceutical industry.
History suggests that earlier bans on synthetic cannabinoids had little effect on their use. I fear it is likely that this new law could fail in its primary objective and badly damage UK research.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing this debate and I apologise for not having applied to speak originally—I was not expecting to be able to be present. I echo everything that has been said in this debate and I do so as a diagnosed MS sufferer. I have been confronted by the diagnosis; as it happens, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, I have not taken cannabis at any point, but I agree with his overall analysis that on most estimates the figures are gross underestimates of the number of people who have taken cannabis as a treatment for my illness and, I believe, for many others as well. So I support everything that has been said around the Room this afternoon.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I strongly support the campaign of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to make medicinal cannabis available legally for patients who can be helped by it and I congratulate her once again on her persistence. While the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is very welcome in her place today, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, that we should be seeing a health Minister responding to a debate of this nature—so does she, I think. The lack of availability of this medicine for thousands of people in pain is just one of the terrible consequences of a failure over the years by the Government to see that their policies are not working. Their stubborn persistence with a set of policies that are manifestly failing is extraordinary. If any other policy were as much of a failure as the Government’s drugs policy, they would drop it like a hot potato.
The current classification of drugs is meant to avoid their misuse but fails completely to do so. On top of that, it penalises people for whom cannabis can be a lifesaver. They and their clinicians are forced to resort to powerful drugs such as morphine to alleviate pain because cannabis has become caught up in the debate on recreational drugs.
Let us take the case of five year-old Alfie Dingley, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Alfie has life-threatening seizures. The drugs being used to treat him at the moment are frequent, intravenous steroids which could shorten his life, cause him to develop cancer, damage major organs or even induce psychosis. All other treatments have failed and his parents and grandparents live in constant fear of his next, possibly fatal seizure. Yet in Holland, where the law on cannabis is more rational and compassionate, doctors are able to treat children such as Alfie successfully.
In the Republic of Ireland, a named practitioner can be licensed to prescribe cannabis for medicinal purposes to a named patient. A number of other countries do something similar, so why can we not do that here? Can we not have a trial in this country to look at how children such as Alfie can be helped under proper medical supervision? Given that Alfie, along with many of the other patients we have heard about, has been given many other powerful drugs, some of which are not licensed for children as young as him, surely the risks of allowing him legal access to cannabis are considerably less? Yet to obtain cannabis legally, as we have heard is the case with other patients, Alfie’s parents would have to travel abroad at their own expense. Ironically, Alfie’s UK consultant would be willing to prescribe cannabis but is not allowed to do so. Rescheduling cannabis, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has suggested, would allow that to happen.
I and my colleagues heard from many patients in the noble Baroness’s commission when considering the matter. The evidence was very compelling. Today, your Lordships have called on the Government to base their policy on evidence, not misguided prejudice. The Government should hear the voices of the thousands of generally law-abiding patients who are forced to break the law or go to enormous trouble and expense to travel abroad to get the medicine that they know works for them. Those people do not want to have to do that, and there are thousands more who could benefit but are not prepared to take the risk. Why are we putting good people in this invidious situation? It is cruel, it is illogical and it is time that the Government did something about it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I first apologise for being late for the beginning of the debate. If I had a credible excuse, I would offer it. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing the debate, which has attracted a lot of interest—as reflected by the number of speakers.
As has been said, there is a regime in place, administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—MHRA—to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. However, as has been said, and as I understand it, only one product containing cannabis extracts—Sativex—has been licensed as a medicinal product by the MHRA. Equally, as I understand it, the MHRA has recently decided that CBD-only products—cannabidiol is one of the main compounds of cannabis—which are used to treat various symptoms, should be considered as medicines.
The question we are debating is whether the Government plan to invite the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to review the evidence supporting the rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule 2 or Schedule 4. Cannabis is controlled as a class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In its raw form, it currently has no recognised medicinal benefits in the UK and is therefore listed as a Schedule 1 drug under the misuse of drugs regulations. This explicitly forbids doctors from prescribing cannabis and inhibits research.
If cannabis were rescheduled, it would enable patients with a wide range of conditions to obtain cannabis medicines to alleviate their symptoms, and doctors could prescribe it on a named-patient basis, taking responsibility for patient safety, until licensed cannabis medications became available.
In their 2017 drugs strategy, the Government said that they were committed to grounding their approach in the latest available evidence. They stated:
“The advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs … is fundamental to informing our approach and we will continue to seek their valuable input and advice”.
Have the advisory council expressed any view to the Government that it now thinks it appropriate to undertake a review into either the classification or the rescheduling of cannabis—and, if so, what has been the Government’s response? If significant new evidence is now available that was not available previously and which might well influence the view of the advisory council—which appears to be the position—there is a case for inviting it to consider it, particularly in the light of the Government’s position that the advice of the council is fundamental to forming their approach.
We have heard in the debate about the case of Alfie, who is nearly six. As I understand it, some children with his condition have responded well to whole-plant medical cannabis with no side-effects. Indeed, as I understand it, Alfie’s consultant at his children’s hospital supports trying medical cannabis but cannot do so because it would be illegal for him to prescribe it at present. As has already been pointed out, in several other countries, including Ireland, a named consultant can prescribe whole-plant medical cannabis to a named patient. The future does not look good for Alfie at present. I ask the Minister to look at Alfie’s case to see what help can be given to get medical cannabis under the management of his consultant here—either now or, if he has to go abroad for such treatment, once it has been shown that it helps him.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, first, I also declare an interest in MS. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, knows, I worked with MS patients for many years before I got involved in politics—I do not know quite how I made the transition, but that was the case. Some of the noble Lord’s anecdotes from patients chime with things that I heard. I know that there is significant feeling in the House on this issue. It is also clear from noble Lords’ remarks that they are keen that government policy on this issue should be led by evidence—as my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth said, I confirmed that yesterday—but also should not prevent patients from obtaining relief from symptoms using effective medicines.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, the WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence has committed to reviewing the scheduling of cannabis under the UN’s 1961 convention. The review will consider therapeutic use as well as dependence, and the abuse potential of several constituent parts of cannabis, including the cannabis plant itself and cannabis resin, cannabidiol, or CBD, THC, isomers of THC and extracts and tinctures of cannabis. The review is due to conclude by early 2019 and I, like most people here today, am very interested in its outcome and look forward to future opportunities to debate this issue—as I know we will—as and when the WHO concludes its work. I must add that the recognition of CBD as having medicinal application necessarily means that the other constituent parts will do so as well. Each compound ought to be assessed on its merits.
As noble Lords have said, cannabis in its raw herbal form continues to be listed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 as a substance with no recognised benefits in the UK, but I must underline that this is in its raw form. The system of scheduling does not preclude medicines based on cannabis from being developed. The Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 regime, along with the associated regulations, enables the availability of controlled drugs which have recognised medicinal uses in UK healthcare—of which there are many.
We are already able to rely on a process, administered by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, MHRA, in parallel with the Home Office’s licensing system, to enable medicines, including those containing controlled drugs such as cannabis, to be developed, licensed and made available for medicinal use to patients in the UK. In the case of a Schedule 1 drug such as cannabis, the Home Office is willing to consider applications for research licences to facilitate the development of new medicines, as long as the appropriate ethical approvals have been given, as we have done in the past. I am very happy to meet again with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, as we do regularly, to discuss this issue.
In the case of the cannabis-based drug Sativex, the Government have, as noble Lords have said, placed the product in Schedule 4 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations to allow it to be legally supplied on prescription. Sativex was granted a marketing authorisation by the MHRA and was rigorously tested for its safety and efficacy before receiving approval for this application. This rigour should equally be applied to future medicinal products containing cannabis.
As has also been pointed out today, the MHRA has offered an opinion that products containing CBD, when used for a medical purpose, should be regulated as medicinal products. A CBD or cannabidiol product in its pure form is not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so where it can be extracted and isolated from the controlled substances in cannabis it would not require a licence from the Home Office. However, a CBD product that contains any trace of psychoactive compounds that are found in cannabis, such as THC or tetrahydrocannabinol, is considered to be a controlled substance under the 1971 Act and therefore unlawful to possess and supply unless it fits the criteria for an exempt product under the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001. The MHRA is working with individual companies and trade bodies to make sure that products containing CBD used for a medical purpose which can be classified as medicines satisfy the requirements of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012.
We continue to facilitate forward-looking research involving cannabis and cannabinoids. There were 19 cannabinoid clinical trial authorisations granted between 2005 and 2015. These trials cover MS, dental applications, psychotic disorders, addiction to cannabis, type 2 diabetes, epilepsy, interaction with other medicines and brain diseases. Research in this area is ongoing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked about research into synthetic cannabinoid changes. I know that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has commissioned the ACMD to look into whether there are barriers to research into Schedule 1 drugs as a result of changes to synthetic cannabinoid generic legislation. The Home Secretary has asked the council to provide its advice before the end of this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about Epidiolex. Our position on it is that, as for any other medicine and as we did with Sativex, it must be put through the same stringent process to ensure its safety and efficacy, for the benefit of patients.
My noble friend Lord Crickhowell suggested that the Department of Health and not the Home Office should be responsible for this. I quietly nodded there. Like the previous strategy, the 2017 drug strategy takes a cross-government approach that reflects the need for co-ordinated action to tackle the problem in all its dimensions. Given the strong link between drug use and offending, the Home Office has and will continue to provide the governance and accountability essential to the effective delivery of this cross-departmental approach. The Department of Health leads on the building recovery strand of the strategy and, together with the Home Office, leads on the reducing demand strategy, along with Public Health England. To ensure that we are doing all we can—and following my meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—I have recently written to my noble friend Lord O’Shaughnessy, who is the Minister for Health in your Lordships’ House, to ask him to consider how the Government can facilitate the development and availability of cannabis-based medicines such as Sativex.
We are open to the development of new products based on cannabis and look forward to the review from the WHO’s expert committee. I am sure that the ACMD will follow its conclusions with great interest.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The Minister has not made any mention of Bedrocan in her response to the debate. Does she think it reasonable that TW, in the circumstances I described, has to make these visits to Holland to collect her medication, which has been prescribed for her in Britain but which she is not permitted to obtain from her local pharmacy? Is that a reasonable state of affairs and if the Minister thinks it is, why? If she thinks it is not, what will the Government do?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I noted the noble Lord’s mention of Bedrocan. I had not heard of it and I am very willing to look into that specific drug. There are of course many drugs available in other parts of the world that are not necessarily available here and vice versa. I will write to him on that point. I will also take up the point about Alfie separately.
Baroness Meacher
May I thank everybody who has spoken so effectively in this debate? So many powerful points were made and we have managed to avoid duplication, amazingly. It just shows how many points one needs to make in relation to this—
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, there is no right of reply in this debate.
Care: Older People
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lipsey
To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the deferred payment scheme for funding older people's care.
Lord Lipsey (Lab)
My Lords, it is hard to recall the shock at the time, but it is only a few weeks ago that the Conservative Party decided that it would not have a large overall majority after all. The form this took, you will remember, was a pledge in the manifesto that everyone would have to spend themselves down to £100,000 before they got help with care costs. I think I knew what they were doing when they did it because I happened that afternoon to be on a platform for the dementia society’s conference with the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt. He made a short reference to this proposal and I was asked what I thought of it. I said, in the words of Sir Humphrey, “Very brave, Minister”. I may have misdetected it but I thought he went a little bit pale.
Why do I start with that story, which has absolutely nothing to do with deferred payment? It is very difficult to see why they did this. It could have been an accident. It could have been an outburst of honesty with the British people, which was laudable if not successful. I have another theory: that this Government have learned from long experience that you can do anything you want on care and nobody much notices—perhaps there would be more people here tonight if that were not the case. The case of deferred payments seems to me to be an extremely strong example on which the Government now need to focus and come clean with people on what they are going to do and put it into place.
Let me tell you a story—I am starting off down nostalgia lane. In 1999—I have the right decade, I think—I was sitting on the Royal Commission on Long Term Care. In parenthesis, one of my colleagues was Lord Joffe, whose death was recently announced, and who was one of the truly great and lovely men that I have had the pleasure to meet in my life. The majority of the commission—it beggars belief when you hear it now—wanted all social care to be free. That was their recommendation. I cannot really within a 10-minute speech spell out the number of noughts on the end of the cost of that proposal. It was bonkers for two other reasons. First, nearly all the extra money was going to the better-off, not the worse-off. Secondly, and to Joel and I more importantly, it did not provide an extra penny to care services. It simply made it easier for people to pay for care. Well, that is very nice and desirable if you have the money, but it is very different from providing the care services that our country desperately needs. So we did not go along with this and signed a note of dissent, as it was called.
I comfort myself that history shows that it is only minority reports or commissions that have any effect, looking back to Webb and the Poor Laws. There was one on the fire brigade, where the main dissident report was written by the chairman. Only minority reports have any effect, and that was true in one sense in this case. We never got free care and I am very glad that we did not.
However, Joel and I, when writing our dissenting report, were aware that people were suffering considerable distress as a result of the means-tested system. In particular, it caused people to sell their houses to pay for care. So without conceding the free care principle, we felt that something should be done about that.
I quote paragraph 57 on page 123 of the Note of Dissent: “We therefore propose that the state offers a virtual guarantee that no person will have to sell their home against their will. This will be put in practice by a state-sponsored loan against the value of the home of any older person in need of care who does not want to sell”. I think that that was right in principle because going into a home is for many people a dreadful thing to have to do. It is made worse if you know that your house is going straight on to the market with no chance of ever getting it back.
However, let us face it, there was a lot of politics in that. We wanted to fend off free care for all and in order to do that we thought it right to do something that would make redundant the headlines which the Daily Mail used to specialise in: “Homes sold to pay for care”. There was a general acceptance of that. The Labour Government legislated in due course. They did so ineffectively and left it to local authorities to put the schemes in place. Many local authorities did not get around to it, so it did not work. The Conservative Government seemed not even to have noticed that that had been done. David Cameron, who some will remember was then the Prime Minister, went around saying that the Government would legislate so that,
“no one will have to sell their home to pay for care”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/13; col. 25.]
The 2014 Act was brought forward and it did indeed establish a national scheme for deferring payment for care, except that it did not apply to people with more than £23,250 in non-housing assets. That is a terrific limitation and it destroyed what the scheme was meant to do. You would be absolutely mad, if you possess a large house, to let your other assets run down to £23,250 so that the income on that sum would have to pay for all the other little things in life you might like. It made the proposal completely defunct. That point was hammered home in this place. I remember making a speech about it at Third Reading with strong support being expressed across the House. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, gave the impression, although I may have been naive, that this would be dealt with and they would up the £23,250 limit. In the light of that, I withdrew my amendment. They did not; they stuck to it and the figure did not change. Of all people’s word to break, they broke the word of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
I did not have to do much research to know what would happen. What has happened is that we now have a totally failed system. The Government estimated that the new scheme would bring the uptake of deferred care up from 4,000 in 2012 to 12,300, but it has not. In fact the uptake figure hovers at around 3,600; that is, even less take-up than before. The research to show that was carried out by the think tank Reform, which is not unsympathetic to the Government. That number is simply those who are eligible but who choose not to claim it—one third of the number that the Government said would. There are also all those people who are completely excluded from it by the arbitrary rules that the Government have set. Those were Cameron’s words backed by his party and both Houses of Parliament but they have been completely overruled and ignored.
I believe that Parliament was misled and that the time has come to do something about it. I believe—I hope the Minister will confirm this—that the Government are reviewing the deferred payments scheme and its impact. On the facts as we have them, I do not think there can be any doubt about what the conclusion of such a review should be. Of course, this is all part of the broader picture on social care. I, for one, welcome the review that has been carried out in the Cabinet Office, and the fact that we did not dash into that manifesto pledge and that proper, serious consideration is being given to this issue by proper, serious people on the basis of proper, serious research.
I beg the Government to look at this again, because you can make a case for the scheme or you can say that people should have to sell their houses to pay for care, but I say in all seriousness that I think it is unforgivable to mislead older people. They find this system extraordinarily complicated and extremely hard to get their heads round in any case. To leave them in the state of confusion that now exists as to whether or not they can get deferred care payments seems to me—I hesitate to use this phrase—an act of cruelty. The Government can put this right. It does not cost anything, because this is merely money that is lent to them being paid back. They should produce a clear, workable scheme so that those who do not want to sell their houses to pay for care will not have to, as David Cameron said.
Baroness Greengross (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, very much because this is a very important issue. I think I have been involved in it for longer than anybody else. I have tried to get the issues around social care, care homes and how to pay for care right. This is a persistent, complex and very difficult subject, and we have to do something about it. If we started again, I think we would have a unified system but, let us face it, the majority of people who have to go into care homes are very old and have some form of cognitive dysfunction or dementia. They are shuffled between healthcare and social care. We are once again talking about how these people are going to be funded. It is very important that eventually we get this right. All these terribly frail people cannot go on waiting year after year while David and I meet regularly at events. Those events are not perhaps as important as being here, but they are occasions where people try to deal with this subject.
It is very hard to know what the prevalence of deferred payment agreements is because the data collection is now mandatory but the 2015-16 data collection was voluntary. Data collected by Care England, Age UK and NHS Digital found that out of 55 local authorities in England, just 1,300 DPAs were written in 2015-16, the first financial year in which the mandatory scheme was in force.
If we assume that this sample is representative of the 152 local authorities offering adult social services in this country, these data suggest that only 3,600 DPAs were issued in 2015-16. That is less than a third of the Government’s original estimate and lower than the figure in 2012. Meanwhile, Reform suggests that a higher figure of about 6,000 DPAs were issued in 2015-16 compared with the Government’s projection of 12,300. But whatever figure we use, the uptake and availability of deferred payment agreements has been very much lower than expected.
Reform concluded that tighter than expected eligibility is the principal reason why the Government overstated the number of people who would take up a DPA. These outcomes are despite councils having a statutory duty to offer DPAs under the Care Act. However, there is no government target for the number of DPAs issued by local authorities. To redress this imbalance, Reform argues for the DPA means-test threshold to be increased from £23,250 to £100,000, which would raise the percentage of self-funders who are eligible for support from 45% to 62.6%. One major challenge, however, is the lack of public awareness. Different councils develop different approaches and the pause in the Care Act is also something to be contended with.
All this has led to a huge amount of confusion. First, people do not understand the difference—they never have—between healthcare and social care. I have spent years saying that somebody who has a terminal disease, such as one of 100 different types of dementia, needs only social care, according to the rules, whereas somebody with a chronic illness such as back pain is given health service care. It is all very odd, really.
There is huge confusion in people’s minds, particularly about deferred payments. Neither is it transparent to the people who provide care or to people admitted to homes under a DPA, who would otherwise have been self-funders paying the home directly. DPAs also work by placing some people under a council contract, at council fee rates, and the home does not know their true status, which might mean that they have enough money to pay for it. So, as much as I deplore the fact that we have different criteria for healthcare and social care—as we always have had—it works both ways. Some people who really have enough money are not paying, because we know that councils pay very much less, which is one reason why so many care homes are going out of business.
So the use of DPAs is not transparent to the provider and, as an example of the rather covert nature of this landscape in which DPAs operate, the Department of Health recently completed an internal review of them in order to inform policy making, but it has chosen not to make the findings public. Perhaps the Minister can say why. It would be useful to know. There has not been a detailed analysis of the deferred payments scheme since 2013, when an impact assessment was published alongside the Care Act. At the time, the analysis suggested a highly patchy take-up of the scheme. There was a lot of regional variation, ranging from 1% to 40%. A new analysis to see how much take-up has changed is very much overdue, in my humble opinion.
Expectations from citizens, however, have risen. We know that they experience social care and healthcare as a continuum. The current financial challenges make the delivery of such expectations completely untenable. Taxpayers really are not getting value for money, so I endorse Care England’s view that, for DPAs to become a constructive part of a secure funding environment, a long-term vision with strong central leadership is required to take duplication and unnecessary administrative burdens out of the system. At the national level, much more clarity is needed about the partnership between the state and the individual in terms of funding. Locally, commissioners and providers need to agree the suitability of an individual’s care package, rather than this being seen as part of an arbitrary standard price.
DPAs are only part of the solution to funding social care fees, and the promised consultation on funding is a key opportunity to think about what sort of society we want to live in. Therefore, key questions on this issue are: when will the consultation be published and what form will it take, and in the meantime what short-term provision will the Government be recommending to tackle the current levels of unmet need? I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer at least some of those points.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a short but very interesting debate, and I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for the way in which they have addressed the dilemma that undoubtedly faces us, not just in relation to deferred payments but more generally in relation to funding appropriate social care.
It was interesting that my noble friend Lord Lipsey took us back to the royal commission. Over nearly 20 years we have seen a continuing debate, any number of reports and some measures on the statute book, yet we still seem no nearer to solving the conundrum of how to fund social or long-term care. I have to agree with my noble friend: there are those who argue that social care should be free at the point of use but I regard that as a fantasy. It is very unlikely that over the next 20 years any Government will in reality be able to afford it.
The problem is that, even though Governments have accepted some proposals in principle, when those proposals are costed, in reality they step back from them, and we are left in a hiatus of a completely arbitrary and unfair system. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to this problem, which is, if you like, a boundary dispute between such care being free at the point of use in the NHS and means-tested personal social care. Understandably, tensions often arise within NHS hospitals as families try to resist an individual who is receiving care which is free at the point of use in the NHS ending up in the care system, where a means test takes place. I do not think that anyone can say that we have a fair system. In my view, it is equally unfair that self-funders in care homes effectively subsidise local authority-funded residents. Speaking from where I am, I suppose you could regard that as a kind of regressive taxation. It is so arbitrary and so unfair that I believe it is very difficult to justify.
It seems to me that either we try to solve this problem or millions of people over the next 30 years will carry on living in what is sometimes abject misery, uncertainty and fear about their financial future and about their families, to whom they would like to pass on some income where they are in a position to do so. If one were putting odds on it, one would say that at the moment one sees very little likelihood of anyone coming forward with a cohesive package of things which can be funded, which is thought to be fair and which would get public support, although clearly that is what we seek to do.
The deferred payment arrangement is very disappointing. Clearly, David Cameron’s pledge was widely welcomed and was seen to be progressive. My noble friend talked about the increased estimate that the department gave, going from £4,000 to £12,300, but in any case £12,300 seems a pathetic amount. We seem to have a complete failure in the marketplace. There is no easy way for people to translate a housing asset into care home support while retaining the ability to leave some of their resources to their loved ones when they die.
A number of organisations have commented on what has happened to the deferred payment scheme. Clearly, bringing in such a tight means test undermined what we thought Mr Cameron had been offering. The point was well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, that we need, at the very least, to see how the scheme is working. I know that the Minister, in an answer to my noble friend in March, said that the department is continuing to monitor the success of this scheme and that an update of these deferred payment schemes across all local authorities will be available later in the year. I hope that he may be about to give us a progress report on that.
I have had evidence from Royal London and some of the charities. Royal London, for example, looked at the inconsistency between local authorities. It said that despite access to deferred payment agreement being a legal right—I am not sure that that is quite how I read the Act, but we know what it is getting at, because it is in the Act—10 local authorities told Royal London they had not entered into a single agreement since the scheme was introduced in April 2015. That is a pretty poor show. I ask the Minister: in light of the work that we hope will be published later in the year, what are we going to do about local authorities which simply refuse to operate the scheme at all?
My final point comes back to the Government’s manifesto proposal, their retreat and the intention set out in the Queen’s Speech to consult on how we improve the social care system. I refer the Minister to the Care Act 2014, a marvellous piece of work. It was consensual, it came from Dilnot and we spent weeks in your Lordships’ House in a consensual approach, yet it is dead and gone. There are some bits in it that are good, still, and which I very much applaud. It is a puzzle that the Government have never explicitly said whether they regard the whole thing as dead and gone and that is why they put the new proposals in their manifesto.
What is the consultation going to be about? Will it be about making the scheme that the Government put in their manifesto slightly more generous—raise the level, reduce the floor—or are they prepared to actually look again at Dilnot, which everyone said was a sensible approach, even if the figures may not be the right figures? Of course, the Government’s rate was much less generous than the original Dilnot proposal, but at the end of the day, whatever information the Minister can give us about the consultation, which we hope can be comprehensive, would be very welcome.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord O’Shaughnessy) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, for bringing forward this debate. I know that he has been a tenacious proponent of deferred payments and of reform of the care system. I pay credit to him for that—it is very rare that we have a debate where I can thank everyone individually, so I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to know Lord Joffe, but I know how much the House has mourned his passing and have noted the contribution he made. I want to acknowledge that as we talk about this issue.
We have had a bit of a trip down memory lane today, although others might call it Groundhog Day. We seem to be going over this issue repeatedly without properly resolving it. Of course it is not easy; the ageing population is probably the greatest social challenge, at least the greatest domestic social challenge, that we face. It is not one that we have grappled well with in the past, and that is true of Governments of all hues. That is for a number of reasons, including obviously the money and the changing nature of society, particularly working patterns. What has been highlighted by all noble Lords is the interplay between the taxpayer funded, free at the point of use National Health Service and a social care system that works on a different basis. It means that any attempt, whether it is a Labour-proposed national health and care service or through integration at STP level, is made very hard, particularly as things move. So I do not underplay the importance of this issue, and, of course, as we think about the narrower issue of DPAs, it has to be set in a context of what is happening elsewhere.
In the short run, more money is going into local authorities to try to provide the social care that is required. It is particularly focused on delayed transfers of care. That has some interplay with this issue precisely because of the concerns about moving from one part of the health system into another, something mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is about the difference between continuing healthcare and social care and the quite radical consequences of the different funding situations for families that are necessarily trying to navigate through it at a time of stress. It is a challenge, but we are trying to address it through this additional funding.
In the long run, as noble Lords have pointed out, the intention is to bring forward proposals on social care reform for consultation. The objective in the consultation—I am glad the noble Lord mentioned the Care Act—is to achieve the widest possible consensus. It should not be a completely open-ended “what shall we do” process, but it should try to put forward some proposals that, inevitably in the process of consultation, will change but will try to achieve some kind of consensus. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, specifically asked about Dilnot. There was a lot of agreement around Dilnot, but I still come across people who think that Dilnot was the worst thing that could ever have happened. There is a more nuanced picture. If anything, that just underlines the importance of taking care as we try to build a consensus.
Moving forward to the specific issue of the debate, which is deferred payment agreements, as has been outlined, they are a means by which individuals can access equity in their home to pay for care without having to sell it, meaning that they do not have to sell their home in their lifetimes. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed out, DPAs have been in existence for a number of years and the issue was addressed in the Care Act precisely to attempt to create a more thoroughgoing national system to replace what had obviously been quite a patchy one. Even though some elements of the Care Act have not been taken forward, in particular the social care reform agenda, as has been pointed out, the Government took the decision to move ahead with the implementation of DPAs in order to fulfil the pledge of the previous Prime Minister—to whom both he and my noble friend Lady Sugg owe their position in this House—that people should not have to sell their homes in order to go into care during their lifetime.
In terms of the actual performance of the scheme, we had a year of voluntary data collecting for 2015-16, although it is now compulsory. A helpful note tells me that the next iteration of the data is 2016-17, and NHS Digital should be publishing them towards the end of October. We will then have a really thorough look at what is happening. The previous year showed that about one-third of local authorities responded, so it was only a partial picture. Nevertheless, it was disappointing that fewer DPAs were agreed than had been anticipated. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, pointed this out as likely to be the case in the debate on the regulations. I will come to what we can do about it, but these are of course a means to an end in themselves. This is why I am not convinced that having a target is appropriate because it is about enabling a choice and adding to the choices that are available for people by providing a means of deferring payment until after death. There are many reasons why people may not choose a DPA, and of course the private market is evolving all the time. But we need to understand why there were fewer DPAs than anticipated and to ensure that those who are eligible for them can access one. If there are local authorities where not one has been signed, that suggests that something is going wrong at the local level in terms of communication between the local authority, individuals and the social care sector. So we need to know why that happens.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
In the noble Lord’s very helpful response, he referred to the private market. He mentioned that not everyone thought Dilnot was the right answer, because one of Dilnot’s aims was, by capping costs, for the insurance market to come in when they have been reluctant to. I wondered whether part of the consultation would seek to answer the conundrum of what could make the insurance market come into this area more enthusiastically. Clearly, that would be one way that we could solve some of the problems.
Lord O’Shaughnessy
The noble Lord makes a good point. I do not know if that will be laid out explicitly. We have talked a little about the manifesto and how it was a movable feast over the course of a weekend. We ended up with a floor and a cap. At the point at which you have a cap, in theory, you have an insurable product. It depends whether it is insured by the private market or the state, but that was clearly at the core of the Dilnot design. There was lots of disagreement about how you could take forward that principle, but I think it useful so that, in keeping with the nature of the market, you have a mixed economy of funding.
We have been talking to local authorities to understand why people may not be accessing DPAs. There are a number of barriers, such as lack of awareness, interest charges and administrative fees. We are considering what actions can be taken locally and nationally to raise awareness and understanding of the scheme. One example of that is that is the wide variation in administrative fees charged by local authorities. Clearly, it is important that those fees are not set at a prohibitive rate, nor that local authorities are or seem to be profiting from the fees. They are meant to be covering costs. However, I think interest rates provide quite a positive picture, because the interest rate is around a third of that offered by the standard equity release scheme on the market. With wider awareness, that would prove more attractive than it has done.
Regarding the eligibility criteria, £100,000 is a magic fee in this social care debate—even more so after the election. That was the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, made about the reform proposal and widening eligibility. There are two points I would like to make on this. First, the Government’s aim in establishing the scheme was particularly to ensure that people did not have to sell their homes, rather than run down other capital. I know that that is more limited than noble Lords might like, but that was nevertheless the aim of the scheme.
The second point is that, in expanding the criteria, a local authority should in theory be able to recoup its costs, but there may be some costs in taking on a wider group of qualifying people. There is always a balance to be struck, particularly in cash flow terms, between helping a group who are by definition better-off people, and fairness to local taxpayers. That is one issue that needs to be considered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked in particular about the deep dive that happened. She will be disappointed to hear that departmental protocol is that these are for internal use only, so I am afraid I am not in a position to share that information with her. It sounds like she has the detail on what happened anyway, so I am not sure that that would necessarily reveal anything that she does not know.
To conclude, it remains a departmental priority to make the scheme accessible to all those who are eligible and would benefit from it. We will continue to monitor the scheme and, once the data are published, may look at some of the ideas suggested by noble Lords on how to give this scheme more momentum. Clearly, the intention of it is not to be de minimis, but to reach the original target and more people beyond that. We are open to ideas on how that can be achieved.
Finally, any DPA scheme must in the long run fit into the wider context of social care funding and provision. That point has been well made in this debate. As the proposals come out for consultation, considering the interplay of DPAs and the overall funding environment will be critical in whether reforms are successful. I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, again for tabling this debate and other noble Lords for their contributions. I look forward to working with them on getting consensus on real reform in the sector.
House of Lords
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oaths and Affirmations
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Schools: Children in Care
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to enable more children in care to obtain places in state and independent boarding schools.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for this Question, as it is a subject close to my heart. We are very keen to encourage more local authorities to consider boarding for vulnerable children. This summer we launched the Boarding School Partnerships service, very ably chaired by Colin Morrison, the former chair of the Royal National Children’s Foundation, and this service operates jointly with the boarding schools sector and charities to help local authorities collaborate with charities to place vulnerable children in state and independent boarding schools.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that children in care can benefit greatly from a boarding education where they are suited to it? Is it not the case that many local councils once recognised this, with some 10,000 placements being arranged in the late 1960s?
Lord Nash
I agree entirely with my noble friend that boarding can have great benefits for the right children, and we want to see more vulnerable children able to access it. My noble friend is quite right that boarding was more common at one time. Boarding school, with its 24/7 level of pastoral care, can be particularly suitable for vulnerable children, and that is why we are encouraging its use more widely and why we have set up the Boarding School Partnerships.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, has this scheme been evaluated, and, if so, how? Have children been asked about the success of the scheme?
Lord Nash
That is a very good question from the noble Baroness. The scheme was launched only a few months ago and we will be concentrating initially on promoting it with local authorities. The department recently had a very successful event with local authorities to launch it with a number of people who had been in care and at boarding school speaking passionately about it. Our first step is to promote it with local authorities, but we will, when appropriate, evaluate it.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is easy to say that this facility should be for children when it is appropriate for them? But please let us not gloss over what happened in the 1960s. Many children were sent to boarding schools where, frankly, they were out of sight, out of mind and they had some terrible experiences. Let us go for a wide range, but make sure the placement is appropriate to the child’s needs.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, as the Minister is aware, those who live in tied accommodation as part of their employment or the holding of an office have an unintentional structural disadvantage when it comes to their children’s schooling. This is ameliorated in the case of military families but not in the case of others, such as clergy and their children. Will Her Majesty’s Government now act to address this disadvantage by amending the code?
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the appropriate word is “appropriate”, and we must do what is right for the individual child in care. It might be that boarding school provision is correct, but would the Minister agree that, where boarding school provision is provided, we must have the most vigorous safeguarding assessment of that provision?
Lord Nash
I agree with the noble Lord that that is essential, but we have moved a long way from the 1960s. It may have been, as a reaction to some of the points the noble Lord, Lord Laming, made, that we have moved too far in the other direction and there is a certain overreluctance by some local authorities. We have definitely seen that local authorities are now better informed and visit schools. If noble Lords visit the Boarding School Partnerships website— at boardingschoolpartnerships.org.uk—they will be impressed, as there is a lot of information there to help local authorities on which schools are providing this and how they might assess whether it is appropriate for a particular child.
Lord Elton (Con)
My Lords, will local authorities retain their duty of care during term time, and what arrangements will be made during holidays to see that the children’s educational interests are not neglected during that time?
Lord Nash
My noble friend makes a very good point, as local authorities do remain responsible. In holidays there are some facilities that may be able to keep children and we have initiatives to try to extend such arrangements, but it is certainly the case that local authorities continue to be responsible.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, is it true that this whole programme is being driven by the need to save money, as against placing children in foster care? In so far as we know that only 100 children nationally are now in such placements, surely we should fully evaluate the effect on those children before we proceed further down this route.
Lord Nash
It is not driven by money at all; it is driven by a passionate belief by a number of people, including the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and others who have been to boarding school that it can help and that we had lurched into a certain prejudice against boarding schools. We are just inviting local authorities to look more widely at the options and making much more information available to allow them to evaluate those options.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, while acknowledging the potential benefits of the Boarding School Partnerships, the noble Lord will be aware that most children in care will have experienced some kind of trauma and a high proportion have unmet mental health needs. Extending the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, I think that it is questionable whether boarding schools are equipped to provide the sort of wraparound support that these children may need. Indeed, such a placement does not necessarily address the reasons a child was taken into care in the first place. For many of the children being placed at a state or independent boarding school, that will be outside their local authority. Research by the Children’s Society demonstrates that the further children are placed from home, the more likely they are to go missing from care. Will the Minister give an assurance that, when children in care are placed in boarding schools outside their home local authorities, the placing local authority will share appropriate information with the host authority to ensure that these children are appropriately safeguarded and have their particular needs met?
Pension Schemes: Universities
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the affordability and sustainability of United Kingdom university pension schemes.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, universities are subject to regular assessment of their financial sustainability, management and governance. Government set the legislative framework for pension schemes to operate within. It is for the trustee and employer to agree appropriate plans to ensure schemes are adequately funded. This is overseen by the independent Pensions Regulator. Where the Pensions Regulator believes that a scheme’s position warrants its involvement, it considers intervention options, from education through enablement to enforcement.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
I need to declare a few interests. I am visiting professor at King’s College London, I am married to an academic who pays into the scheme and I am the parent of a child who is paying university tuition fees: these may well be used to bail out the scheme, so I submit to the House that I may be relatively neutral in this regard.
I accept that the valuations of the scheme are a matter for the Pensions Regulator, and its discussions with Universities UK will be interesting, but the size of the deficit of the United Kingdom’s largest private pension scheme must be of some interest to the Government. I remind the Minister that, rightly, the Government bailed out the banks. It would appear odd, when the public purse pays £105 billion into universities, that they should say that this is a hands-off matter. We know that there are only three ways to plug the gap: to make students pay for it through higher fees; to cut research and teaching budgets; or for the universities themselves to plug the gap, perhaps through cutting senior salaries and remuneration. Which approach do the Government favour?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The House may not be surprised to hear me say that it does not need reminding about the passage of the Higher Education Act, when there was a strong focus on universities being autonomous institutions responsible for their own finances. While the Government cannot intervene in a higher education institution’s finances, we do set and will continue to set the maximum fee cap.
On pension schemes, the independent Pensions Regulator has powers to protect member benefits under circumstances set out in legislation, and that remains.
Lord Cormack (Con)
If the Government cannot interfere in university finances, why are they making statements about how much vice-chancellors should be paid?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I should just point out to my noble friend that the Government are not making statements about how much they should be paid. My honourable friend in the other place, Jo Johnson, made a speech this morning reiterating his point that universities should exercise great restraint in deciding how much to pay vice-chancellors and other staff and has set out a series of guidance. Furthermore, the Office for Students, which has been set up as part of the Act, will also be given greater powers and encouragement to set a remuneration code.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there seems to have been quite a lot of scaremongering about this particular pension scheme? The assets of the scheme have performed well; it is well governed, has already adjusted its benefits in relation to the deficit that opened up in the 2014 valuation, and is now negotiating with universities and unions as to further adjustments that will be required. However, it is important to stress that student fees are set by the Government, and universities have sources of income that go well beyond the fees they receive from students. Much of the problem is caused by the exceptional policies that the Bank of England faces. This is an open scheme with strong cash flow and strong governance.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend knows more than I do how complex managing pension schemes is. There are lots of variables and issues to consider. She is right that there was a review in 2014. In fact, there is a review of the scheme every three years and a recovery plan is in place. My noble friend is right: the recovery plan, we believe, is robust and will offer a good degree of stability for the next 30 years.
The DWP is publishing a Green Paper in February to build on the ongoing discussions on pension schemes in general. We will publish a response to the consultation in a White Paper this winter.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, the Question in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, mentioned university schemes, although for the reasons she outlined to us, she only referred to the Universities Superannuation Scheme. In fact, there is a two-tier system in pensions provision for academic staff in universities. An academic retiring after 30 years at Oxford University will have a pension pot with the USS scheme worth around £150,000 less than an academic retiring at the same time from Oxford Brookes University in the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. While the Teachers’ Pension Scheme is in good financial health, despite the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the Universities Superannuation Scheme is certainly not. The Universities and Colleges Union has real concerns about the manner in which the scheme’s executives carry out valuations and make investment decisions.
Will the Minister ask the Department for Education to challenge university finance directors over the manner in which the scheme is being run—leaving aside the role of the Pensions Regulator—when academic staff, their representatives and others have made suggestions for a change in direction for the scheme which have so far been ignored?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I do not agree with the noble Lord’s assessment of the scheme. It has a deficit, but so have many pension schemes. He will know more than I do about how that operates. It is being closely monitored and Universities UK, which oversees the scheme as a representative of employers, has launched a consultation this month which will run until 29 September on the proposed assumptions for the scheme’s technical provisions. A lot is going on to be sure that we monitor the scheme’s progress. Without getting too technical, interest rates, as the House may know, have played a part. These can change, and suddenly the parameters can change.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
To pick up my noble friend’s final point, does he accept that when the Bank of England eventually starts to raise base rates to more normal levels, a lot of pension funds will be much more fundable and sustainable than they are today?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not an expert in pension schemes, but let us hope that is the case. It is one of many parameters that one has to take account of in managing pension schemes.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that several university vice-chancellors should be paid much more than our Prime Minister?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not going to be drawn into commenting on that. I will only repeat what I said earlier, which is that universities are being strongly encouraged to show restraint in the amount of remuneration they set their staff.
Brexit: Negotiations
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Spicer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they will next report to Parliament on the progress of negotiations with the European Union with regard to Brexit.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, on Tuesday, the Government made a Statement to the House of Commons on progress made in both the July and August negotiation rounds, which I repeated in this Chamber. The Secretary of State made a clear commitment to give an update to the House of Commons after each round of negotiations. With the leave of this House, it will also be repeated here.
Lord Spicer (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that when we leave the European Union on 19 March 2019, the jurisdiction of all the bodies throughout Europe that have governing powers will cease, that that is the essence of Brexit, and that the rest of the issues are consequential and could be settled in their own time?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My noble friend has raised questions which I am sure will occupy this House with great interest and elicit investigation over the period until we do leave the European Union. He raises a crucial point that in leaving the European Union, we take back control of our own laws, and this is about how we do that and the pace at which we do it. We have made it clear that, for example, the direct jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union will end as we leave the European Union. But another place is currently discussing the withdrawal Bill, which makes it clear that there would still be some role for the CJEU, for example in pending cases. It is a complex matter and my noble friend is right to raise it.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, given the timescales, there will be important negotiations during recesses. Our EU Committee asked the Secretary of State to report back during the Summer Recess, and was clear that if he was unable to attend on the particular date it offered, it would be happy to hear from another Minister, the Permanent Secretary or the Permanent Representative. The invitation was declined—not just for that date but until October. Yet the Secretary of State found time to be part of the entertainment at the Edinburgh Festival, as a guest of Alex Salmond. This is a question of priorities, and that shows more respect for the comedy fringe than it does for Parliament. Is it right that Ministers can ignore Parliament in this way throughout any recess, particularly when it is the Government who choose the recess dates?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Government have not ignored Parliament. We made clear at the beginning of the process, when the British public decided they wanted to leave the European Union, that there would be regular reporting to Parliament. Indeed, what we do is far beyond what is available to the European Parliament, in effect, because we make available Statements, debates and Questions in which all parliamentarians may participate. In addition, in just the 15 months since my own department was founded, the Secretary of State appeared before the EU Committee on 11 July and, as the noble Baroness said, of course he plans to attend very shortly. He has also provided evidence to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union in another place on two occasions, and will appear before that committee when it has been re-established. In those 15 months, there have been a further 14 occasions where my department’s Ministers and officials have given evidence to a wide range of committees. We continue with our commitment to engage fully with Select Committees. There are various ways in which we can do that, and I very much look forward to discussing those matters in detail with individual committees and their chairs.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend think that there is any prospect that when the Government report on the negotiations to this House and to the other place, we will not see the same speeches made by the same people who are still fighting the referendum campaign and trying to reverse the result brought about by the British people?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Immediately after the result of the referendum last year, when I said that I had voted to remain, I also said that when democracy makes a decision you accept it and move on. My noble friend is right.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we are moving from general principle to detail on the negotiations now, and it is the detail that we find extremely difficult. I remember that before we joined the single market, when Mrs Thatcher was negotiating it, a study demonstrated that, actually, the British accepted US regulation in domestic law as a matter of course, because we had to accept international regulation on a whole host of things. We are now discovering about the detail, and if we are leaving the EU both Houses need to be kept informed on the question of which international regulations we accept, and how we proceed, on everything from blood supplies to airline regulation. Many lobbies will be extremely interested, and that is the hard stuff that we need to be kept informed about. Can the Minister give us some reassurance?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
The noble Lord is absolutely right about how crucial it is that, as negotiations progress and there is more of a convergence of agreement about what is, as he says, very detailed technical information about the status of regulations after Brexit, we are able to transmit that information. I assure him that that is what we have sought to do throughout the summer. One brief example is provided by the common position paper, published by both the EU Commission and the UK, on our negotiations on the status of citizens. Clearly a wide range of issues, including highly technical ones, are involved, and after the August round we updated the online convergence annexe immediately and made sure the information was in this House. That really shows how we are trying to transmit that detail. But I do not underestimate the complexity or the amount of detail that I know the House will wish to scrutinise.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the issue of periodicity of reporting, which the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, raised, is not the only one at stake? There is also, of course, the content of the reports, which up to now has left something to be desired—and also the ability of this House, when the report is made, to have more than the time that is made available when a ministerial Statement is made. Will the Minister consult the usual channels to see whether, in the case of Brexit, which is a matter of huge interest to all parts of this House, the time allowed for discussion following a ministerial Statement on the progress of the negotiations is a bit longer than is allowed on a normal one?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I think there are many views around the House about how noble Lords wish to participate in the scrutiny of these matters. A Statement is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, just one method. There are indeed occasions when the usual channels can arrange debate, and I thank my noble friend the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms for being so generous as to put time on the Order Paper next Tuesday so that this House can examine the position papers at length. That is a measure of the generosity of the Government; I hope that it will be met in good spirit, and not undermined by others.
Bell Pottinger
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the behaviour of Bell Pottinger in South Africa has been completely unacceptable. We support the investigations conducted by the Public Relations and Communications Association and Herbert Smith Freehills and the stark conclusions of their report. I want to put it on record that at no stage were Her Majesty’s Government in any way involved in its work in South Africa.
Lord Hain (Lab)
I welcome that Answer but do the Government agree that, after running a pernicious and poisonously racist smear campaign in South Africa for the wealthy Gupta brothers, whom President Zuma has enabled to capture the state and bankroll his family and friends through corruption and cronyism, all Bell Pottinger’s work for British public bodies must be called in and reviewed? Since the respected former Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan has stated that the Guptas and Zumas have benefited from 6.8 billion rand of money laundering, can the Government investigate whether any British banks are involved and what action can be taken at a European level? Will the Minister agree to meet me about this?
Lord Young of Cookham
I am grateful to the noble Lord for those questions. There are no contracts between the Government and Bell Pottinger. On the second point about money laundering, I have read the reports that I referred to in my original reply and there is no implication that there has been any money laundering or indeed any criminal activity. The company behaved unprofessionally and unethically. If the noble Lord has any evidence of money laundering, of course that should be investigated. We have some of the toughest money laundering regulations in the world, and earlier this year Deutsche Bank was fined £163 million for breaching those regulations. If there is any evidence of money laundering, of course we should look at it. I would not rule out at all a ministerial meeting with the noble Lord.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, what action are we taking against the individuals involved in this case? It is okay dealing with the organisation, but what about the individuals? Will they be allowed to continue their normal duties?
Lord Young of Cookham
This is a private company operating in a foreign country. In this particular case, the chief executive has resigned and a number of officials have been dismissed. I am not sure there is a role for the Government in intervening on a private company in disciplinary matters of this nature.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, that is not quite the case. When the lobbying Bill was going through the House, we warned the Government that if they did not require a lobbying firm to be a member of a professional body and abide by its code, then their statutory register would be meaningless. We now see that Bell Pottinger, although thrown out of the PRCA because it broke the code, is still a member and remains on the statutory register, able to lobby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Could the Minister undertake to discuss with the Office for the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists whether it is appropriate to give to give credence to this company and whether Ministers will still be willing to meet with it?
Lord Young of Cookham
As I said, the Government have no contracts with Bell Pottinger. I understand that the registrar is in touch with Bell Pottinger to establish whether or not it is still signed up to the codes of either the PRCA or the other professional body. In the light of those inquiries, the register will then clarify whether it is still signed up to those principles. As the legislation stands, you can be removed from the register only if you stop doing public relations business. You cannot be removed from the register for the sort of activities that we have been talking about.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Does not a rather wider consideration arise out of these matters? While Bell Pottinger might have suffered reputationally and financially from its behaviour, the fact that it is a British company, albeit operating in a foreign country, may well have an effect on the extent to which, in the febrile atmosphere of South African politics, diplomatic representations may be disregarded.
Lord Young of Cookham
I have been in touch with our high commissioner in Pretoria this morning. He has made it clear that this has had a very damaging impact on our country’s reputation in South Africa, which is why I have gone out of my way to make it absolutely clear that neither the Government nor indeed the staff of the high commission in South Africa were in any way involved in this contract. The reputation of Bell Pottinger has been seriously impaired. This is a company that seeks to boost the image of other companies but here it is, having a very severe reputational hit of its own. It could perhaps begin to put that right by donating any profits it has made from the contract to some charity in South Africa.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, made an observation in an earlier reply to the effect that it was not possible, as he understood it, for Bell Pottinger—or any other company—to be removed from the register of those people entitled to lobby Parliament. Might this not be an appropriate moment to review those rules and to consider whether there should be a mechanism for removing such people from the register?
Lord Young of Cookham
The House, I know, was surprised when I stated the legislative position: you can be removed from the register only if you stop acting as a lobbyist. That is what the law says. There was an attempt last year with a Private Member’s Bill, which started in this House and progressed through it, to take this a step further and have a statutory code of conduct. Although it passed through this House, there was no parliamentary time in another place to take it forward. Discussions are taking place at an official level between those who would like to see the sort of reform that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Hudnall, has outlined, but at this stage the Government have no plans to legislate.
Business of the House
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That the debates on the motions in the names of Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.
Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That Lord Blencathra be appointed Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in place of Baroness Fookes, resigned.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and, in doing so, inform the House that it is necessary as a result of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, being taken seriously ill during the summer. I pay tribute personally to her for her support and encouragement to me since I took up this position. She has been outstanding as chair of the Delegated Powers Committee and as a parliamentarian over many decades. I am sure that the whole House will join me in wishing her a full and speedy recovery.
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, who has been a remarkable chairman of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, on which I serve. I think all members of the committee will enthusiastically endorse what the noble Lord said. She has been extraordinarily wise, effective, forthright and non-partisan—a real tribute to the way in which chairs of committees in this House operate—and I entirely hope that all Members of your Lordships’ House will endorse what the noble Lord said about her rapid recovery to full health.
Prisons: Overcrowding
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
That this House takes note of the level of overcrowding in prisons.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, when opening the debate here on prison reform early last year, the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, now our esteemed Lord Speaker, recalled that when in the 1970s the prison population first exceeded 40,000, the Times published a series of articles under the heading “The Prisons Crisis”. Today, there are over 85,000 prisoners and, on present trends, this number is projected to rise in a very few years to over 90,000. Can anyone doubt that today our prisons truly are in crisis—seriously overcrowded, understaffed and volatile—and that the solution cannot be simply to build more, but lies rather in adopting fresh approaches to reducing their population and restoring what is now almost entirely lost: the real prospect of prison sentences actually being used to reform and rehabilitate inmates?
I need spend little time establishing that there are too many people in prison. Numerous statistics bear it out. The percentage of our population serving prison sentences is almost twice that in Germany, let alone Scandinavia, and very substantially higher than in most of the developed world. Our standard sentences are routinely substantially longer than elsewhere. The statistics are yet more striking when it comes to indeterminate sentences: astonishingly, in England and Wales, more people are sentenced to an indeterminate term than in all the other 46 countries of the Council of Europe combined.
Nor, surely, do I need to linger long on the many and acute problems which result from prison overcrowding. Inevitably I must generalise, so let me acknowledge at once the many caring and conscientious prison staff and governors who do their very best to overcome these problems. Their efforts notwithstanding, the consequences of overcrowding are all too evident. Almost one-fifth of prisoners are doubled up in single cells or tripled in cells for two, often sharing an open, unscreened toilet. Many spend up to 23 hours a day in these squalid conditions. Often prisons are without functioning classrooms, workshops, teachers or any of the other services or supports needed to help inmates to deal with problems and prepare them for release and resettlement. In short, warehousing has largely replaced rehabilitation.
Small wonder that prison riots and disturbances are no longer a rarity; prisons are dangerous places. Who can forget the finding by the Chief Inspector of Prisons in July that in not a single YOI is it safe to house a child? Small wonder, too, that in the last year there were more than 26,000 assaults in prison, including more than 7,000 on prison staff, that many prison officers suffer stress-related illnesses, and that there were more than 40,000 incidents of self-harm among inmates and 97 self-inflicted deaths. It is hardly surprising that, as the BMA has briefed, incarceration often leads to deterioration in physical and mental health, with the prisoner’s fragile state of mind all too often having played a part in his original offending. It is unsurprising, too, that the illegal use of drugs and mobile phones and the corruption, addiction, debt and violence that generally go with them represent widespread and persistent problems, such problems unlikely to be eradicated by 300 sniffer dogs and the hand-held mobile detectors promised by the Lord Chancellor in his Evening Standard article last month.
Perhaps least surprising of all is the high rate of recidivism following a prison sentence. In that same newspaper article, the Lord Chancellor expressly recognised that about half of those sent to jail will end up back behind bars. Some years ago, a Home Secretary famously suggested that “prison works”, above all in keeping prolific professional burglars out of our houses. Whether or not that was ever so, it manifestly is not today. Rather, it militates against any chance of effective rehabilitation, and once again we see the crime figures steadily on the rise. So the £1.3 billion now promised to the MoJ should be devoted not to catering for an ever-larger prison population but rather to improving the prison estate and facilities to prepare existing and future inmates for release.
The present continuing upward spiral must end, so let me briefly suggest four basic imperatives as to how—although, alas, with no sufficient time to develop them. First, send fewer people to prison and for shorter terms. Secondly, indefinite sentences, which are now commonplace, should become a rarity. Thirdly, facilitate prison release. Fourthly, drastically cut the number of recalls.
First and foremost, of course, we must end prison sentence inflation—its upward spiral. All too often, we hear of some dreadful fresh offence and, in common doubtless with many others—not just Daily Mail readers—whether it be a case of child cruelty, the torture of some elderly person to extract his savings or the recent spate of moped riders hurling acid into people’s faces, my first reaction is to lock the perpetrators up and throw away the key: avenge the victims or, at the very least, mark society’s outrage by raising the statutory maximum for the offence.
Indeed, that has often been Parliament’s reaction over recent years, but unfortunately—although perhaps occasionally justifiable in the case, say, of terrorist offences—its inevitable consequence has been to ratchet up sentences across the board. Even now, there is under consideration—subject to consultation and apparently gaining widespread public support—a proposal to increase from 14 years to life the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving. Earlier this year, Parliament doubled the maximum sentences available for stalking and harassment offences, variously from five years to 10 and, in aggravated cases, from seven to 14 years. Before that, in 2014, the maximum sentence under the Dangerous Dogs Act was increased from two years to 14 years. In 2015, contrary to the judges’ advice, minimum custodial terms were introduced for carrying knives, both for second possession offences and for first offences where accompanied by threats.
And, of course, by Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, the Act which first introduced the ill-starred IPP sentence scheme, the minimum terms to be served by mandatory life prisoners were fixed at substantially higher levels than ever before—through later amendments they have twice since been raised higher still—so they have risen steadily from an average of 12 and a half years in 2003 to, I think, over 21 years now.
The Sentencing Council—a largely judicial body created by statute in 2009—is loyally responsive to these demonstrations of Parliament’s will. As a result, guideline sentences have become progressively longer to maintain some sort of coherence across the entire spectrum of criminal offending. Reducing the length of prison sentences requires, above all, political will, not judicial policy-making. I urge Parliament to amend the council’s statutory remit to include among its aims the overall reduction of the prison population.
If one pauses for a moment and asks in the abstract how long a sentence should be—whether, say, a dangerous driver, a burglar or a historic sex offender should serve 10 or five years, or whatever—what logic dictates that answer? Assuming he does not need to be confined long term for reasons of public safety, but that some immediate custodial disposal is called for, how many weeks, months or years does due punishment—just retribution—require that he be locked up in a squalid cell away from his family and friends, and deprived of most else that makes life worth living? In terms of deterrence, while plainly it is important to catch, prosecute and convict offenders, there is no evidence to suggest that, whatever is fixed as the standard sentence, it is of any consequence in deterring criminal behaviour—least of all crimes of sex and violence. The first imperative, therefore, is fewer and shorter sentences, suspended wherever possible.
Secondly, we should impose infinitely fewer indefinite sentences, of which there are many different kinds, and to which currently over 11,000 prisoners are subject. Inevitably, they suffer uncertainty and hopelessness, unsettling for all those around them, not least their families. As is increasingly widely recognised, the IPP regime is a clear case in point. Despite its abolition in 2012, some 3,300 IPP prisoners are yet to be released, the majority having served for many years—some over 10 years—beyond their tariff terms. Truly, this is preventive detention—in effect, internment. It is a stain on our criminal justice system and it must end.
The third imperative is to facilitate the release of those who have served their minimum terms—indeed, ideally, to release them earlier still. Additional resources should be provided for training, education and suitable courses. Never should release be delayed because the Parole Board is insufficiently resourced to process it speedily. The burden of proving safety for release, which is almost impossible for the prisoner to discharge, should—as the chairman of the Parole Board himself recently suggested—shift on to those seeking his continued detention. Neither should release have to be delayed because of insufficient accommodation in probation hostels for long-sentence prisoners to live in under supervision in the community, the subject of a Times article last month.
The temporary release scheme, whereby prisoners are prepared for release by allowing them out during the day to undertake paid or voluntary work, has been greatly restricted over recent years, most regrettably, despite its previous record of almost 100% success. It should be fully restored. Indeed, I would go further and urge the scheme’s extension to encompass also, whenever possible, those actually serving sentences so that family relationships can be preserved, employment prospects improved and institutionalisation kept at bay.
The fourth and final imperative is that, once a prisoner has finally secured his release, he should not thereafter readily be recalled. The number of those in prison for breach of their licence conditions has grown from 150 in 1995 to over 6,000 today, including over 700 IPP prisoners, whose rate of recall almost matches their rate of release, an issue on which the Howard League is currently engaged. Recall should be used only exceptionally. As it is, the majority are largely for technical reasons: failing to attend a probation officer appointment, spending a night away from a notified address and so forth. The actual numbers of recalls have grown immeasurably. In 2000-01, there were just over 3,000 recalls to custody. In the year ending this March, over 21,000 were recalled, including 8,000 who had served under eight months. Indeed, since the Offender Rehabilitation Act, nearly 15,000 of those serving under a year have been recalled, generally for just 14 or 28 days. In short, the part-privatisation of the probation service and the eligibility for recall of those sentenced to under 12 months are proving just as problematic as many here predicted when these measures were introduced.
I am conscious that I have had time only to sketch in some of the problems and suggest some of the required solutions. I must end. I have not even touched on many of the problems affecting the Prison Service today—for example, those arising from an ever-ageing prison population, including many serving long sentences for historic sex abuse, cases nowadays representing over half the Crown Courts’ workload. Truly, prisons are in crisis. Indeed, the very fact that over 30 noble Lords, most with deep knowledge and experience in this field, are down to speak is some indication of the enormous public concern about the situation in our prisons today. I greatly look forward to their contributions, all too brief, though, alas, they must be.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will have observed that we are very tight for time in this debate. I respectfully remind them that when the clock shows three, any further utterances are technically out of time.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, first, I warmly congratulate the noble and learned Lord on initiating a most distinguished and eminent debate, and on a very thoughtful contribution—as one would expect from a former justice of the Supreme Court.
I particularly welcome the current President-elect of the Supreme Court. When I first became involved in criminal justice matters 42 years ago as a very young magistrate, I became chairman of the juvenile court in Lambeth and was absolutely aware that the judiciary was coping with the consequences of poverty, disadvantage, illiteracy and domestic upheaval. In one young judge, Brenda Hale, I found a person who was interested in debating whether or not sentencing made any difference. I used to sit with a stipendiary who said, “In the public interest you must go to a detention centre”. I used to say, “In the public interest we know that if they go to a detention centre, they have an 80% chance of reoffending”—so a more thoughtful, analytical approach to sentencing is evidently part of this situation. The other areas of IPPs, prison release and cutting recalls are also critically important.
But I am afraid the idea that there was ever a mythical day when it all worked beautifully is nonsense. Dr Helen Johnston of the criminology department at the wonderful University of Hull has done a tremendous longitudinal study of prison, going right back to the middle of the 19th century. She states:
“The use of custodial sentences today are just as financially costly and ineffective as they have always been, and they will continue to damage chances of rehabilitation from the outset. For over a hundred years the use of custody has cut away connections and support-networks in the community. Sentenced offenders lose their residences, their jobs, and sometimes also their family-relationships as soon as they go through the doors of the prison”.
Now, people will talk about prison education and prison health. I felt very strongly about ensuring that prison health was part of the National Health Service, not outside it. But I have a different call for action. When Nick Hardwick stepped down as the Chief Inspector of Prisons, he described as “appalling” the sector’s,
“lack of imagination and … failure of empathy”.
What I am calling for, and believe we are beginning to see, is a real presence of imagination and a much more genuine empathy. I used to have debates in another place in the mid-1980s on prisons. Nobody was interested; it was not a subject that would have attracted as many speakers as there are today. The only way we are going to address these issues is by community mobilisation. This is not just the Justice Department but all departments of Government; and it is not just prisons but whole communities.
I argue that the police and crime commissioners, now in their second iteration, are much more appropriate and able to create partnerships. The new community rehabilitation companies are beginning to work well. Above all, the voluntary sector is now coming forward with massively impressive schemes. I have worked closely with Working Chance, which is working with employers to find work for women prisoners. The wonderful KeepOut scheme in Surrey is using prisoners to educate others.
All in all, we have to work together to create a community for change. We need innovation, ingenuity, collaboration and determination—and I believe we really can turn the tide.
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for securing it at such a critical time, as this summer of unrest has shown.
We are facing a crisis that shows no sign of ending. Without a reduction in the numbers going to prison, there can be no solution to overcrowding. Together, England and Wales have the highest imprisonment rate in western Europe. The prison system as a whole has been overcrowded in every year since 1994. People in prison, both prisoners and staff, are less safe than they have been at any time, with more self-inflicted deaths, self-harm and assaults than ever before.
I have two suggestions to reduce the numbers going to prison. First, we should urgently review the use of short-term sentencing and reverse the sharp decline in community orders. Secondly, we should stop the imprisonment of women for non-violent offences and invest more in women’s centres. The Government should cancel plans for new women’s prisons and spend the resources instead on a network of women’s centres. Imprisoning women for a short time results in loss of employment and housing—and, worst of all, in their children being taken into care, often with devastating consequences.
The number of women in prison has more than doubled since 1993: there are now nearly 2,300 more women in prison today than there were in 1993. On 16 June this year there were 3,994 women in prison in England and Wales, and 8,447 women were sent to prison in the year to December 2016, either on remand or to serve a sentence.
Most women entering prison under sentence have committed a non-violent offence, with theft offences accounting for nearly half of all custodial sentences given to women in 2016. As a result, most women entering prison serve a very short sentence: 70% of sentenced women entering prison in the year to December 2016 were serving six months or less. Short sentences do not allow for a programme of rehabilitation, education and training to take effect or for the health and social needs that many women face on entering custody to be addressed. Many are already damaged, with 53% reporting having experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse as a child. There were 12 self-inflicted deaths of women in prisons in England and Wales in 2016. My noble friend Lady Corston made important recommendations in her report a decade ago that are still relevant today.
Reducing the use of short prison sentences would ease pressure throughout the prison estate. They are not only wasteful but ineffective, with 60% of people serving sentences of 12 months or less reoffending within one year of release. Now is the time to rethink sentencing and imprisoning women unnecessarily.
Lord McNally (LD)
My Lords, being called so early gives me the opportunity to be the first to remind the House that it was the Liberal Home Secretary, Winston Churchill, over 100 years ago, who said that the measurement of a society’s civilisation was how it treated its prisoners. There is no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, demonstrated in his forensic presentation, that the case for prison reform is overwhelming. As preparation for this debate I read the reflections of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on his five and a half years as Prisons Minister—I mean inspector—and over 14 years ago the subtitle of his book, Prisongate, was,
“The shocking state of Britain’s prisons and the need for visionary change”.
Fewer than seven weeks ago, the Chief Inspector of Prisons warned us that the situation was getting worse.
The case is therefore there, so why does nothing happen? One point where I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, is the idea that we would get a more enlightened debate at the other end. I fear that part of the problem of prison reform is that in a way, the whole of our Prison Service is like a paddle steamer driven by two paddles, but they go in different directions. One paddle is egged on by the media, influenced by public opinion and by politicians who, when given the hard choice between backing the difficult decision or playing for the politics of fear, have too often chosen the latter, and by political parties of all kinds, which, when it comes to elections, put out their leaflets telling their would-be voters how crime is rising and how they are going to deal with it. That paddle, pounding away, always makes it difficult to get the case for reform.
We therefore have to understand that the debate today, which will be overwhelmingly in favour of sensible reform, still has to pass that test of how we get a Secretary of State, a Prisons Minister and a Prime Minister who are willing to drive the reforms through. The building blocks are there: the Corston report on women, the Bradley report on mental health, the Harris report on deaths in custody, the Laming report on looked-after children, Dame Sally Coates’s report on education in prisons, and Charlie Taylor’s report on an education-led reform of youth custody. What is required is the political will. I would like to see the Prisons Minister at the Bar. I hope he reads this full debate and takes some courage from what he reads.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I salute my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood for tabling this important debate, on an issue that has bedevilled the conduct of imprisonment for far too long. Time allows me to mention only two possible ameliorations, neither of them new, of which I hope the Minister will take note.
Giving evidence to my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf’s masterly inquiry into the riots in Strangeways and other prisons in 1990, the then Director-General of the Prison Service, Mr Train, justifying his contention that:
“for improvement to be solid and service-wide, the canker of overcrowding must be rooted out”,
said that,
“the life and work of the Prison Service have, for the last 20 years, been distorted by the problems of overcrowding. That single factor has dominated prisoners’ lives, it has produced often intolerable pressure on the staff, and as a consequence it has soured industrial relations. It has skewed managerial effort and it has diverted it away from positive developments. The removal of over-crowding is … an indispensable pre-condition of sustained and universal improvement in prison conditions”.
My noble and learned friend recommended a new prison rule that no establishment should be allowed to hold more than 3% of its certified level of accommodation for longer than three months without the permission of the Secretary of State, about which he had to inform Parliament. The then Home Secretary, now the noble Lord, Lord Baker, followed the inquiry with a White Paper containing 12 priorities for the way ahead for the Prison Service, including to end overcrowding. Sadly, none has yet been implemented by any successor Secretary of State, nor has the proposed Prison Rule.
My second point involves cell certification, for which, under the Prison Commission, inspectors were responsible, but which the Home Office brought in-house when it took over the running of prisons in 1963. As Chief Inspector, I felt it quite wrong that the Prison Service should be both judge and jury on how many prisoners might be held in each cell. I agitated that I should be made responsible for advising the Secretary of State on when overcrowding had become so bad in a particular prison that further intakes of prisoners should be forbidden—my request was refused.
Of course, ministerial and parliamentary oversight of the numbers, and cell certification by the inspectorate, will not by themselves root out the canker of over- crowding. But if the Prison Service’s distortion of its role is to be rooted out, Ministers and officials must stop ignoring, and start listening, to the clarion calls of those who, for years, have been drawing their attention to the damage that overcrowding does to a system for which they are responsible and accountable to the public.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester
My Lords, I too am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for bringing this debate. I rather wish that the slight slip of the tongue of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in first referring to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as a former Minister for Prisons had been true, but there we are.
I recall a visit in my capacity as Bishop to Her Majesty’s Prisons, to one of our prisons and encountering a young man who was visibly distressed and disturbed, sitting against a wall with his hands over his ears, unable to cope with the general noise and hubbub on a prison wing—not least an overcrowded prison wing. I talked to one of the officers on that wing, who was relatively newly recruited and new in post; he was clearly there because of a really positive motivation, wanting to make a difference and with a vocation to work in the Prison Service. However, he was very conscious that because of responsibility to the whole wing, he was unable to give that distressed young prisoner the focused attention that was required.
We have in our prisons many governors, chaplains, staff, volunteers and officers like the one I have just described, who seriously want to make a difference, have a vocation for this work and are committed, and who want to see what is the aspiration of the Prison Service come to fruition, namely to create a rehabilitative culture. Sadly, it is largely a matter of numbers, more particularly, the ratio between numbers and staffing, which frustrates that desire and aspiration in so many ways. So many of the good interventions, programmes and possibilities delivered by staff, volunteers and many others are not able to fulfil their potential in bringing transformation and in turning around people’s lives. If that ratio between staff and prisoner numbers is too stretched, then these programmes cannot be delivered, the relationships are not built and there is no such transformation.
There are two particular things I would like to take this opportunity to address to Her Majesty’s Government. One relates to those, of whom there are far too many in prison, who have serious mental health conditions. Can conversations between the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health be seriously ratcheted up to address that issue, with serious proposals about alternative provision for people for whom prison is not the right place to be because of their mental health conditions? That would have a significant effect on the prison population. Secondly, will Her Majesty’s Government give serious attention to the consultation that is being undertaken by the Scottish Government at the moment, which will bring in a presumption against sentences shorter than 12 months, and to ask whether there are lessons to be learned for the Prison Service on the back of that consultation, and for sentencing policy in England and Wales?
It is crucial, if prison is going to do what we all want it to do, that these issues are addressed, so I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for bringing forward this opportunity for us to hear the wisdom of so many within this House.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, there are far too many people in prison who ought not to be there at all. I have been concerned for some time about what can best be described as inflation in the length of the sentences being imposed by the courts. In England and Wales, the average length of a custodial sentence in 2007 was 12.4 months. In March 2017, it was 16.6 months—an increase of about one-quarter over the decade. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, pointed out, the tariffs for life sentences have increased too. In 2005, the average tariff in England and Wales was 15.7 years. By 2015, it had increased to 21.2 years. These are shocking increases. Why has this happened and what purpose is it serving? The Sentencing Council should be asked to examine the phenomenon of sentence inflation, to consider whether these increases now serve any useful purpose and to find ways of reversing the increases where they do not.
The effect of overcrowding is that the opportunity for effective rehabilitation is greatly reduced. On the other hand, many more prisoners are being recalled now for breach of licence conditions than ever before. The Transforming for Rehabilitation programme, introduced by the previous Government in February 2015, requires all those sentenced to a custodial term of less than 12 months to be subject to supervision for 12 months on release and to be eligible for recall. Since that date, there have been nearly 15,000 recalls of people serving these short sentences. This means that the number of people in prison on any day for breaching licence conditions has increased from 150 in June 1995 to 6,500 in March 2017—another shocking figure.
After all, the majority of those recalled are being sent back to prison for technical reasons only, such as failing to attend appointments with probation officers. They have not reoffended. They are in prison for a few days only, before being released again. The only purpose of this is to prevent reoffending by further rehabilitation. But what is the point of recalling prisoners for breach of conditions when, due to lack of resources, the rehabilitation element is largely absent?
This, like the IPP problem to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has drawn attention so frequently, is a policy—no doubt well meaning—that has gone badly wrong. The good intentions that lie behind these measures are not being matched by a commitment to provide the funding necessary to make them work. The Government need to address the reasons for these rises in prison numbers as much as they need to address the physical problems the overcrowding gives rise to.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for facilitating this timely debate and I endorse his comments, particularly with regard to IPP prisoners. The prison system in England and Wales has been characterised for the last 30 years by overcrowding, building programme challenges, disorder and the absence of any reductionist strategy. The number of prisoners incarcerated in England and Wales has risen by 1,200 since May 2017 to over 86,000, despite the fact that fewer cases are coming before the courts. That is not because more criminals are being caught and sent down, but because a higher proportion of offenders are getting prison sentences and those sentences are getting longer, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned a moment ago.
Projections show that numbers in custody are likely to increase by another 1,600 by 2022. If so, at least one more prison will be needed. Incidentally, our priority in Wales is to secure our first women’s prison. The latest statistics show that not only sexual and violent offenders are getting tougher punishments from the courts. In 2010, less than a quarter of people convicted of theft went to jail, but last year the corresponding figure was almost 30%. Average prison terms as a whole have risen from under 14 months to over 16 months over the last seven years, as has been noted.
Research is needed to clarify whether the courts are hearing more serious cases or seeing more prolific offenders. The reduction by half in the police cautioning rates suggests that in all probability, more less-serious cases are coming before the courts than was the case seven years ago. Since 2010, the proportion of indictable crimes resulting in a community order fell from 25% to 20%. For so-called either-way offences, it fell from 42% to 37% over the same time period. It seems that these options are less attractive to the judiciary.
Violence in prisons is at record levels, including a 20% increase in assaults over the past year. The Howard League reports that 264 men and women have died in the 10 most recently opened prisons since 1997. There have been 8,188 recorded incidents of self-injury and 3,952 recorded assaults.
In a poll published last week, when asked what would be the most effective way of cutting crime, just 7% of respondents said “jail more people”. The majority advocated more police on the streets, better parenting, greater discipline in schools or better rehabilitation, yet successive Governments over the last 30 years have opted for building ever more jails as their solution. We desperately need a new fundamental review of the whole strategy of preventing crime, rehabilitating offenders and building communities at peace with themselves. We need radical new thinking and we need it very soon.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has highlighted, as have others, the unspeakable toll of suicides and self-harm pointing to the distressing rates of mental disorder in prisons. It is that that I wish, as a psychiatrist, to draw attention to today, since overcrowding is both a cause and a consequence of the negative impact of mental illness. I am not going to plough through the statistics, which are already so well known to those speaking here today, but I concur totally with the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, who said we need a totally new cultural and social approach to address the difficulties of crime and the mental disorder that so often goes with it.
The National Audit Office’s excoriating report on mental health in prisons, published in June this year, paints an alarming picture of what prison is for someone with mental health problems. Admirable intentions are not being delivered on the ground and cannot even be measured. We put money into policies and we have no idea whether they are being delivered, simply because we have no way of measuring and there is nobody who can do the measuring. So policy ambitions are not being addressed. Of course, the prison regime is most likely to lead to depression, anomie and disturbed behaviour. Inside prisons the situation is dire. There are long waiting lists for mental health clinics. Dozens of new prisoners arrive every week and spookily disappear just as quickly as they arrive, either discharged on the constant merry-go-round or moved to other prisons on the great train traffic to somewhere else. That totally curtails the ability of psychiatric and mental health services in prison to address the problems. Since we have Spice these days, which is the new flavour of death in prisons, matters are getting worse.
Preparing for this debate today I asked a colleague who works in the forensic service in Birmingham to tell me about a recent visit to prison to see patients there. He said:
“When we arrived, so-called recovery worker ‘offenders’ outnumbered the exhausted looking prison officers, who encouraged us to wander between wings unescorted. No one recalled asking us to attend and, as we sat waiting, prisoners came to see us, seemingly unnoticed by prison officers, questioning us about psychoactive drugs and so on. Offenders were friendly enough, but it felt like a phase of pre-anarchy as boundaries were breaking down because of the lack of staff available to deal with what appeared to be a very disturbed group of prisoners”.
My time is up, but it is clear that we cannot continue with this shameful position. Yes, we could have more mental health services but, frankly, it will not make any difference unless we solve the problem of how we are pouring people into the criminal justice system.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we are all extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, not only for today’s debate and the manner in which he introduced it, but for all he has done over so many years to bring this to the notice of your Lordships’ House.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, reminded us of the Churchill test. We should be collectively ashamed that we have failed it. We should constantly remind ourselves that punishment is sending somebody to prison, and the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. That has been neglected and forgotten for so long. One of the reasons, I fear, is the commercialisation of prisons. I really feel that incarcerating people is the role of the state and I do not believe that private prisons should have any part of it.
Many things can be done to avoid custodial sentences. I saw at first hand in Northern Ireland the very effective community restorative justice scheme. We could do much more on that front. We should set ourselves a target that by 2025 no prisoner should have to share a cell. Every prisoner should have an individual lavatory in his or her cell. No prisoner should ever be locked up for more than 12 hours in 24—and preferably for less than that—and should be given reasonable and challenging things to do while in prison. Every prisoner who remains clean of drugs and mobile phones and does not partake in violence should qualify at a very early stage for remission. Those who do not should have their conduct drawn to their attention by not being eligible.
We have to try to reduce the prison population. If we do not, we will continue to connive at perpetuating a blemish on our society. We are collectively indicting our own civilisation on our civilised values. I hope that the Secretary of State for Justice will heed my call for a target date and will set about achieving it.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, in this debate, for which I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I wish to focus on one aspect only—the impact of overcrowding on self-inflicted deaths.
The number of self-inflicted deaths has risen sharply in recent years. In the year to June 2017, for example, there were 97 suicides. This was a slight fall from the previous year’s figure of 107 but a steep rise from the 53 reported in 2012. People in prison are between five and 10 times more likely to commit suicide than the general population. This number is far too high. It is also important to note in relation to this the number of incidents of self-harm. There were nearly 40,000 incidents reported last year, up 24% on the previous year.
Overcrowding in prisons and the shortage of prison staff impact on the safety of prisoners, especially the vulnerable, in a number of ways. For example, there are fewer staff available to keep an eye on prisoners and especially to develop enough of a relationship with them to notice when something is seriously amiss. There is less time to observe any change of mood or to interact with them. Prisoners interviewed about the situation said that it was very difficult to speak to their personal officer as they were always far too busy. This is further accentuated by the loss of experienced staff and the advent of new staff without the necessary experience and training to look for signs of distress. Vulnerable prisoners need to be able to trust staff enough to confide in them when they feel suicidal. They can do that only if there is some face-to-face contact.
Overcrowding also means that there are fewer education opportunities, workshops, teachers, healthcare resources or resettlement and support services for the size of the population the prison holds, resulting in prisoners spending up to 23 hours a day in their cells. It means they are unable to go to classes or to engage in other activities to help them cope, including being able to speak on the phone to loved ones. It means that prisoners are more likely to miss their regular health checks because of a lack of prison staff to escort them.
The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s annual report for 2016-17 said that,
“suicide prevention procedures are still badly in need of updating and streamlining, without which I continue to question their fitness for purpose”.
Overcrowding also means that whenever a risk issue arises there will be total lockdown of the prison for 23 hours, increasing the sense of isolation of prisoners.
It is a terrible sadness when someone commits suicide, a tragedy which is felt very grievously by the family and friends of the person concerned. When a person is in prison the state has a particular responsibility to do all it can to ensure that they do not develop a state of mind where suicide is what they are tempted to do. Prison can lead to a sense of isolation, mental fragility and a feeling of hopelessness. For the reasons that I have outlined very briefly, the present overcrowding makes the situation much worse and is totally unacceptable.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, for many years I was a member of the board of visitors—now known as monitors—at a young offender institution. The 2016-17 report by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons for England and Wales should make people who read it realise that improvements must be made. I did not see monitors mentioned once. I ask the Minister: are monitors still involved in trying to highlight needs and improve conditions, as we did? What is their present role? When 78 of the 116 prisons in England and Wales are overcrowded there are many risks.
Things have changed over the years and they are now much more complex. There has always been a problem with alcohol abuse, but prisons are now recording surging levels of violence, self-harm and drug use. It is deeply concerning that the incidence of self-inflicted death and self-harm among women in prison has risen dramatically. Many young adult prisoners spend less than two hours a day out of their cells. It is no wonder that many are depressed. Is this due to shortages of staff, or could the system be more humane? How is the drive to recruit more prison officers proceeding? Are there facilities to train them adequately?
Apart from overcrowding and the shortage of staff, there is the challenge of prisoners with mental and physical health problems and a growing population of elderly prisoners who need extra care. If there was a more comprehensive aftercare system for vulnerable prisoners when discharged, with ongoing rehabilitation and a place to live for those who are homeless, maybe there would not be so much recidivism, which is one reason for prison overcrowding. Discharging vulnerable prisoners on a Friday, with no care plan in place, is asking for trouble. What hope is there for a better system?
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I also congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, on this debate and on his excellent opening speech. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. In this short time I will raise three issues relating to overcrowding. First, as we have heard, reform is urgently required of indeterminate sentences for public protection. I support an approach recommended by the Prison Reform Trust, based on the three principles of convert, protect and rehabilitate. IPP sentences should be converted from indeterminate to fixed-length sentences, starting with the shortest tariff lengths where the greatest injustice seems to have occurred. The public should be protected with a guaranteed minimum licence period for all cases following release. As to rehabilitation, we should ensure that a proper investment is made in the support of IPP prisoners after release.
Secondly, as we have heard, overcrowding has a dramatic impact on the health and well-being of prisoners. Despite improvements in prison healthcare following the transfer of commissioning to the NHS, overcrowding limits the opportunity for effective treatment, particularly for those with mental health problems, learning disabilities and other complex needs. We know that 26% of women and 16% of men said that they had received treatment for mental health problems in the year before custody and that three in 10 people assessed in prison in 2015-16 reported that they had a learning disability or difficulty. The national rollout of liaison and diversion schemes can therefore make a real contribution to reducing overcrowding. Following my report in 2009, and the support of successive Governments, 75% of the country is now covered by such services, with the ambition for 100% coverage by 2019-20. Such services include: street triage, where the police and health staff work together on our streets to identify and assess people requiring crisis care intervention; and health staff working in police custody suites and the courts to identify and assess people with health needs. This would enable the police to make more informed decisions on charging, proportionate to the offence that has been committed, or consider the option of diverting the person to appropriate health and social care facilities and services. The courts would then receive information about the mental health and other complex needs of the individual at their first appearance, enabling magistrates to make a more timely decision, reducing the use of remand—particularly important for women offenders—and using community sentences with treatment orders instead of custodial sentences.
Thirdly, the current delays in transfer from prison to psychiatric units of prisoners approved for such a move exacerbate the overcrowding problem and are totally unacceptable. I therefore hope that the Minister will support the continued development of liaison and diversion services and see it as part of the solution to the intolerable overcrowding in our prisons.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in April it was reported that in the previous 12 months there were 344 deaths in prison, up by 19%, of which 113 were self-inflicted. Self-harm incidents increased by 24%; assault incidents were up 27%; and assaults on staff were up by 38%. All this was described as,
“a relentless decline in safety”.
Prison officers cannot be expected to deal effectively with this crisis when their own numbers have been reduced over the past seven years, from 25,000 to 18,000. Compromised safety, the associated violence and the availability of drugs, especially psychoactive drugs such as spice—even entering prisons by drones—and plummeting morale among staff within an environment are not conducive to reform, rehabilitation or a reduction in reoffending.
Half of 15 to 17 year-olds in young offender institutions have the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a seven to 11 year-old. This pattern repeats itself among prisoners who have no qualifications, about half of whom are functionally illiterate. Victor Hugo was right when he said, “He who opens a school door closes a prison.”
Prisoners whom I met during a visit to Birmingham prison told me that, unless we break the Gordian knot that ties them into a pattern of reoffending and reimprisonment, their lives will become utterly devoid of hope. What is happening to the Government’s proposals for getting prisoners into jobs after release, for ensuring that prisoners learn English and maths and for league tables to evaluate progress on education? Where do education, training, secure schools and young offender institutions fit into the long-term strategy?
I have drawn the Minister’s attention to the 60% of prisoners sentenced to less than 12 months in custody who go on to commit further crimes and to the overall reoffending rate of 45%—one of the highest in Europe—reflecting the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe, with 148 prisoners per 100,000 of the population.
This is not just about a failure to promote reform or to work out how many prisoners can be crammed like sardines into a tin. Consider also the danger of prisons being used by jailed hate preachers acting as self-styled “emirs” to capitalise on gang culture to recruit susceptible inmates. Or consider the consequences of open-ended sentences for non-violent prisoners, who are captives of a system that seems too often to have forgotten them. We then see some of the other dimensions of jails that have become simmering cauldrons of unrest.
As others have said, we need an entirely new culture in our prisons and a different attitude to the way in which we run them—one that passes, as the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord McNally, said earlier, the Churchill test of civilisation. These are just some of the reasons why we should all be grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Brown for laying this Motion for debate before your Lordships today.
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (CB)
My Lords, the facts have all been stated, and the reports are labyrinthine. We understand the heart of the difficult arguments, and now it is time to move towards answers and solutions, to cut the cost to the public purse and to stop the unnecessary incarceration of men and women who do not need to be in prison.
I start with a reflection on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, about empathy. In order to help me think a bit better about this debate and issue, I visited a lifer just three weeks ago in one of Her Majesty’s prisons in Kent. I had an hour and a half with a man who is serving nearly a 20-year sentence and has done nearly 10 years already, and found him sensitive, erudite, thoughtful, persuasive, interesting, challenging, and with deep intellectual pursuits. However, he had been written off at one point by the courts as simply a man to be thrown behind bars with no early point of release. That made me realise that not just that man alone but multitudes of others, both men and women, need to be let out of prison considerably earlier.
When we apply the empathy test to understand that a man or woman has changed and their character has been reformed, instead of pouring £50,000 on average of my tax money into sustaining that man in prison, I would rather invest the money instead in enterprise and employment. I would rather secure him into a way beyond the prison. I would rather let out multitudes of men who have shown the ability to seek character reform and therefore see them productive taxpayers contributing to society—maybe held under some form of a licence and check, in order to secure society’s desire to see punishment done. But I would not wish us to continue to have a system that simply pays into a pot that contains but does nothing to reform and to rebuild.
This Government, along with the previous Government, have spent millions—I think the estimate is in the region of £54 million a year—on character education in schools. That is vital expenditure, and we all agree with it. Why not spend tens of millions on character education and development and supportive networks for offenders and those within prison, and once they have passed the test of responsible citizenship, give them the opportunity for work and responsibility? Why not invest our tax resources instead in their futures, and not in containing people in the despair and hopelessness of prison?
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, our prisons are a national embarrassment. Fifty years ago, I served as trustee of the William House Trust, a home for discharged prisoners in Manchester providing accommodation and employment help. I want to focus my remarks on the need to reduce recidivism by providing training and employment opportunities for offenders.
The retailer Timpson is probably the best example in this regard, with 10% of its workforce ex-offenders and the provision of training opportunities in prisons. Other companies have some sort of involvement: Boots, Greggs, Halfords, McDonald’s, Pret a Manger, Toyota and Whitbread. But they and others could do so much more. There are huge opportunities, particularly in the hospitality sector and within building trades, both of which have severe skills shortages. I have six specific recommendations.
First, prison governors should build bridges with firms in their locality and liaise with local chambers of commerce. National employers should encourage local managers to visit prisons and establish a dialogue.
Secondly, the Ministry of Justice should appoint a senior, perhaps retired, person from the private sector to work full-time on encouraging employers to participate, ideally perhaps a major national figure.
Thirdly, public companies should report their involvement in this whole area in their annual reports.
Fourthly, the Justice Secretary and Ministers should create an award, similar perhaps to the Queen’s Award for Enterprise or Investors in People, and have an annual awards event acknowledging best practice in this area.
Fifthly, employer organisations such as the CBI, the National Federation of Builders and the British Hospitality Association should be pressured by the highest levels of government to assume greater responsibilities for promoting this work.
Finally, many prisoners have particular trades or skills. Those should be utilised, and the prisoners rewarded for passing on their expertise to other inmates wherever possible. Offenders should be used for smaller building and maintenance project work within their own prisons, preparing them for future employment on release.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on one aspect of my noble and learned friend’s Motion. My only real experience, I am glad to say, of prison life comes from the many years I spent as a trustee of the Koestler Trust, which the Minister will know seeks to provide prisoners with access to the arts and the means to participate in the arts: competitions and material, for example, for the visual arts, music and writing.
It is difficult enough to fulfil these noble aims even when prisoners have the space and time to work on those disciplines. But when prisoners are locked up for 22 or 23 of the 24 hours, and barely have the space to humanely cohabit in their cells, the arts tend to be the first thing to go out of the window. If we seek to reduce recidivism and show that there is another path, we simply have to be a more enlightened society. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly reminded your Lordships that the way in which a society treats its prisoners is a test of its civilisation. In the light of the statistics given by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, I wonder whether the Minister would consider whether we pass or fail this test.
I have seen the quite remarkable transformation that can be achieved by giving an incarcerated person the means to express themselves through acting, music-making, painting and writing. A prisoner wrote to me to say that, had he had the ability to play an instrument when he was a young and wild man, he would not now be serving life for murder. Artistic expression can afford an outlet for turbulence, frustration and pent-up violence, and that release is a vital part of rehabilitation. Without it, more prisoners will turn to drugs, not simply to relieve boredom but as a means of psychological escape.
Overcrowding in prisons is severely hampering the opportunity for rehabilitation and the shining of a light in a dark place to illuminate a more redemptive path.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, people are in prison because they have offended against the rules of a civilised society—and that society should demonstrate and reinforce its own civilised values and intentions when it denies offenders their liberty, as so many of your Lordships have said. The vivid undercover filming by “Panorama” inside HMP Northumberland recently laid bare our failure to do that. It captured the anarchic reality, the Hogarthian horror, of a typical modern British prison: extensive drug use, fevered volatility, prisoners both threatening and frightened, and staff powerless and stressed—conditions in no way conducive to addressing offending behaviour.
How has this happened? It has been a particularly egregious failure of government. Since 2010 there have been five Secretaries of State and a succession of U-turns. The result, as others have said, has been: like-for-like sentence inflation; 25% of prisoners in overcrowded cells; prison staff reduced by 7,000; the leaving rate for officers in this high-stress occupation an unsurprising 10%; 25% of staff now inexperienced and in their first two years of service; and, in spite of a policy reverse and a fresh recruitment drive, a net increase in the 12 months to 31 March this year of just 75 staff. Yes, recruitment has improved since, but still more slowly than prisoner numbers have increased.
The recent prison riot at HMP The Mount occurred when only 20 officers were available over a weekend to supervise 1,000 prisoners under a severely restricted regime. In round figures, deaths in custody are up 20%, self-harm 25%, and assaults on staff 40%—all in one year. These rates of increase are truly alarming and can only prompt grave concern about the immediate period ahead.
What is needed is not more obfuscatory press releases from the MoJ, with numbers unaccompanied by any convincing narrative at all, but an integrated and convincing five-to-10-year plan that moves us ahead of the curve and contains prudent forecasts of prisoner numbers, with plans to build an estate without any overcrowding and with a plan for officer numbers that will allow our prisons to become controlled, disciplined and civilised. Will the Minister agree today to produce such a plan?
The Lord Bishop of Southwark
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, is to be thanked for this timely debate. As some noble Lords are aware, the diocese of Southwark contains five major prison establishments: Belmarsh, Brixton, Thameside, Wandsworth and Isis—though I hasten to add that that last name relates to the river goddess. It is my practice to visit them at the invitation of each Church of England chaplain who holds my licence.
The issue that I wish to raise in this debate is the level of staffing. Issues around the number of inmates and physical space also relate to issues of access and staffing, the activities that staff enable and the relationships that are nurtured. While Her Majesty’s Government announced their intention to recruit an additional 2,500 front-line staff late last year, that came in the wake of a reduction of over 6,000 staff, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has attested, which has compounded the consequences of overcrowding and a rising prison population. The fiscal imperative of staff cuts being played out in our prisons is very risky. For anything meaningful on the landing, spur or wing, one needs staff. Staff will best and most confidently carry out their duties if they know and trust that an able colleague has their back. Proper staffing allows for supervision outside cells and in activities that augment skill, self-insight and a capacity for fruitful encounters on release. As in so many professions, the relational element is key to success.
Educational activity and training for work has suffered only marginally from the cuts, but at the expense of everything else. The named-officer scheme is moribund. Within prisons, the availability of officers to inmates has significantly diminished; they are much less available for association periods or to build relationships, discuss and spot problems, offer advice or discreetly receive information relevant to the security of the prison. We need to ensure that more than basic security, administration and escort is being delivered constantly. I am aware that inmates wishing to attend chapel or Bible study are not able to do so because staff are not available to escort them. This is detrimental to the humanitarian standards that we would wish to see in our prisons. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has drawn attention to the high incidence of suicide in our prisons.
We need to offer our thanks to those who work in our prisons, excellence in which is promoted by the Butler Trust. Prison chaplains minister daily to enable inmates to face life as it is and life as it may be. Their contribution and that of many volunteers has an enormous impact in difficult times. The Lord Chancellor seeks a proper emphasis on rehabilitation in our prisons. It is imperative that we work together to increase hope and ensure that words and aspirations are matched by actions and delivery. There is an urgent need so to do.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, I have thought for some time that we should look at the differences in practice exemplified by other countries with lower rates of imprisonment to see what can be learned from them. In 2012 the National Audit Office spoke of the potential benefit of conducting more research into prison population trends in other countries, and a report from the Criminal Justice Alliance identified some structural features of European criminal justice systems that appeared to be associated with lower rates of imprisonment. These uncannily anticipate all those advocated by my noble and learned friend Lord Brown in his masterly introduction to this debate. They include the greater use of suspended sentences and greater restraint in the imposition of imprisonment for breaches of a community penalty; lower maximum sentences and going rates for particular offences; much less use of mandatory minimum and indeterminate sentences; and the treatment of problems of mental health and drug dependency much more as matters for health and social care than for the criminal justice system.
All these approaches and more are adopted elsewhere. The numbers in prison are lower and the sky does not fall in. We should look not only at the prosecution and sentencing practice of other countries but at what they do instead with those offenders, particularly categories of offender who are no longer sent to prison.
Another report, entitled “A Presumption Against Imprisonment: Social Order and Social Values”, written by eight leading criminologists and academic lawyers and issued by the British Academy in 2014, came to very similar conclusions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, referred to the guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council. These are based almost entirely on the symbolic significance of a prison sentence in reflecting the seriousness of the offence, with little or no regard for instrumental objectives such as making it less likely that the offender will re-offend, protecting the public, or making amends, for example through compensation, community service, or apology. With the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, I want to see the council’s guidelines reviewed in the light of the comparative evidence to which I have drawn attention.
The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 contains provisions that are designed to have an impact on the numbers held on remand if there is little likelihood of a custodial sentence, and a wider range of options for dealing with breaches of community sentences. These have been much less remarked on than the provisions designed to cut the legal aid bill. The Ministry of Justice is about to undertake a post-implementation review of LASPO, and I hope very much that it will give as much attention to the provisions in the Act designed to reduce the numbers in prison as it does to those designed to reduce the numbers receiving legal aid.
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (CB)
My Lords, we are dealing with a problem that successive Governments have failed to solve for over half a century. The cause of that problem is that we send far too many people to prison for far too long: far longer than is necessary for rehabilitation and far longer than is needed to provide an effective deterrent.
How about punishment? That is a legitimate object of imprisonment. The man in the street and, particularly, the victims of crime want to see criminals pay for their wrongdoing, and depriving them of liberty is a legitimate way of satisfying society’s demand for vengeance. But the man in the street is not best placed to decide how long criminals should be kept in prison by way of punishment. That is not a simple task, and ultimately it is Parliament that performs it by laying down a framework of maximum and minimum sentences within which judges exercise relatively limited discretion. In performing that task, Parliament should have regard to the heavy cost to society of keeping people in prison to punish them.
As your Lordships have heard, there has been a phenomenon over the last 40 years of “sentence creep”, brought about largely by well-intentioned but misguided legislative intervention. What is needed is a change in the public attitude to keeping people locked up in prison: a recognition that the cost to society of this form of punishment is prohibitive; that the cost of each year that a man spends in prison simply by way of punishment is depriving us of resources that could otherwise be used to meet urgent social needs, including those that prevent young people turning into criminals. To bring about this change in attitude calls for leadership and courage on the part of Government. The aim should be, for a start, to halve the number of those in prison. IPP prisoners should be released. Old men who no longer pose any threat should not be held in expensive custody. Most importantly, legislation should reverse the trend of requiring ever longer sentences.
This is the ideal time to do that. Current legislation that deals with sentencing extends to over 1,300 pages. The Law Commission has recommended a simplified sentencing code but its recommendations are only procedural. It makes no recommendations in relation to maximum and minimum sentences. These should be reduced, and in some cases removed, to send a signal that the current scale of punishment in this country is unnecessarily severe and beyond our means. Finally, consideration should also be given to a period of prescription for all save the most serious crimes.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that many, if indeed perhaps the majority, of your Lordships speaking here today have had first-hand experience of the prison system from an executive, supervisory or regulatory perspective. My own experience, by contrast, has been limited to visiting the seven prisons in the county where I reside. These visits have provided me with the experience to have an appreciation of the recent comments of the president of the Prison Governors Association, particularly regarding drugs and Islamist extremist activities.
I have had a number of conversations regarding prison officer numbers, the benefit of new, purpose-built prisons as opposed to outdated buildings, which are inefficient in every sense, and the issues surrounding IPP offenders. However, I have been drawn to three particular aspects of the prison system that seemed so anomalous that I subsequently drew them to the attention of the then Secretary of State for Justice, and I think that it is worth reiterating them now in the context of this debate on prison overcrowding.
If a prison governor is obliged by law to take responsibility for the repair of grade 1 and grade 2 listed buildings, it is quite possible that he cannot afford to make those repairs. In response to health and safety regulations, he may have to close those buildings to prisoner access. If the buildings have provided the location for recreational activities or have been the site of vocational or basic skills training which will facilitate employment for prisoners upon their release, similar to those programmes run by the Clink Charity or Timpson, their closure has a psychological impact as well as a physical one. However, the most obvious consequence is a reduction of utilisable space, which in turn adds to the sense of overcrowding. When choosing which old prisons should be closed, I suggest that this consideration should be factored into the argument.
The second consideration arose from observing the increasing number of prisoners who do not have English as their first language, and indeed in some cases barely speak or understand English at all. The need to have translators in court, the difficulty sometimes of obtaining suitably qualified candidates to translate and the delays incurred thereby have been well documented elsewhere. However, when the same problems are exacerbated in prison, a failure by prison staff through no fault of their own to communicate effectively with inmates, and the inability to comprehend inmates’ various dialects and vernaculars and the issues that are particular to their tribal differences, cause delay in administration, which in turn restricts the execution of the system, which in turn leads to overcrowding. I am aware that there is no speedy resolve to these language problems, other than to hasten repatriation where appropriate.
The third consideration arises from looking at the times of prisoner release. If we are endeavouring to assist offenders to integrate back into society as quickly and smoothly as possible, surely one of the worst things we can do is to release them so late in the working day that the safety net of the probation service is unable to be on hand to help them. Release late on a Friday afternoon, with limited ready funds and no protected environment within which to reside, must surely contribute to a higher possibility of reoffending than might otherwise be the case, with the subsequent prison overcrowding that comes as a consequence.
As a further observation, the closure of some of the prison farms has also had detrimental effects. Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the financial debate over whether the sourcing of such food is cost effective, providing offenders with the opportunity to work on the land, away from the immediate confines of prison buildings, has the double benefit of, first, creating less physical overcrowding pressure on these buildings during daylight and working hours, and, secondly, providing the advantage of working outdoors for those whom it temperamentally suits and the possibility thereby of obtaining a training that can have a benefit when they are released.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, the fact is that overcrowding and staff shortages are significant factors in the current failed system. As the noble Baroness, Lady Healy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, have commented respectively, women and people with learning disabilities are particularly vulnerable. Current conditions exacerbate their mental health problems and increase the risk of suicide and sexual assault. Women offenders often have histories of mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder, and prison is a re-traumatising experience for them. Gender and disability awareness both need to be improved, as does appropriate diversion to mental health services.
There is positive work being carried out in prisons. An important example is work carried out by chaplains, as has been mentioned by some Members. This is especially important during people’s first days in prison, when they are at particular risk of self-harm, bullying and isolation. I would like to share the words of one Catholic prisoner, who said:
“On the very first day I came into prison, my chaplain came to my cell. I was devastated getting into prison, but she encouraged me”.
Prison chaplains are trusted by prisoners. They are able to help counter the negative effects of overcrowding by offering personal and pastoral support to the prisoners in their care. I hope the Government will continue to recognise the vital work done by chaplains. But this work is often hindered by the pressure that our prison system is under. Recent research by the Catholic Church found that a quarter of prisoners reported problems accessing chaplaincy.
Pressures created by overcrowding also threaten to undermine the quality and provision of family contact in prison—something particularly relevant to mothers with dependent children. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, stated in a recent review, family ties are as essential to rehabilitation as education and employment. Prisoners who have regular contact with their families are 39% less likely to reoffend. Family contact is often supported by voluntary organisations, such as the Prison Advice and Care Trust. From 2015-16 they supported 96,000 adults and 20,000 children to visit family members in prison, as well as running hundreds of relationship and parenting education programmes for prisoners and their families.
Can the Minister assure this House that neither family contact nor access to chaplaincy will be deprioritised despite the pressures of overcrowding?
Lord Bird (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for arriving five minutes late for the opening of this debate. Please forgive me. It has nothing to do with a lack of interest in this subject. I am very interested in prisons, because prisons are an enormous social machine for producing something we do not want to produce. They are an emergency response to a crisis that is largely around poverty, a lack of good education and other key things. When we look at the average prisoner, we often find average prisoners have a number of similarities.
I, for example, was an average prisoner. I was put away at the age of 14 for stealing a bike. I find it a bit difficult that most noble Lords who have spoken so far talk as though we have now entered a time when we have become aggressive towards people who are doing wrong. Putting a 14-year-old boy into a short, sharp shock, kicking him all over the place for three months and then bringing him out and expecting him to be a good citizen—that sounds pretty mean to me, let alone giving the same boy a three-to-five-year custodial sentence at the age of 15 for stealing £5. What are we talking about? Are we talking about a different world? Have we moved on and are we only now being really terrible to our prisoners?
I find this difficult. I am sorry to raise the issue because I am sure it is looked upon as an illiberal response, but I would like us to look at history and at the ideas around our present situation. My problem with this debate is that it seems a bit like the NHS debate. The NHS debate is enormous, but it always deals with the NHS as though its problems did not arise from the fact that we do not spend the amount of money we should be spending on preventing people from becoming ill. When you go to the hospital across the road, as I did with a doctor, and you find out that 70% of the people there have done things against their own bodies, or they have not taken the right approach, it becomes clear that we need to move towards prevention.
We have a prison population full of people who have failed at school. I failed at school, as did most of the people I knew in prison. When I go into a prison, I ask a simple question: “How did you do at school?”. Virtually all—80%—of them will say, “I failed at school”.
We have these big engines that drive forward. Until we move on to prevention, until we start to dismantle poverty, we will have overcrowded prisons. I am sorry to say this, because overcrowded prisons are not prisons that work. We can be as clever as we like and come up with all sorts of solutions, but let us stop the churn; let us stop the arrival of people in prisons. That is the big, revolutionary need in terms of our thinking.
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I join those who have thanked most warmly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for having made this debate possible. I would also like to say how much I admire the fact that this is not just a debate he has secured; he provides consistent and impressive advocacy on the need for change, not least in the prison system.
It is quite clear from what we have been hearing today that the penal system has failed in its prisons. We see violence, suicides, self-harm, bullying and reoffending. These issues are brought into already dislocated women’s lives and, above all, we have the issue of broken homes. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said, prisons are full of people who should not be there. This is never truer than in the case of prisoners with mental health issues. These prisoners require specific, carefully designed places in which their mental illnesses and difficulties can be tackled constructively.
I emphasise the importance of what the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said. There is an urgent need for a review of our whole penal system—of what it is we are really trying to respond to. We are constantly tackling this with a piecemeal approach. I suggest that, whatever comes out of that review, one thing will remain true. Above all, it will be about rehabilitation. If our system is not rehabilitating people, it is a total failure. There needs to be a culture and a professional commitment at all times to rehabilitation. Rehabilitation means recognising that prisoners are individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, spoke very powerfully, as usual, about his experiences in this sphere. It is true that, if we are going to be successful in rehabilitation, we have to see how we work together with individuals to rebuild their lives constructively.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was also right. We all have a heavy responsibility to resist the cynical populism of the press and too many of our political colleagues when it comes to the challenge of prison reform. What we have now is generating crisis, not overcoming it.
Lord Cullen of Whitekirk (CB)
My Lords, I wish to say something about the position in Scotland, which has had its own national prison system since the middle of the 19th century. After steadily increasing over a number of decades, the total prison population in Scotland is showing signs of stabilising. Indeed, the average daily prison population in Scotland has been decreasing. In 2011-12, it was 8,179, whereas five years later it was 7,552. In August of this year, it was under 7,500. Since the number of bed spaces in the 15 prisons in Scotland is currently over 7,900, it is not surprising that there is little evidence of overcrowding in Scotland’s 15 prisons.
The most marked decrease has been in the number of young offenders. This points to the success of a whole-system initiative which has encouraged a number of actions such as early intervention, opportunities for diversion from prosecution and support from the court process. For initiatives such as this the relatively small size of Scotland has assisted in bringing together the responsible agencies, sharing good practice and developing good teamwork.
The adequacy of prison accommodation can be thought of in terms of bed spaces, but that, of course, is not the whole picture because the question is, what accommodation is provided that is adequate and suitable for the various categories of prisoners? One I mention briefly is that of older men of 60 years or more. That category has been increasing in Scotland, perhaps due partly to the increase in the number of prosecutions for historic sexual offences. That makes a demand on a system. The Chief Inspector of Prisons in Scotland recently reported that there is insufficient accommodation available for older prisoners who have problems with mobility and chronic health conditions.
The other category is that of women prisoners. In recent years there has been a doubling of their number. Many were frequent reoffenders and had complex needs to do with their social circumstances, histories of abuse and mental health and addiction problems. A commission under Dame Elish Angiolini, a former Lord Advocate, concluded that Cornton Vale Prison, which housed the majority of women prisoners, should be removed as it was not fit for purpose and should be replaced. Overcrowding had caused problems for the management and staff and inhibited opportunities to rehabilitate women and reduce their reoffending. Their mental health needs were not being addressed adequately and there were high levels of self-harm and a lack of constructive and meaningful activity. I am glad to say that Cornton Vale is now being replaced with a smaller prison for more serious offenders and a number of community systems which will cope with offenders closer to home. I am glad that these steps have been taken.
Lord Fellowes (CB)
My Lords, I think we all know the nature of successive reports on prisons from those whose task it is to assess them. These reports tell of a sorry state of affairs. They tell of the dreadful numbers of suicides, of self-harm and violence in custody and of the squalor in which many prisoners have to live. Then there is the matter of the darkest blot on our national escutcheon—the many prisoners held back in jail despite the fact that their tariffs under indeterminate sentences have long run out. This must be dealt with before any long-term reforms can be effective. As for our reoffending figures, we seem to have learnt nothing from other countries whose reoffending rates are less than half of ours. This, too, is something which must be, and can be, improved, but it will not be while the overall size of the prison population is obstinately stuck where it is, or rising.
If any other public service were in the position of our prisons, radical measures would have to be taken, and quickly. In the case of Britain’s prisons, this becomes more and more essential as the years go by, and the clear priority must be for a significant drop in overall numbers. The present numbers ensure that rehabilitation comes way down the priority list.
The staff in prisons undertake a complex and difficult job; that the situation is not even worse is testament to the skills and commitment with which they undertake daunting work on behalf of the rest of us. But too often their focus is on running a decent and safe regime, lacking the resources to cater to the needs and difficulties which many prisoners experience. An ex-governor has suggested that a prison population of 25,000 would be appropriate on the grounds of public protection. With such a number, meaningful rehabilitative work becomes a possibility, yet we continue to fill our prisons to excess, setting all involved up to fail. It must be our responsibility to find out why we persist with a formula which is ineffective.
What we must see is a review of our sentencing regime with a view to reducing the numbers of people we send to prison and the length of sentences. It will need steely resolve by a Government prepared to argue their case with media and public. There are no easy answers, only complexities, contradictions and hard work. Until this review is undertaken and its recommendations put into effect, the miserable state of our prisons will remain unaltered, and the same old cycle will stay to haunt us.
All this is happening while innumerable individuals and charities work nobly to turn the tide. There is a distinct danger that their faith and enthusiasm will fade as they listen again and again to the familiar cries for help. This danger can only increase if we fail to re-examine the sentencing regime which has raised the numbers of prisoners to unsustainable levels.
I know that our Government have much urgent business to complete, but the state of our prisons and the intolerable burden we place on the Prison Service continue to shame us and remain a danger to the stability of our society.
Lord Woolf (CB)
My Lords, we have heard a series of excellent speeches dealing with the problems in prisons. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, on achieving this debate. I also congratulate those who have already taken part in it on what they said. They have shown a picture which is beyond dispute—our prisons are in a state of crisis. This has happened notwithstanding the fact that excellent work has been done within prisons and excellent reports have been produced from time to time which have shown what is needed in our prison system. We have to decide on an alternative method for preventing the present position continuing. This has given me cause for thought over a long period.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was good enough to refer to my report, which I think was produced nearly 30 years ago. In it I tried to identify a means of putting a brake on overcrowding. That I was right to do so was made apparent by what we have heard today. However, it is equally clear that the brake I then suggested was, first, not implemented and, secondly, would almost certainly have failed. We have to realise that forces are at work which we need to tackle. I thought at the time it was created that the Sentencing Guidelines Council was an excellent idea. However, instead of helping the situation, and through no fault of its members, its remit had the opposite effect. I say that having been the first chairman of the first incarnation of that body. In our system very powerful forces, coming largely from Parliament, continually drive up sentences and there is no equally powerful force which has the opposite effect of reducing them. That is what we have to focus upon. This is a very relevant time to act, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, given the changes which are going to take place in relation to the sentencing code. Therefore, I suggest that we have to give the Sentencing Council a new remit whereby, if sentences are increased, it has to make recommendations under which they can be reduced. Unless we get a balancing factor of that sort, I am afraid that the present problems will continue.
Baroness Stern (CB)
My Lords, it is indeed a great honour to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, and to have had an opportunity to hear his wise words. In preparing for this important debate I lifted down from my shelf my much annotated, very tatty and extremely heavy copy of the Woolf Report 1991. I looked through it again and reflected briefly: if the Government of the day had implemented the noble and learned Lord’s recommendations, how different our situation now would be. It is a huge pity that that did not happen. On the same shelf I have the Corston report, the Bradley report, the report on justice reinvestment produced by the Justice Select Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Beith, was its chair, and many others. The proposals are all there on how to reduce our high and wasteful imprisonment rate, while ensuring that crime is dealt with effectively.
I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for initiating this timely debate, and I thank him also for his dogged determination to get justice for the over 3,000 prisoners still serving indeterminate sentences for public protection, which is indeed a blemish on our system.
During my working life I have visited places of imprisonment in 50 or so countries, covering all the regions of the world—countries in wealthy western Europe and countries in desperately poor parts of Africa. I have concluded from these experiences that it is unwise to expect too much from imprisonment. It is best not to dream too much about what prisons can achieve on their own. Many speakers have analysed and highlighted in this debate the damage that imprisonment causes to individuals, social stability, family ties, self-esteem and ability to function in the outside world.
Reducing the use of imprisonment is not, however, impossible. In 2008 there were 3,000-plus young people in custody; in June this year, the figure was 924. This was done without changes to the law on sentencing; it was done by parts of the system working together. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, will know how this was done as he chaired the Youth Justice Board through much of those years. The lessons from Scotland—brought to our attention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen of Whitekirk—are also well worth studying.
I would make two proposals to the Minister. First, a radical review could be a very practical and sensible way to proceed. Secondly, would she consider inviting the Secretary of State for Justice—who has a very good reputation—to find the time to listen to the views of some of those in your Lordships’ House in whom so much wisdom on this subject resides?
Lord Elton (Con)
Your Lordships have subjected me to conflicting tensions of great hope and great despair. The great hope arises from the number, the intellectual force, the charity and the authority with which you have spoken on a subject of vital importance. My despair arises because with the exception of about three speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Bird, it has been assumed that the problem that needs to be solved is how you treat criminals. But the problem would be solved with much less expenditure and much greater effect if you focus on how you treat children so that they do not become criminals.
In the three years, 45 years ago, that I was Minister for Prisons, I walked into a similar and, in fact, more intense crisis than the present one. I had a chart on the wall showing that if 12 more people had been given custodial sentences we would have had to trigger executive release—to let people out before the end of their sentences. Willie Whitelaw—the late Viscount Whitelaw—was my boss, so I was a very anxious man, but we avoided it. When I resigned from the Government some years later I founded a charity to keep children out of prison. I discovered that by spending small amounts, mostly through voluntary agencies, to give young people the vent for their enthusiasm, energy and enterprise which they do not get without help, before it drives them into criminality, you can prevent them becoming criminals. Some £50 spent there can save £50,000 later. Can the Government get their collective act together and have the Treasury preside over a review about how to stop this catastrophic nonsense and tackle the problem where it actually begins? I will die a happy man if they do.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, for securing this debate. It is a mark of its significance that we have heard from so many distinguished speakers with virtually no dissent from the thrust of the noble and learned Lord’s argument.
The state of our prisons is one of the scandals of our times. They are neither humane nor civilised and they fail as places of rehabilitation and reform. The combination of overcrowding and understaffing is toxic. We have heard the miserable statistics, and the depressing fact is that on present predictions from the Prison Reform Trust, overcrowding looks set to get worse, not better.
The alarming and increasing levels of violence were graphically described by Peter Clarke in his first two annual reports as Chief Inspector of Prisons. In his first he reported that:
“Too many of our prisons had become unacceptably violent and dangerous places”.
In his second he reported:
“The situation has not improved—in fact, it has become worse. There have been startling increases in all types of violence”.
He gave the details of 103 self-inflicted deaths in male prisons over the last year, and very large increases in the incidence of self-harm, assaults on staff and assaults by prisoners on other prisoners.
Our prisons have become unsafe, and the psychological effect on individual prisoners is profound. Pack three prisoners in cells designed for two and two prisoners in cells designed for one and the resulting frustration, isolation and unhappiness are obvious. Violence is inevitable, particularly in the context of a volatile prison population.
But we compound the inhumanity of overcrowding with squalid conditions: damp, dilapidated, infested with vermin, with shared cells with unscreened lavatories. We compound it further by providing too few staff to supervise prisoners, to prevent violence or to control the flow of drugs. Just as important—as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Southwark argued—we stifle attempts to achieve reform when we provide too few staff to escort prisoners away from their cells for work or education and training activities. In many prisons we lack even the staff to enable prisoners to eat together in common areas. The result is that many are locked in their cells for as much as 23 hours a day, dehumanising them as a result.
Many prisoners, men and women, arrive in prison with a whole range of mental health problems and problems of drug and alcohol abuse, as well as learning difficulties. The very fact of being imprisoned, removing prisoners from homes and families, makes those problems worse. The impoverishment of the prison regime makes them unbearable. These issues are inadequately addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, gave us a graphic account of this failure and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, spoke to similar effect. We are breaking people in prison, not rehabilitating them.
Overcrowding also means prisoners being shunted around the prison estate for requirements of space, without regard to their needs. Proximity to homes and families and the availability of courses to help them on release take second place to the need to find places, wherever they may be. The Prison Reform Trust says that transfer requests are the single biggest issue its advice and information service deals with.
There is virtual unanimity, in this House at least, about what needs to be done. Everyone, the Government included, pays lip service to the need to reduce overcrowding, to increase staffing and to put education, training and reform at the heart of the mission of the prison service, to enable them to retrain for employment in the way that my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford described. But successive Governments have failed to do it.
We must send fewer offenders to prison. We are constantly told by Ministers that sentencing is a matter for judges. That is a false excuse. The sentencing framework and guidelines are within the power of Parliament to alter. Parliament can and should ensure that served sentences get shorter and do so in the face of media and public resistance, as my noble friend Lord McNally and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, pointed out. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown, Lord Hope and Lord Phillips, made a strong argument for Parliament’s avoiding sentence inflation. We must also see that far fewer short sentences are passed and that more offences are dealt with within the community, including the voluntary sector, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, stressed. We could make more use of tagging and flexible imprisonment, with part-time imprisonment or temporary release permitting prisoners to work, and early release subject to supervision and restrictions, enabling a staged rehabilitation. We must stop the excessive use of prisoner recall.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, we must secure the release of IPP prisoners who have served their tariffs—in this debate he has been widely supported across the House on that. Ministers regularly tell us that IPP prisoners are kept in prison until they are no longer a danger to the public. But that is again a false argument. We abolished IPP sentences in 2012 precisely because we believed it unjust that prisoners should be kept in prison after completing their punishment. The continued incarceration of IPP prisoners who have completed their tariffs defies that principle and is an injustice that should be stopped.
For those who must be in prison, we must renew the prison estate to house them in decent, humane and uncrowded conditions. We must ensure adequate staff to look after them properly, to supervise and protect them and to maintain order and discipline. We must provide education, training and work activities which will offer prisoners the chance of rehabilitation into their communities on release.
It is a great shame that the Government have abandoned the prisons part of the Prisons and Courts Bill. Certainly some reform can be achieved without primary legislation. But had that Bill proceeded, we would have pressed for statutory minimum standards applicable throughout the prison estate. A civilised society has a duty to ensure, by law when necessary—and experience has shown that it is—that prison is genuinely only used as a last resort; that prisons must be decent, humane and uncrowded; that sufficient staff must be employed to keep prisoners safe and secure; and that prisoners must be afforded full opportunities for education and work with a view to their rehabilitation. We should legislate to insist on achieving those standards. Only when we achieve them may we say that we have an acceptable penal system.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, on securing the debate and on his masterly review of the crisis in our prisons system.
On 23 February, a Home Office press release announced:
“Justice Secretary Elizabeth Truss unveils landmark Prisons and Courts Bill”,
and claimed that the Bill,
“paves the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation”.
In her Second Reading speech on the Bill—which of course subsequently seems to have disappeared—the then Lord Chancellor proclaimed:
“We have held the prison population stable for the last six years”. —[Official Report, Commons, 20/3/17; col. 657.]
Stability can of course take several forms. Certainly prisoner numbers remained stable, but as today’s debate makes clear, stability cannot be claimed for the rising tide of violence, self-harm and drug abuse which grew exponentially in those six years.
For a quarter of a century, under successive Governments, the number of prisoners grew inexorably, until we now have, as we have heard, the highest incarceration rate in western Europe, higher than some of the less advanced countries in eastern Europe. Also, of course, the number of prison officers has fallen substantially, by more than 25%.
The consequences include the highest number of deaths among prisoners on record in the year to March 2017. The chief inspector’s report states that a third of the 344 deaths were self-inflicted, while serious assaults more than doubled in the last three years, and, tellingly, assaults on staff rose by 88% in the last two years. Force is also used by prison staff, and the report discloses that it was found at a high level in two-thirds of prisons, while it expresses,
“concerns about the quality of documentation used to justify the use of force”.
Further, self-harm figures rose from just under 26,000 in 2014-15 to over 40,000 in 2016, a rate of 471 per 1,000 prisoners. The Howard League recently reported a 75% increase in two years of additional days in prison for breaking prison rules, to a total of 290,000 cases.
Having reduced the number of prison staff by 7,500 and saved £900 million by 2015, the Government are now seeking to recruit 2,500 new officers. However, the number of front-line staff increased by only 75 in the last year after allowing for numbers leaving the service. Can the Minister update the figures for those leaving and those joining the service, and can she tell us the average term of service for those who departed? Does she accept that, so far from prison numbers being held at the present level, let alone reduced, the forecast for 2020 is now for the numbers to grow to 90,000? If so, what are the implications for staffing and new prison places?
The chief inspector’s report of 18 July is a veritable litany of failure across the penal system. He highlights the fact that only 14% of prisoners and 4% of young adults were unlocked for at least 10 hours a day, and was shocked to discover that 30% of the latter spent fewer than two hours a day out of their cells. He was confronted by vermin infestation and insanitary toilets and showers. Too many prisoners suffered from learning disability or mental health problems, and he affirmed that it is the,
“job of the Inspectorate to point out where the imbalance between staff and prisoner numbers adversely affects the treatment of and conditions for prisoners”.
It is fair to point out that the inspector found conditions in women’s prisons to be better, but self-harming and suicide reached the highest level in women’s prisons in 12 years. Similar patterns were-reflected in young offender institutions, where the inspector shockingly concluded that,
“there was not a single establishment that we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people”.
It is particularly disturbing to learn that:
“In many cases the response to previous recommendations has been unforgivably poor”,
with,
“42% of recommendations on safety”,
not being achieved.
Worryingly, the report records a decline in the condition of secure training centres, stating:
“We have seen regimes where boys take every meal alone in their cell, where they are locked up for excessive amounts of time, where they do not get enough exercise, education or training, and where there do not appear to be any credible plans to break the cycle of violence”.
It is difficult to imagine a more damaging critique of any public service, let alone one concerning young people. Paradoxically, the report notes that large sums of money have been provided for teachers and classrooms that are being paid for but not used, because institutions cannot get boys to education in time or at all.
We are entitled to ask of the Government what notice, if any, they take of the inspectorate’s reports regarding the funding of the service and the penalties imposed for failure, especially in prisons being run for profit by the likes of G4S and Sodexo. Damningly, in his introduction to the report, Mr Clarke points out that, notwithstanding his statement of the previous year,
“too many of our prisons had become unacceptably violent and dangerous places. The situation has not improved – in fact, it has become worse”.
What are the Government going to do to rectify this dire and shameful situation? The much vaunted Prisons and Courts Bill was launched in February, claiming to be,
“paving the way for the biggest overhaul of prisons in a generation and the delivery of a world-class court system”.
I observe that we already have a world-class system—unfortunately, it is a third-world-class system. We do not know what the Government’s intentions are in respect of legislation. Perhaps the Minister could advise us. What has become of the claim in the Government press release of 23 February that the,
“Historic Prisons and Courts Bill will transform the lives of offenders and put victims at the heart of the justice system, helping to create a safer and better society”,
and that,
“new legislation underpins measures outlined in the ground-breaking Prison Safety and Reform White Paper which will transform how our prisons operate”?
Ever helpful, as is my wont, I suggest that the Government begin again and include in any future Bill on the topic—assuming there is parliamentary time in the face of the tidal wave of Brexit legislation which is about to overwhelm us—some basic proposals designed to reduce the prison population to a more manageable, and therefore more effective, level. First, in addition to the suggestions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, there is a need to deal much more promptly with the scandal of the IPP prisoners, still numbering some 3,000. Secondly, the Government need to reduce significantly the number of prisoners on remand pending trial, a significant proportion of whom will be found not guilty or, if guilty, receive light, often non-custodial sentences. Thirdly, in discussion with the judiciary, they need to review the degree of sentence inflation which has characterised the last couple of decades, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. Fourthly, they need to reconsider their policy of building very large prisons, which in too many cases are very distant from the families and communities to which prisoners will return on their release. Lastly, they need to investigate the disproportionate number of ethnic minority prisoners relative to other offenders committing comparable offences.
We have had a broad and very well informed debate which I hope the Government will take on board. I’m not sure whether the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, has had to reply to a debate on prisons thus far?
Lord Beecham
I hope her initiation has not proved too painful. I am sure she will address very seriously the issues that noble Lords around the House have raised and will, together with the new Lord Chancellor, make greater progress than seems likely at present. I think the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, in particular, who has, as ever, brought his masterful experience of the system to the fore and made a very strong case for the change that is needed to make it more effective and humane.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, for securing this debate. He and other noble—and in some cases noble and learned—Lords have raised some very important points, which I hope to address. I will certainly write to address detailed and specific points, as so many have been raised today, and I am extraordinarily grateful for the quality of this debate.
Our prisons have been overcrowded for well over a decade, with the rate stable at around 25%. Overcrowding has been a long-standing issue for successive Governments. In November last year, to tackle overcrowding and other problems facing the prison system, this Government launched the Prison Safety and Reform White Paper. This programme will transform the prison estate and the experience of prisoners in it. It includes a £1.3 billion investment to make prisons safe and secure—and, in turn, places of rehabilitation. To reduce overcrowding, we must act in two areas. We must reform the prison estate and manage prisoner numbers.
Turning first to the prison estate, we need to make sure that we have the right number of prison places of the right type in modern or modernised buildings. There remain large parts of the prison estate that are old and inefficient, as noted by my noble friend Lord Colgrain. Prisoners are housed in poor physical conditions. Our transformative prison building and redevelopment programme will put this right. We are replacing old, inefficient prison places with 10,000 modern and better-designed places that support prisoner rehabilitation. Reducing overcrowding is a central aim of this estate modernisation, and the new prisons will be designed with this firmly in mind—so I believe that what we are doing is in line with the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. We are not building significantly more, but we are building better. We are also making sure that places are available now by bringing unused cells back into use.
I turn to the number of prisoners in our prisons. The Government are clear that there will always be enough prison places for offenders committed to custody by the courts, but many of the opportunities for achieving a better outcome for prisoners and the public may result in a reduction in prisoner numbers and will therefore help us tackle overcrowding. First, we must reduce reoffending. Many noble Lords have mentioned reoffending or the factors that lead to it: a lack of education and training, a dearth of employment opportunities, drug or alcohol addiction, poor mental health, and so many more. Reoffending costs the country £13 billion a year and puts a huge strain on our prisons.
The Government are committed through the prison safety and reform programme to improving the education, training and employment opportunities for prisoners, including encouraging prisoners to get qualifications in English and maths, providing access to apprenticeship programmes and teaming up with employment partners such as National Rail, Timpson, Halfords and so many more, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lee. There will be more on these when we launch the education and employment strategy later this year.
The Government are also working to help prisoners beat addiction by ensuring access to trained providers of specialist addiction services. We have also announced measures to crack down on the availability of drugs in prisons. We believe that these actions will reduce reoffending and aid rehabilitation.
IPP prisoners have an impact on prisoner numbers, of course, and were mentioned by many noble Lords. We are committed to helping the remaining IPP prisoners to progress through their sentences towards safe release. IPP sentences, introduced by the previous Labour Government, were imposed a long time ago and were abolished by the coalition Government in 2012. Since then, the Prison Service, the National Probation Service and the Parole Board have taken up a range of work to speed up IPP sentence progression. This has included diverting recall cases away from the Parole Board so that it can focus on reviewing IPP prisoners; enhanced case management, with a view to avoiding IPP cases becoming stuck in the parole system; increasing the provision of places on new progression regimes; and improved access to interventions and programmes. Last year alone, 576 IPP prisoners were released—the highest number of annual releases. The Parole Board gave a release decision to almost half of all IPP prisoners considered, and recommended a move to open conditions for a further quarter.
There are a number of other areas it is worth mentioning with regard to prisoner numbers. The first is our focus on deporting foreign national offenders. Last year we deported 6,171—a record number. Electronic tagging, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, is an effective offender management tool, which can give suspects and offenders a chance to maintain their ties with a community while imposing additional safeguards to protect the public. The work to deliver the new service is complicated and has taken longer than originally anticipated, although lessons have been learned along the way. Our changes will introduce location monitoring and the flexibility to bring in an even greater range of monitoring in the future.
There is also the use of release on temporary licence as part of rehabilitation, where we will maintain improvements recently made to ROTL and allow governors greater discretion to help prisoners get the skills and training that they need. We will, however, continue to use recall where appropriate for breaches of conditions, particularly where there is a risk to the public—but we are taking action to ensure that more is done to help offenders complete their licence period successfully without reaching the point where recall becomes necessary.
Noble Lords referred to other issues that may ultimately make it less likely that a prisoner will be rehabilitated and go on to become a successful returning citizen. I have mentioned that we are taking steps to tackle drug addiction and reduce the availability of drugs. These are important to improve prisoner rehabilitation and reduce violence and instability in our prisons. We want prisons to be places of hard work, rigorous education and high ambition, with incentives for prisoners to learn and for prison staff to prioritise education and work. We need to put the tools to drive change into the hands of those in the front line, who know best what works. Progress is being made on a number of recommendations, including giving governors the budget and flexibility to spend their resources appropriately in order, for example, to help prisoners keep up important family ties—which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins.
To support prisoners and enable each to reach his or her new potential, the new offender management model included as part of the prison safety and reform programme ensures that each prisoner has a key worker with time to engage one to one, act as a mentor and support changes in attitudes and behaviour. Each prison officer will have no more than around six cases. That will ensure that prisoners have the means to develop a programme of support that meets their needs: from access to education to getting ready to leave prison, from getting treatment for poor mental health to enrolling on a training programme.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Rochester and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the problems of suicide, self-harm and poor mental health. On suicide and self-harm, we have put in place a range of measures to support prisoners who are at risk of self-harm or suicide, especially in the first 24 hours, when they are at their most vulnerable. We are rolling out new training that will help staff identify the risks and triggers of suicide and self-harm and understand what they can do to support prisoners at risk. We have put in place specialist roles, including regional safer-custody leads in every region to provide advice to prisoners and spread good practice. We are using experts, including providing extra funding to the Samaritans, to provide support for prison staff and prisoners directly.
On mental health more broadly, we need a more systematic, nationally consistent approach that provides quicker and more certain access to mental health treatment. We are working with the Department of Health and NHS England to develop a new health and justice protocol so that courts are able to increase their use of mental health treatment requirements, alcohol treatment requirements and drug rehabilitation requirements as part of a community sentence. This will mean that we can intervene earlier to deal with mental health and substance misuse issues. We are also working with the judiciary and the Health Secretary to make sure that courts have better access to psychologists and registered mental health practitioners. These liaison and diversion services—for which we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, for his work—are being trialled at police stations and courts across nearly 70% of the country. NHS England is leading a cross-government programme to expand these services to the whole of England by 2020-21.
Finally, prison must be safe. The level of violence in our prisons is unacceptable. We are fully committed to making prisons safer and addressing the significant increase in violence and assaults by increasing staffing levels and improving ways of working. In all of this, the work of prison staff is supported by close working relationships with a range of partners. Prison chaplains of many faiths, for example—mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark—are critical in providing pastoral and spiritual care to those in our care. They offer valuable support to governors in delivering decent and humane regimes. We recognise and welcome the valuable pastoral care that our chaplaincies provide to staff and inmates across the prison estate.
There is much more to be done—much new thinking to be had and innovation to be found. That was mentioned by my noble friend Lady Bottomley and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley, Lord Alton and Lord Bird. I hope that we can continue these discussions going forward.
In order to achieve our goals and provide prisoners with the support that they need, we need to back the hard-working prison workforce already in place and bolster its numbers over the next 18 months. That is why we are investing £100 million a year to recruit an extra 2,500 prison officers by the end of next year. The most recent figures show that the number of prison officers has increased by 868 compared with the previous quarter. Prison officer recruitment numbers are at their highest level since records began. We believe that these new prison officers will meet the forecast needs of the prison system.
Targeted recruitment activities, such as higher starting pay and additional allowances of up to £5,000 a year, support the process in those establishments that have the most difficulty with recruitment. These new recruits will join thousands of dedicated prison officers who undertake such important work day in and day out to keep our prisons and the public safe. We will need their experience, which is why we are rolling out retention programmes across the estate and providing financial incentives to reduce attrition.
It should be noted that the role of the prison officer is developing. It is changing and on training, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, we are making improvements. We have increased our prison officer training capacity to be able to deal with the significant boost in numbers. Existing staff are undertaking key worker training. We are providing tailored support to governors and their teams to introduce this model and train staff, beginning with 10 pathfinder prisons. This investment in additional prison staff, plus more effective training and the greater autonomy we have given to governors—
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
I apologise that I was not able to be here for most of the debate because of other business, but can the Minister tell us what would be the ratio, once these additional prison staff are recruited, of prison staff to prisoners compared with, say, eight years ago?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Unfortunately, I do not have those data to hand, but I go back to the comments I made earlier about each prison officer having a maximum of six cases in their workload, which is certainly manageable going forward. If I receive any further information I will of course write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, perhaps I can help the Minister. The ratio of staff to prisoners is now 1: 6, which it was last in 1950. At the time of the riots in 1990, it was 1:3. It has increased, therefore, to 1:6, which I suggest is unsustainable.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his comments.
This investment in additional prison staff, plus more effective training, the greater autonomy we have given to governors and the implementation of our commitment to have one key worker for every six prisoners will enable more time directly to supervise offenders, provide essential one-to-one mentoring and support and help reduce the unacceptable levels of assault, self-harm and suicide.
My noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, mentioned private prisons. There are 13 privately managed prisons in England and the Government remain fully committed to a mixed market for public services, drawing on the best of public, private and voluntary providers to improve quality and secure value for money for the taxpayer. We have robust processes in place to closely monitor and manage private contractors and will not hesitate to take action when standards fall short. Using private prisons allows for different financing models, stimulates continuous improvement and encourages the sort of innovation to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, referred. It brings commercial rigour into the system, which we feel is essential.
I believe that the reforms and actions I have set out show how we are effectively managing the prison population, now and for the future. In an estate parts of which date back to Victorian times, there are of course significant challenges, but we know where those challenges lie and what is needed to rise to them. With our recruitment of record numbers of prison officers, with our unprecedented prison modernising programme and our focus on rehabilitation and reducing offending rates, we are getting on with that important work to build a prison system that is safe and secure and transforms offenders’ lives.
Lord Elton
Will my noble friend undertake to take copies of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and myself to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and discuss them over a cup of coffee, or perhaps a glass of whisky?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for his intervention and I would say, over a glass of wine.
Lord Birt
I am sure the House will welcome the constructive tone that the Minister has adopted. I note with pleasure her educational pedigree—she has an MBA from a leading business school—so she will be familiar with the notion of a long-term integrated business plan. Will she undertake to bring together all the many measures she has discussed with some hard numbers and forecasts to reassure us that the outcomes she desires will actually be funded and achieved?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
Once again I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I will certainly look into it but as we know, forecasts are sometimes somewhat unreliable.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
My Lords, I am truly grateful to all those who have taken part in this debate, not least the Minister. She will, I hope, allow me to congratulate her on this, her maiden response to a debate, and suggest that she played some of the points with a straight bat that will be the envy of some of those likely to be dismissed at the other Lord’s venue today. Given, however, the weight and expertise of the others who have contributed to this debate and the strength and urgency of their various calls to action, I would urge her to copy this debate widely and send a record of it to the Lord Chancellor, to the Prisons Minister, indeed to all those in government who have interests beyond merely Brexit in advancing civilised values and the quality of life in this country. There is time to say no more than that now. I repeat my thanks and beg to move.
Digital Understanding
(7 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho
That this House takes note of the case for improved digital understanding at all levels of United Kingdom society.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, the last time I secured a debate in your Lordships’ Chamber, it was to mark the 25th anniversary of the world wide web. We marvelled at having Bach and da Vinci at our fingertips and celebrated 94 year-olds on social media. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, called the internet,
“the greatest transformative force in history bar none”.—[Official Report, 16/1/14; col. 403.]
However, even on that day we were cautious. I said that,
“we are sleepwalking into assuming that the platform underpinning so much of our daily life is not changing”.—[Official Report, 16/1/14; col. 396.]
I am sad to report that nearly all of us, including me, have spent too much of the past three years continuing to sleepwalk. If that debate was a birthday party, today’s must be a mid-life crisis.
We are in the midst of some major geopolitical shifts. The planet is hotter than it has been in 115,000 years. Populism has seen a worrying resurgence, both at home and abroad. Stagnating wages mean that young people are earning thousands less than generations before them. Alongside these, we are living through the staggering transformation brought by the internet. Technology is changing our world at a speed we have never seen before, a speed that I believe will now never be reversed. That is a challenge, but if we allow ourselves to awaken we can make it a source of tremendous opportunity: if we seize them, if we own them, we can harness the power of these technologies to address the other great challenges we face. I am calling today for digital understanding to be improved everywhere because I believe it is central to our ability to create better outcomes for people in the next century.
For as long as we have had the internet, we have had the internet’s promise. The internet promised us energised democracies and a world where all could speak to one another. In a way, it has fulfilled that promise: we can register to vote, petition the Government and support candidates who match our values with just a few keystrokes. But in addition to that, we have emotionally manipulative advertisements that target us based on our gender, our faith, and even our sexual preferences. The Vote Leave campaign last year spent 98% of its budget on digital adverts and boasted that the advantage of doing so was that it was so poorly scrutinised by the political media. Just this morning, as many noble Lords will have heard, Facebook revealed that many thousands of dollars of political ads were bought by Russian trolls during the US election, and I am sure there will be more revelations to come.
The internet promised us flexible, creative work that could be done anywhere. Again, it delivered: today we have the biggest tech industry in Europe, with 1.5 million people employed and £7 billion invested last year alone. However, alongside that we also have Amazon delivery drivers receiving as little as £3 an hour with no breaks, while CEO Jeff Bezos’s personal wealth surpasses $92 billion. Not a day goes by without headlines wrestling with the nature of artificial intelligence and how it will affect the world of work. Enormous and extraordinary leaps in quantum computing and machine learning somehow feel dislocated from the people who will inevitably be affected by the ways these innovations are deployed.
The internet promised us free access to the world’s information. We now live in a world where every single piece of art at the Tate has its own web page, but also one where fake news is an art form, slickly produced by anyone who wants to profit from our confusion. The internet promised access to new ways of learning and creativity for our children and in many ways, again, this has been true: learning has become democratised and more accessible, with everything from Khan Academy to the amazing BBC resources. But who in the early days of the web would have imagined the creation of Instagram and foreseen its damaging effects on young people’s self-esteem?
For a dotcom dinosaur like me, one of the most surprising developments is the domination of our experience of the internet by a handful of companies. Twenty years ago the rise of these so-called platform businesses was not anticipated. Now the flows of money, power and usage are controlled in a way far removed from the open, distributed, fragmented early years. We can point to these tech giants, the monopoly platforms, the wily political strategists who have shaped these phenomena, and try to blame them for all this, but the truth is that they only created some of the hollow vessels. We are the users.
Every time we use the internet, we leave a data trail of valuable information to be transformed into personalised and targeted advertising. That may be a tantalising holiday home in Europe for some of us, but for the poor and vulnerable it is likely to be a high-interest loan or a bad insurance deal. Every time we share some outrageous piece of invective or agitation, we encourage the creation of even more content which erodes the factual base of our public conversation. Every time we tap our phone to choose the convenience of a short ride home, we buy into the idea that it is okay for a driver to have no job security or holiday pay. To paraphrase John Lanchester recently in the London Review of Books, “We are the product”.
Now we are seeing the outcomes of these contributions. Expertise has been devalued and emotion reigns supreme. Take a look at the climate crisis. The internet has helped to drive the exponential increase in information, but the public’s ability to accept it has slid. YouTube videos with titles such as “What They Haven’t Told You About Climate Change” and “The Great Climate Change Hoax” have driven millions of views. Is it any wonder that in the UK, Australia, Germany, Canada and the US the average partisan divide over the climate crisis is now 40 points?
We have let these things come upon us, but it is not too late to wake up. If we want to change this dynamic and shape the future we need to recapture some of the internet’s original promise and more of its positive transformative power. That means we need to understand—at all levels of society—what our digital world really is. We need to address the challenges that already exist and pre-empt the ones we do not know about.
We live our digital lives this way because we have the skills to do so. Some 91% of us in the UK have the ability to use the internet. This is a remarkable achievement. It is important to continue the work to close the remaining gap and include those who do not have the skills or access. But we also need to move beyond skills to understanding. Nearly all UK internet users have the digital skills to use a search engine but only half know how to distinguish between search results and adverts. Around two-thirds of our digitally skilled population can shop and bank online but a third of those do not make any checks before entering their personal or financial information. More than 1.4 million of us work in tech-related jobs but, as the recent WannaCry attack showed us, hardly anyone is investing the time, resources or expertise to keep our systems safe. This list could go on for ever.
Becoming a nation of people with digital understanding will be different and more complicated than becoming one with digital skills. For starters, skills are tangible and teachable—can you download this app, programme this device or complete this transaction? They also reinforce the notion that digital is something we do. It is time-bound and transactional. But in a world where we spend more time online than we do asleep and where everything from televisions to kettles can connect to the internet, digital is something we are. Understanding is not a race to be run. It is a lifelong process of learning unique to each of us.
We in this House have a particular responsibility as we have the privilege of playing a role in public life. We must ask ourselves whether we have the digital understanding to provide the leadership needed in this time of technological change. I cannot stress how vital it is that we—parliamentarians, policymakers and politicians—absorb and engage with the realities of how digital technologies work. We must see where our country can make the most of them and be alert to the potential dangers.
In recent months I have heard frankly anodyne comments such as “enough is enough” or “we must scrap end-to-end encryption”—the very system that keeps our personal information safe. This is alarmist and a disservice to the people we serve. Just as it would not be acceptable for a Minister not to understand how her departmental budget works, it is not acceptable for her not to understand how technology affects her brief. It is not an insurmountable task. We live in 2017, not 1817, and we have form to follow.
I had the pleasure of working at the beginning of the Government Digital Service. It has shown how digital understanding can be applied to the world of government, from scrapping paper car tax discs to simplifying the appointment of power of attorney. It has also shown us how not to do it. It saved us £4.1 billion by not creating expensive and complicated apps and by salvaging doomed projects such as universal credit. But the good work being done to help the Government modernise and to make it work for people who live their lives digitally is being dismantled. Departmental silos are creeping back, replicating cost and inefficiency. GDS is celebrated and copied around the world. Last year we were ranked top for digital government by the UN. How ironic if we fail to recognise and nurture this great asset because of a lack of digital understanding.
There are other pioneers making digital understanding a reality. The Open University—in which I declare my interest as chancellor—makes digital literacy integral to its students’ experience. OU students graduate able to manage their digital identities, separate fact from fiction and make sense of what they find online. It is sharing its experience with other institutions. Citizens Advice—a reassuring hand on our high streets since the war—now has a digital dashboard showing what advice people are searching for and is helping millions of its users navigate the new challenges in their lives, from Facebook scams to online identity theft. London has just appointed its first chief digital officer, making our capital a role model for making the city digital. This is not about shiny new gadgets. It is about using technology so we can recycle better and have fewer potholes and more effective parking.
I call on the Government to support and amplify the good things happening and to bring these people together in a more structured way. How about we create a formal network of public organisations that can tangibly build our nation’s digital understanding? Much of their work is admirable but it is co-ordination and focus that will embed digital understanding in the fabric of our lives. Perhaps too this network could have a more formal role as a resource for elected and public officials needing support. But while we do this at a granular level, we need to do it with a purpose and a destination. We need to know what kind of digital world we are trying to shape. For this reason, I welcome the Government’s role in developing a digital charter. It presents an opportunity for us to argue and articulate what we want and to design a moral compass for our digital age.
We know that the digital landscape is currently monopolised by a few American-based platforms—although I would watch out for the Asian digital tigers which may soon join them—which are steeped in the world-view of Silicon Valley with its love of the First Amendment and libertarianism. We can build a charter of our own—an articulation of the nation we want to be and then perhaps we can globally find our commonalities and create the basis of a Geneva Convention for the web. I believe we must come together and attempt to put some of these universal principles in place for the next phase of our digital world.
No matter how we move forward, we must do so in modern ways. We do not need a Select Committee on digital understanding beavering away in a closed-off room. We need smart people working in creative and agile ways to get to the bottom of what is really going on. Difficult or not, this work must be done and done now. It is an issue not just of technology but of fairness. It is simply not fair that only a few people understand technology and are taking advantage of the billions who do not. None of this means that we can rest in the mission to bring basic digital skills to everyone or roll out high-quality broadband to the rest of the country. It just means we need to expand our goal. It is not an either/or but a both.
If there is anyone still struggling to comprehend the universality of tech in our lives, I recommend taking a look at today’s list of speakers. We have a composer, a neuroscientist, the Astronomer Royal, a filmmaker, businesswomen and a Bishop—not to mention the man who brought us Amstrad. I am heartened by the fact that, as this Chamber debates digital understanding for everyone in the UK, we are not simply hearing from those whose careers, like mine, have been built around technology. Members from all over the House will speak and, if a 700-year-old institution can see the value of digital understanding, I have no doubt the rest of the British public can too.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on an excellent speech and for promoting this debate. It is really excellent. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has published a strategy for the data and digital world. It is a good document and well promoted by its Minister, Matthew Hancock, but it is like a signpost pointing the way, and I am not sure we are going down the road that it is pointing to at all clearly.
The whole strategy will be undermined by the fact that we have now a deficiency of 750,000 digital technicians in our country. How is that gap possibly going to be filled? It will not be by the education policy imposed by Michael Gove in 2010, when almost on a whim he made all our students follow a very narrow academic curriculum at 16 comprising five subjects: English, maths, science, history or geography and a foreign language. It is the exact curriculum announced in 1904 by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education. Computing is virtually squeezed out. No computing at 16.
Does the Minister know that, in the GSCEs that have just finished, 7,000 fewer students took computing exams at 16? That should worry his department. I do not know if he has seen these figures: GCSE computing science, which is a tough exam, increased by 4,000 and IT fell by 11,000. It is extraordinary that that is happening in this digital age. It shows that there is no joined-up work in Government. Does he know that in the last year the Government have asked all primary schools to introduce coding? Does he know how many have done so? I would be interested in that figure, but I think it is very few. Last week, I visited a school in Turkey for four to 14 year-olds, with 600 students going on to 900. Two teachers were teaching coding to six and seven year-old Turkish children. That does not happen in our schools at all.
In the colleges that I have been promoting we are very digitally aware. For example, the sixth-formers at the UTC in Scarborough are working in a cybersecurity suite sponsored by GCHQ. GCHQ has come out of the closet and does not worry at all about publicity now, because it cannot recruit from normal schools the youngsters that it wants to employ. Another UTC, next to City Airport, is doing advanced computing. If you go there, you will see 20 16 year-old sixth-form students with helmets on their heads creating virtual reality. There is no other school in the country doing that.
The Ministers in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport have got to take an interest in these issues. There is no joined-up government between what the Government are doing educationally and what they hope for in their policy.
If the Minister has any spare time, he might go and visit Estonia. It is the most digitally successful country in Europe, so much so that its former Prime Minister has now been appointed by the European Commission to develop its digital strategy. Coding has been in Estonian schools for years and, as a result, they produce an enormous number of computer scientists and export them. We are in the extraordinary position of trying to catch up with Estonia.
The Minister cannot just look on this strategy as a signpost. He has to engage in the voyage.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, this is another debate on digital led by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and yet another long list of speakers. Her leadership in this area is obvious. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker. There is plenty I want to say in response to his speech, but that will have to wait until next Thursday’s debate in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.
As the past chair and now patron of the Good Things Foundation, there is also much I would like to say relating to the need to narrow the divide in digital skills and understanding between the majority and the more than 10 million Britons without the skills and confidence to take advantage of the digital world. These are most likely to be older, poorer and disabled: the most vulnerable in our society.
I also remind your Lordships of my interests in the register, in particular my work with TES. In the analogue world, this was the Times Educational Supplement, but in its digital incarnation it minimises the number of characters used and is simply TES. That work has hugely helped my understanding of the power of digital to help the recruitment, training and resourcing of teachers.
I have also co-founded a business, xRapid, which uses the ability of a smartphone to recognise patterns through its camera lens, attached to a microscope, to diagnose malaria and count asbestos fibres. These machines are then able to learn from each other and thereby keep increasing the accuracy of the diagnosis.
Of course, these exciting forms of artificial intelligence need fuelling and their precious fuel is data, so that is what I will focus my remarks upon. This House will shortly be considering the data protection Bill. As the noble Baroness said, it is vital that enough of us have sufficient digital understanding to properly scrutinise and improve that legislation. In doing so, we need to pay special attention to those least able to understand and advocate for themselves.
My attention therefore turns to children: there is no demographic that has a greater need for improved digital understanding. Most parents struggle to advise their children on online safety, but they are also highly concerned to know that their child’s personal data are safe. We currently have little time in the school curriculum, which the noble Lord has just described, to teach children about data. We need to fix that, so that children know what information, images and videos are collected that are personal to them, why, by whom and for what use. What plans does DCMS have to engage children on this agenda?
Will the Minister talk to the DfE about this, and include a warning about the national pupil database? The NPD routinely collects highly sensitive data about all the nation’s children and shares them across government departments, with academics and with private companies. There is little transparency as to why it collects what it does, it is a workload pressure on teachers and I hope that the Minister can help them quickly address concerns about this data collection.
Our digital future is uncertain. With transparency, inclusion and understanding, we can progress with consent and confidence.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for this debate. This area is not a natural strength of mine, but I have always taken the view that the best way to learn is to jump in at the deep end.
The internet is a relatively new phenomenon, compared to the time it took to develop our brains as the basic human apparatus devoted to learning. There are huge opportunities associated with digital technologies, but there are equally big risks. Our lives have been transformed by the internet.
Schools do not equip people to adapt to change or to be questioning and critical about the internet. As a country, our basic and advanced skills in IT have increased year by year. Yes, there are regional, gender, age and socioeconomic differences, but progress and development have been amazing. Schools need to be at the forefront of developing digital understanding, but to do that they need qualified, enthusiastic and inspiring teachers and a school curriculum—and an EBacc—fit for purpose. All too often, Governments perceive a need to develop a subject, decree from on high how it will happen, but do not provide the resources and expertise needed.
I want young people to have the skills, but I also want them to understand the internet. For example, I want children at a young age to know that anyone who uses the internet creates and leaves a series of footprints: lasting impressions of all of an individual’s online activity which can be visible to others, particularly through social media. I want them to understand about data protection and cybersecurity. Understanding is about opportunities, but it is also about threats.
Finally, the biggest gap in digital skills, never mind understanding, is between socioeconomic groups. If you live in a deprived community, you cannot afford a PC, let alone an iPad or a smartphone: you do not have access to the technologies. Perhaps your local library, which might have had a bank of computers, has closed down or has been cut back. You can have all the understanding in the world, but it is for nought.
The internet is, undeniably, an important part of our lives and has transformed them for good. In her stunning speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, asked what type of digital world we want to create. To my mind, that would be the most important building block in our digital understanding.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will use the time available to make two brief points. First, we often equate digital understanding with digital skills, and I believe that is an error which will hold us back. Secondly, I suggest that digital understanding must include a willingness to impose our values on the digital environment as well as to understand it on the terms that it currently presents itself.
With regard to the first point, I draw noble Lords’ attention to a report, “Digital Skills for Life and Work”, that will be published on 17 September by the UN Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. I declare my interest as a named contributor to this, as well my interests on the register. The report gathers some of the best research available from around the world, including from the big tech companies and concludes, in its chapter on skills, that many of the things explicitly labelled as 21st century digital skills are not actually skills but are a combination of knowledge, work habits, character traits and attitudes. The label “skills” encompasses abilities that cover a range of different technical, cognitive, social and ethical domains.
The report underlines that not all of these competencies involve direct use of digital technology. Many of them require awareness, critical understanding and non-technical expertise. In particular, it points out that digital interactions include not only what an individual does but what is done to an individual—and, increasingly, what is done to an individual when they are not consciously or deliberately engaging with the digital environment. In that case, it firmly attaches the idea of safety and security to a knowledge of and an implementation of rights.
The report states that skills, both basic and advanced, are just one small component of a broader set of literacies required for digital competency. It lays out those competencies in some detail, but I urge the Minister and the Government to embrace this notion of digital competency. I recommend the report to the many Ministers who have work in this area and will put a copy in the Library for colleagues after publication.
My second point is that technology is neutral but its culture is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, so carefully set out. There is an awkward tension in having a technology that is able to help us to confront our societal needs—an ageing population, health outcomes, education, transport, climate change and so on—and a corporate culture that aggressively balks at the responsibilities implicit in sharing its tax burden or long-term societal responsibilities in the nation states in which they operate. They are the richest companies in the world, with a vast turnover of products which depend on their novelty and expire quickly. They reside nowhere and answer to no one because their presence and their business are considered virtual, even if the products and services they deliver are not.
Any discussion about digital understanding does not begin and end with teaching digital skills or competencies, how to protect the vulnerable online, automation or even questions of security and encryption but rather starts with the question of how we yoke the incredible power and potential of digital technology to our societal values. This in turn requires us to be somewhat clearer about what those values are, and what institutions and arrangements—national and international—are required to implement and protect those values.
The Government have announced an array of interventions in the digital environment. We await a Green Paper and a digital charter. To my knowledge, there is work going on in the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education, DCMS and the Ministry of Justice. I am looking for a clear core, a clear articulation of our values and a commitment to making our children, businesses and institutions—and our Parliament—digitally competent.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for tabling today’s debate. As well as the powerful economic reasons for improving digital understanding, there are also some very important social reasons why we need to look at this key area. As our lives move increasingly online, we risk leaving those at the margins and without digital understanding even further behind.
I will talk very briefly about the digital inclusion and access required for improved understanding to occur. The charity Scope has pointed out that 70% of disabled people have internet access compared with 94% of non-disabled people. According to Age UK, more than 1 million older people report going more than a month without speaking to a friend, neighbour or family member. Digital inclusion is a vital and important way to combat loneliness and strengthen social links. Online connections provide lifelines for those who struggle to leave their homes, sometimes because of illness, and to keep in touch with family and friends. Efforts to improve digital understanding should not overlook the profound difference that helping people to connect online can make.
However, for people to be digitally included, they have to have digital access. The Government’s commitment to a broadband universal service obligation is a good start, guaranteeing that all have a legal right to request a broadband connection capable of a minimum speed of 10 megabytes per second. Nevertheless, there is no point in having this right if people are not able to exercise it. The Government must be proactive in working with community groups to stimulate demand for broadband and assist people who need help to get online.
Creative community solutions can make a difference, not least, for example, in remote rural areas. The Church of England is very involved in the wiSpire project, using church spires to provide high-speed internet to remote rural communities where fibre connections may not be cost effective. This benefits both the rural economy and those living in less accessible areas.
Where people have the skills, confidence and ability to get online, individuals and communities can flourish socially as well as economically. We simply cannot afford to let people miss out on this important development.
Lord Sugar (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for introducing this debate today. I may stray a little from the general thrust of what she wanted to talk about, but it is very rare that we have the opportunity to discuss IT matters in this House.
I have been in the technology industry for over 50 years and I have obviously witnessed the massive growth of the internet. It did not exist 25 years ago and when it started, it came as a bit of a cultural shock to a lot of people. We did not trust it; we did not want to buy things online. Well, that is history. We have seen large companies such as Amazon, eBay and Google emerge in an industry that never before existed. Regrettably, all this is at the expense of a diminishing high street where independent retailers can no longer compete with online services. Looking ahead another 20 years, I simply wonder what the retail arena will look like—large or small.
Some of the public are aware that each and every time they engage in a transaction with the likes of Amazon or Google, they have been marked digitally. It is quite likely that the next time they go online, they will receive unsolicited messages relating to things they may have enquired about in the past. This is effectively what we might call the “big brother” syndrome—someone is overlooking your data and knows all about you. You have a profile somewhere in the cloud. Let me tell your Lordships, it is not going to go away. All we can do is be very careful and wary of what we do online. I am afraid that any discussion today about trying to stop this will be wasted. What I would say is very simple: “Get over it. It has happened”. Can we stop it? The answer is no: we are digitally marked and that is the end of it.
The internet is a wonderful tool, but it can also be used for dangerous purposes—terrorism, paedophilia, and so on. Internet search engine providers have a responsibility to assist the crime and security services in seeking out people who use the internet for the wrong reasons. Of course, if I were to ask the CEO of any of these companies, they would tell me that for sure they co-operate wholeheartedly with the security services. The reality is that they are commercial organisations. Their technical resources are used to find new ways to make money. The Government should insist, and have some form of auditing commitment to ensure that serious technical resource is allocated to seeking out the use of the internet for criminal or terrorism purposes. I suggest that GCHQ should be the auditing party and the Government should have the right to include an audit clause in the licences that allow providers to operate in our country. This will ensure that they are genuinely doing something about it.
I have seven grandchildren and on the very odd occasion that I am blessed with their coming to my home to have dinner, they sit around the table with their faces buried in their smartphones, to such an extent that I have banned the devices from the dining room. I deduce from this that something cannot be right. There is something wrong with young people in society today. I urge parents to take a stance to prevent their children spending too much time gazing into these devices. The internet is a wonderful thing, but it can also be a very dangerous tool.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for initiating this debate and for her brilliant speech.
Connected health or technology-enabled care—TEC, as it is commonly known—is a collective term for telecare, telehealth, telemedicine, m-health, e-health and digital health, which is increasingly seen as an integral and rapidly evolving part of healthcare delivery and of care. For example, the number of health apps on iOS and Android devices alone now exceeds 100,000. By 2018, Europe will be the largest m-health market outside the USA, worth over £8 billion to £10 billion a year. The advantages of digital health to health providers and patients include freeing up time for more direct patient contact and reducing readmissions, A&E attendance and hospital bed usage, which will help reduce the cost of health and social care and will provide better outcomes, especially for patients with long-term conditions because they will be more able to manage their own care themselves. But to deliver this, we will need health delivery systems geared up for it and health professionals trained in digital skills and able to understand and use them.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, in a report to the National Information Board in December 2015, made four key recommendations to achieve this, including free wi-fi in every hospital, building the basic digital skills of the NHS workforce, and a target of 10% of patients registered with GP practices using digital services by 2017. This would include patients in most need of health and social care. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in implementing these recommendations, which would go a long way to making healthcare in the NHS digitally skilled?
Does the Minister also agree that to achieve this, we need all training institutions—from schools and universities to medical schools, nursing schools and those providing continuous education in healthcare—to provide the necessary skills and understanding for the workforce? Does he also agree that when NICE produces guidance, it must have a component of m-health and e-health within it, which it rarely ever has? I understand of course that he may not be able to answer these questions because they might not come under his department, but would he mind passing them on to the appropriate department and maybe writing to us?
Earl Cathcart (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness’s Motion is excellent for those who receive adequate broadband speed. For those who do not, it is meaningless. In answer to my recent Written Question on poor broadband speeds, the Minister said that in this Parliament, the universal service obligation would give “everyone” a “legal right” to request 10 megabits per second. He also said:
“All homes and businesses can now gain access to broadband speeds of 2 Megabits”.
That is just not true. In spite of me and my fellow parishioners constantly asking BT and Openreach for better speeds, nothing ever happens. Our speeds are woefully poor to non-existent, as my noble friend Lord Ashton found out when he stayed with me in Norfolk this summer. He tested our speed and found it was a mere 0.3 megabits per second, which was nowhere near the promised 2 megabits he assured us we had in his written reply.
So where do the Government get their information, which is quite clearly so inaccurate, from? Could it be from Ofcom, which acknowledges that,
“many homes and small businesses still are unable to receive broadband speeds that are adequate to reliably perform a range of common online activities. Almost a quarter of a million UK premises … cannot get a download speed of more than 2Mbit/s.”?
A quarter of a million premises might just about be right for rural Norfolk—I bet the figure is far higher for the whole country. So where has Ofcom got its figures from? It certainly has not visited my home, as my noble friend did, or it too might have discovered a speed of only 0.3 megabits, which is worse than many third world countries.
Since my Written Question and my noble friend’s visit, has his department met Ofcom to enquire why progress in rural areas is so slow? If not, why not? Has his department met BT or Openreach regarding expected progress? Again, if not, why not? Or is getting acceptable speeds to rural areas just too difficult or too expensive?
The Government have just announced another £400 million to boost high-speed broadband, when many parts of the country still do not have the promised 2 megabits Would his money not be better spent providing the basic service that has long been promised the country? Those still languishing in broadband poverty would no doubt welcome the Motion of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, if only they had adequate broadband speeds, so they could rise to the challenge.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on her excellent opening speech and her extraordinary career so far. Apropos of what the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, said, I note that quite a few noble Lords were looking at their devices while he was speaking, and he has so far looked at his device three times since he finished speaking.
Do we need improved digital understanding at all levels of our society? You bet we do. I completely buy the distinction made by the noble Baroness between digital skills and digital understanding, and digital understanding is absolutely central to the next few years in our society and in the world at large. The digital revolution is a huge wave of change breaking across the world and transforming our largest institutions but also intimate aspects of our personal lives. The digital revolution is not the internet; the digital revolution is not robotics; the digital revolution is not awesome algorithmic or supercomputing power. It is all three of these, producing a pace of change unknown previously. The pace of change today far outstrips the industrial revolution and it is far more immediately global. It is a whole new world, which we are being plunged into at almost the speed of light. As other noble Lords have said, it is a vast mixture of opportunities and threats. The opportunities are very large. Consider, for example, the overlap between supercomputing power and genetics. Genetics is simply information, and as supercomputers deal in the awesome power of information, there will be fantastic advances in medicine, but the threats are just as large and are everywhere.
I have three quick points. First, the huge digital corporations must be held to account in relation to democratic processes and concerns, and this must happen quickly. Our lives have been invaded. Data are kept, in enormous amounts, on all of us. We cannot simply accept this as it stands. Secondly, as citizens, we cannot just sit back and accept a situation where human beings are programmed out of key technologies. Smart machines can be designed either to replace us or to enhance and extend our capabilities. When it comes to the distinction between AI and what has been called IA—intelligence augmentation—we should push for the second of these. This is a very serious issue. Thirdly, direct human contact should be preserved and sometimes reintroduced. “Back to the future” is a good way of handling advanced technologies. Let us reintroduce human contact wherever we can where at the moment we have robotic automated voices. Let us contain and humanise the robots.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, I am happy to concur, as always, with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, has said. His remarks are well worth careful study. I want to draw colleagues’ attention to something that those who work with the Parliamentary Digital Service will already know—that tomorrow is the last day for our retiring director, Mr Rob Greig. As a former chair of the Information Committee I shall take this opportunity to wish him well in his career and thank him for the leadership—which is worth mentioning in dispatches—that he gave to the response to the recent cyberattack. Without his leadership that would have had a much worse impact on our institution. He has done two and a half years, and he has made a difference. We wish him well, and thank him for his work.
I was particularly interested in the reference by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, to the way in which we run Parliament. Listening to the debate, I realise that with her, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, and others, we have an enormous amount of talent among the membership of your Lordships’ House. I am also pleased that the Senior Deputy Speaker has taken enough of an interest in this debate to be present today, because he has a key role in trying to make sure that we do business in a way that is fit for purpose in a digital age.
I agree with some of the speeches made earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, made a powerful speech, and he has done great work in dealing with training needs. He says that we need to catch up with Estonia, and he is correct. That is how bad things are. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans made a powerful speech about fairness. Obviously, I would subscribe to that, because if we in this House are passing laws relying on “digital by default”, it is not right if we do not know what we are asking our clients—applicants for universal credit—to know and understand, because we need a better grounding. We need not only a grounding but an understanding—that is a good word; it is not just digital skills that we need, but an understanding of what a modern Parliament needs.
My plea, following on from the important speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is that, working with the Lord Speaker—I know that he has a genuine interest—and the new interim director of the PDS, we should be operating with a much closer interest by Members to try to make Parliament much more effectively digital. If we do not do that, we will be left behind. The institution, qua institution, will become more and more irrelevant to the needs, political and otherwise, of the day. I suggest starting some kind of interest group—it could be online, virtual, or anything we like—to bring together some of the collective massive talent we have, and try to encourage other Members who are perhaps less familiar with technology, and do not feel as comfortable with it, to engage in a conversation, so that we can all not only improve our own individual contributions to the work of this important institution, but produce a better result for the British public. That is an important priority for the Government.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, as we have heard, digital technology has transformed our lives, with the same import as the invention of the wheel. My noble friend Lady Lane-Fox of Soho has reminded me of the important strictures of one of my composition teachers—that you will only ever get out of any venture rewards in direct correlation with what you put in. That lies at the heart of this timely debate.
For example, I can press a button and digital technology will play me a piece of music—but by exploring that technology further, by investing time and creativity in it, I can do so much more. I can write music directly on electronic manuscript paper, or I can play it on a keyboard and the technology will notate it and play it back. Is that not absolutely extraordinary? Just imagine if Bach or Mozart had had that technology. Their improvisations would have been preserved for posterity, and instead of their laboriously writing out by quill all the individual parts for violins, violas, woodwind and brass, and sending them by horse to musicians desperate to rehearse, the technology would extricate the parts, which could then be sent instantly all over the world, where they could be printed—or even, as now happens, be performed by reading from an electronic tablet, just as I am referring to my notes now. Mozart would surely have had time to finish his own Requiem, and so much more besides.
Let us follow the example of composers, scientists and artists of this stature who seized technological advances in their own time, and by understanding them were able to transform knowledge and to write sublime masterpieces for instruments that were still in their infancy. Mozart’s clarinet concerto, and his quintet, are perfect examples of not merely using advances in technology but understanding their potential. Look at how David Hockney has used digital technology in his iPad pictures and his multicamera moving landscapes. Every theatrical event we attend is now lit by pre-programmed computer technology. Many films and television programmes manage magically to combine realism with technological fantasy to transport us to an extraordinary and brave new world—and indeed, to worlds beyond our own.
We must concentrate on the young and the underprivileged in our efforts to educate, and to spread the digital word. Opportunity to learn is such a gift. With it we will transform the lives of so many, allowing them to share in the magical cornucopia of experience that digital technology and the internet offer. The next generation will transport us in ways that are unimaginable as we sit here today. Why, we might meet in virtual reality, thus solving our current problems of housing during repairs and rebuilding.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on introducing this debate. She has already forced somebody with few digital skills into a little bit of digital understanding, and I thank her very much for that. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He put this issue into the context of music and I shall put it into the context of policing. It was a delight that the noble Baroness mentioned climate change, but I am going to avoid that topic today and talk about policing.
A high level of digital understanding is obviously important for the police. It will be essential in fighting crime. The problem is that the rapid pace of technological advancement leaves many unknown unknowns—for example, the policing issues that might arise with driverless cars or quantum computers. As new crimes come forward, such as cyberbullying and phishing, the police need technology skills and support to face these 21st-century crimes. At the same time as we navigate these challenges, we also have to maintain a constant focus on protecting civil liberties while encouraging and facilitating innovation.
Digital crime differs greatly from traditional crimes, because most digital crime can be committed from the comfort of the perpetrator’s own home, and the actions of a computer-savvy criminal can rapidly affect thousands of people. The ransomware attack on the NHS in May showed the devastating effect that cybercrime can have on core public services. To meet these challenges, all police officers and police staff need the knowledge and skills to use digital technology and be aware of emerging trends. Police leaders must have a deep understanding of the developing issues, and have the vision for a new strategy to seize the initiative on these new crimes.
I want to talk about big data, which the police use a lot. That means drawing huge amounts of data from diverse sources, assessing their accuracy and reliability, and then making critical analyses—and sometimes difficult decisions based on what has been learned. This is an important issue, as it has wide-ranging implications for civil liberties and discrimination within society. It offers opportunities for the police to add data-driven insights to their traditional policing expertise. Complex algorithms can make useful predictions from a range of data as diverse as historical crime data, location of cashpoints, census data, football results, weather patterns and temperature changes.
The opportunity is that big data models can give deeper insight into the trends that affect crime and allow police to direct scarce resources better. Often this can make policing easier but sometimes IT goes badly wrong, and I shall give your Lordships an example of that. Last month, London’s Met police used what is actually a controversial, inaccurate and largely unregulated automated facial recognition technology to spot troublemakers at the Notting Hill Carnival. This is the second year running that it has trialled it, and once again it did more harm than good. Last year it actually proved useless, so that was okay, but this year it proved worse than useless, with 35 false matches and one wrongful arrest of someone erroneously tagged as being wanted on warrant for a rioting offence. Silkie Carlo, the technology policy officer for civil rights group Liberty, saw the technology in action and, in a blog post, described the system as showing,
“all the hallmarks of the very basic pitfalls technologists have warned of for years—policing led by low-quality data and low-quality algorithms”.
Yet, in spite of its lack of success, the Met’s project leads viewed the weekend not as a failure but as a resounding success. It had come up with one solitary successful match, and even that was skewered by sloppy record-keeping that got an individual wrongly arrested. The automated facial recognition was accurate but the person had already been processed by the justice system and was erroneously included on a suspect database. It so often comes back to basic record-keeping, not to technology that can make things easier.
I see two particular problems for the police force: understanding what there is in terms of digital products, and having the judgment to know what is appropriate to use.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox. This is a really important topic, and it is right to have this debate before we get anywhere near the Bill that seeks to reform the data protection system.
Who could be opposed to improving digital literacy? Like financial, political or emotional literacy, it is surely of great practical and human importance. No doubt one of the shortcomings of our present situation is that all too many of us are not sufficiently digitally literate. Many of us are part of a generation of digital autodidacts, and both our understanding and our know-how are too often patchy.
However, there are great obstacles to improvement in digital literacy while the underlying rules and conventions of the digital world are so obscure. I do not mean merely that the technical protocols of the digital world are unclear, although few are likely to understand them. I mean that the basic legal, regulatory and cultural standards of the online world remain obscure. Perhaps an analogy with the world of print in its early days will show this. In its early days, printing was initially a deeply disruptive new technology. Today our ability to assess the printed word is supported by a framework of laws and conventions; we can distinguish between authors, printers and publishers; publishers must be identifiable and are subject to laws that bear on defamation or breaches of copyright; and there are sanctions for plagiarism and passing off. There is a huge list of further laws and regulations that bear on the printed word. We can secure good standards of written communication only because we have reasonably clear legal, regulatory and cultural frameworks in place—there are common standards. At present, matters are not comparable in the online world. Digital literacy is therefore not enough to offer adequate protection or empowerment even to those who make an effort to become more digitally literate. It would be naive to expect individual digital literacy to offer adequate certainty or protection to those using digital technologies.
There are still cyber romantics to be found who believe that no legislation or regulation should restrain the online world. However, I think that picture is remote from daily life. Of course we need to preserve freedom of expression online, as offline—but online, as offline, the aim has to be qualified by measures that secure other rights of the person. Freedom of expression, online as offline, is a qualified right. The real problem is not that standards are not needed but that extraterritoriality is an everyday reality of the digital world, and all standards will need to be established by co-operation between the powers of that world and those of the world of states. They cannot be secured by state legislation alone, and this will not be easy. Agreement on the technical standards is one matter, but the wider systemic standards needed for a digital civilisation cannot be secured while there are vast rewards for breaching them.
To cast the burden of improvement entirely on individuals by requiring them to improve their digital literacy would be to overlook where the deeper need for change lies. I suggest that Parliament needs to start to address the deeper issues of securing legislation that supports standards in the digital world. That will not be done by some tweaks in the data protection laws; indeed, I suspect that revising that failing approach to the digital world will not lead us very far.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for tabling this debate. I declare my interest as a trustee of the digital charity Doteveryone, which the noble Baroness chairs so ably. She and I have campaigned for a long time about basic digital skills, and a number of noble Lords here today have spoken very eloquently about that. So I want to park the issue of basic digital skills; they are so essential that a lot has already been said about them today. I hope the Minister will update us on what the Government are doing to deliver on their commitments to spend money on and support universal basic digital literacy.
Instead, I shall focus my comments on the importance of digital understanding more broadly. Basic digital skills and digital infrastructure are essential to be able to start to understand the digital world, and that is really what this debate is all about: broad digital understanding. People are afraid of the things they do not understand. They are particularly afraid of the things they do not understand that threaten their way of life, and we should have no illusions that the digital world is going to do that to a large number of people. There will be good change and bad change. I firmly believe that the good will outweigh the bad, but it is unlikely to happen simultaneously and symmetrically so that individuals are not left stranded unless we do something about it.
I shall talk briefly about one example: cars. If you take a taxi ride in London today and mention the word “Uber”, your conversation is pretty much guaranteed for the rest of the journey. The danger is that those taxi drivers are actually fighting yesterday’s battle. Come driverless cars, it is not going to be a question of regulating the drivers of Uber taxis; we need to think about how we prepare a huge swathe of society to build different skills in order to have different jobs in the new world. We also need to think about how we regulate those driverless cars. I think it was in 1930 or 1931 that the Highway Code was first drafted. One thing that has remained consistent in that code is the exhortation to drivers to drive with care and consideration of others. We are going to need to work out what the Highway Code for driverless cars is that ingrains that in the machine learning and the algorithms. We cannot abdicate that responsibility to either our children or grandchildren in the way that our grandparents did in working the VCR, nor can we abdicate that responsibility to the brilliant software engineers. I honestly think they are the last people who should be working out the new Highway Code and the moral and ethical regulatory debates that that will bring.
To create the right regulatory framework—I have picked one tiny innovation that the digital world is bringing—all of us need a general understanding of that technology to be able to engage in the debate with those brilliant software engineers, rather than to run away from them. That is why this debate is so important and why it is so fantastic, for me as someone who has worked in the tech sector for a long time, to see so many people in the Chamber today bringing such varied perspectives to this subject.
I ask the Minister what he and his department are doing to drive further digital understanding in Whitehall, in Westminster and beyond. Some very important work needs to happen now. I think we already see the signs of fear of change in our society. I would not suggest that technology is the only reason why we have a very fractured and unhappy political discourse today but it is undoubtedly one of the underlying reasons, and that is only going to increase. I hope that in future we will be discussing the real ethical and regulatory issues, rather than the need to discuss them one day.
Lord Aberdare (CB)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on this debate; on her visionary, inspiring and rather daunting speech; and indeed on all her work to promote digital understanding and effective usage of digital technology. I was planning to speak mainly on some rather specific aspects of digital skills, based on my experience as a member of the House’s Digital Skills Committee, but, listening to the noble Baroness’s speech and the debate so far, I feel that some of the points I had planned to make fall rather below the threshold of quality that other speakers have achieved. I am going to try to rescue one or two points from my speech, with apologies if I get totally lost as a result, and congratulations to the other speakers.
My first point is about the role of government, which the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has just raised. The Digital Skills Committee—rightly, in my view—has suggested that the Government have a role as the conductor of the orchestra. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, could have made something of this, but I will merely endorse that role: giving a lead, ensuring co-ordination and harmony between the different groups involved, achieving an overall balance and engaging all the different audiences that need to be reached.
My second point is the importance of building young people’s digital understanding right from the moment they start school, or even before, both in and outside the classroom. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, my grandchildren spend most of their time looking at iPads or iPhones; however, one of the things they looked at was a wonderful kit based on the extraordinary Raspberry Pi computer. My nine year-old grandson, within around an hour of unwrapping that at Christmas, was doing some very basic programming. We could usefully learn from and encourage techniques like that.
My third point, which is another essential in this area, is to improve the careers advice and guidance offer. I have said before in this House that I am a great fan of the work that the Careers & Enterprise Company is doing to help schools improve in this area, both for skills and for understanding. The CEC’s “passport for life” is a promising initiative to provide a standardised and verified digital record of achievement that young people can share with employers.
I had also intended to endorse the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that one of the key audiences whose digital understanding might usefully be improved is Parliament. I was very interested in a study that Doteveryone did last year, mentoring four MPs. I am sure that there are lessons to be learned from that study and that we should be looking at how we can extend that sort of learning to improve our ability to address these issues. This is a huge challenge, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government have fully studied the score and are ready to step onto the podium.
Lord Maxton (Lab)
My Lords, you will note that I have basically torn up my speech. If you are number 17 on the list, most of what you want to say has already been said. First, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, both for her speech and for introducing this debate. Her speech was very good, if slightly depressing. I have already used the intranet and the internet at least twice today: I used the intranet to book a table in the dining room and I drew money out of a cash machine, which uses the internet, as we all know.
I have three political points to make. I am a politician and delighted to be called one, but I do not think that politics is keeping up with the change that is taking place in our society at the present time. In education, in the health service, in shopping, in whatever else it may be, the internet is becoming more and more important. Education was my field before I became an MP. I read education debates, and neither the word “computer” nor the internet is ever mentioned. Why? Surely we ought to be involved in that discussion. The computer and the internet ought to be transforming our education policy. I listened to the First Minister of Scotland, and she never mentioned it. It was never part of her policy.
We want to spend more money on the health service. Good, but on what? What is our health policy? Should we be connecting everything together by computer and by the internet? In the area of genetics, for instance, you can move forward only by connecting all the various computers together and making them all work on the same policy and issues. Why are we not doing that?
The internet is transforming our society and the way we work, yet our political parties—despite what the Liberals might say, and I will come to that in a moment—are not keeping up with the transformation that is taking place. They are not moving with the times. In part, this is due to the fact that our democratic process is a five-year process, whereas the process of planning for the internet, science and technology looks forward 20 years. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, raised that issue.
I will finish with one last point, which comes back to ensuring that everybody has access and which will make the Liberal party wake up. The only way you can ensure that everybody has access to the internet and the skills needed is by introducing a smartcard or an ID card—whatever you like to call it.
Baroness Greenfield (CB)
I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for the opportunity to contribute to this timely debate. As a neuroscientist, I urge that digital understanding should go further still and include a deeper awareness of the impact of screen technologies on the physical brain and how it is changing our actual thought processes and consciousness.
Humans possess the superlative ability to adapt to the environment. The human brain becomes highly personalised after birth by the development of unique configurations of connections between brain cells. This, I suggest, constitutes an individual “mind”. These neuronal connections are constantly being modified by input from the outside world—a world now increasingly mediated by screens. Our highly impressionable brains, our minds, will be adapting in an unprecedented fashion.
While the internet can be a source of high-quality entertainment and education and of socialising in new ways, such benefits, especially for the young, should be weighed against some very basic considerations. Young children, who are still developing the ability to regulate their emotions and cope with frustration and boredom, need to develop self-calming skills that do not rely on the palliative of the screen. No matter how high-quality the content of what is flashed up, time spent in a screen-based world displaces time spent learning, playing and socialising in the real world. Real-world toys, activities and human-to-human interactions foster the imagination, creativity and social skills of a child in ways that screen technologies typically cannot. Computer gaming has been shown to bring benefits such as improved dexterity, but the content and context of these activities should not be ignored. Put bluntly, is it not worth pondering the relative merits of 10,000 hours spent playing “World of Warcraft” online versus 10,000 hours developing skills on the guitar or piano in the sociable company of other musicians?
The temptation to immerse oneself obsessively in the screen world is well-nigh universal. Over 2,000 peer-reviewed articles relating to internet addiction offer increasingly strong evidence that it is a real phenomenon. What exactly is an internet addict addicted to? We have always found pleasure in finding new information, whether through intentional searching or happenstance, but the preference to engage with the screen world could be because it offers a qualitatively different experience from that encountered in the three-dimensional, less-compliant real world. Whatever you do in the screen world will elicit an instant response, unlike real life. This instant feedback is not merely reassuring, but so compelling for some that it becomes a prerequisite for their well-being. A recent Harvard study found that, rather than sit alone with their own thoughts for 15 minutes, many people chose to give themselves painful electric shocks. That was in Science in 2014.
Screen culture, characterised by its never-ending traffic of input and output, appears symptomatic of a new type of existential challenge: to sustain and enjoy a rewarding personal, inner world that is independent of external stimulation. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, should be applauded for founding a think tank highlighting a key area: examining the internet’s effect on how we live, care, consume, love, learn, work and die. Surely central to such examination should be careful consideration of its unprecedented effects on the brain itself.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, like others, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. She has been a role model for us all. She has created a successful digital business; she helped the Government to get ahead on technology when we served together on the coalition’s Efficiency Board; and now she is beating the drum for digital skills, awareness and understanding.
I know that she feels that public policy on this matter has developed rather too slowly. I share that sentiment, but it is rarely in the nature of government to be quick. Nevertheless, as a nation we benefit from very strong technology and creative industries. So some things are going well, and we benefit from the support of groups such as techUK, which briefed us for this debate.
When I came to Parliament, I used to wax lyrical on the awfulness of internet and mobile coverage, as well as the problems of exclusion, described again today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lord Cathcart. This made me very unpopular with Ed Vaizey, who, to do him justice, worked hard to extend coverage with less help from industry than he deserved. Only last week he was on the “Today” programme, still cheering us up on this very subject. We made money available for digital infrastructure when I was at the Treasury, and it is clear to me that a combination of wi-fi and 4G and 5G mobile providing digital access right across the UK is essential to our success now that digital affects most—indeed, perhaps all—of our endeavours.
Today, I want to make two further points. First, the noble Baroness is right to worry about digital understanding, as well as about skills. I was cheered by the figures in the Library note showing that, according to Lloyds Bank, only 11.5 million people lack digital skills and, according to the ONS, only 9% have never used the internet. If you look back only 10 years, that is an extraordinary improvement and a tribute to free-market transformation. My noble friend Lord Baker will be glad to know that my granddaughter learned coding in her first year at primary school in Wandsworth.
However, as with everything in life, there are drawbacks to internet penetration. It poses a major challenge to government and society. There are worrying externalities to balance the wonderful convenience, pleasure and efficiency that digital brings. I am referring to scams, especially the millions of financial scams every week, with data and identities constantly at risk from cyberattacks. Which? has produced very good reports on this scourge. I am also referring to access to the compulsive dangers of gambling and drugs, and to bullying online, child abuse, pornography and Islamist extremism. There is also biased, unregulated and annoying advertising, putting the offline advertisers at a commercial disadvantage and undermining the print media. Close to my heart, there is also the theft of intellectual property, affecting books and other networks. In addition, there is fake news online and its huge impact on society, public sentiment and elections.
Finally, regarding Brexit, as the Minister responsible for the digital single market, I spent many hours with other member states, including Estonia, debating the right way forward—how to open up the opportunities for the flow of digital content, fintech, commerce and so on. In finishing, I should very much like to ask the Minister to share his thinking on the positives and negatives for our digital policy, the digital economy and digital understanding of a post-Brexit world, because equivalent challenges and opportunities will still exist post Brexit.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for introducing this debate. Before I start, I should draw the House’s attention to some of my interests listed in the register.
There have been two very brief mentions of disability in this debate—by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Knight—in the context of groups of disabled people not getting access to the internet. However, we have not addressed the fact that there is another problem for these people. Many groups can use adaptations to allow them a degree of access to the net—but, unless companies do to their websites what something like 80% of major firms have done, that technology will be non-accessible. This is the equivalent of insisting, in the built environment, that you have steps in front of everything—it means that some people cannot get in. Currently, there is no understanding of the need for accessibility when these systems are devised, or of how this might be done.
With the expansion of this area, effectively we have totally forgotten something that we have talked about and implemented over many decades in the built and non-digital environment. The problem is that some people cannot access certain functions. From what I have been led to understand, those with visual impairments are probably the worst affected. Dyslexics also have a problem—for them it presents an absolute barrier. I have been studying a group called AchieveAbility and the problems relating to employment for those in the neurodiverse community—dyslexics, dyspraxics, those with autism and dyscalculics. The biggest problem that this group experiences with recruitment is through the big agencies. They insist that you go online—but you cannot fill out the form. The rest of society should be made aware of something this basic. At the moment, nobody knows about it and most of these sins are committed in ignorance. Let us start to look at this issue. If we do not, we will be excluding something like 20% of the population from the benefits of the internet.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I, too, welcome this important debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox. Without question, the future is digital.
I speak as a professor of civil engineering at Cambridge University and also from my 25 years’ experience of industry as a practising engineer. In March, the Institution of Civil Engineers published its report State of the Nation 2017: Digital Transformation. Its principal message was that digital transformation should be at the heart of the infrastructure pillar in the Government’s industrial strategy.
Our infrastructure, which I will use as an example, is vital for our economy and our society. More importantly, we need smart infrastructure. By this, we mean combining physical infrastructure with digital infrastructure. Bridges can have sensors measuring all kinds of parameters, as can our tunnels and buildings—indeed, any type of infrastructure. We will be able to know when a bridge or a tunnel is overstressed, requires attention or is reaching the end of its useful life. Sensors on our infrastructure are part of the “internet of things”—myriad smart devices that collect and transmit data.
Here, I should declare an interest. In the engineering department at Cambridge, I lead the Centre for Smart Infrastructure and Construction. Innovative sensors—fibre optics and wireless devices—have recently been installed at more than 100 sites, providing important and unique new data. However, to be of any use, the data from sensors on infrastructure will require understanding, interpretation and management—crucial digital skills. Vast amounts of data themselves are of little use. We need to turn data into knowledge. All data must be critically interpreted and managed, and the implications properly understood. The limitations and implications of unreliable data need to be fully appreciated by the users of the data. Full digital understanding is needed for this.
These skills relate principally to our engineers and scientists, and to our technologies and industrial strategy. They are in the category of the digital worker and the digital maker, as defined by the Digital Skills Taskforce. These required skills are significantly beyond those of the ordinary digital citizen, who may be reasonably confident with day-to-day activities such as communicating, finding information and purchasing goods or services. We need to convert many more digital citizens into digital workers.
The Government’s Green Paper Building Our Industrial Strategy highlights the importance of enhancing digital skills at all levels of society. In responding to the Green Paper, the Royal Academy of Engineering reported that the engineering community would like to see a general computing GCSE introduced, as well as increased and sustained support for computer science. Also, computing should be designated a core subject in schools.
My final point relates to primary schools. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, that more emphasis in primary schools on STEM subjects, including digital skills, will surely lead to improved digital understanding at all levels in our society.
Baroness Worthington (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I would like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for her influential work and for introducing this important debate.
I begin by stating that I am a technological optimist. Advances in information and communications technologies have brought great benefits to humanity, with potential for many more to follow. Much of the utility of the super-computers that now surround us has been provided to us by companies whose programming skills have made them household names. As their usefulness has grown, so too has the value of these companies, to the point now where they are the mostly highly capitalised companies on the planet, replacing oil companies. The companies with the highest market valuation are the particular breed through which vast amounts of data pass—data generated by users, which means all of us.
These platform service providers often do not charge for the services they provide, yet their incomes are vast, derived mainly from advertising—and specifically from highly targeted and efficient advertising, the likes of which older forms of broadcast and print media could never deliver. As we go about our digital lives, we leave behind us valuable digital information that can be processed en masse by super-computers, helping to profile us into ever more detailed market segments, defined not just by who we are or what we do, but by how we think and feel.
A mass communications revolution is under way and there will inevitably be negative consequences. We need to ask how these can be minimised. Internet platform providers are not classed as broadcasters since they do not generate original content. This has led to controversies around abuses of copyright and stretched the boundaries between freedom of expression and the rules seeking to govern defamation, incitement to hate and other forms of illegal communication.
As interconnectedness has grown in a concentrated number of platforms, information volumes have also increased. This has led to more curation of the flow of information to improve user experiences. But who decides what improves a user experience? Often, it means keeping content in line with already known preferences. Our natural confirmation biases are being strengthened as our news feeds are curated to show more of what we agree with and less of what we do not. With no requirement to maintain political neutrality, platforms can serve up content which is the equivalent of the entire panel of “Question Time” being populated only by Nigel Farages every week.
In this polarised environment, deliberate misinformation or fake news can spread like wildfire. It can spread naturally if the “click bait” is compelling enough. However, why leave it to chance? It is possible to guarantee a higher circulation of stories—whether real or not—using fake personalities controlled by computers to “like” or “favourite” stories thousands of times so they are picked up by listing algorithms and circulated more broadly.
Algorithms control what we see. Has the line between companies such as Facebook being platforms and publishers been crossed? Are publishers not editors of content? Even if it is an algorithm doing the editing, these algorithms originate somewhere and they express a set of beliefs that shape what we see. They should be open to scrutiny. Transparency is a precursor to understanding.
Increased digital understanding will be necessary before we draw up and maintain a rule book so the benefits of digitalisation are felt by everyone and the incidents of abuse and misuse are minimised. As a group of lawmakers, we have a particular responsibility to educate ourselves. That is why I am delighted that we have created an ad hoc committee to consider artificial intelligence, which, I am sure, under the expert chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will produce excellent results. I also look forward to the Government’s digital charter and data protection Bill, which will allow this rich debate to continue. There are so many aspects of this debate that we could have covered today, but time is short. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, once again for introducing this debate and I hope it will not be the last of its kind.
Lord Rees of Ludlow (CB)
My Lords, I join other speakers in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on this debate. Our lives have been hugely enriched by consumer electronics and by web-based services that are free or very cheap. Indeed, during a decade where many people’s real wages have fallen, the main reason why they may enjoy greater subjective well-being is the consumer surplus offered by the ever more pervasive digital world. However, it is not an unalloyed piece of good news that young people spend so much time online, and there are other concerns. What about, for instance, the burgeoning information about us on the net—about health records, google searches, where we have travelled and what we buy?
When we are at home, Amazon’s home robot is recording what we say. Even the humble robotic vacuum cleaner can record the floorplans of our rooms. All this information has commercial value to the companies that dominate the sector. Criminal hackers can steal our identity. As the internet of things becomes more pervasive, they will be able to sabotage our house and our car as well. When on the phone or online, it is increasingly hard to tell whether you are dealing with a real person or with a computer. Bots can engage in increasingly sophisticated dialogue—but it is important that we should be able to recognise them for what they are. Would we be happy if a stranger who sat near us on a train could access facial recognition software, identify us and then search our online presence?
AI will enable machines to control traffic flows, the electric grid and such like. They will do such jobs better than humans and that is an unambiguous benefit, but when machines decide the fate of individuals, one is ambivalent. If individuals are denied a request, they should be entitled to be told the reason. One genuine dilemma is that machine learning leads to algorithms that seem reliable, but no human understands how they come to their decisions.
When so much business, including our interaction with Government, is done via websites, we should worry about, for instance, an elderly or disabled person living alone who is expected to access the benefits system online. Think of the anxiety and frustration when something goes wrong. Such people will have peace of mind only if there are enough adequately trained human beings in the system to ensure that they can get help and are not disadvantaged.
This leads to a more general point. The digital revolution generates huge wealth for an elite, but preserving a healthy society will require massive redistribution of wealth and, of course, redeployment of labour to ensure that everyone still has worthwhile employment. To do this we should surely hugely expand the numbers of public service jobs where the human element is crucial and where demand is huge, and now hugely unsatisfied, especially carers for young and old, and in particular, enough computer-savvy carers to help the old and the bewildered.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on securing this very relevant debate. It is difficult to overestimate her role in promoting digital government.
In 2010, my noble friend Lord Maude commissioned the noble Baroness to carry out a review of government digital capability. Unlike most government reviews, which take months if not years, the Martha Lane-Fox report was produced in two weeks. Her recommendations were admirably straightforward: government should be digital by default with assisted digital for those not yet online, and there should be a new government digital organisation headed by the best person possible—the outstanding Mike Bracken took this role.
The results of what became the Government Digital Service, or GDS, speak for themselves. In 2010, the UK was a byword for car-crash government IT programmes. In contrast, as we have heard, in 2016 the UK was top of the UN rankings. We saved over £4 billion from the IT bill in just four years, Government became an attractive employer for a generation of digital talent, and start-ups and SMEs won government business, ending the domination of a few international companies. The award-winning GOV.UK became one of the most visited sites in the UK. GDS was hailed as Europe’s best start-up, with the Washington Post calling it the “gold standard” for digital government.
When the Australian Government set up their Digital Transformation Office, Malcolm Turnbull, now the Australian Prime Minister, emailed my noble friend Lord Maude to say that if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, he should consider himself very flattered. Many other countries, including the US, copied the model, often with the help of former GDS staffers.
These remarkable results were not accidental. Reform, especially in the Civil Service, needs leadership, stamina and political courage. The success of GDS depended on strong authority and leadership at the centre of government. The mantra was, “the strategy is delivery”. Yet the new GDS mandate—to support, enable and assure departments—seems to place the needs of departments over the needs of users. The battle over the use of shared platforms is worrying. Cross-government platforms such as Verify are designed for the user so that digital government is consistent and easy to deal with. Their use by departments is set to save billions of pounds, yet they are resisting their use.
One of the great myths of government is that while central control may be needed to drive initial reform, there comes a point where the reforms are said to be embedded and controls can be eased off. My experience is that reforms embedded in departments are precisely that. They are usually embedded six feet under so that departments can regain autonomy and go right back to their old ways without further interference. We should not risk our digital leadership position to maintain a pointless power battle in Whitehall.
The Government have published a powerful digital transformation strategy and GDS is vital to its delivery. I hope the Minister can reassure us that GDS must be empowered to do so. I wonder whether now is a timely moment for the noble Baroness to review progress after five years, which could address her other concerns.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, as noble Lords know, this is a time-limited debate and we must finish at 4.33 pm, which may cut into the Minister’s response.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I live in rural Norfolk so if my remarks sound rather like those of the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I am sure that noble Lords will understand.
It would be so nice to follow the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for digital understanding, but for those of us who do not have access to the digital world through an effective broadband internet, that understanding is a bit of a chimera. The Government have a totally inadequate strategy to achieve universal coverage of the internet broadband service in rural areas. Where I live in the parish of Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts in the Waveney valley along the border between Norfolk and Suffolk, it took from 1926 to 1955 to get electrification and it looks as if it is going to take as long to get broadband. I discovered two months ago that there is a cable laid by a Dutch company that runs all the way down from Lowestoft to London and is laid 300 yards from my door. However, the Government processes of putting in rural broadband around Norfolk are constrained by not only all the money being given away to BT, which has wasted it in ways I will outline in a minute, but also by the fact that nobody can get access to this cable except through voluntary organisations that have now bought into it. It looks as if I will have to dig the cable myself.
Is that satisfactory? I do not think so. I am supporting a group of very angry local residents who feel we have been totally abandoned. It has been a scandal. Hundreds of millions of pounds have poured into BT and Openreach and their vans are all over place. They are putting in cabinets that connect to copper wire, through which we can get an effective signal about 30 yards from the cabinet. So those of us who live in the outlying villages will never get broadband. There are little red dots on the BT maps that say “you’re never gonna get it”.
It is making a huge difference to educational and economic prospects: our farmers tear their hair out, I cannot even buy things online from my favourite shops and as for downloading things, it is not enough. What I want to know is: how are we going to get an adequate strategy that enables us to get a realistic deliverable timetable? To me this is as important as electricity and a clean water supply. Can the Minister, say something to cheer up us unconnected village folk of Brockdish and Thorpe Abbotts, and the thousands round our county and all the other rural counties who have exactly the same problem? We are never going to catch up unless you give some real government support for local communities to get it in.
Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)
My Lords, I join the deserved chorus of congratulation for the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on securing this debate. I want briefly to address two issues: first the impact on young people, who in many ways personify the dilemma of digital understanding. On the one hand, digital opens up for them a world of opportunity. On the other hand, the fast-moving world of social media presents great danger in terms of isolation, bullying—particularly homophobic bullying—and depression. Schools have a very fine balancing act. I am a governor of Brentwood School in Essex—I declare an interest accordingly—which is one of those showing the way in this area. It harnesses the power of digital to enhance and enrich learning by ensuring that every child in the school has their own iPad. At the same time it strives to keep children safe by keeping control of the technology by banning mobile phone use during the school day, encouraging pupils to use technology in a family space and advocating social time without the distraction of any devices. I am sure that that will be music to the ears of the noble Lord, Lord Sugar. That seems to me to be a good way of squaring the circle of empowerment and safety. It is a challenge all schools must face up to.
In my own world of the media—I declare an interest as executive director of the Telegraph Media Group—the digital revolution has allowed us to reach out to huge new audiences. Today 39 million people in the UK digitally access news on the industry’s websites, and many hundreds of millions worldwide. Last year, content on those websites drove 1 billion social media interactions. That is a phenomenal success story, but it has come at a price. As all noble Lords know, the digital revolution has destroyed the business model which sustains the news publishing industry as advertising revenue has shifted online. For many in the business it is a race against time to adapt and to find new revenues. I am confident it is a challenge that can be met, provided the industry is free to adapt unburdened by excessive and punitive legislation including, of course, the odious Section 40.
One area of great concern is fake news, which is central to this area. Fake news has been with us ever since the printing press was invented, and always will be. What has changed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, is the impact of social media, where algorithms connect users to news by second guessing what the user might like rather than assessing its quality. As it thrives, it attracts advertising from reputable brands and Government. Fake news causes real social harm by reinforcing so-called “filter bubbles” that warp people’s understanding of the world and insulating them from opposing views.
There is no easy answer to that, but one thing we need to do is ensure the sustainability of the real, verified, regulated news which appears in UK news brands. Like many others, I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to establishing a digital charter which will go a long way towards dealing with some of these issues. I also believe that while fake news is an important issue in its own right, it is actually part of a much wider problem of the sustainability of the news industry, and the structural changes in the advertising market from the establishment of a duopoly of news aggregators. That is an issue to which we shall have to return.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, in 2007 the then Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, appointed me as the Minister for Digital Inclusion. It was as bizarre an appointment to me as it was to my friends, but one of the most significant actions I took when I did that job was to recommend the appointment of the noble Lady, Baroness Lane-Fox, as the digital champion for our country. She did a wonderful job, and has done a brilliant job this afternoon in introducing this extremely important debate. She talked about the difference between skills and understanding. I think when I was Minister I had some skills, but I did not have much understanding. I hope this is better now.
What certainly is better is that 10 years ago there were about 17 million people in our country who had no digital skills at all. That figure has now gone down to about 11 or 12 million so there has definitely been an improvement. But there are of course still parts of our society where an awful lot more work has to be done: among older people, who can benefit enormously from digital skills, whether by shopping or by talking to their relatives abroad, or whatever it might be—that has got better; among younger people from different socioeconomic groups and from poorer groups in society, who will not get jobs unless they are digitally literate; and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans told the House, among disabled people, whose lives can be greatly enhanced if they are linked up to the internet.
However, there is another divide, too, which is between the different parts of the United Kingdom. In England, in Humberside, Yorkshire and the West Midlands, there is a deficit, and there is certainly a deficit in Wales, where I come from, and in Northern Ireland and Scotland. Therefore my plea to the Minister today—this has not been mentioned yet, so I hope that he can reply to me on this—is for him to say how he will bring together the different parts of our country on the issue of digital improvement.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare—who is of course himself a Welshman—talked about the orchestra and the conductor. The fact is that in the United Kingdom there is more than one orchestra. There is the English orchestra, but also the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish ones. How will the Minister and the Government co-ordinate the work of all the different Governments in the United Kingdom and to share experience and best practice? There is one way of doing it, which is to ensure that they look at the various institutions which allow them to do just that. There is the British- Irish Council, which brings together Ministers and Governments from these islands, and the Joint Ministerial Committee. It seems that there is a great job of work to be done there to ensure that we approach digital inclusion, digital skills and a better digital understanding right across the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister’s response on those issues.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for this debate and I declare my interests as laid out in the register, particularly as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The potential for public services to use information technology to provide opportunities to improve lives and empower people is great but the reality is that, here in the UK, this is grinding to a halt. We started well but now we have moved into the slow lane. There is now a focus on measurement, cost efficiency and the model of new public service management—on digitising the back office and self-service—and not on how to improve lives and deal with long-held social ills and lack of opportunities for people to reach their potential.
A Deloitte report in 2015 might shed light as to why. It is clear that those leading in the public sector do not really understand the digital world—they see it as a way of doing what we do now but just via a different platform. Some 89% of leaders in the public sector say that they see digital as a way of cost-cutting and not transformation, and 25% said they do not even have the skills to execute the limited plans now being undertaken.
IT is here for the public sector to take advantage of, yet the lack of a design-led and innovation culture, knowledge, governance rules, legislation and digital leadership for doing so is now sadly missing for the next step of a digitally led facilitating and networking public service. For our public sector to transform, we need to address the following. We need leadership at both political and managerial level, building a network of people with the skills, knowledge and understanding to guide the new world, not a governance model of regulation that is concrete and suited to Victorian ideas of government built on siloed pillars. But we also need to build a network for citizens who can support each other and empower each other to understand the risks and the opportunities that technology brings, not a top-down paternal approach that is so yesterday. Data should be seen as for the citizen and by the citizen. Look at Estonia, which is changing the power between state and citizen. The reason why a lot of people do not understand is because citizens are seen as passive and not holding power, but they could be empowered. A new HR strategy is needed to look at leaders who are design-led—networkers and co-producers, not technical experts—and who know the offers of IT transformation that are real, as well as the ones to be avoided. For this to happen we need a clear path—a direction to go forward with. That is vital if we are to transform people’s lives.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB)
I also thank my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox for introducing this very topical debate. I declare an interest as patron of Citizens Online, a national charity set up to tackle issues of digital exclusion. Its focus has been supporting the public, many of whom are elderly, to develop digital skills, while helping partners to improve service delivery.
I noted in the brief of techUK that, while businesses are increasing their digital awareness, 38% of SMEs still lack basic digital skills. It is also alarming that one in 10 adults in this country has never used the internet, and many more are missing out on the opportunities the digital world offers, whether through lack of connectivity—we have heard a lot about that today—digital skills or motivation. Although the digital world has been inexorably marching forward over the last 20 years, providing ever more efficient services to businesses and the public through the internet, only now is there a new revolution about to occur. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Giddens, that just as the Industrial Revolution transformed the nature of manual work, artificial intelligence—AI—is set to dramatically change the nature of white-collar work and the service industry. I am talking about chatbots replacing call centres, credit decision officers being replaced—even accountants, lawyers and truck drivers. A confluence of change means that AI has reached the flashover point—computer power, availability of huge volumes of data and the fact that digital channels for interacting with businesses and citizens are now preferable.
Time precludes me from speaking about data privacy; we shall have plenty of time to do that on the data protection Bill. The AI revolution will happen in years, not decades. Time is of the essence. The very global nature of business and the internet means there is scope for any country to become specialist and dominant in this sphere, with all the associated export benefits, as well as maintaining its own interests, both economically and from a security point of view. The United Kingdom cannot afford to be complacent in believing that its superior education system will be enough to provide a front-row seat. A proactive campaign is essential to raise digital understanding and for the United Kingdom to lead from the front. This is necessary at all levels, enabling business to leverage the opportunity and become more competitive on a global playing field. Just as Estonia is a world leader in digital skills, we need to ensure that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of the AI revolution, as it was in the Industrial Revolution.
Baroness Rock (Con)
My Lords, I also commend my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox for securing this debate but, beyond that, for continuing to champion the digital and tech agenda as she does with such alacrity and passion. We have heard many fascinating speeches and insights this afternoon, so I will keep my comments brief and to two areas. The first is digital’s contribution to our economy and our global competitiveness. To coin a once popular phrase, if we are to win the global race, delivering the pipeline of digital skills and digital understanding is a necessary condition of success.
There are lots of positive signs. Tech City UK’s recent Tech Nation report found that in 2016 UK digital tech investment reached £6.8 billion—higher than any other European country. However, we need to do more if we want to reap the benefits of moving to a fully digital, tech-savvy economy. For example, according to research from O2, 745,000 additional workers with digital skills are needed to meet rising demand from employers over the period 2013-17. I am interested to hear from the Minister whether we are on track.
What more needs to be done in policy, particularly, as my noble friend Lord Baker mentioned, on education? One example is coding and software development. Coadec—the Coalition for a Digital Economy—has identified key areas. One concern is mathematics and a lack of students taking further maths qualifications—a necessary precursor for developer training. Indeed, data show that for the proportion of students studying any maths after 16 years old, England is in the 0% to 10% category, yet countries as diverse as Taiwan, Russia and Japan are in the 95% to 100% category.
The second area that I want to consider is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has spoken about—that this challenge does not merely concern new and exciting digital factors but is also about whether our entire population can participate in the life of the nation. We need digital skills to participate, but we also need the understanding to equip us to deal with the rapidly changing technological landscape. I am delighted to be participating in the House of Lords Artificial Intelligence Committee. As my noble friend Lord St John mentioned, this area is evolving rapidly, enhancing diverse areas from healthcare to finance. But AI is also making us subject to decisions made by algorithms without fully understanding how they work and how AI may affect humanity.
Coadec suggests making access to digital education free for all adults just as we have done with adult literacy, with good results. I could not agree more. We must capitalise on all opportunities for global Britain, particularly in the light of Brexit, but we must also realise that improving digital understanding at all levels is an opportunity to increase participation in our national life. Winning the global race means ensuring that everyone can take part.
Lord Janvrin (CB)
My Lords, I may be the 30th speaker to congratulate my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox on introducing this debate with a fantastic speech. It is no less heartfelt for being the 30th, but I will be brief. I welcome the debate for three reasons. First, the emphasis on digital understanding is very refreshing. We have had debates about digital skills before, but the need to look at the some of the wider issues we face is brought out by this whole concept of digital understanding.
Secondly, I believe that this House is well placed to explore some of the wider issues. As this debate is demonstrating, Members of this House can bring the whole range of expertise to bear, illuminating the constitutional, ethical and social consequences of the digital revolution. My third reason for welcoming this debate is that it offers a chance, at least briefly, to commend the Government for their digital strategy, which was published last March.
I make three comments arising from the strategy. The first is the obvious one relating to the issue of digital understanding before us in this debate. The Government’s digital strategy is rightly focused on areas where practical progress can be made—for example, in infrastructure skills training or start-up growth opportunities. These are obviously crucial, but do the Government see the need to give a lead in the examination of the wider issues that have come out in this debate? Will they, for example, lead the debate on some of the public policy and regulatory issues ahead, on questions of privacy around big data, on concerns about censorship and freedom of expression around the internet, or on the profound ethical issues raised by AI and the social issues around digital exclusion?
My second question about the digital strategy is more specific—about digital skills—and is one I have raised before in this House. The one certainty about digital technology is continuing change, and the digital skills required are not something to be left to be learned at school. They require access to lifelong learning opportunities for everyone. We all need opportunities to reskill and retool throughout our working lives. Are the Government giving sufficient priority to lifelong learning?
My final point is that the digital revolution is obviously a global megatrend. It has the capacity to offer major opportunities to change lives for the better, to generate economic growth and to improve national well-being, but as this debate demonstrates, there are many wider policy issues which require examination and discussion. Given the many other huge policy challenges the Government are grappling with, can the Minister assure us that our digital future is being given the priority it so clearly deserves?
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, may I be the 31st speaker to congratulate, quite justifiably, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, on initiating this debate and on the way she introduced it? This has been a really important debate and of course it has stimulated terrific contributions from all sides of the House. I declare the interests in the register in relation to ombudsman services, Queen Mary University of London, the AI Select Committee and the all-party AI group, all of which seem to have coalesced in this debate, which is a very strange experience.
There have been some very powerful and well informed speeches today on skills, on infrastructure and on inclusion. I am not going to go over that ground: it was extremely knowledgeable and I agree with a huge amount of what has been said, particularly on the state of our infrastructure. I recommend that the Minister take his holidays in Estonia in future, rather than with the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart: that might be a sensible solution.
Lord Maxton
The noble Lord is aware, of course, that Estonia insists on every citizen having an identity card, which is a smart card.
Lord Clement-Jones
I was going to deal with the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, later, but if he talks to the Government Digital Service about blockchain technologies, he might find that the technology in the Verify software will move into blockchain and therefore there will be no need for identity cards. I am very happy to give him a little instruction later.
I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, that we need to look at the broader issues relating to digital understanding. Indeed, doteveryone has a very interesting agenda, bringing to our attention that we cannot simply compartmentalise some of these issues—that is why we have had such an interesting debate today. The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, reminded us about the pace of change and the fact that we are in a new world, with digital technologies opening up new opportunities around prediction, machine learning, the internet of things and the use of algorithms. We need to take action, as the noble Baroness urged, on digital understanding. It impacts on our lives and affects the choices we make as citizens, and the decisions that are made about us and for us by businesses and government bodies, particularly in ways that affect us financially.
The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, made an extremely important point about the impact of immersion in the screen world. We need to understand the impact that is having on us.
Of course, there are also very strong positives, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, reminded us, as did the noble Lord, Lord Patel, in terms of healthcare. We must ensure as we experience the “fourth industrial revolution” that we know who has power over us and what values are in play when that power is exercised, including in terms of social media and fake news, as the noble Lord, Lord Black, reminded us. Of course, that includes us as parliamentarians and public servants, as my noble friends Lord Kirkwood and Lord Scriven reminded us. It is vital for the proper functioning of our society and, as the Government declare in the context of their statement of intent on the new data protection Bill, for the maintenance of public trust.
The Government’s digital strategy touches somewhat on the issue of digital capability but we need to go much further. There are three crucial elements I will briefly highlight in this context. The first is the need to understand the power of big data and what is known as data capitalism. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, would refer to it as “Big Brother syndrome”. What is being collected, when, what is it being used for—as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said—how reliable is it and who is it being shared with? How long is it retained and when can it be expunged? What is the impact on those who are not of an age of majority? Many of us, having worked on the Digital Economy Bill and about to work on the new data protection Bill, will not have a readily available answer. I am sure the Minister will enlighten us.
We need to be able to look beneath the outer layer of the tech giants, as many noble Lords today have reminded us, to see what the consequences are of signing up to their standard terms. What redress do we have for misuse or breach of cybersecurity or identity theft? What data are they collecting and sharing? I believe very firmly, as my party does, in the need for a digital Bill of Rights so that people’s power over their own information is protected.
Secondly, we need to understand the impact—sometimes beneficial but also sometimes prejudicial—of AI, machine learning and the algorithms employed on the big data that are collected. The noble Lord, Lord Rees, reminded us about chatbots, a growing feature of our lives: semi-autonomous interactive computer programs that mimic conversation with people using artificial intelligence.
On algorithms, I recommend Cathy O’Neil’s recent book Weapons of Math Destruction as autumn reading. The potential for bias in algorithms, for instance, is a great concern. How do we know in future when a mortgage, grant or insurance policy is refused that there is no bias in the system? I have argued on a number of occasions for ethics advisory boards when those algorithms are employed in the corporate sector. There must be readily understood standards of accountability, and with these go explainability and transparency, remediability, responsibility and verifiability. A whole raft of different areas needs addressing. The concept of accountability, and with it responsibility and remediability, in particular, means that our complaints and dispute resolution systems must be fit for purpose. That means being readily accessible and understood. If ombudsman schemes are to continue to be effective in improving business practice and in tackling consumer detriment, their role and capabilities must change. These schemes must understand and engage with fairness in an emerging digital world.
Finally, there is the need for young people starting in higher and further education to have the tools to understand the challenges of the future and the skills they will need. We have had very important contributions on the secondary sector. What skills will be in demand in the future? The Royal Society in its Machine Learning report makes a strong case for cross-disciplinary skills. Other skills include cross-cultural competency, novel and adaptive thinking and social intelligence. We need new, active programmes to develop these skills. To be able to make career choices, young people need to have much better information, at the start of their working lives, about the growth prospects for different sectors. We are going to need skills in creativity, data usage and innovation, but we may well not need quite so much in the way of analytical skills in the future because that may be done for us. In the face of this, young people need to be able to make informed choices about the type of jobs which will be available. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, made that point.
It is vital that we treat AI as a tool, not as a technology that controls us, and the greatest priority of all is the need to ensure public understanding. Public awareness of AI and machine learning is extremely low, even if what it delivers is well recognised. We then have to go through the question of what kind of values we want to instil in our new technology. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady O’Neill, raised this point. We cannot be cyber romantics—an extremely good phrase in the circumstances; we need to establish what the noble Baroness aptly called a “digital civilisation”. We do not yet have consensus on that, but I hope that as we work on, develop and debate the Government’s digital charter we will be groping our way towards some kind of understanding of what the future world should look like.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, in her excellent speech, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, called herself a “dotcom dinosaur”. I beg to differ. I think she was suggesting that her time had passed and that she was a fading force in the scene. That is simply not true: she is a star. We all value the contributions she has made and continues to make in this area and long may she continue. In particular, her willingness to acknowledge the dark side of the digital world, such as poor employment conditions, cybercrime, cyberbullying, fake news and identity theft—I welcome the fact that that was also picked up by the former Minister—was very refreshing and gave a very good start to this important debate. If digital is now something we are, not something we do, she is right to suggest that we parliamentarians have a duty, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, to understand this better and to do something about the problems that we perceive.
The theme which has come through most strongly this afternoon is that digitalisation has brought us both good and bad. As the noble Lord, Lord Rees, said, we have got information, convenience and entertainment but we also have sources of crime and loss of privacy. The price we pay for what is often called a “free” service—though it is certainly not that—is that we let companies, the Government and others learn all there is to learn about us. We have no control over who owns the data about us, no idea where they are kept and how they are used but, on the other hand, this flow of personal data leads to products and services that respond more quickly and precisely to our needs and can help give better value and improve productivity. That is why the noble Baroness may be right: as we live more of our lives online there is no doubt that we simply must improve our digital understanding.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and other noble Lords were right to warn us of the category error of confusing digital skills with digital understanding. However, it would be wrong if the Minister does not pick up in his response the problem of the need for basic skills to be properly funded and introduced across the country. The importance of infrastructure was so wonderfully explained by the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy. I was going to deal with some issues to do with technical training and skills, but time has cut into that.
Two points have not had enough attention. The first is the need to make the UK a safe and secure digital economy. Ensuring safety and security is a role for government and it is important that we understand how this happens and what will work. The UK needs to aim to make itself the safest place for people to go online. Young people must be supported to develop digital resilience to navigate the online world safely. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, there is a huge amount of catching up to do in this area under the Department for Education. There is good practice, but it is not nearly sufficiently well bedded.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked about data ethics and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, touched on this in relation to the data—which underpin all parts of the UK’s ever-digitising economy—that need to be looked at much more carefully in order to get the most out of this revolution. There is another side to this, which has also been raised. A data-driven economy and its licence to innovate will work only if there is public confidence in which data are used and the ethical decision-making employed in using them. As has been noted, that is something which we will return to when we get on to the data protection Bill.
This has been an extremely good debate; one of the best that I have witnessed and been involved in in your Lordships’ House. It will serve as a taster for the Bill as it comes forward. I hope the Minister will be able to explain where we are on that and when we are likely to see a draft, because it would be quite interesting to see what it contains.
It has been said, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, was right to remind us, that we still have many issues around some of the points that are coming up here. We need to look at the powers which the Bill may contain to give people the right to ask for material on the net to be deleted; the power it may explicitly give to hold or withhold consent to our data being used; the power to protect our online identity by extending definitions of personal data and our right to contest decisions that are made about us by algorithms—a point that came up in some of the later contributions.
This has been a very interesting debate. I take from it that improved digital understanding will help us to benefit more from the good and make us less of a victim of the bad. At the end of her remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, suggested—and others have picked up on this—that a digital charter might help with the process of improving digital understanding. As we sit here, around us are the effigies—or perhaps I should say the avatars—of those barons who were involved in the original Magna Carta. They wish us well.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and everyone who has contributed to the debate. I have 10 minutes and about 50 minutes’ worth of material, so I will speak fast and hope I will be able to answer some questions.
This is obviously an extremely important subject, as demonstrated by the contributions around the House. I have certainly enjoyed the debate. As everyone has said, there are good things and bad things about our digital world, but the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. The noble Lord, Lord Sugar, expressed it more succinctly: “Get over it”, he said. We will have to cope and I will try to explain how we will.
We have three overarching goals for digital technology. First, we want the country to continue to be what it is today—a world-leading digital economy and the best place in the world to innovate with technology and to start and grow a digital business. Secondly, we want all the benefits of digital to be enjoyed by everyone, rather than be the exclusive preserve of tech professionals. Thirdly, we are committed to making the UK the safest place in the world for users to be online. I will come to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, is right to highlight the importance of awareness and understanding in accomplishing these goals, but we need the skills to be in that position. I do not have time to outline them, but we are making enormous efforts to develop and enhance these digital skills. If I have time, I will come to some of the educational areas that we are looking at. If not, I will certainly write to everyone who has asked a question which I have not managed to get to.
Thanks to these efforts, we are in a position of relative strength on digital skills internationally. However, that is just one part of the story. Increasingly, people need digital skills in every aspect of their lives: shopping, doing their taxes and getting the best healthcare. So we are taking action on every category of digital skills: basic skills, the general skills needed in most jobs, and advanced skills for specialist roles such as cybersecurity. I will not go through those now, because it is important to focus on what the noble Baroness outlined in her very good opening speech.
The technology promises bountiful opportunities and rewards, but it comes with challenges and threats. These threats are to our security, privacy, emotional well-being, mental health and safety—especially the safety of children. Society’s norms, rules and institutions must all evolve so that technological progress delivers a better world for everyone. That is the underlying thinking behind the digital charter that the UK Government will introduce. It will set out a framework for how businesses—including the huge digital corporations mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Giddens—individuals and wider society should act in the digital world. This is absolutely not just a task for the Government. Over the coming months we will work with businesses, academics, charities and the wider public to build consensus around what this framework should be.
An important part of that work will be the publication of the internet safety strategy Green Paper. This will ask for views on a range of options to counter internet harms. We talked a lot about that in the progress of the Digital Economy Bill last year. Through the strategy, we want to agree the balance of responsibilities shared by technology companies, teachers, parents and the Government in keeping people safe online.
I turn to the difficult issue of social media. The Digital Economy Act requires the establishment of a code of practice, to be issued and reviewed if necessary by the Secretary of State. This will offer guidance to providers of social media platforms on action it may be appropriate to take against users of the platform who engage in intimidating or insulting behaviour. We expect online industries to ensure that they have relevant safeguards and robust processes in place and to act promptly when abuse is reported. The data protection Bill will give individuals more control over their data. We are working also towards an international consensus, which is so important in this area.
I return to the concept of digital understanding. The Government have put forward the idea of establishing a data use and ethics body, which will I believe address some of the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. This will establish a sound ethical framework for understanding how data can and should be used. It will address both the needs of the present and the challenges emerging on the horizon as data use becomes ever more sophisticated. Importantly, it will ensure that the public have confidence that their data are being handled properly, that businesses have the assurance that they are handling data with integrity, and that regulators and Parliament are equipped to identify and guard against abuse. We will be very interested in people’s views, and the body will consult widely. Since we mentioned it in a debate in this House in July, we have been working with stakeholders such as the Nuffield Foundation, the Royal Society and the British Academy to identify the roles and functions. So the Government are working with the public, tech companies, education and training providers, and charities such as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, Doteveryone, on this vital agenda.
I will quickly come to as many of the questions as I can. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, asked if digital was a priority of this Government. I confirm that it is a priority—which is reflected in the fact that my department has now been renamed the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lane-Fox, Lady O’Neill and Lady Kidron, asked whether we would make a clear articulation of values online. We absolutely agree with the importance of articulating those, which of course is why we are going to introduce a new digital charter and set out a framework, as I mentioned. Our starting point is that the delicate and careful limits that we have honed over generations for life offline should apply online, too.
It is true that I went to inspect my noble friend Lord Cathcart’s broadband, which I would describe as slow but sure. However, being serious, this is difficult. We are on track to reach 95% superfast broadband. For the 5%, there are problems, but I assure my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that, in her words, there has been real government support for this. More than £24 million of central government funding has been allocated to better broadband for Norfolk. That has been matched by local council funding, which means that more than 173,000 additional homes and businesses are able to access superfast broadband in Norfolk. I accept that, for people who do not have it, this is a real problem—I have experienced it myself. But I also commend what the right reverend Prelate said about WiSpire fixed wireless providers. They would be particularly appropriate in Norfolk—which, as we know, is very flat.
Baroness Murphy
Could I just ask the Minister whether he has seen trees in Norfolk?
Lord Ashton of Hyde
I realise there are trees in Norfolk. I would have mentioned to my noble friend Lord Cathcart the work we have done on bringing forward 5G, but as he does not have a mobile telephone, there is no point.
The noble Lords, Lord Maxton and Lord Baker, talked about joined-up government activities on education. I cannot go into all the details now—I would be happy to write to the noble Lord—but the DfE is working closely with the DCMS in improving communication and coherence in digital skills. As an example of that, we have DfE officials in the Box today. We were the first country to mandate computing sciences in both primary and secondary schools. As I have said, I will write further to the noble Lord on our whole education provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, will remember that in the Digital Economy Act we took some time to talk about data in government departments and how they could be used, subject to relevant safeguards. We are making progress with that, but it is very difficult and we have to be careful with the safeguards. None the less, we have made a lot of progress. ID cards are a separate subject, which is probably out of date: it is much easier to microchip the noble Lord than to give him an ID card.
I am coming to the end of my time; I am sorry that I did not have the full amount of time. Lastly, I must add that we are giving attention to lifelong learning, which we take very seriously. As announced in the 2017 Budget, we are spending £40 million to deal with it. My time is now up. I will of course reply to all noble Lords who I did not even begin to answer. I wish I had had more time. These are vital issues, and the Government are working hard to address them, but we need to do so in partnership with academia, business, charities and other stakeholders. I also look forward to many more contributions from your Lordships on this vital subject.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho
My Lords, you would have thought that, as a director of Twitter, I would be expert in reducing complicated content to just 140 characters—but even I am flummoxed by how to concertina such an erudite and interesting debate into the few short seconds that I have left. I feel as if I had opened a huge dam—or perhaps that is not the right expression. Anyway, a huge amount has come out and a huge amount of emotion has been expressed. I hope we can continue the conversation. We need to have it, and more importantly, the country needs us to have it. I hope that Sir Alan—or rather, the noble Lord, Lord Sugar—will forgive me: I was on my device, but I was making notes, because I too have learned a lot this afternoon. I thank noble Lords for their contributions.