House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr David Gauke)
The roll-out of universal credit is proceeding to plan, gradually and sensibly. People are moving into work faster and staying in work for longer. The most recent phase of expansion will only take the proportion of the forecast claimant population receiving universal credit from 8% currently to 10% by the end of January.
Hywel Williams
There is a great deal of support for the principles of universal credit. However, the roll-out has been characterised as
“operationally messy, socially unfair and unforgiving”.
These are not my words, but those of Sir John Major. If the Secretary of State will not postpone the roll-out—along with many other right hon. and hon. Members, I would like him to consider that again—will he consider two other remedies: to drop the waiting period, and to allow the benefit to be paid fortnightly?
Mr Gauke
Let me be clear: as I touched on earlier, the evidence so far shows that those who go on to universal credit are more likely to be working six months later than they would be had they been on the legacy benefits, and they are also more likely to be progressing in work. That is really important, and it is not something that I want to deny people. I believe that we should roll out something like this gradually and sensibly, and make changes as and when necessary, but that is exactly what we are doing.
Mr Carmichael
Those of us who remember the chaos around the introduction of tax credits can see the good sense in a phased, gradual introduction to universal credit. However, I have to say to the Secretary of State that if we do not learn the lessons from the pilots, we frankly risk losing any advantage that we will gain. Some 57% of applicants for universal credit are having to borrow money before their first payment. Is not that alone enough to justify a pause?
Mr Gauke
The system of advances is an integral part of the system. It has always been there, but we want to make that properly available. Nobody who needs support should have to wait six weeks before they receive any support. What we are doing is making it clear that people can receive an advance of their first month’s payment, which is then deducted over the next six-month period. That is helping people deal with cash-flow issues in that first month, which I think is a sensible and pragmatic response.
Mohammad Yasin
A recently bereaved constituent of mine, a working single parent, has seen her income reduced by £300 a month since transferring to universal credit. For her, work does not pay. Will the Secretary of State urgently review the link between agreement to support payments and universal credit, and will he stop the roll-out until he has done so?
Mr Gauke
The hon. Gentleman says that work does not pay. Let us be clear: universal credit always means that it is worth working an extra hour and worth taking a pay rise. It is always worth working more under universal credit, which was not the case with the legacy benefits. That is why the evidence is suggesting that people do work more and do work more hours than they do under the legacy systems.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why more people have gone out to work this morning than ever before in our nation’s history is that we as a Government have not ducked the challenge of welfare reform, we do not let people languish for years on out-of-work benefits, and universal credit is an essential part of the welfare reform programme?
Mr Gauke
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been the consistent policy of this Government—including under my predecessors, such as my right hon. Friend—to ensure that we have a welfare system that puts work at the heart of it. That is one of the reasons why we have record levels of employment, as he so rightly says.
Mr Speaker
No, the hon. Gentleman was standing up on No. 1 and he has a very similar question, so he can unburden himself of his important thoughts now.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that point. As I said last week, we are refreshing the guidance to DWP staff to ensure that people who need support—who will struggle to get through to the end of the assessment period without financial support—have access to that money quickly. Increasing the eligibility for advance payments is one of the best ways in which we can address some of the concerns that have been raised and learn from that experience.
Heidi Allen (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Although I believe that advance payments are treating the symptoms rather than the cause, I welcome the Secretary of State’s additional guidance to make sure that jobcentres offer them. Advance payments cover roughly two weeks’ worth of money: what support is in place for people waiting three, four, five, six or seven weeks?
Mr Gauke
The level of advance payments of 50% is, we believe, the right balance between getting support to people early in the process—they can get it very quickly—and ensuring a reasonable level of deduction for that advance payment in subsequent months. Clearly, this is an issue that we will continue to look at, but 50% strikes the balance. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for that announcement.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
Rent arrears, food poverty and in-work poverty have all rocketed in areas where universal credit has been rolled out. The third sector has united to join in our call for universal credit to be halted, and we know that pressure is mounting on the Conservative Back Benches for that to happen. Is not the Secretary of State’s apparent climb-down on crisis loans and advance payments an admission that universal credit is failing?
Mr Gauke
Not at all. I come back to the point that universal credit is giving more people the opportunity to get into work and progress in work. The personalised support that is provided by jobcentres where universal credit has been rolled out is proving to be effective. To those people who call on me to stop the process, I say that once fully rolled out, universal credit is likely to mean that 250,000 more people will be in work than would otherwise have been the case. I will not deny those people that opportunity.
Neil Gray
The Secretary of State is either desperately deluded or ignorantly incompetent. In one of the areas in which universal credit has been rolled out, East Lothian Citizens Advice reports that more than half of its clients on universal credit are worse off by an average of £45 a week. The just under a third who are better off have gained just 34p a week. How much more evidence of social destruction will it take for the Secretary of State to have the strength to halt the roll-out?
Mr Gauke
Universal credit is adding to what the Government have already been doing—ensuring that work is at the heart of welfare. That is why we have 3 million more jobs than we did in 2010. Welfare reform is part of the reason for that, and it is part of the reason why we will continue to press on with reforming the welfare state to encourage work and help people to progress in work.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
May I warmly welcome advance payments within five days and immediate needs payments the same day as a definite step forward? Given the reasonably high levels of adult illiteracy and poor computer skills in some areas, can the Secretary of State say something about how volunteers might be able to work alongside personal advisers to help people fill in the application form in the first place?
Mr Gauke
It is important that people filling in forms receive the necessary support, but jobcentre staff provide that support. Voluntary organisations may be able to assist, but Jobcentre Plus staff are already giving the intensive support necessary to help people to complete the applications.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)
Given the Secretary of State’s confidence in the roll-out of universal credit to another 150 Jobcentres Plus, can he give the House a guarantee that none of our constituents will face hunger or near destitution through lack of money over the Christmas period?
Mr Gauke
Universal credit is about ensuring that our constituents are in a stronger financial position. That is what we are trying to deliver by enabling them to work and providing the support they need. As I said earlier, if we look at where we want to get to by 2022, 8% of claimants are already on universal credit and by January it will be 10%. The process is gradual and measured, and that is enabling us to learn from the experience and make improvements, which we will continue to do all the time.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I support universal credit and its roll-out, but I am concerned about applicants with zero savings who, if they lose money for one or two weeks, have nothing to fall back on. Will the Department consider the possibility of jobcentres writing supportive letters to landlords to explain the situation in which benefit claimants find themselves, because the worst outcome for applicants is that they lose their home?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. There is an obligation on social landlords, given the source of income through universal credit, to work constructively with tenants. If a tenant has a reasonable expectation of receiving housing costs as part of their universal credit payment but has not yet received them, the landlord should not take action and the tenant should not face risk of eviction.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
As we have heard, universal credit is causing debt, rent arrears, and even homelessness up and down the country, with many claimants already in work. Given that housing associations are saying that over 80% of rent arrears are down to UC, and that the Mayor of Greater Manchester is predicting that rough sleeping will double as a result of UC roll-out, how many more families does the Minister estimate will be made homeless this winter as a result of the Government’s refusal to pause UC roll-out?
Mr Gauke
Let us be clear: no one needs to go six weeks without financial support when there is a system of advances in place. I make the point to all right hon. and hon. Members that if they are aware of constituents who have not received an advance, they can make it clear to them. Let us be realistic: the fact is that we are now moving towards a welfare system that does not put in place barriers to work and does enable people to make progress. It is no good Labour Members saying they are in favour of the principles, but then trying to obstruct the delivery of a reform that will give 250,000 more people a job.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Chancellor on a range of issues. The Department has had specific discussions with both the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority on the FCA’s proposed remedies in this area, and our plans to ensure that details of these costs and charges are published and given to pension scheme members.
Kelvin Hopkins
Is not the reality that for millions of ordinary people the only way to guarantee a sufficient income in retirement is a good state pension together with a state earnings-related pension scheme for all, with defined contributions and defined benefits?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He will be aware that auto-enrolment has reversed the decline in work-based pension saving, with 8.5 million people signed up and further progress to be made. The reality is that, by reason of the coalition and this Government, we have a new state pension that is worth £1,250 more than in 2010.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
The Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Chancellor, but the Government will not be revisiting the state pension age arrangements for women born in the 1950s that are affected by the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007 and 2011.
David Hanson
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) and I, Members of the Minister’s own party, and all Opposition parties in this House, including the Democratic Unionist party, have introduced a Bill, to be debated on 27 April, to provide for transitional arrangements to be put in place. Will the Minister support the Bill? If not, will he tell the House why not?
Guy Opperman
I can only repeat the answer I just gave: the Government do not intend to revisit the state pension age arrangements for women born in the 1950s who are affected by the Pensions Acts of 1995, 2007 and 2011. The cost would be in excess of £70 billion.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister will be aware that, following the Brexit vote, bond yields dropped by 30%, increasing the public sector pensions bill by a hefty 30% to £1.8 trillion over the last year. Is this latest example of Government ineptitude the real reason WASPI women are being ignored, penalised and denied their pensions?
Guy Opperman
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question, but if her Government in Scotland disagree with any aspect of the UK Government’s welfare reforms, they have the powers to do something about it. I refer her to the letter of 22 June from Jeane Freeman, my opposite number, which specifically discusses the uses of Scotland Act powers to address individual cases.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Will the Minister clarify whether, if the law on the state pension age were changed to favour women over men, it would be discriminatory or illegal?
Guy Opperman
The reasons for the original changes were the changes in life expectancy and equality law. If the law proposed by Labour were to approach men and women differently, it would—with respect—be highly dubious as a matter of law.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
Will the Minister further clarify that point? Labour says that the previous pension age could come back and that we could return to a situation where men are discriminated against. Does he agree that such discrimination might be profoundly against the law?
Guy Opperman
Those who seek to make the case for such a law would need to satisfy themselves that men would not bring a case against the proposers, because it would unquestionably create a new inequality between men and women.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The ombudsman’s first rulings on whether the Government are guilty of maladministration for failing to give 50s-born women sufficient notice of their earlier retirement age are due soon. Maladministration or not—it will take years to resolve that matter—can I ask the new Minister to take this back, think again, tell us what he is prepared to do, and what research he is prepared to do, to alleviate their misery, and perhaps even consider our proposals on pension credit and allowing them to retire up to two years earlier?
Guy Opperman
The Government strongly believe that there has been no maladministration by the Department for Work and Pensions, including during the 13 years when Labour was in charge of the Department.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Is the new state pension not in fact removing injustices that have persisted for far too long, and are not the main beneficiaries women and low earners?
Guy Opperman
My hon. Friend is correct. The new state pension is much more generous for the many women who were historically worse off under the old system. More than 3 million women stand to gain an average of £550 extra per year by 2030 as a result of these changes.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
The employment rate among disabled people has increased to 49%, and the Government are committed to getting 1 million more disabled people into work over the next 10 years.
Kate Green
In 2015, the Minister said the Government’s aim was to halve the disability employment gap by 2020, and in 2016 the Social Market Foundation said that that meant an extra 1.2 million disabled people in employment, but now the Minister tells us that the ambition is for an extra 1 million disabled people in work within 10 years. Why are Ministers becoming less ambitious for disability employment?
Penny Mordaunt
When Labour was in office, it did very well in closing the disability employment gap—by raising the unemployment level among the general population. We will take a different approach. As I have said in this place before, we will look in great detail at the local numbers—for example, the numbers of people with a learning disability coming out of education; that is what we need to get people focused on.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the latest employment figures, particularly the youth employment figures. We are within touching distance of record youth unemployment. On young disabled people, will the Minister comment on Leonard Cheshire Disability and the great work it does, particularly its Can Do scheme? I think she recently met ambassadors of that scheme.
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me to pay tribute to Leonard Cheshire. It has launched a number of interesting and effective initiatives, which are very much part of our Work and Health programme.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
A constituent suffering from mental health problems who came to my surgery at the weekend has been denied employment and support allowance. Her sister came with her to tell me that my constituent had attempted suicide four days earlier. What is the Department going to do to identify and help vulnerable people like her?
Penny Mordaunt
In recent years the Department has introduced a number of measures to ensure that those who carry out assessments for either personal independence payments or ESA have had training so that they can recognise a mental health condition and flag up that condition or any concerns they may have. However, the work capability assessment itself is not working. It was introduced by the Labour party—[Interruption]—with the best intentions, but it has elements that do not work. Given the opportunities that will result from the work and health road map, I hope that Labour will work with us to reform those elements.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I am organising a Disability Confident event in my constituency to try to encourage more employers to take on people with disabilities, and I am grateful to the jobcentre for its support. Would the Minister like to come along so that she can, in person, encourage employees in my constituency to take on more disabled people?
Penny Mordaunt
I congratulate my hon. Friend and other Members on both sides of the House who have run Disability Confident events and signed up employers. Our 5,000th employer has just been signed up. If I cannot attend my hon. Friend’s event, I shall be happy to send a video instead.
Mr Speaker
But I am sure that it is a personal ambition of the hon. Lady to go to her hon. Friend’s constituency. We look forward to getting an update in due course.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
May I address my question to the Minister who speaks for a party that has been in power for more than seven years? This morning my constituent, Debbie A, came to tell me that she had failed her ESA assessment, first because she had been told that she could hear her name being called from the waiting room, when in fact she had been told that it was being called by her son, who was sitting next to her; and, secondly, because the report had said that she had been hit by a bus, when in fact she had been hit on a bus. Does not the Minister accept that there are profound systemic problems in the assessment process?
Penny Mordaunt
There are things that we can do to improve the assessment process dramatically and also, more critically, to prevent people from having to go through those assessments. The thrust of the health and work consultation paper that we issued this year is to bring about early intervention in healthcare and to use healthcare information to populate the welfare system, and that is what we are trying to do.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
What steps are the Government taking to use technology to help their equality agenda, specifically in respect of disabilities?
Penny Mordaunt
We have just launched a platform called OpenLab, which brings together those working in technology and disability, and focuses primarily on accessibility issues. It will enable us to publicise problems that we are trying to solve, but will also enable that community to work together to arrive at solutions faster.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr David Gauke)
Payment in arrears has been in the design of universal credit since 2010, and was implemented by the coalition Government in 2014. Our latest data show that more than 80% of new claimants are being paid in full and on time, which is a significant improvement on the position earlier this year, and that more than 90% receive some payment before the end of their first assessment period.
Kevin Foster
Universal credit is due to be rolled out in Torbay in May 2018. What further assurances can the Secretary of State give that resources will be made available to ensure that people in my constituency who make claims under the scheme will receive their payments on time?
Mr Gauke
We are ensuring that sufficient resources are available in jobcentres. It is worth pointing out that we have made significant progress on universal credit timeliness this year—as I have mentioned, more than 80% of new claimants received their full payment on time, and more than 90% received part of their payment—and we expect to build on that positive trend. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming universal credit roll-out to Torbay next May.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The problem is that “on time” means after a six-week delay, and that delay, as the Secretary of State knows well, is causing immense hardship up and down the country. Last week I met Maria Amos, who came within an inch of suicide because she had to live literally on nothing but water for six weeks, irreparably damaging her health. The Secretary of State can choose to ignore organisations such as Citizens Advice, but will he at least take some notice when Sir John Major calls for a pause?
Mr Gauke
What I would say—this is exactly the point I made earlier—is that I do not believe that anybody should be left without any support for six weeks when they do not have savings or an alternative source of income, which is why it is important that advances are available within the system. The majority of claimants now make use of advances. We need to ensure that that is properly communicated to claimants. I will certainly do that, as I am sure will all Members of this House.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
My constituency was one of the first to introduce universal credit, and it went on to full service in 2016. Staff in my constituency tell me that they are very familiar with the new system. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need to ensure that what we have learnt from the pathfinder jobcentres is quickly rolled out to those now taking up the new system?
Mr Gauke
We must constantly learn from experience—this is about testing, learning and improving. We must ensure that awareness of the advances system is high, and clearly that has increased in recent months. My hon. Friend makes a point about jobcentre staff, and my experience of meeting such people up and down the country is that they are enthused by what universal credit can do for claimants to help them to get into work.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Twenty-four per cent. of new universal credit claimants wait longer than six weeks to be paid in full. Only one advance payment is allowed for a new universal credit claim, and the maximum award is 50% of the claimant’s estimated benefit, so how will advance payments really prevent families from getting into debt while waiting for their first universal credit payment?
Mr Gauke
The timeliness of payments has improved since the figures that the hon. Lady cites were compiled, and we continue to improve it. As I have said, 90% of claimants receive some support within the six-week period. Advances are an important part of the system to ensure that people get the support they need. It is incumbent on all of us not to worry people that they will be left without any support whatsoever, but to draw their attention to the fact that they can access funds when they need to—generally waiting no more than five working days or, if necessary, receiving them straight away.
Margaret Greenwood
According to the Trussell Trust, food bank referrals have increased at more than double the national average in areas where the universal credit full service has been rolled out. Does the Secretary of State agree that the social security system should prevent people from having to visit food banks, rather than exacerbating need?
Mr Gauke
We are very keen to ensure that the advances system means that people can access funds so that they do not have to visit food banks. In recent months we have seen an increased use of that system, because we have done more to publicise it, and I want to go further on that. I think that is an important part of a system that, when we step back and look at it, is ensuring that more people are able to work and to progress in work, and that should not be forgotten.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
We are committed to ensuring that people receive high-quality, fair and accurate assessments. The Department robustly monitors providers’ performance and independently audits assessments. Both providers are now increasing clinical support across their centres and providing more personalised coaching for their healthcare professionals.
Neil Coyle
The Department seems to conclude that everything is hunky-dory with PIP assessments, just as it did—erroneously—with work capability assessments. The Disability News Service says it has more than 200 cases of inaccurate PIP assessments, and I have come across plenty in Southwark, including that of my constituent, Tarik Ali. Tarik was assessed as having no evidence of hearing loss, despite being deaf in one ear. He was awarded no points for needing support to manage medication, despite the fact that he sees a GP every three weeks and that his carer manages his medication on a daily basis. There was no mention of Behçet’s syndrome in his assessment, despite its having been included in five hospital reports, his GP records and his medication prescription. When will the Minister stop cutting vital help to genuinely disabled people, stop wasting taxpayers’ money on inaccurate assessments and fake mandatory reconsiderations, and finally end the glaring inaccuracies in PIP assessments?
Penny Mordaunt
Currently, 3% of caseload is overturned on appeal, and in the last quarter the number of cases having to go to appeal dropped by 22%. We have introduced changes to get evidence in earlier and to improve the quality of assessments, but we will respond to all the things that Paul Gray has set out in his review this autumn.
Paula Sherriff
Two thirds of disabled people are successful at tribunal when they appeal PIP decisions. Given that the system is so clearly flawed, will the Minister commit to a full overhaul of the assessment process?
Penny Mordaunt
We have opportunities to reduce the burden on individuals going through assessments through what we are trying to do with the work capability assessment and by enabling information used in health care and in ESA assessments to reduce the burden on people getting PIP assessments—and, hopefully, doing away with the volume of assessments that people have. However, I say to the hon. Lady that currently 3% of cases are overturned on appeal. We are doing our best to ensure that the right decision is made earlier, and that seems to be bearing fruit in the numbers of people going to appeal.
Dr Paul Williams
In my experience as a GP, the impact of the conditions of people with anxiety and even agoraphobia is often not adequately assessed within PIP. I welcome the introduction of mental health nurses to the process, but how will the culture of the assessment be changed so that people’s physical and mental health capabilities are assessed holistically?
Penny Mordaunt
One of the changes that we have recently made with both providers is that before they turn to the healthcare evidence and the other things that have traditionally formed part of the assessment, they talk with the individual about the impact of the condition on their day-to-day life. That, I think, has improved the assessment dramatically.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
PIP is causing misery for thousands of disabled people. Two disabled people who were in my surgery this Saturday are threatened with destitution because the money that they got as part of their lifetime award under the disability living allowance was stopped following their PIP assessment. The conditions they have had since birth have not and will not change. Why will the Government not exempt people with lifelong or progressive conditions from ongoing PIP assessments, as they are doing with the work capability assessments?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady is right that we have made that change in employment and support allowance. I give her one example: about 84% of people with motor neurone disease are on the highest rates for PIP, but 16% are not. It is therefore perfectly possible that someone will not be receiving the maximum amount of support but that as their condition progresses, they will need additional support. As I said earlier, we are trying to reduce the burden on individuals going through assessments, but some people will still need to have assessments for PIP because their need becomes greater.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Supporting someone to live independently is an essential part of enabling that person to pursue their goals, whether they are personal or career goals. Education and independent living support are the two highest priorities for the Office for Disability Issues.
Martyn Day
Every week around 800 Motability vehicles are taken away from disabled people across the UK as a result of the transition to PIP and, according to the most recent DWP statistic on reassessments, 48% of claimants receive a lower level or no award when transferring from DLA to PIP. Does the Minister really believe that taking money away from disabled people on low incomes will help them to live independently?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Gentleman will know that in spring we announced changes to Motability to enable people to keep their cars pending appeal. We are looking to make changes to Motability, and I am pleased to say that many in this House have supported the campaign led by Together for Short Lives to extend the Motability scheme to under-threes. We have been in discussions with Motability and the Family Fund about extending Motability to under-threes. Individual constituents will not need to apply; they will be referred by the Family Fund. This is a big step forward in enabling families with small children who have heavy equipment to socialise and go out together.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
My constituent Jacci Woodcock has been campaigning for some time for Dying to Work. She has a terminal illness and was hounded out by her employer. She would like more employers to sign up—employers such as Derbyshire County Council and Rolls-Royce Aero Engines, which have just done so. Will the Minister say what steps she would like to see to ensure that people have more dignity when they have a terminal diagnosis?
Penny Mordaunt
I thank my hon. Friend for what she has done on the campaign and also Rolls-Royce and her local authority for signing up. I also thank her for bringing Jacci Woodcock to the Department for Work and Pensions to meet me. I think that all Members owe Jacci Woodcock a great debt of gratitude for the campaign that she has run in very trying and difficult circumstances. I have listened to her with great care, and we will take on board her recommendations as part of the health and work road map, which we will publish later this autumn.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The stress and exhaustion caused to my constituent by the removal of her Motability car led to her losing her professional post and being redeployed to a role on half the salary. Will the Minister look again at the ridiculous situation whereby the Government are prepared to spend more on Access to Work payments for taxis—in this case nearly £4,500—than on PIP mobility support, which would offer real independence to disabled workers?
Penny Mordaunt
The hon. Lady makes a very good point; indeed, we are looking at precisely that. There are lots of pots of money out there—PIP and Access to Work, which she mentioned, are just two—but very little reference between them. We have been working on that and we hope to make some announcements shortly.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
I am pleased to announce to the House that six contracts between the Department and the successful suppliers to the Health and Work Programme were signed on 29 September.
Alex Burghart
It is clear that the Health and Work programme presents an opportunity to bring a lot more disabled people into work. Will the Minister tell the House what requirements are being put on contract providers?
Penny Mordaunt
The key to the programme is that participants will receive much more personalised and tailored support. We need to provide bespoke things to individuals who have complex needs if we want them to be successful. We will be looking for providers to forge links with employers, nationally and locally, but also with health and social care and other local services.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Government have backtracked on their commitment to halve the disability employment gap, and the funding for the Work and Health programme will be as little as £130 million a year, which is a fraction of what was set aside for the Work programme. Given the recent report from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which condemned the Government’s progress, can the Minister advise when they will finally publish their response to the “Work, health and disability” Green Paper? Will the Government respond to the UN’s concerns and include high-quality, impairment-specific support, which disabled people have been calling for?
Penny Mordaunt
May I start by welcoming the hon. Lady to her post?
Despite the weeks of the general election, we are still going to meet our original timetable to publish the health and work road map, which will set out in detail not just the Health and Work programme, which is only one small part of what we are planning, but a full comprehensive package to deliver personalised, tailored support for disabled people, support for employers, healthcare reforms and welfare reforms.
The Office for Disability Issues is looking at the UN report; we volunteered to put ourselves through this process, and there is more we can do to lever in some of the things in that report to help achieve some of our ambitions, particularly on accessibility.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
We have already made the taper rate more generous by reducing it from 65% to 63% in April this year, which means that recipients can keep more of every pound they earn.
Stephen McPartland
A taper rate of 63p in the pound is, in effect, a tax rate of 63% on net income. Surely the Minister accepts that that is a punitive rate and a barrier to work.
Damian Hinds
This all has to be seen in the context of our reducing the benefit withdrawal rates and making it more attractive to go into work. Of course I understand the attraction of reducing the taper rate, which is why we have done it, but there is also always a trade-off with costs; reducing the rate from 65% to 63%, as we have done, carries a cost—an investment in the system of £1.8 billion.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Is not the whole point of a pilot to test a system and then change it before it is rolled out further? Many of my constituents are in the universal credit pilot scheme. Given my caseload from them, I was horrified today to receive letters about all the rest of the jobcentres in my constituency getting universal credit roll-out. This needs to be looked at, along with the taper and many other issues, before it is rolled out further.
Damian Hinds
In days of yore, such big changes used to be done via a big Gantt chart on the wall and then one day things going live. That is not how universal credit has been designed or rolled out; it is a very gradual process and has been being rolled out since 2013. The full service is now in more than 100 jobcentres, and we continue to update, evolve and improve it at every turn.
Mr Speaker
If the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has a similar inquiry at Question 17, were standing, I would call him, but if he is not, I will not—
Kevin Hollinrake
Damian Hinds
Although most people these days are paid monthly, quite a lot of people are still paid weekly. When people move into a new job, they could then be getting paid weekly or monthly. There are two important things to mention here: advances, which have been extensively discussed during today’s questions, and the personal budgeting supports we offer to people to help them deal with changes in their cash flow.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Universal credit claimants must wait a minimum of six weeks for their first payment, which does not reflect the world of work. Advance payments are not a remedy for that, because they are a loan, entrenching poverty and debt. Is the Department really going to ignore the unanimous plea from support and advice agencies to pause this roll-out?
Damian Hinds
It would be wrong to pause the roll-out, because that would mean fewer people would have the benefit of universal credit, more people would be stuck on 16-hour jobs and fewer people would be able to claim the higher rate of childcare reimbursement. Universal credit is working; we know that people are getting into work quicker and that, once they are there, they can see clearly that working more will always pay.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
Personal independence payment assessments require specialist skills, which is why they are undertaken by qualified health professionals, who are experts in disability analysis, and focus on the effects of health conditions and impairments on an individual’s daily life.
Ruth Cadbury
That is not the experience of some of my constituents, including one who has a rare condition and is on the highest level of DLA, and so should automatically be entitled to PIP, but whose assessor had no knowledge of the condition and refused the PIP application. Will the Minister specify the exact training, experience and competence requirements an applicant would have to demonstrate to qualify as a healthcare professional who could undertake PIP assessments for the DWP?
Penny Mordaunt
I have stated many times in the House the categories of healthcare professionals who can work as PIP assessors—it is a long list—but I should point out that these people are not carrying out health assessments. They are not there to diagnose; they are there to record the impact of someone’s condition on their personal life, which is quite different. As I have said in answer to previous questions, we will introduce some new measures on PIP as part of our response to Paul Gray’s second review.
Mr Speaker
We are well out of time, but we will take the last question because I do not want the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) to feel left out. Let us hear him.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
The UK has the joint fourth lowest unemployment rate in the European Union. At 4.3%, UK unemployment is the lowest in 42 years. It is 3.3 percentage points below the EU 28 average and half that of the euro area.
Daniel Kawczynski
Our unemployment rates continue to fall faster than the EU mean. How is universal credit helping that?
Damian Hinds
Universal credit is an absolutely integral part of our overall approach to employment. It not only simplifies the system but makes it easier for people to go into work, because they do not have to think about whether subsequently they might have to restart their benefit claim. Once people are in work, it means that they can make progress more easily because there are none of the cliff edges of the old system.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr David Gauke)
We are delivering our promise to reform welfare provision in this country. Universal credit replaces the outdated and complex benefits system of the past, which too often stifled people’s potential. Universal credit is a flexible and personalised system that offers unprecedented support. It ensures that people are always better off in work, with payment gradually reducing as earnings increase. It is working: under universal credit, people are moving into work faster and staying in work for longer. We are fully committed to the scheduled roll-out for universal credit full service. It will be expanded throughout the country to the planned timescale, delivering a simpler system that encourages work and supports aspiration.
Tom Pursglove
Several of my constituents have raised with me the importance of ensuring that assessment centres are as accessible as possible. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that, on an ongoing basis, accessibility is checked regularly and improvements are made where necessary?
Mr Gauke
My hon. Friend makes a good point. DWP officials visit assessment centres to check them against accessibility standards. He flagged up concerns about the parking drop-off points at the Peterborough centre; following his raising of those concerns, improvements have been made.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Mr Gauke
On jobcentres, the Department is sensibly making use of the fact that a contract has ended to make a number of improvements to the service provided. Yes, that does mean that some jobcentres will close, but it also means that the provision of services throughout the country will be done in a modernised and effective way. On employment, the fact is that more people are employed than ever before, including older members of the workforce.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Penny Mordaunt)
We have implemented a wide range of initiatives across the whole claim process, including speeding up the process to clear more claims, increasing the number of healthcare professionals and extending working hours, and making improvements to IT systems.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
Mr Gauke
I visit jobcentres all the time and what I hear is that universal credit is providing a more personalised support that is helping to get more people into work and that it is an important reform. Those who stand in the way of it are failing to help the people who need support.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
I am sorry to hear about the experience of my right hon. Friend’s constituent. As she will know, the Prime Minister commissioned a review of mental health in the workplace led by Paul Farmer and Dennis Stevenson. Their findings will be reported to this House shortly.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
Mr Gauke
The benefits freeze was a measure that this Government took to contribute to reducing the deficit. On the point about people having to wait 10 weeks before receiving universal credit, 80% get paid in full and on time after six weeks. The system of arrears is inherent in universal credit because the payment is based on how much a person has earned over the previous month. That has always been part of the design, and it was part of the design that, presumably, the hon. Gentleman voted for when the coalition Government passed the legislation.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)
Outreach is a vital front-facing service to claimants across a whole range of employability and related services. Of course it needs to be tailored to the needs of each area. The DWP is looking at partnerships with organisations in my hon. Friend’s constituency, including with the local authority. Throughout the course of that, we will be working with his constituents, and we will be happy to work with him, to ensure that those needs are met following the closure of the Shipley office.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
On 12 July, universal credit was rolled out in York. Many of the families affected also receive free school meals and therefore had a devastating time of food poverty over the summer. Will the Minister learn lessons from the pilot scheme and ensure that universal credit is not rolled out in advance of school holidays?
Mr Gauke
Universal credit was rolled out in 29 job- centres in July. It is important that we continue to make progress in the roll-out. We are doing it gradually and sensibly, but we are moving towards a system that helps more people get into work. Of course we are constantly learning lessons and finding ways to improve things, but it is a system that is helping to deliver more people into work.
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) (Con)
Damian Hinds
I return to what I said earlier: with universal credit, we are improving the incentives to work. This has to be seen in the context of the previous system, where far more people would face considerably higher marginal withdrawal rates. This important reform means that people can always see that they are better off going into work and, once there, they can see that they are better off always progressing in work.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
I find the Minister’s previous response surprising because a response to a recent written question showed that about two thirds of decisions against awarding PIP and ESA in Barnsley East are eventually overturned on appeal, with these appeals taking an average of 15 weeks to be decided. Does the Minister believe that it is acceptable to make my constituents who are eligible for vital financial assistance wait nearly four extra months?
Penny Mordaunt
No. That is why we are trying to get better decisions earlier in the process. We have made progress. As I said, the number of PIP cases going to appeal has fallen by 22% over the last quarter. We will continue—
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will you publish those figures?
Penny Mordaunt
They are published; they were published a few weeks ago. We will shortly bring forward our response to Paul Gray’s second review, which will contain further things that I hope the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) will welcome.
Matt Warman (Boston and Skegness) (Con)
Penny Mordaunt
The severe conditions criteria are a big step forward and will save people from having to go through reassessments. I have already stated that we intend to do more on PIP and the work capability assessment. The severe conditions criteria also allow us to save bureaucracy at local government level. If we can passport that information to local government, it will help with things such as the blue badge scheme and other forms that people have to fill in that are not directly supplied by DWP or the Government.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I would invite the Employment Minister to visit my local jobcentre, but he is busy circumventing his own criteria to shut it down. In view of the problems with universal credit, why does he not revisit those decisions, keep jobcentres open and stop forcing some of the most vulnerable people to travel for hours just to get the benefits that they are entitled to?
Damian Hinds
We had an estate that was underutilised. As the Secretary of State said, coming to the end of the large contract that covered very much of the estate, there was an opportunity—indeed, a requirement—to review all our needs to ensure that we had the best possible estate for the future. We had clear criteria for determining which of those sites should be open to public consultation. Where those criteria were met, of course there was a consultation.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State and everyone in this House would agree that parents should fulfil their financial obligations to their children. But do they agree that much more should be done to combat those who are shamefully using legal loopholes to avoid paying child maintenance?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Caroline Dinenage)
Where a parent fails to pay on time or in full, we aim to take immediate action to recover that debt and to re-establish compliance. Where someone’s personal income appears suspicious in any way, caseworkers may refer that case to our newly beefed-up financial investigations unit.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
I wrote to the Secretary of State on Friday about my constituent, Danielle Brown, who lost her leg at the age of two. She has now lost her PIP and her Motability car. Will the Minister look into this case and assure me that I will get a reply as soon as possible?
Penny Mordaunt
I would be happy to look at the hon. Lady’s case. We changed the rules on Motability to ensure that people could go to appeal and not lose their car in the meantime. It sounds as if something has gone wrong in this particular case. I cannot make a decision, but I can look at the case and see what we can do to help.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I am grateful to the Government for the assistance given to my constituent, who had to leave Dominica because of the terrible damage caused by the hurricane. But on her return back to this country with her 22-month-old son, she has discovered that she is not entitled to any benefits whatever for three months. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that we have a right and proper system to make sure that people in such circumstances really are entitled to benefits?
Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)
East Lothian is a pilot area for universal credit, and the third sector—particularly the citizens advice bureau and East Lothian’s local authority welfare service—has kept universal credit going by supporting a very high percentage of applicants. Will the Minister confirm when there will be additional funding for the third sector, so that it can carry on supporting the DWP with universal credit?
Mr Gauke
We obviously continue to engage with the voluntary sector. I know what the CAB was campaigning for, but it did welcome what I said last week about advances; indeed, I am meeting the CAB later this week to further discuss how we can work together to deliver a very important welfare reform.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
While the increase in advance payments is welcome, does the Secretary of State not share my concern that the CAB has said that, on average, claimants have only less than £4 a month to pay back creditors? Therefore, advance payments are simply storing up problems for the future. Will he commit to giving the House a statement on the numbers who are coming into universal credit, the time it takes to pay them and the numbers who are forced into debt, rent arrears or hardship because of this policy?
Mr Gauke
We do update the House on information, as we have it, about the number of claimants for universal credit, the timeliness details and other details, and we will continue to do that. When it comes to advances, there is a concern across the House that people are left six weeks without receiving any support. Ensuring that advances are there and that they are made known to people is really important, and I hope all Members will do that.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
A constituent who relies on agency work from the shipyards finds himself in rent arrears of over £900 as a result of being on universal credit. Does that not show that the concerns of social housing providers should be listened to, or does a social housing provider have to go under before its concerns are addressed?
Mr Gauke
The DWP has been working closely with social housing providers on putting in place what is described as the landlord portal, which enables information to flow between social landlords and the DWP. It has already been piloted and will be in operation later this month. That is one of the things we are doing to ensure that this process is constantly improving and that we can verify identity and get the right money to the right people as quickly as possible.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
How much does the Secretary of State estimate is being paid out through housing benefit, or will be paid out under the housing-related costs of universal credit, for unfit accommodation in the private rented sector? All too often, I meet vulnerable tenants living in completely unfit accommodation. A huge amount of taxpayers’ money is being used to line the pockets of dodgy landlords. It is a complete and utter disgrace, and I would like to know what the Secretary of State’s estimate is of the size of the problem and what he is going to do about it.
Caroline Dinenage
We are always concerned about substandard rental accommodation, and we do keep in touch with the relevant bodies. This is something that is generally of concern to the Department, and it is something we will keep an eye on moving forward.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The all-party parliamentary group on deafness recently heard compelling evidence about the disproportionate and damaging impact the cap on awards under the Access to Work scheme is having on people who use British sign language as their first language, with deaf people having job offers withdrawn, withdrawing from their roles and giving up on their careers. The Government say they are committed to improving disabled people’s opportunities at work, but this policy is destroying them. Will the Minister think again?
Penny Mordaunt
We have looked in great detail at many aspects of Access to Work, and although it is a popular scheme, there are many things we want to change in it. I very much recognise that the scheme is not just about giving someone a piece of technology to enable them to communicate; it is about giving them the services they need to be their best—to thrive and to be their most creative in the workplace. For some, that will involve British sign language interpreters. This is very much an area we are looking at, and it will be something we bring forward and report back on in the health and work road map.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
Are levels of child poverty falling or rising?
Damian Hinds
When one compares rates of poverty with those before the change of Government in 2010, we see that none of the four main measures has worsened and, in fact, three have improved.
Eleanor Smith (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
As of November 2016, youth unemployment in my constituency of Wolverhampton South West was 27%. Now, we are due to have the roll-out in December and this will see the enforcement of the youth obligation. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that young people who reside in constituencies such as mine are provided with support into employment, while the transition to the full UC service is implemented?
Damian Hinds
I had the pleasure of visiting Wolverhampton just last week and had the opportunity to speak to my colleagues in jobcentres in the area about youth unemployment. Of course, the figure for young people who have left full-time education and are unemployed has dropped below 5% for the first time since that data series began. As we know about the scarring effect of any period out of work for a young person, we continue to work hard through things such as work experience and sector-based work academies, and that is showing great success.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. We have run out of time, but I shall call one further questioner, a Member with an insatiable appetite for these matters and a detailed, some would say anorakish, knowledge of all the most complex formulae. I am referring, of course, to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms).
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. Apart from shocking delays, Citizens Advice highlights two big problems with universal credit. One is that it is too complicated; people cannot understand it. The second is that when there is a problem, there is nobody there to help people. I am glad that the Secretary of State is meeting Citizens Advice, but will he have anything to say to them on those two specific problems?
Mr Gauke
The personalised support available in jobcentres to people claiming universal credit is much more advanced than that which we have had in the past. In terms of complexity, universal credit is a much simpler system than that which has existed up to now, with six different benefits, leaving us in the absurd position in which people were unwilling to take a job that required them to work more than 16 hours because they would move from one benefit system to another, knowing that their hours might fall in the future, so they would move back to a different system. That complexity has discouraged people from working more hours and we should all seek to tackle that. That is exactly what universal credit does.
Monarch Airlines
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Chris Grayling)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the steps the Government have been taking to support those affected by the collapse of Monarch Airlines, in particular the 110,000 passengers left abroad without a flight back to the UK and the almost 2,000 people who have lost their jobs.
This situation is highly regrettable and all parties considered options to avoid the collapse of the company. Ultimately, however, Monarch’s board took the decision to place it into administration and it ceased trading at around 4 am on Monday 2 October. The engineering arm of the group remains a viable business and continues to trade. Ahead of the collapse, my Department had been working closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and several Departments across Whitehall to prepare contingency plans, and the response since last week has been swift and substantial.
To put the situation into context, this operation is the largest of its kind ever undertaken. The CAA has essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines to conduct it. Let me give Members a sense of the scale. We have put arrangements in place to bring back 110,000 people to the UK, with 700 flights over a two-week period. We have had a maximum of 35 aircraft in operation at any one time. The CAA is working to secure planes from 27 different airlines. More than 200 CAA staff are working on the project with thousands more in partner organisations taking part. There are 40 airports involved in the UK, around the Mediterranean and beyond. That has required 267 coaches carrying more than 13,000 passengers, and so far there have been more than 39,000 calls to our customer service centres, all swiftly answered by more than 250 call centre staff. There have been more than 1 million unique visitors to a dedicated website— monarch.caa.co.uk—and 7 million page views. Furthermore, more than 1 million people have been reached through our Facebook promotion. Ten Government Departments and agencies have been involved, including the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London and our extensive diplomatic and consular network in the affected countries.
I have seen at first hand the work being done across Government and the CAA to make this operation a success. I have spoken to some of the passengers who have returned to the UK on Government flights. I have been hugely impressed by what I have seen, and we have had a very strong, supportive response from the passengers affected, many of whom deservedly praised the CAA and all the Departments involved in this enormous operation.
Normally, the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back would extend only to customers whose trips are covered by the air travel organisers’ licence scheme, but this is the largest airline failure in UK history and there would have been insufficient capacity in the commercial aviation market to enable passengers to get home on other airlines. The danger was that tens of thousands of passengers abroad would have no easy means of returning to the UK. That is why I instructed the CAA to ensure that all those abroad were offered an alternative flight home. As of last night, around 80,000 passengers had returned to the UK; that is almost three quarters of the total number who were abroad at the time of the collapse. We have had teams of Government officials at overseas airports providing advice and assistance to passengers.
Despite those robust plans and the smoothness of the operation so far, the situation is hugely distressing for all concerned. Obviously, it has been a priority to get people back to the UK, and our hearts go out to those who have lost bookings as a result of the collapse, but in addition to supporting passengers we have been focused on working to ensure that the almost 2,000 former Monarch employees receive the support they need. I am pleased to report that airlines have already directly appealed to those former employees. For example, Virgin Atlantic is offering a fast-track recruitment process for cabin crew and pilots, and easyJet has invited applications for 500 cabin crew vacancies. I and members of my team spoke to the airlines when it became clear what was happening to try to secure their help in getting those opportunities for staff, and I am pleased to see that coming to fruition. easyJet is also calling for direct-entry captains or first officers who meet captain qualifications.
All former Monarch employees will have received information from Jobcentre Plus outlining the support available to them. In total, Jobcentre Plus has pulled together a list of more than 6,300 vacancies across the major UK-based airlines—that is more than three times the number of people being made redundant—which I hope will help those former employees to remain in the airline business. The Minister with responsibility for aviation has been in contact with Members whose constituencies have been hardest hit by these job losses. They have our assurance that we will work with them and the industry to offer what support we can.
I am also aware of the Government’s duty to the taxpayer. Although affected passengers have been told they will not have to pay to be flown back to the UK, we have entered into discussions with several third parties with the aim of recovering the costs of the operation. The ATOL scheme of course provides financial cover for those with ATOL protection. We are currently engaged in constructive discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers so that we can recoup from them some of the cost to taxpayers of the repatriation flights. We are having similar discussions with other travel providers through which passengers may have booked a Monarch holiday, and I thank all those with whom we have held discussions for their constructive and realistic approach.
The initial response to this unprecedented situation would not have been so successful without the support and co-operation of many players. I am sure we would all say that the loss of a major British brand that was close to celebrating its half-century is a really sad moment. However, it should not be seen as a reflection on the general health of the UK aviation sector, which continues to thrive. We have never had the collapse of an airline or holiday company on this scale before, and we have responded swiftly and decisively.
Of course, right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs and getting passengers home. After that, our effort will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options—not just ATOL, but whether it is possible to enable airlines to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves, without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into that in the months ahead. Our prime task has been to get people home, and I am immensely grateful to all who have taken part in what has proved, so far, to be a smooth and successful operation.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
Britain’s fifth largest airline, Monarch, collapsed because of a litany of failures by the Government, the regulator and the company’s financial backers and advisers. Its demise must also be seen in the context of a ferociously competitive aviation sector, which is adjusting to major overcapacity problems and the loss of services because of terrorism. A further backdrop to the industry is the foggy skies of Brexit, and the total lack of certainty from this Government for the British aviation industry after March 2019.
The airline’s bankruptcy has left huge losses on the shoulders of the public, rather than of the parent company or the regulator. It is the staff, customers, the taxpayer and pensioners who will pay the price. Creditor bills include the £60 million paid by the Government to repatriate holidaymakers, not forgetting the £26 million paid last year when Monarch previously came close to collapse; the £7.5 million to the Pension Protection Fund; the 45 days’ pay owed to the 2,000 staff who were made redundant; and the ticket refunds for the 750,000 outstanding bookings at the time of the collapse.
Why did the Government not do more to support Monarch and ensure that the company was viable, if only for the short term? The German Government recently stepped in to assist Air Berlin and the Italian Government have supported Alitalia. At the very least, an orderly wind-down of the airline would have been preferable to sudden administration.
Monarch is reported to have had £50 million in the bank. Why was the airline not granted a short-term ATOL licence extension, which would have allowed it to continue trading and at least bring its passengers back? Who decided not to grant Monarch an ATOL licence extension? More time would have allowed Monarch to be sold in parts. For example, Monarch’s landing slots are reported to be worth £60 million. Such assets could have been realised in an orderly wind-down. Instead, moneys from the sale of these assets will go to the secured creditor and former owner Greybull Capital, while the public purse gets nothing.
The statutory role of the CAA is to provide choice and value for money for passengers. British consumers now have one less airline to choose from. On its watch, there has been a surge in the cost of UK air fares following Ryanair’s cancellation of flights last month. Monarch’s demise will only push up flight costs further. There is an estimated £200 million in the CAA-administered ATOL compensation fund, yet it only covers about one in 20 of Monarch’s customers. Why is the public purse paying while the outdated ATOL pot sits largely untouched? Monarch Airlines continued to sell flights until Sunday 1 October, even though the airline knew it was going into administration the following day. Why did the CAA not act to stop that?
Greybull Capital’s takeover of Monarch in 2014 was the beginning of the end for the airline. Greybull is a private investment firm that has already presided over the collapse of My Local convenience stores and Comet, among others. Serious questions must now be asked about the conduct of firms such as Greybull, the way they invest and their wider stewardship.
A report in yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Times suggested that the £165 million rescue package for Monarch last year was largely funded by Boeing, as part of a cut-price deal for an order of 737 aircraft. What is the Secretary of State’s assessment of the role of Boeing in the financial engineering of Monarch? The Prime Minister recently criticised the conduct of Boeing against Bombardier in Belfast, in support of her Democratic Unionist party allies. Why is there no criticism of Boeing’s role in the loss of 2,000 jobs in Luton?
The role of KPMG must also be called into question. The firm was appointed to seek buyers for Monarch’s short-haul business prior to its collapse. It was actively doing so. Why is the same firm now acting as Monarch’s administrator? Does the Secretary of State agree with me that that is a glaring conflict of interest?
Finally, the way in which Monarch met its demise should set alarm bells ringing, so will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be a full investigation into the concerns that have been raised?
Chris Grayling
I am sorry the hon. Gentleman did not have a good word to say for all the efforts put in place to bring people back. I would just remind him that, interestingly, in 2008—the last time we had an aviation failure in this country, Excel Airways—the Labour Government followed a very similar path to the one we have followed, with taxpayer-funded repatriation. They did the right thing then, and we are doing the right thing now. I am simply sorry that Labour Members have forgotten that they did the right thing in government, and cannot now say that our doing the right thing this time is indeed the right thing to do. [Interruption.] They did the right thing then, and we are doing the right thing now, and I am just sorry that he could not say a good word about those involved.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the reasons for the collapse. First, this is not an issue about Brexit. The airline had been struggling for three years, and the first concerns were raised about it long before the referendum was even held.
I had hoped that this summer, after the rescue package last year, the airline would see its way through. As its chief executive said, it has been a victim of the anxieties about tourism in the east Mediterranean for security reasons. Those have led to a concentration of business in the west Mediterranean and the traditional resorts of Spain and Portugal and a price war from which the company was ill equipped to recover. That is what has happened, no more no less.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the licence, and there was no issue about its renewal. What happened was never about the renewal of the licence—the business had simply reached the end of the road. Its board came to the conclusion that it could not carry on.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the company carried on selling tickets the day before. The reality is that any airline that runs into difficulties will carry on selling tickets until it can no longer do so. The moment it stops doing so, it collapses, and that is what happened. It would happen any time an airline ran into such difficulties. There is no other way to do it. The moment it stops selling tickets, it stops doing business, and that is precisely what happened.
The hon. Gentleman talked about competition, and other airlines are already stepping into the breach. Jet2, one of our fast-growing, emerging airlines, has already said that it will step in and run some of the routes. That is what a market does. If one business fails, others step in. The tragedy of the Labour party in the last few years is that it has moved away from understanding markets to being utterly hostile to markets and the private sector.
We have a thriving aviation sector with competition between airlines delivering a good deal for consumers, and occasionally—once under a Labour Government and once under ours—something has gone wrong. In both of those situations, the Government of the day stepped in to try to make sure that we looked after the travelling public. I have no doubt that if it ever happens again, someone will do the same.
We do have to learn the lessons. We have to understand whether we can make sensible changes to the laws to ensure that this does not happen again. We are already legislating to extend the ATOL scheme to provide better protection for people who book over the internet in a different way from how they have in the past. I am clear that the job of the Government is to look after the travelling public and step in when things go wrong. We have done that, and we are seeking to get back as much money as possible, as Labour did in 2008. Above all, our job is to do our best for the travelling public and the employees. That is what we are doing. I am proud of what we are doing, and I am just disappointed that the Opposition cannot even say well done to the people who have worked so hard in support.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
The chief executive of Monarch has attributed the principal reason for the demise of the airline to terrorism and the resulting flight bans to both Tunisia and Sharm El Sheikh. Can the Secretary of State give his assessment of the merits of that argument?
Chris Grayling
There is no doubt that that was a significant factor, and not only because of changes in consumer patterns. Many other airlines chose to concentrate their resources this summer in the traditional resorts of Spain and Portugal. Alicante airport and others were full of planes this summer, and Monarch got squeezed out in a price war for which it was not financially strong enough. Ironically, it carried more passengers than two years ago, but with far lower revenues, and that more than anything else is what has caused its demise. It is a consequence of the security situation and of people taking a cautious approach to their holidays.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The sad fate of Monarch Airlines is a stark example of the realities of Brexit beginning to bite. There is no denying that the fall in the pound has led to significant increases in the operating costs for the airline over the past year. The weak pound has also affected consumers and led to a drop in bookings. Add to that the uncertainties over the future of British carriers in Europe that served as a significant deterrent for any potential buyer who might otherwise have been found, and Monarch’s fate was sealed. Does the Secretary of State agree that as long as uncertainties over Brexit continue there is a danger of similar high-profile collapses?
Can the Secretary of State say with certainty today that the rights of UK passengers will not be eroded or diluted after Brexit? Will he confirm that the Government will work with administrators and the unions to ensure that employee rights are fully respected during the process, and that—where applicable—compensation is made available in a timely manner, in view of the fact that the manner of the administration raises real concerns about employee rights?
Chris Grayling
I am really sorry the hon. Lady has taken that approach. Let me be absolutely clear: this airline did not fail because of Brexit; this airline failed because it had a business model that was not capable of dealing with a price war in the Mediterranean. That is the reality of the situation and that is what its chief executive said. The hon. Lady talks about Brexit causing a lack of investment, but in the past few weeks we have seen a big expansion. Jet2 has set up a new base at Stansted and there has been a huge investment in the UK by Norwegian, which is becoming a real player in the low-cost marketplace. The market is changing and sadly Monarch, a business that has been around for 50 years, was not able to adapt to those changes. I am afraid she is just doing a disservice to the economy of the United Kingdom when she claims that this was a consequence of Brexit. She talks about employees. The biggest favour we can do for the employees of Monarch is to work to ensure they get another job quickly, and that is what we are seeking to do.
Ms Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Following on from the many letters I have received from constituents, will the Secretary of State join me in thanking and congratulating the staff of the CAA, the Department for Transport and my local airport, Manchester airport, on the work they have done on the biggest evacuation in peacetime?
Chris Grayling
I am very happy to do that. I pay tribute to the staff of Manchester airport—I met the first plane back at Manchester airport—who rowed in behind the challenge. They were notified only late on the previous day, but by Monday morning staff were out greeting passengers, telling them what had happened and sorting out all the issues arising from the administration. I owe a big debt of gratitude to the staff of Manchester airport, Gatwick airport, Birmingham airport, Luton airport and Leeds Bradford airport, all of whom rose to the occasion, and to all the other people and organisations involved in the exercise.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
In 2014, the CAA recognised the fragility of Monarch’s finances and insisted on ATOL protection of flight-only bookings, but that requirement was dropped in December 2016. Monarch’s administrators cite cost pressures and increasingly competitive market conditions as contributors to its collapse. Given that the fall in the value of the pound and the loss of tourism in Egypt and Tunisia predate that decision, passengers will rightly ask why the requirement for ATOL protection was removed. Will the Secretary of State explain the process for deciding to drop ATOL protection of flights, the Department’s part in that decision, and how much the decision will ultimately cost UK taxpayers?
Chris Grayling
The ATOL scheme counts as public expenditure whatever happens. The impact on public finances, whether or not this was covered entirely by the ATOL scheme, remains the same because of how Government accounting works. I take advice from the CAA on the steps we need to take. Last year, Monarch had a big injection of cash, and in the first part of this year it looked like things were back on the straight and narrow. What changed this summer was the price war, which undermined the company’s revenues and led to a position where its losses were mounting week by week. That was the real issue. I have no doubt that the hon. Lady and her Committee will want to deal with these matters in greater detail, and I look forward to talking to her. She has every right to scrutinise what we have done. We sought to do our best for the travelling public and to take the decisions we were advised to take at the right time.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As a former Business Minister before the EU referendum, and apparently as one of the chief “remoaners”, may I make it absolutely clear that the unfortunate demise of Monarch has absolutely nothing to do with Brexit? Those who seek to make it an issue based on Brexit do not do anybody any favours. I commend the Secretary of State not only for his statement but for his hard work and that of his Ministers in doing their utmost to bring everybody back to this country. Will he confirm that Transport Ministers and Business Ministers have been doing their absolute best for Monarch for years? Will he continue to work with Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to look at how we can open up airports, such as Sharm El Sheik and those in Tunisia, to support the rest of our aviation industry?
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her words. She is absolutely right. This is a sad tale of an airline that has been struggling for years. A lot of effort has been put in by many people to try to keep it afloat. It is a real disappointment that they were not able to succeed. She is absolutely right about the Brexit issue. If we want another example, it is only a few weeks since Air France and KLM spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a stake in Virgin Atlantic. Those are not the actions of commercial organisations that believe that Brexit is destroying the British aviation sector. Those who suggest it are simply talking down our country and that is not acceptable. I am therefore very grateful to her for what she says. She is absolutely right. I give her an assurance that the Government will do everything we can to support the sector, to support the people who lost out as a result of Monarch’s collapse, and to continue to ensure we have a strong sector for the future.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
As the MP for Luton North, I represent many of those who have lost their jobs, and I have to say that, had the company been in public ownership—with proper transparency and accountability to Parliament—I suspect that this would not have happened. [Interruption.]
Kelvin Hopkins
My concern is that, when the company collapsed, the assets had almost all disappeared, so there was very little financial value in the assets of the company. Was this to benefit shareholders and owners, and how much money has the state effectively paid out that the owners and shareholders should have been accountable for?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman is right that the airline did not have the assets at the end—airlines today do not own their planes but lease them. One reason it is difficult to continue to operate an airline like this is that the planes are the property of the lease companies, which take them back immediately afterwards. We clearly have to look at whether there is a better way of doing things, but it is not easy.
It would be relatively easy for an airline abroad that is owed money simply to impound an airliner and make it impossible for us to get people back, so these are not straightforward issues. But is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that we go back to a time when the state owned everything? Do we want the state to own British Airways, easyJet, Jet2 and Thomas Cook? It is nonsense. Even the most socialist Labour Government of the past would never have suggested that the state own every holiday airline. It is a sign of how extreme its policies have become that anybody on its Benches can seriously suggest it.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
I congratulate the Government on the speedy response to the Monarch situation and on highlighting the resilience of the UK aviation industry—in the private sector—but the Secretary of State will be aware that there has been confusion over who is ATOL protected. Does he agree that more could be done to communicate the benefits of ATOL membership?
Chris Grayling
This is definitely one area we need to look at again. We are already legislating to ensure that people who pay for a flight and hotel separately through an internet organisation can be covered through ATOL insurance. This is an area where we have to do more work. There is, however, a fundamental issue: if we were to put a levy on the cost of an air ticket, we would have to do it on every air ticket in the UK, but many of us on the Conservative Benches get regular representations from regional airports, for example, saying they want air passenger duty cut. This would increase APD, and that is why it is not a straightforward decision, but one we must consider very carefully.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
I agree with the Secretary of State that in future situations like this one the Government should look for an orderly wind down, but is that not pie in the sky given the evidence of a conspiracy between Greybull and Boeing to protect their own capital interests against the pension rights of former employees and the people who bought tickets when it was already clear that the airline was bankrupt?
Chris Grayling
The hon. Gentleman should remember that the pension scheme was transferred to the Pension Protection Fund in 2014, when it was sold by the Swiss family that had owned the business since the 1960s, so it is not straightforward to talk about pension rights now. He should not second guess any details of how, why or where the financing package was secured a year ago. It is a matter of record that it involved rescheduling or reorganising the leasing of the aircraft, but had it been able to secure the future of the airline, as we all hoped at the time, we would all be grateful it had happened. It is tragic that that was not the case.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Almost 500 Monarch staff are based at Manchester airport, and many are my constituents, so I am grateful to hear the assurances that the Government will work with the industry to support staff back into work. Will the Secretary of State outline what more support will be given to our regional jobcentres to assist my constituents who have lost their Monarch jobs?
Chris Grayling
Before it became clear that the collapse was happening, we had pre-meetings across Whitehall between the Departments that needed to be involved, including the Department for Work and Pensions, and Jobcentre Plus has been working with all those affected. That work will continue where necessary. I am glad that if such terribly difficult circumstances had to arise, they arose in a thriving sector with lots of job opportunities. The fact that Jobcentre Plus was able quickly to identify more than 6,000 vacancies for 1,700 people looking for jobs is a good step in the right direction and a tribute to the success of that sector, off the back of what has been a successful economy in recent years.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
Four hundred employees, including skilled engineering workers, are set to lose their jobs at Birmingham airport,. The region can ill afford to lose those skills and the contribution that they make to the regional economy. Will the Secretary of State ensure that his Department redoubles its efforts, and does everything possible to ensure that those people can find equally skilled work elsewhere in the region as soon as possible?
Chris Grayling
I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Securing strong futures for those people has been, is and will remain a priority for us, along with getting the passengers back. As I have said, however, I am encouraged by the number of other airlines that are actively seeking to recruit. As slots become vacant at Birmingham, Luton, Gatwick, Leeds and Manchester, other airlines are already seeking to move in and take those slots, and they will need staff to work on the business as they arrive.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State give further details of what the Government are doing to assist former employees of Monarch Airlines who have lost their jobs as a result of the airline’s collapse?
Chris Grayling
We have had a very early promise on a lot of things. A few hours before the administration came into effect, I spoke to the chief executive of easyJet, who was very helpful. I should express thanks to easyJet for helping us with some problematic routes; for instance, only specialised pilots can fly into or out of Funchal airport.
The chief executive gave me an assurance, and easyJet has given us assurances subsequently, that the airline will hire a substantial proportion of those staff. It is likely to hire 500 very quickly to meet its future demands, because its business is growing rapidly, and I know that other airlines plan to step in and do the same. Jobcentre Plus has already been holding job fairs and airlines have already been going through recruitment exercises, so it is my hope that all those affected will find jobs quickly.
Laura Smith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State emphasised that Monarch passengers abroad would be covered until 15 October, but constituents of mine who are due to return on 16 October are worried because there is no information available online. Will the Secretary of State please let me know where they can obtain information, and whether their return is protected or not?
Chris Grayling
The full repatriation exercise lasts for two weeks, and at the end of that time there will be a very small number of people left abroad. We know that, at that point, the sector as a whole will be able to absorb those passengers; it could not have done so a week ago, given the numbers involved. The Civil Aviation Authority will be contacting those people this week and keep its helpline available for a considerable time after the repatriation effort has been completed, and we will work to ensure that they can return home straightforwardly. They will be entitled to refunds through credit cards, through the ATOL scheme, and so forth. The crucial difference is that when the company went into administration the sector could not have coped with the number of people involved, but by next week absorbing the small number of passengers who remain will not be a problem.
Mims Davies (Eastleigh) (Con)
Jobs and opportunities that come from access to regional airports and flights mean a lot to Members in all parts of the House, and, indeed, to my constituents who can access Southampton airport. Will the Secretary of State thank Barclays for supporting my constituents and their families? Members of the Hamble Aquatics Swim Team who were due to go to Lanzarote were reimbursed more than £9,000 so that they could train for county, national and regional championships. Their head coach, Amy Rodger, ensured that more than 20 swimmers and their coaches were able to get over there by working with local television stations and Barclays. Will the Secretary of State also thank the many other companies that have done so much to help our constituents?
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend’s words speak for themselves. I am very grateful to Barclays for providing that help, and I know that a number of other businesses have done the same. The credit card companies in particular have been very constructive in their dialogue about sharing the cost of the repatriation with us, and Lloyds was especially good at getting out of the traps and working with us. I think that this was a moment when corporate Britain behaved in the right way, and worked alongside us to do the right thing.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Having spent five years working for the Association of British Travel Agents and lobbying for greater holiday protection, may I extend my thanks to the people working hard for that and ask the Secretary of State to extend it to travel agents and tour operators? What hit does he expect the Air Travel Trust fund to take as a result of Monarch’s collapse, and can he give an assurance that the ATOL protection contribution will not go up, which would mean holidaymakers having to pay more in future?
Chris Grayling
We will not know exactly how much until we have gone through the numbers in detail with the administrator. We do know that only a relatively small proportion of Monarch customers were ATOL protected, because the nature of the business was mostly flight-only. I will happily inform the House once we have gone through all the details, which will take a bit of time, but it will not be a substantial proportion of the total, because of the small proportion of customers who are covered.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to Gatwick-based airlines such as easyJet and Virgin Atlantic for stepping up and offering alternative employment to Monarch employees who now find themselves out of work?
Chris Grayling
I am very grateful to the airlines for the way they have responded, and they have done so in a variety of ways. It was a real team effort at Gatwick, with airline staff, airport staff and others coming together to deal with the immediate issues for passengers, and then really working to get Monarch employees sorted out as quickly as possible. I am very grateful to the staff at Gatwick, as I am to those at all the five airports affected.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said in his statement that the collapse of Monarch Airlines was deeply regrettable, so I wonder whether he will support the call by the pilots’ union for a probe into what exactly happened around the collapse.
Chris Grayling
I suspect that there will be exactly such a probe, but I also suspect that it will be led by the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and her Transport Committee. I do not want to gainsay what the Committee will do, but I would expect a rigorous inquiry, and my Department and the CAA will be very happy to co-operate with it.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
Yes, Mr Speaker. I join my friends in congratulating the Secretary of State, the CAA and others on a magnificent operation to repatriate so many people who would otherwise be marooned overseas. However, I remain concerned, because I have a number of constituents who had booked holidays but not yet travelled. Will they be covered under the ATOL scheme, or under credit card insurance schemes, and how many people have been affected in that way?
Mr Speaker
That was a very speedy recovery from the intoxicating effects of conversation with the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson), and a very useful guide to new Members on how to perform at a moment’s notice in the way that the hon. Gentleman has done. He did signal earlier that he wished to be called, so I was not picking on him.
Chris Grayling
Of all those involved, I feel most deeply for those who made bookings but have now lost trips and holidays. I very much hope that we can get Monarch staff into employment quickly. I hope that we can get all the passengers back safely and well. For those who have lost bookings, it is a deeply traumatic time, and we heard some very sad stories last week. Anyone who booked with ATOL protection or who booked using a credit or debit card will be able to get a refund. My advice to anyone in that position is always to ensure that they have at least one of those cover options available in case something like this happens again—let us keep our fingers crossed that it does not for a very long time.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
Monarch has failed to consult its 1,800 employees on redundancy. What estimate has the Secretary of State made of the costs of compensation for those affected workers?
Chris Grayling
As the hon. Lady will know, there are statutory provisions for when businesses go into administration, because they tend not to be able to consult employees about redundancy. It falls to us to try to sort them out, and that is what we will seek to do. There are statutory provisions for compensation for people in these circumstances, but my hope is that the financial impact on them will be limited, given the number of companies looking to recruit as quickly as possible.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
Although the distance between Stansted, my local regional airport, and Luton, which is Monarch’s home airport, is relatively small, some people will be displaced much further afield. What plans has the Department put in place to ensure that those who are displaced during the recovery phase can get back to their most local home airport?
Chris Grayling
That will become a particular issue this week. We have brought 80,000 people back, but there are still about 30,000 left. We have emptier planes this week and greater consolidation of planes. We have 747s operating, and clearly a 747 replacing a short-haul Monarch aircraft leaves a gap for seats, so we are bringing flights together and more people will arrive back at a different airport. There will be a coach waiting for them that will take them straight back to their original airport, and the airports are making special arrangements on carpark access and fees to ensure that people do not lose out as a result. The CAA is managing a big bus operation and those people will get back to the place where they started.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Actually, the fall in the value of the pound was a factor in the collapse, although I agree with the Secretary of State that another factor was the UK ban on flights to Sharm el-Sheikh. Since that ban was introduced, the Egyptian authorities, with UK support, have gone to enormous lengths to improve security at that airport. I believe that every other western country has now lifted its ban. Could we now lift ours before even more people lose their jobs?
Chris Grayling
The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience in Government that we take security issues very seriously. We have looked exhaustively at the issues around Sharm el-Sheikh. We have not yet taken the decision to resume flying there. I would love us to be able to take it, but we have to be mindful of the security concerns and the risks to the travelling public of the United Kingdom. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that as soon as we feel that we can take that step, we will. We hold back only for good security reasons.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
This has been a massive exercise in repatriating citizens and our thanks should go to the Civil Aviation Authority and others that made it happen. Will the Secretary of State please confirm the cost of the repatriation exercise? Are insurers, credit card companies and banks playing their part in reimbursing the taxpayer?
Chris Grayling
We expect the total gross costs of the repatriation to be around £60 million. We will recover money from all those different groups, and I will in due course be able to tell the House exactly how much the taxpayer has contributed. However, my hon. Friend can be reassured that we are very focused on making sure that there is clear burden sharing, and that it is not only the taxpayer who pays.
Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)
I applaud the Government’s efforts in bringing back passengers who were not protected by ATOL. In the modern era of mass travel by air, would it not be sensible to look at legislation around ATOL and cover both hotels and air fares in case something similar happens in future?
Chris Grayling
That will clearly be debated again and has been considered before. The issue is that we would have to apply a levy to every single air fare sold in the UK, whether for a UK airline or otherwise. We could not simply apply a charge to a UK-based airline for which we were responsible—we would have to charge Ryanair, Air France and Emirates passengers as well. Effectively, we would be putting up air passenger duty. I am not saying that we should not do that, but if we were to we would need to use great thought and care beforehand.
Rachel Maclean (Redditch) (Con)
My constituents in Redditch are incredibly hard working—thanks, no doubt, to the Government’s amazing record of job creation. However, they look forward to their well-deserved holidays, and price competition has contributed to their being able to take those breaks. Will the Secretary of State confirm that he sees no risks in the airline market that he ought to be considering?
Chris Grayling
That concern has been raised by the Opposition as well. The first thing to say is that our aviation sector is very strong. If people visit our airports, as I do, they will find that virtually every one will say that this has been a record year in terms of the number of passengers carried and that there have been record days in their history. Passengers are not stopping flying—more and more passengers are flying, and I am confident that that will continue.
I am also confident that we have good airlines that are growing fast: look at the success of easyJet and Jet2. Tour operators are also doing well. I am confident that the sector will grow and develop; there is demand for slots and runway space and there are acquisitions and new investments in new centres such as Jet2’s investment in Stansted. We should be confident about the sector. We can never rule out problems in the future or be certain that no airline will ever run into difficulties again. That is why we have to think through whether we need to take steps to make sure that there is proper protection for consumers. But we should be confident in our sector.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the CAA for delivering the largest ever peacetime repatriation. As he will be aware, the UK insolvency framework does not allow insolvent airlines to continue flying, unlike what happened with Alitalia in Italy and Air Berlin in Germany. Will my right hon. Friend consider looking at the insolvency framework again in that light?
Chris Grayling
We will certainly give some thought to that. It is very noticeable that other airlines have been able to carry on flying in administration. The risk, of course, is that an aircraft could easily be impounded by an international airline. One of the reasons we sought to hire our own fleet was to remove that risk. If we had used the Monarch planes, there was a danger that, if they arrived at an airport and a local creditor decided to take action, the plane might have been unable to return. That is something we always need to weigh in the balance. We need to look at what happened with Air Berlin and Alitalia and see whether there are lessons to be learned, but first and foremost our task should always be to protect passengers whose journeys might otherwise be at risk.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Price wars, stiff competition and a change in travel habits all contributed to Monarch’s failure. My constituents in Wealden have been in touch about their holidays and business trips being ruined. Can the Secretary of State confirm that he and his ministerial colleagues have visited returning passengers at UK airports and say what feedback he has received?
Chris Grayling
I met the first flight back at Manchester airport last Monday and my noble Friend Lord Callanan visited Leeds Bradford airport on the same day to meet people coming back. I have had a lot of letters from people who were able to travel back on the repatriation flights saying how grateful they were and how smooth it had been. There are bound to be some hiccups on the way—we had weather problems in Funchal, which led to some cancellations—but in overall terms this has been a very smooth effort and a great tribute to a team of people in the CAA who are not airline specialists, but who have come together to run an airline in a way that was, frankly, enormously impressive.
Mr Speaker
I do not think the hon. Gentleman realised how popular he was—and I do not think anyone else did either.
Andrew Bridgen
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although every lost job is a human tragedy, the British aviation industry remains robust and resilient? I am reminded of 2012, when British Midland International collapsed, with the loss of 1,200 jobs at East Midlands airport in my constituency. These are very highly skilled people who are quickly absorbed back into the economy. Unemployment in North West Leicestershire remains at a record low of 1%.
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted that we have a thriving sector, with more than 6,000 vacancies, for which the 1,800 people who have lost their jobs can apply. I am also delighted by the fact that easyJet is saying, “We want to hire 500 of them straightaway. They’re good people; we want them.” I am very confident for their future. All the support they need in the short term is being provided, but I am pretty clear that in a thriving sector those people will have a strong future.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Quite clearly this has been a huge repatriation and logistical task. Can the Secretary of State confirm, though, what entitlement passengers who have not yet travelled—I am sure most of us have them in our constituencies—have to a refund?
Chris Grayling
We will be continuing to give advice and guidance to those people for some considerable time. We will also be contacting people this week to see who wants and has a need to return, as part of the repatriation exercise. All those who have booked through credit card companies or who have ATOL protection, regardless of how long they are out there for—I am sure a small number will be out there for an extended period—will be able to secure a refund when the time comes.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
As well as reviewing the effectiveness of the ATOL scheme in the light of this incident, will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to look at the providers of travel insurance? Many people travelling thought that they were covered for the collapse of an airline under their travel insurance policy, only to find that they were not.
Chris Grayling
This is something that I will want to take up with the insurance industry. It does seem unfortunate that cover should not include something that happens once in 10 years. This is one area where there is a case for change. It would have made life a lot easier had that been the case.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the statement and the detail of what the Government have been doing, in particular the fact that 80,000 of 110,000 people abroad are now back in the UK. Can the Secretary of State confirm, though, that we will apply the lessons learned to the legislation currently going through the House to reform the ATOL scheme?
Chris Grayling
We have the advantage of having legislation before Parliament at the moment. If there are short-term measures that we could take, we would certainly be open to doing that, but I do not want us to rush into doing something without doing the ground work properly. We need to look carefully at what has happened, learn the lessons and make any modifications necessary. I assure the House that that is what we will do.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
We should give credit where credit is due; it has been a simply remarkable achievement to repatriate such a large number of passengers in such a short period, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, his Department and the CAA on putting this together. Here we are on the first Monday back after the conference recess, and we could have been faced with having 110,000 British citizens stranded overseas. Instead, thanks to his actions, 80% of them are already back and the rest can be confident of coming back on time.
Chris Grayling
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. They are a tribute to the work done by people right across Whitehall—nine different Departments and organisations were involved—by those who have gone out to man the departure lounges at airports around Europe and by the people operating the airline. This has been a fantastic effort, they have done a brilliant job for all of us and I am very grateful to them.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that there is no loss in capacity and that excess slots that have now emerged are allocated as quickly as possible?
Chris Grayling
The fact that there is now some debate over the value of the slots as they are taken up by other airlines shows that there is a queue of operators waiting to move in where Monarch has been. We have already heard from Jet2 that it is looking to pick up some of the slack that Monarch has left behind, and I have no doubt that we will see others moving in very quickly as well. Our sector is thriving, those gaps will be filled and there will be lots of flight opportunities in future.
UK Plans for Leaving the EU
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plans for leaving the European Union. Today, the fifth round of negotiations begins in Brussels and this Government are getting on with the job of delivering the democratic will of the British people. As I set out in my speech in Florence, we want to take a creative and pragmatic approach to securing a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union which spans both a new economic relationship and a new security relationship. So let me set out what each of these relationships could look like, before turning to how we get there.
I have been clear that when we leave the European Union we will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. The British people voted for control of their borders, their laws and their money, and that is what this Government are going to deliver. At the same time, we want to find a creative solution to a new economic relationship—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Members must calm themselves; a little hush, please. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) has had something for breakfast which I counsel colleagues to avoid.
The Prime Minister
At the same time, we want to find a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples. We do not want to settle for adopting a model enjoyed by other countries. So we have rejected the idea of something based on European economic area membership, for this would mean having to adopt—automatically and in their entirety—new EU rules over which, in future, we will have little influence and no vote. Neither are we seeking a Canadian-style free trade agreement, for compared with what exists today, this would represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit none of our economies.
Instead, I am proposing a unique and ambitious economic partnership. It will reflect our unprecedented position of starting with the same rules and regulations. We will maintain our unequivocal commitment to free trade and high standards, and we will need a framework to manage where we continue to align and where we choose to differ. There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward. There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals, or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means. And there will be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways, because it makes sense for our economies. Because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to the EU market and for EU access to our market. But this dynamic, creative and unique economic partnership will enable the UK and the EU to work side by side in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples.
Let me turn to the new security relationship. As I said when I visited our troops serving on the NATO mission in Estonia last month, the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. We will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or man-made disasters. We are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU. We are also proposing a far-reaching partnership on how, together, we protect Europe from the threats we face in the world today. That partnership will be unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in co-operation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.
Let me turn to how we build a bridge from where we are now to the new relationship that we want to see. When we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, neither the UK nor the EU and its member states will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin the new relationship we seek. Businesses will need time to adjust and Governments will need to put new systems in place, and businesses want certainty about the position in the interim. That is why I suggested in my speech at Lancaster House that there should be a period of implementation, and that is why I proposed such a period in my speech in Florence last month. During this strictly time-limited period, we will have left the EU and its institutions, but we are proposing that, for this period, access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain should also continue to take part in existing security measures.
The framework for the period, which can be agreed under article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. I know that some people may have some concerns about that, but there are two reasons why it makes sense. First, we want our departure from the EU to be as smooth as possible, so it would not make sense to make people and businesses plan for two sets of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. Secondly, we should concentrate our negotiating time and capital on what really matters: the future long-term relationship we will have with the EU after the temporary period ends.
During the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK, but there will be a registration system—an essential preparation for the new immigration system required to re-take control of our borders. Our intention is that new arrivals would be subject to new rules for EU citizens on long-term settlement. We will also push forward on our future independent trade policy, talking to trading partners across the globe and preparing to introduce deals once the implementation period is over. How long the period should be will be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new systems we need. As of today, those considerations point to an implementation period of around two years.
As I said in Florence, because I do not believe that either the EU or the British people will want us to stay in the existing structures for longer than necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of the future framework—such as new dispute resolution mechanisms—more quickly, if that can be done smoothly. At the heart of the arrangements, there should be a double lock: to guarantee a period of implementation, giving businesses and people the certainty that they will be able to prepare for the change, and to guarantee that that implementation period will be time-limited, giving everyone the certainty that it will not go on forever.
The purpose of the Florence speech was to move the negotiations forward, and that is exactly what has happened. As Michel Barnier said after the last round of talks, there is a “new dynamic” in the negotiations. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), for all he has done to drive through real and tangible progress in a number of vital areas.
On citizens’ rights, as I have said many times, this Government greatly value the contributions of all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country. We want them to stay. In Florence, I gave further commitments that the rights of EU citizens in the UK—and UK citizens in the EU—will not diverge over time, and committed to incorporating our agreement on citizens’ rights fully into UK law and to making sure that the UK courts can refer directly to it.
Since Florence, there has been more progress, including reaching agreement on reciprocal healthcare and pensions, and encouraging further alignment on a range of important social security rights. I hope that our negotiating teams can now reach full agreement quickly.
On Northern Ireland, we have begun drafting joint principles on preserving the Common Travel Area and associated rights, and we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland—and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland—to get this right.
Then there is the question of the EU budget. As I have said, this can only be resolved as part of a settlement of all the issues through which we are working. I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour the commitments that we have made during the period of our membership. As we move forwards, we will also want to continue working together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent. That includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes that are greatly to our joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture and our mutual security. As I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so, we would want to make a contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.
I continued discussions on many of these issues when I met European leaders in Tallinn at the end of last month. In bilateral discussions that I have had with Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Szydlo, President Tusk and the Taoiseach Leo Varadkar, there was a welcome to the tone set in Florence and the impact that it was having on moving the negotiations forwards.
Preparing for life outside the EU is also about the legislative steps that we take. Our European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will shortly enter Committee, carrying over EU rules and regulations into our domestic law from the moment that we leave the EU. Today, we are publishing two White Papers on trade and customs, which pave the way for legislation to allow the UK to operate as an independent trading nation and to create an innovative customs system that will help us achieve the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade as we leave the EU. Although it is profoundly in all our interests for the negotiations to succeed, it is also our responsibility as a Government to prepare for every eventuality, so that is exactly what we are doing. The White Papers also support that work, including setting out steps to minimise disruption for businesses and travellers.
A new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and a strong and successful European Union is our ambition and our offer to our European friends. Achieving that partnership will require leadership and flexibility not just from us, but from our friends—the 27 nations of the EU. As we look forward to the next stage, the ball is in their court, but I am optimistic that we will receive a positive response, because what we are seeking is the best possible deal not just for us, but for our European friends too. Progress will not always be smooth, but by approaching these negotiations in a constructive way—in a spirit of friendship and co-operation and with our sights firmly set on the future—we can prove the doomsayers wrong, and we can seize the opportunities of this defining moment in the history of our nation.
Much of the day-to-day coverage is about process, but this, on the other hand, is vital. I am determined to deliver what the British people voted for and to get it right. That is my duty as Prime Minister. It is our duty as a Government, and it is what we will do. I commend this statement to the House.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for the advance copy of her statement.
Sixteen months on from the referendum, no real progress has been made. The Prime Minister delivered yet another definitive speech designed to herald a breakthrough that instead only confirmed the confusion at the heart of Government. If we want to judge the progress the Government have made since triggering article 50, we should not just look at the latest Florence speech. We should also look back at the Prime Minister’s last big Brexit speech in January, where she outlined 12 objectives for Brexit negotiations. How many of those objectives have the Government met 10 months down the line? The answer—none.
The Florence speech in fact demonstrated the scale of the mess the Government are making of these negotiations. Fifteen months on from the referendum, we are still no clearer what the future of this country will look like. The question must be asked: what on earth have the Government been doing all this time? They called an election in which voters refused to give the Prime Minister the mandate she wanted. Since then, Cabinet Ministers have been squabbling among themselves; all that time— 15 months—wasted.
I am sure that the Prime Minister wanted her speech in Florence to bring life to these critical negotiations. On the substance of the speech itself, I am pleased that the Prime Minister has taken Labour’s lead and accepted the need for transition as we leave the EU. However, it is still unclear what she envisages for a transitional period or how long it will last. The Prime Minister said the implementation period would last “around two years”, yet the Foreign Secretary interprets that as two years and not a second more and the Chancellor hints it might be more. He is here; he could correct us on that. The Prime Minister told us that, during a transition,
“access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms”.
Yet at the Conservative party conference, the Secretary of State for International Trade contradicted that and said:
“We will leave…the single market and the customs union, at the end of March 2019.”
The Immigration Minister told his party conference that freedom of movement “as we know it” will end in March 2019, so how does this square with the Prime Minister’s assertion that we “continue on current terms” during the transition? It cannot be both. Will the Prime Minister clear up the confusion and tell the House exactly what her implementation period means in terms of the single market, customs union and freedom of movement?
On the financial settlement with the EU, the Prime Minister has offered to commit funds to ensure that no EU member state has to pay more into the EU budget until the end of the current framework. We welcome this sensible offer. However, can she confirm whether the UK will be willing to pay money to the EU post-transition to access programmes that benefit this country? It is an important issue for many parts of Britain.
On the issue of citizens’ rights, the Prime Minister says this is an area where progress has been made with the EU. I am sure that many colleagues in this House will testify to the level of concern and, indeed, desperation of many of our constituents who come to our surgeries across the country in fear that families and friendships will soon be ripped apart. [Interruption.] No, it is not scaremongering. This is a serious issue that affects many people in this country—day in, day out—who are, frankly, frightened of the future. So I call on the Prime Minister again today to listen to the TUC and the CBI, and unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU nationals living in the UK. Given that this House voted in July 2016 to unilaterally guarantee the rights of EU citizens, can the Prime Minister finally reflect the will of the House and give people and businesses the assurances they need?
On Northern Ireland, we welcome the drafting of joint principles, but, 15 months on from the referendum, we should be beyond platitudes, and negotiating the practicalities.
The speech in Florence was supposed to put “momentum” into the Brexit negotiations. It is staggering that after—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There was a lot of noise when the Prime Minister began her statement, and I indicated that people should calm down. The same applies now: the right hon. Gentleman will be heard, he will be heard with courtesy and he will be heard in full.
Jeremy Corbyn
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
It is staggering that, eight months after triggering article 50, the Government have made so little progress. The Secretary of State for International Trade said a deal with the EU should be the “easiest in human history” —[Interruption.] That is what he said. Now, the reality for this Tory Government is beginning to bite, but if things do not improve, the reality may soon begin to bite for the jobs and living standards of the people of this country.
These negotiations are the most important in Britain’s recent history—vital to our future and vital to our economy. Just at the moment when Britain needs a strong negotiating team, we have a Cabinet at each other’s throats. Half the Conservative party want the Foreign Secretary sacked, the other half want the Chancellor sacked. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly) that I am advised that he is being groomed for statesmanship. I say to the aspiring statesman that it is, in the circumstances, impolitic at best, and rude at worst, for him to point. I am trying to help the hon. Gentleman.
Jeremy Corbyn
Rather than fighting over their own jobs, the reality is that millions of people’s jobs and living standards depend on the success of these negotiations. If this Government cannot negotiate a deal for Britain, they should make way for a team that can.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman talks about what has happened over the last 15 months. Well, I will tell him what has happened: this Government have triggered article 50 and are negotiating the leaving of the European Union. We are negotiating the practical details that need to be in place to ensure that, first of all, we get the best possible deal for the UK and that, secondly, we get a deal where the withdrawal is as smooth and orderly as possible.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about a number of the issues. He says that the Florence speech was due to give momentum to the talks; indeed, it has given momentum to the talks. But I happily say to him that the last thing we need in these talks is his Momentum.
The right hon. Gentleman said, “Will we leave the single market and the customs union in March 2019?” Yes, and I have said that we will. He said, “Will freedom of movement as we know it end?” and I have said yes. I have set out in the statement I made today—if he had read it—the point about the difference that will come in during that period.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about citizens’ rights. There is considerable agreement between us and the European Union on this issue; there are some remaining issues to be dealt with. I have been very clear at every stage that we want EU citizens in this country to stay. We welcome the contribution that they have made. But I am also clear that we want UK citizens in the 27 member states of the European Union to be given their rights too. Everybody in this House of Commons should have a care for UK citizens as well as for EU citizens.
Finally, he says that this is an historic moment. It is indeed an important moment for this country. This is an important and significant set of negotiations that will set this country’s future for generations to come and I am optimistic and ambitious about what we can achieve for our country. He said that we need to negotiate carefully. Yes, we do. That is why the article 50 letter reflected the principles I set out in the Lancaster House speech. The Florence speech updates that and reflects the principles of the Lancaster House speech. What a contrast with a Labour party that said that it would respect the result of the referendum, then voted against the withdrawal Bill. The Opposition said that they wanted to leave the single market; now they might stay in the single market. They said that staying in the customs union was deeply unattractive; now they want to stay in the customs union forever. They used to be against a second referendum, but now they have refused to rule it out. With such a confused position on Brexit, no wonder it is said that there will be a run on the pound if Labour gets into power.
Mr Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister reassure me that the statement clarifies that it is not the Government’s policy to seek, on the one hand, to remove all trading barriers with countries such as Japan and the United States, while on the other hand, to create new regulatory customs and tariff barriers with the European Union, with which we have free trade at the moment and which is our largest trading partner in the world? If that is correct and consistent with what she has just said, she will no doubt recall that ultra-Brexiteers, including the present Foreign Secretary, assured citizens during the referendum campaign that there would be no difference at all with our trading relationships with Europe, because they needed to sell us their Mercedes and their prosecco. Would it not be best to proceed with the negotiations on the basis that our ideal solution would be to stay in the single market and the customs union? She could then seek to negotiate changes to the conditions attached to that, which are the things to which she refers when she tries to explain where she is at the moment.
The Prime Minister
My right hon. and learned Friend has always been consistent on the issue of membership of the European Union. When people voted in the referendum for the UK to leave the European Union, I think they were voting for us to take control of our borders, our laws and our money. If we were to remain full members of the customs union and the single market, that would bring with it the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice forever and would also bring a requirement for free movement. I set out in the Florence speech and in the offer we made to the European Union what I have described previously as a deep and special partnership with the EU. He is right that we want to ensure that our trading relationship with the European Union can be as tariff free and as frictionless as possible, but we also see advantage in being able to negotiate new trading agreements around the rest of the world. I think that that is to the advantage of the United Kingdom, and that is what the Government will be pursuing.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for a copy in advance of her statement, although I must say that for a statement to take 13 minutes to deliver with not one mention of the devolved Administrations shows the lack of respect—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I say to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) that it is a considerable discourtesy to walk out of the Chamber past the Member who is on his feet in the middle of his attempted intervention. It is a point that is so blindingly obvious that the hon. Gentleman should not need to be notified of it, but as he apparently was not aware of the discourtesy involved he now is. When the House has settled down, perhaps we can hear the leader of the Scottish National party who, I remind the House, must be heard.
Ian Blackford
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We respect the fact that the UK has voted to come out of Europe, but we were told during our referendum in 2014 that if we stayed in the UK, our future in Europe would be preserved. Scotland has voted to remain and, in particular, wants to stay in the single market and the customs union, so it is about time that we got some respect from the Government. The situation is now critical. [Interruption.] I can hear Conservative Members chuntering; if they want to catch the Speaker’s eye, they are entitled to do so, but perhaps they might show a little respect. These are important matters, and the public are watching this behaviour.
We stand on the brink of being dragged out of the European Union with no deal in place and facing the automatic introduction of World Trade Organisation rules. That would be a catastrophe for Scotland, threatening up to 80,000 jobs in our country alone. The President of the European Commission has said that “miracles” need to happen for there to be any progress in the negotiations. Meanwhile, the European Parliament voted last week to stop negotiations moving on to the next phase, citing lack of progress. The clock is running against the Prime Minister in more ways than one.
On EU citizens’ rights, the Government continue to drag their heels. There must now be a universal declaration from the Prime Minister that EU citizens in the UK can have their current citizenship and rights protected after exit day. No ifs, no buts—do it today. I urge the Prime Minister to listen to the voices of the devolved Administrations. We will not accept the legislation as it stands; it is a complete violation of the Scotland Act and the biggest power grab since devolution. Indeed, just last week the author of Article 50, Lord Kerr, said that Westminster was trying to break the founding principle of the devolution settlement.
The SNP has set out three key tests on Brexit for this Government: first, as an absolute minimum, we want continued membership of the single market and the customs union; secondly, the Government must declare now, without delay, that EU citizens’ rights are guaranteed; and, thirdly, the Government must accept that the withdrawal Bill cannot proceed in its current form. Will the Prime Minister live up to those asks, and will she end the immoral floundering over EU citizens’ rights now?
The Prime Minister
As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows, there will be a meeting next week of the Joint Ministerial Committee, which brings the devolved Administrations together with Ministers here in the Government. There have also been bilateral discussions between the First Secretary of State and Ministers in the Scottish and Welsh Governments on an ongoing basis over the summer.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to citizens’ rights. I remind him that during the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, which he referred to, the First Minister told EU nationals that if the EU did not allow an independent Scotland to rejoin—it was clear that the EU would not do so—EU nationals would
“lose the right to stay here.”
[Interruption.] SNP Members are shaking their heads, but that is what the First Minister said at the time.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced what I said in my statement. My statement was about the position of the United Kingdom Government in the UK’s negotiations with the European Union, and Scotland is part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement by my right hon. Friend and very good friend, our Prime Minister, on her plans for the negotiations. May I press her and ask her to elaborate a little further? In her statement, she made it clear that the ball was back in the EU’s court. Is it not reasonable to expect that, given all the negotiations and discussions and the progress that has been made, the EU should now engage the United Kingdom on something that is beneficial to it and us—namely, an ongoing free trade arrangement, to be completed by March 2019?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we see increasing interest in moving on to talk about that issue. That will absolutely be, as he says, not just in our interests but in the interests of the European Union; that is what is right for us both. We want the matter to be negotiated by March 2019, so that the UK comes out of the European Union knowing what the new partnership and trade agreement will be.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said very clearly she believes that, on her plans, we will be out of the customs union and the single market by March 2019. That was not the impression I got from the Florence speech. Will she therefore explain how the arrangements she is seeking for the transition differ from being a member of the single market and the customs union for the period of the transition?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman that, as we leave the European Union in March 2019, we will leave full membership of the customs union and full membership of the single market. What we then want is a period of time when practical changes can be made, as we move towards the end state—the trade agreement—that we will have agreed with the European Union. We have to negotiate for the implementation period what the arrangements would be. We have suggested that that should be a new agreement—an agreement that we should be able to operate on the same basis and on the same rules and regulations.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s Florence speech stressed the fundamental principles of UK democracy and accountability in this House, upon which all else depends. The Opposition voted against the withdrawal and repeal Bill, and the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. Does she agree that our voters have every right to hear a public explanation from the Opposition—remainers and reversers—about why, despite the referendum vote, they still subscribe, under the EU’s undemocratic system of lawmaking, to the closed-door Council of Ministers, where decisions are taken behind closed doors and largely in secrecy, which contrasts so vividly with what goes on in this House, with Bills and amendments, and with speeches and votes recorded?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point the finger at the Opposition on this particular issue. They claim they are going to support the result of the referendum, yet they vote against the very Bill that will put that in place. Not only do they do that, but in voting against the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, they have voted against bringing environmental regulations into UK law and bringing workers’ rights into UK law. The Labour party voting against bringing workers’ rights into UK law; it is this Government who are supporting them.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Four days ago, the deputy governor of the Bank of England said that the UK financial services industry needs a transitional deal by Christmas, or else it will begin implementing its contingency plans—the Chancellor is well aware of them—to shift jobs and activities across the channel. Telling the House that the ball is now in the EU’s court, as the Prime Minister did today, does not exactly give those businesses the comfort and certainty they require, so will she tell the House what her plan now is to break the negotiating logjam and achieve such a deal in time for it to do its job for a sector of the economy that employs over 1 million people?
The Prime Minister
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that the Florence speech set out some details on an implementation period and how we think that that could operate. We now wait for the European Union to respond to the detail that we have set out. I recognise the concerns that business has for an implementation period, but I would say, finally, to the right hon. Gentleman that this whole process is not helped by the vast majority of Labour MEPs voting against moving on to the next phase of talks.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government will press on with working out the details for no deal. That is a very prudent thing to do and means there will be no cliff edge for British business. Does she agree that it will send the very good message to the European Union that we can do that, but that she is offering something so much better and more positive that it is in their interests to accept, and that any deal they counter with has to be better than no deal?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we have offered a very good arrangement for the future to the European Union—I think it is not only in our interests, but in their interests as well—but as any prudent Government would, we continue to make plans for every eventuality. I think that is the only sensible thing for us to do.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
Is it the Prime Minister’s understanding that, if necessary, it is possible to halt the article 50 process?
The Prime Minister
The position was made clear in a case that went through the Supreme Court in relation to article 50. The Government have made it clear that we have no intention of revoking that. We will be delivering on the vote of the British people.
Sir Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend wrestles with the inevitable compromises essential to securing the opportunities of Brexit in the national interest, and in view of this enormous administrative challenge, will she consider refining the machinery of government by creating an inner Cabinet to drive forward the work across the Government and thus retain greater grip and control over the whole process?
The Prime Minister
Ministers meet in a variety of forms to consider these issues. Before the Florence speech, I was pleased that the whole Cabinet came together and signed up to that speech. Of course, we have various discussions about the various elements of the negotiations, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that we are aware of the need to be able to ensure that we can make swift decisions when that is necessary in the negotiating process.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)
May I press the Prime Minister to clarify her answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw)? He was not asking about Government policy: he was asking a straightforward question. Have the Government received any legal advice that the article 50 notice can be revoked?
The Prime Minister
I said to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) that the position in relation to the revocation of article 50 was addressed by the Supreme Court in a case that went before it. It was very clear about that. We were clear as a Government that we were not revoking and it was clear in its consideration of the case of no revocation of article 50.
Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her excellent Florence speech. It was widely welcomed, not just by British business but by people across the country, and it marked a real attempt by her to form a consensus on Brexit between the 48% and the 52% that everyone is crying out for. Forgive my throat, Mr Speaker—women with bad throats will not be silenced. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I may not have heard properly or understood, but did the Prime Minister say that if by the end of March 2019 we do not have a deal on the final Brexit arrangements, we will jump off the cliff and there will be no deal? Or did she say that we will go into a period of transition and during that time those vital negotiations can continue?
The Prime Minister
The period after March 2019 is an implementation period to implement the practical changes necessary to move to the final arrangement and the new partnership we will have with the European Union. As the article 50 process sets out, the expectation is that it is a two-year process to negotiate the arrangements—to negotiate withdrawal and take into account, and therefore know, what the future relationship is going to be. I expect, and we are working on, having that future arrangement negotiated by 29 March 2019, but because the chances are that the details of that may come quite late in the process, it will not have been possible for anyone—Governments, businesses or individuals—to have taken the practical steps necessary to move to that position. To get as smooth as possible a withdrawal, so that there is not a cliff edge, we have that period of implementation. That moves us to the final arrangement that has been negotiated by March 2019.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), which—with respect to the Prime Minister—was not about the Gina Miller case but about Government legal advice, can she tell the House whether the Government have received legal advice that article 50 is revocable?
The Prime Minister
I have to say to the right hon. Gentleman—perhaps I should have said this initially to the right hon. Member for Exeter—that of course we do not comment on legal advice that has been received, but the position was very clear in the case that he mentioned. The Supreme Court was clear that it operated on the basis that article 50 would not be revoked.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her most encouraging statement. Recently in Washington, I found widespread enthusiasm among our American friends at the prospect of signing a free trade deal—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The House is in a very excitable state. I have always enjoyed listening to the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). I have been doing so for 20 years and I want to continue to do so. He can normally be heard, but the braying and banter was so loud I could not hear the fellow. Let us hear him.
Mr Paterson
I will say it again, Mr Speaker, for your benefit: I found widespread enthusiasm right across the American political firmament for the prospect of signing a free trade deal with the United Kingdom. Our American friends will welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, yet again, that we will leave the customs union, as that is a prerequisite for signing a deal. Will she give them her best estimate of when, after March 2019, we can sign a deal with third countries of a friendly nature, like the United States of America?
The Prime Minister
I echo the comments that my right hon. Friend has made. That is exactly what we found in our dealings with the American Government. We have a working group on issues relating to trade working with the American Government. The exact arrangements during the implementation period will be a matter for the negotiations, but we are clear that during the implementation period it should be possible for us to continue to negotiate trade agreements. We would not enter into anything that was contrary to the agreement we had come to with the European Union.
Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has been asked several times about implementation of transition and has not made any sense at all in the answers she has given. She has said today that she foresees a framework for transition of around two years along the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. The existing structure has the single market and customs union at its heart. How can what she is proposing for her implementation period be anything other than continued membership of the customs union and the single market, which our companies require?
The Prime Minister
I thought that I had explained this in response to one of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends. As of 29 March 2019, we leave the European Union. That means we leave full membership of the customs union and full membership of the single market. We will, as part of that—this is our proposal to the EU—have negotiated an implementation period to take us in a smooth and orderly process, so that the practical changes can be made towards the end agreement with the European Union. How long that needs to last will depend significantly on the nature of that agreement and how different it is from the current arrangements, but during that period what we are proposing is that it is in the interests of individuals and businesses on all sides to be able to continue to operate on the same basis as they do today. That would be part of the withdrawal agreement that we propose to negotiate with the European Union, so that negotiation would be about the basis on which we operate during the implementation period.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I was going to call a fellow, but he has beetled out of the curtilage of the Chamber so I cannot. He may beetle back again, but we will see.
Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm unequivocally that after 29 March 2019 the European Court of Justice’s writ will no longer run in any way in this country and that any new laws agreed under the acquis communautaire after that date will not have effect here unless agreed specifically by Parliament?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has actually raised two separate issues but elided them together. The first is about the European Court of Justice. As I have just said in answer to a number of questions, we want to have a smooth and orderly process of withdrawal with minimum disruption. That is why we want the implementation period. We will have to negotiate what will operate during the implementation period. Yes, that may mean that we start off with the ECJ still governing the rules we are part of for that period, but we are also clear that we can bring forward discussions and agreements on issues such as a dispute resolution mechanism. If we can bring that forward at an earlier stage, we would wish to do so.
The second issue my hon. Friend referred to was the question of new rules brought in during the implementation period. Given the way things operate, it is highly unlikely that anything will be brought forward during that period that has not already started discussions through the European Union to which we are party until we leave and about which we would have been able to say they were a rule we would sign up to or one we would not. Any new rules put on the table during the implementation period, given the way these things operate, are highly unlikely to be implemented during the implementation period.
Tom Brake (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Our European friends are aghast at the chaos the Cabinet is creating. The Prime Minister has to put an end to the back-stabbing, briefing and counter-briefing from her Ministers and their surrogates. Will she show real leadership by ring-fencing the issue of EU citizens’ rights; by confirming that the UK will stay in the single market and customs union—because I am not aware of anyone who believes that the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland is safe without it; and by sacking the Foreign Secretary, whose leadership ambitions blind him to the sustained damage his back-seat driving is doing to the UK’s negotiating credibility and are increasing the chances of our crashing out of the EU?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that we want the right resolution to the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. As I have said, we are all clear that we do not want physical infrastructure on the border or a return to a hard border or the borders of the past. I am interested in his approach, however, as I seem to remember that at one stage the Liberal Democrats were actively promoting the idea of a referendum on EU membership. Now we have had one, they do not seem to want to accept it.
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend simply point out to people complaining that the negotiations are going too slowly that after the referendum on 23 June last year the EU refused to negotiate until we had triggered article 50; that even when we had, it refused to discuss the long-term relationship it wanted with the UK; and that even after her emollient and conciliatory speech, it is still refusing to discuss that long-term relationship? When does she call time?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that it was clear early on that we had to trigger article 50 before the negotiations could start. We waited to do that until we had done considerable work in government to prepare us for triggering article 50, which we did, and the extent of that work has now been shown in the negotiations and position papers we published over the summer. On his last point, I simply say, as I have said before, that public pronouncements are of course sometimes made about the negotiations, but we are in a negotiation, and very often our discussions behind the scenes in private are more positive and constructive than some of the public pronouncements suggest.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s statement has been confusing. Can I get to the heart of that confusion? She says she wants the benefits of exactly the same terms of trade with the EU as we have now, for which we need regulatory equivalence. She also says we want the benefits of not being bound by EU rules in perpetuity, for which we need regulatory divergence. It is a simple matter of logic that equivalence is the opposite of divergence. She says we want a thing and its opposite. How will she resolve this obvious contradiction?
The Prime Minister
When two countries enter into a trade agreement, both sides agree the set of rules and regulations pertaining to it, but they also agree how disputes will be resolved and what will happen if either side chooses to change or diverge from the rules and regulations. That is the position regarding our trade agreement with the EU, except that we already operate on the basis of the same rules and regulations. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will bring the EU acquis into UK law, so the key question, which will be part of the negotiations, is how we manage divergence on either side after that. It is the same as with any trade agreement.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend believe that the EU genuinely wants a dynamic and creative future trade relationship with the UK in accordance with her vision? If so, where is the evidence for it?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I believe that such a relationship is in the interests of the remaining 27 members states of the EU and that as they come to look at this issue—they were not previously focusing on it, but Florence has now triggered their thinking on it—they will see the benefits of such a relationship not just to us but to them as well.
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)
The European Commission talks continually about the need for Her Majesty’s Government to provide certainty and clarity. Is there not one area in which we could provide that certainty and clarity very plainly, today and in our negotiations? Could we not make it clear that in March 2019 we will withdraw from the common fisheries policy, take back all our fisheries, and ensure that our fishing communities actually take back control of who fishes in British waters?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to suggest that when we leave the European Union one of the aspects of leaving it will be leaving the common fisheries policy. Of course, we will need to consider the arrangements that we want to put in place here in the United Kingdom for the operation of our coastal waters and the operation of fishing around them.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for the positive tone of her Florence speech, and for the constructive meetings that have taken place since then. Does she agree that it is in the interests of consumers on both sides of the channel for us to have a deep, special and bespoke partnership that covers goods and services? In that regard, I am thinking particularly of the hundreds and thousands of German consumers who have bought life insurance products from British insurance companies, and who will find that unless there is agreement, their pension plan savings are lost.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made an important point. People often assume that only UK businesses and UK individuals will be affected, but actually people living in the remaining 27 countries of the European Union will also be affected, which is precisely why I think that the deep and special partnership to which my hon. Friend has referred is in the interests of both sides.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The shambles and division on the Front Bench would be funny if there were not such serious consequences for our economy, for jobs, and for the future of this country and the world. The Prime Minister is simply not being honest about a whole series of consequences for this country. [Interruption.] Excuse me, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is not being transparent with the public about the consequences for our economy. Will she say how much money she has put aside to deal with a disastrous “no deal”, and will she publish the economic assessments made by the Department for Exiting the European Union—whose Secretary of State is sitting next to her—of the impact on 50 sectors in our economy?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about the position of the Government. The position of the Government is very clear, and was set out in the Florence speech. It is our offer to the European Union, and we await discussions with the EU about that particular issue. I have also made it clear, from Lancaster House onwards, that when it is possible for us to give information and updates on the negotiations, we will do so, but we will do nothing that would undermine our position in the negotiations.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
Given that Germany and France export more to us than we export to them, what discussions has the Prime Minister had with her French and German counterparts? Has she asked them to pressurise the EU institutions to secure a good deal for those countries, which means negotiating faster, more effectively, and with a shared understanding of what we can both gain from this deal?
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that I do have discussions with the leaders of France and Germany, and, indeed, with the leaders of other EU member states. Others, such as the Dutch and the Belgians, also have a significant economic interest in our future relationship because of the economic activity at their ports. We discuss arrangements for the future with the leaders of those countries, and, as I said a little earlier, there is a growing sense and recognition of the importance of that deep and special trading relationship to the future of both sides.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister please tell the House the cost of Brexit to the public purse (a) if there is a deal and (b) if there is no deal?
The Prime Minister
It is not, of course, possible to answer that question at this stage. We are negotiating a deal, and we will not have negotiated that deal until, I suspect, close to the end of the period that has been set aside for it. At that point, we will be able to see what the benefits of the deal will be for the future of the British economy.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I commend the Prime Minister for her detailed statement. It was in stark contrast to what was said by the Leader of the Opposition, who left the House completely in the dark about his own position. Can the Prime Minister solve a dilemma for him? Why, if Labour Members are so concerned about Brexit, or even, indeed, about the security of EU nationals after we leave, could they not bring themselves to debate the matter at all at their own party conference in Brighton?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. At the Labour party conference they actually refused to have a full debate on the issue that they now say is a matter of such consequence to them, but then that is typical: they take one position on a Tuesday and the next position on a Wednesday.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
We did debate the European Union and Brexit at our conference actually, but let me ask about another matter. As a result of our membership of the European Union, there are some 200,000 Britons living in Catalonia, and roughly the same number of Catalan Spaniards living in the UK. I do not think that anybody in this House supports the police brutality that we have seen in Spain, but the French Government have been absolutely clear that they will not recognise Catalonia if it tries to declare itself independent unilaterally. Will the Prime Minister today make that same guarantee for Britain?
The Prime Minister
None of us wants to see the sort of violent scenes that we saw on the streets of Catalonia; I want to see this situation resolved peacefully, as I am sure do all hon. Members. But we are very clear as a Government that the Spanish Government have the right to uphold the Spanish constitution and that all parties should be operating under the rule of law.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
I very much support the Prime Minister in the final destination that she set out again today, but I have to say that her speech in Florence seemed like a reward for the EU’s intransigence. Can she confirm that we buy around £70 billion more in goods and services from the EU each year than it does from us, and that when we leave we will be the EU’s single biggest export market? Can she therefore confirm that there will be no more rewards for the EU’s intransigence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is of course right that the trading relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is very important to the EU, as well as important to the UK. What I did in my Florence speech was set out a vision—a proposal—for the future relationship between the UK and the EU, based on our current relationship, showing how we can develop that relationship in a way that is in the interests of both sides. This has switched the dial in our negotiations, and obviously we look forward to being able to enter negotiations on those aspects in more detail.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister said in her statement that she proposes “a unique and ambitious economic partnership” with the EU. If she is confident that the new unique and ambitious economic partnership that she envisages will be better for the UK economy than our current quite ambitious economic partnership and membership of the single market and customs union, then, further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), why will she not today, alongside her White Papers, finally publish the list of the sectors of the economy for which she has undertaken impact assessments and their results, so that the public can have the information about the impact of Brexit on the economy?
Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)
Following the recent German elections, power has moved from Berlin to Paris, so will the Prime Minister remind President Macron of the importance of being a good neighbour to the United Kingdom, because post Brexit, France will still be our neighbour, tens of thousands of French people will still want to visit and study here, and vice versa; we will still want to co-operate on environmental issues and immigration; and we will still wish to preserve our special defence arrangements with the French?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about not only our future relationship with the EU, but our future bilateral relationship with France. I can assure him that all the discussions that I have with President Macron, and that other Ministers have with their opposite numbers, are based on our not only maintaining but enhancing that bilateral relationship.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)
Do the two crippling tariffs imposed by the Prime Minister’s American friends on British Bombardier jobs prove that Brexit or no deal will create a jobs hell?
The Prime Minister
The judgment that came out of the American Department of Commerce is a preliminary one. We await the final judgment of that Department, and the issue can then go to a trade Commissioner. We continue to work with the US and Canadian Governments, and Boeing and Bombardier, to bring about a resolution to this dispute and protect the important jobs in Northern Ireland. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will be making a statement on the matter tomorrow.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
After the funfair of the conference season, may I welcome the Prime Minister back to her place as leader of this party, this Government and this country, and to the serious business of government? I congratulate her on the steely determination that she showed last week, including her setting out of an inspiring commitment to see this issue through on behalf of the next generation.
When the Prime Minister heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to Labour’s policy of a transition phase, did she, like me, think that that must be the one that she herself announced in her Lancaster House speech? The only transition in Labour that I see is the one from a once great party to a party of Venezuelan socialism.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on, on both counts. Indeed, in my Lancaster House speech, I said:
“I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the two-year Article Fifty process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation”
to enable us to
“prepare for the new arrangements…will be in our mutual self-interest.”
So we thought of the implementation period quite a long time ago.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I have asked the Prime Minister the same question three times in this Chamber, given the importance of the European Parliament in the negotiations. Last time I asked her when she would address the plenary of the European Parliament. When will she do that?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Lady. I have spoken to the President of the European Parliament about my going over there and speaking with either the plenary or the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament. I believe that our offices are negotiating on a date at the moment.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I am sure that Members on both sides will confirm that listening to senior Danish politicians is a very good idea. Would my right hon. Friend recommend that the leaders of the other 27 EU countries listen to the wise counsel of the Danish Foreign Minister, who suggests that they stop playing games and now move on to negotiating our future trade arrangements?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who reaffirms the point I was making earlier: there are many in the European Union who do believe that the time is now right to move on to trade negotiations.
Stephen Kinnock
I won’t do it in Danish—not today.
The Prime Minister’s commitment to a transition deal was a welcome reality check in this whole process, but the European Parliament resolution of 3 October states that a transition period can happen only on the basis of the existing EU regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments. Does the Prime Minister agree with the terms of that resolution?
The Prime Minister
That is the view of the European Parliament in its resolution. In my statement and my Florence speech, I put out that we expect that the implementation period will be based on the current rules and regulations, but of course this is part of the negotiation.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
To negotiate an outcome consistent with the ambition that my right hon. Friend has set out, is it not absolutely essential that we invest in preparations against the possibility of no agreement at all?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend on that, and that is precisely why that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I am sure the Prime Minister knows that the Supreme Court did not opine on the question of whether article 50 was revocable, because the question before it was about our involvement. Therefore, why, when asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) what advice she had had recently, did she rely on the Supreme Court?
The Prime Minister
The point that I made in relation to the Supreme Court is that the court proceeded on the basis that article 50 would not be revoked; and I gave the answer to another of the hon. Lady’s hon. Friends about what the Government do or do not say about legal advice.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on the tone she has set in the run-up to the decision of the October Council? I also thank her for the reply she has just given to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), making it clear that the Government have followed the recommendations of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs in its March report about the need to prepare for no deal. Will she confirm that individuals and businesses will also need to be in a position to make their contingency plans? Does she accept that, if the negotiations on the final settlement are postponed for at least two months in October, the Government will have to surface their no-deal preparations, so that businesses and individuals can share in making the necessary preparations? This will also rely on a vote of the European Parliament, and we saw what happened last week, with the Labour MEPs supporting a position that was absolutely against the interests of the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister
First of all, obviously, I still expect that we will be able to negotiate a good deal, and that is what we are working for. It is important that we take businesses along with us and that we discuss and hear from businesses their reaction to the various issues being raised in the negotiations. Indeed, I and a number of other Cabinet Ministers were present at the business advisory council that was held in No. 10 Downing Street today. However, my hon. Friend’s question seemed to be based on the premise that, if we did not get a formal notification of sufficient progress in October, that would mean that we would not be likely to get a deal. I do not believe that that is the case. I believe, as has been indicated by other hon. Friends, that we are seeing more of a movement on the European Union side to recognise the importance of discussing the trade negotiations and to consider the necessity of an implementation period.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
Let me begin by commending the Prime Minister warmly for keeping going at her conference speech. It could not have been easy.
The Prime Minister—and, I am sure, other Members of the House—will be well aware that the Good Friday agreement of 1998 was voted on by thousands and thousands of people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and secured a majority in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I am very pleased today that the Prime Minister has said that we owe it to the people of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland to get Brexit right. Will she therefore please look seriously at introducing a Government amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to guarantee on the face of the legislation that no regulations made under the Bill will repeal or amend the Good Friday agreement? That would be very helpful to people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
The Prime Minister
Both this Government and the Irish Government—and indeed, increasingly in the discussions we have been having on the issues relating to Northern Ireland and the Republic, the European Union—have confirmed an absolute commitment to the Good Friday agreement. We are very clear that we stand by the Good Friday agreement, which, as the hon. Lady said, was hard negotiated and welcomed by a majority. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that nothing that we do in the Brexit negotiations in any way jeopardises the implementation of the Good Friday agreement.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
May I congratulate the Prime Minister on her very encouraging and positive statement? Does she agree that it would be helpful if British businesses with interests in other European Union countries used their influence with the political leadership in those countries to impress upon them the need to have an agreement in everyone’s interest? In particular, does she agree that they need to emphasise that the economic impact of not having an agreement by March 2019 will not only affect Britain, but hugely affect the other EU countries as well?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has made a very important point, and I certainly would encourage businesses and others to ensure that they are making that clear with their contacts in the 27 member states. I believe that that is already happening, and I certainly meet people from across the European Union who make exactly the point that it is in their economic interests to ensure that we get a good deal negotiated by March 2019.
Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)
Over the past 17 years, Wales has received £9 billion in grants from Europe. During the Brexit debates and the referendum, Tory Ministers said that Wales would not lose out as a result of Brexit. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much funding Wales will get—additional funding—after Brexit is completed?
The Prime Minister
Nice bid, as the Secretary of State says. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] Well, he changed from “not losing out” to “additional money” in his question. We have been very clear in relation to a number of elements where people currently receive funding related to the EU, such as under the common agricultural policy and structural funds, that we will meet any agreements entered into before we leave the European Union—in relation to the structural funds, as long as they meet UK priorities and are value for money. Thereafter, once we are outside the EU, it will be for us here in the UK to decide how we wish to ensure that different parts of the country are supported in the way that is necessary for them. What I have put forward is that there should be a shared prosperity fund, which will look at the diversity and disparity within regions and between regions, and we will act accordingly.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Last week, I met a leading UK industrialist and we discussed Brexit and the hundreds of thousands of people employed in the sector in this country. Although he wanted to see an agreement and understood entirely the Prime Minister’s implementation period, he is concerned that, if no agreement is reached, it is no good saying that on 29 March 2019—he needs to know now what Brexit without a deal would look like, so that he can plan for that eventuality. He asked whether the Prime Minister could publish those plans prior to Christmas.
The Prime Minister
I recognise the concerns people have about ensuring they know what the situation is going to be. The Government are working on what steps will be necessary for whatever the eventuality—whether we do negotiate a deal or whether we do not—and in doing that we are holding discussions with business.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
I thank the Prime Minister for prior sight of her statement. We have heard a great deal from her about the non-border that she envisages between the north of Ireland and the Republic, but I do not think we have heard a word about the border between Wales and the Republic of Ireland, even though the north Wales route through Holyhead is second only to Dover in its volume of traffic. Will she tell the House what she is doing to ensure that north Wales does not grind to a halt after Brexit?
The Prime Minister
I am very clear that as we look for a solution for the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland we do not want to set up a new border between the island of Ireland and the mainland of the United Kingdom. Obviously, what happens at the border the hon. Gentleman refers to will depend on the future partnership that we agree with the EU. We have put some proposals forward for customs arrangements that could pertain. When we get into the negotiation of that phase, we will be able to look at those issues in detail.
Michelle Donelan (Chippenham) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that we will rule out a second referendum, unlike the Labour party, whose Members seem to be confused as to whether we should be speeding up the process or reversing it?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am very clear that there will be no second referendum. The British people were given their opportunity to choose, they chose to come out of the European Union and that is what this Government will deliver.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
My constituent Jessica Simor, QC, from Matrix Chambers has done important work on the legal status of revoking article 50, and she is of the opinion that it can be revoked. The Supreme Court case that the Prime Minister referred to rules that the Government cannot trigger article 50 without an authorising Act of Parliament. Article 50 provides for the notification not of withdrawal but of an intention to withdraw, and the Prime Minister will be aware that in law an “intention” is not a binding agreement. So I ask her once again: will she publish the legal advice she has received, which is important for the wider public to see?
The Prime Minister
I say to all those Opposition Members who have stood up today and asked about the legal position on revoking article 50 that the position is very clear. The British people voted in a referendum to leave the European Union.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that no money will be paid for access to the single market, for two reasons? First, the EU sends a lot more goods and services to us than we send to it. Secondly, there are countries around the world that export to the EU single market without any problems at all.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is of course right that the EU has a number of trade agreements with countries around the world that enable those countries to deal with the single market on the basis set out in those agreements. As I have set out, we will honour our commitments—that is important for us as a country—and there are some areas, possibly in fields such as security and science, in which we will want to continue to be members of specific projects and programmes. If we do, it will be right that we pay an element of the costs of those projects and programmes. Those are the two elements that I have set out in our financial proposals.
Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)
Has the EU agreed in principle to a transitional arrangement with the UK?
The Prime Minister
Having an implementation period will be part of the negotiations. The EU has previously referenced the possibility of there being such a period, but we need to negotiate the length of that period and its implementation.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
There are five key NATO countries that are committed to the defence of our continent that are not members of the EU, and we will soon join that group. Will the Prime Minister give me an assurance that she will work closely with those countries, and with countries such as Poland that are on the frontline with Russia, to ensure that NATO continues to be the supreme defence posture for our continent, rather than a single European army?
The Prime Minister
We continue to believe that NATO is the bedrock of European security and we will continue to play a full role in NATO, as we have done over the years since its formation. I am pleased that we have British troops involved in NATO operations on the eastern border of the EU, protecting that border and giving that guarantee of European security.
Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that there will be no new infrastructure on the Irish border and no customs border over the Irish sea, and that we will not remain a member of the customs union. If all those options are ruled out, can she explain exactly what kind of customs border we will have?
The Prime Minister
I suggest that the hon. Lady has a look at the paper on that issue that we published in the summer.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her excellent answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but the vile brutality of the Spanish police really does disturb me. Any bold new strategic agreement on law enforcement and criminal justice cannot allow bullying of that nature, whether by member states or EU negotiators.
The Prime Minister
I assure my hon. Friend that the agreement that we envisage entering into with the remaining states of the EU on security, criminal justice and law enforcement matters will be mutually beneficial, particularly on the sort of data we can exchange across borders to ensure we are able to deal with the many challenges we face, especially those relating to human trafficking and modern slavery, organised crime and, of course, terrorism.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
As the vice-chair of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I recently visited Jersey with the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell). While there, we discussed the customs union, a customs union and a customs arrangement, but we did not get around to talking about a customs system. The Prime Minister has used various words to describe the border, from somewhere between hard and soft, to now talking about a physical border. Further to the comments by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and the Prime Minister’s rather flippant answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff), when will the Prime Minister do the communities on the Irish border the courtesy of visiting them to explain her analysis of the customs system in relation to the Good Friday agreement?
The Prime Minister
In relation to that issue, we have looked at the broader question of the customs arrangements and, as I say, we have published a paper that contains proposals for systems that could operate in future. In relation to the Northern Irish border with the Republic of Ireland, we are discussing with the parties in Northern Ireland, the EU and the Irish Government what the future arrangement might look like, but the EU recognises that it is not possible to confirm what that future arrangement will look like until we have looked into some of the wider issues of the future partnership between the UK and the EU.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Kristian Jensen has joined Wolfgang Schäuble—both are Finance Ministers—in saying that the negotiation would be easy were it not for the game playing. It is the modus operandi of the EU to bully on occasion, to brief the media negatively on occasion, and to bide for time right up until the wire. May I tell my right hon. Friend not to be naive—not that she would be—and listen to the ridiculous comments from Labour Members who have never negotiated their way out of a paper bag, let alone the EU?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know the things that can be done in negotiations to appear to make life difficult. What matters is that the Government have their vision very clearly set on the end state and the arrangement we wish to negotiate, and we are firmly committed to that negotiation. I can think of no better person than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union to deal with the sort of methods that my hon. Friend set out.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Is not the major issue the fact that the Government’s Brexit agenda is being driven by the Foreign Secretary on the pages of the Daily Telegraph—that is, when he is not moonlighting as Bernard Manning? Will the Prime Minister listen to the Scottish Government and not sacrifice 80,000 jobs on the altar of internal party politics by leaving the single market?
The Prime Minister
I have explained this on a number of occasions, but I shall do so again. The British people voted to leave the European Union. Leaving the European Union means not being a full member of the single market and the customs union. We have set out a proposal for a deep and special economic partnership with the EU that continues to enable both sides to trade with each other in a way that protects jobs and brings increasing prosperity to the United Kingdom and to the European Union. I say again, as I have said in the past: if the hon. Gentleman wants to ensure that jobs in Scotland are protected, he needs to make sure that Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The very last thing my constituents would want is the revocation of article 50. The British people voted for Brexit, they expect the Prime Minister to deliver it, and they have every confidence that she will. Will she reassure the people of Gibraltar that no agreement will be made unless they are fully included in that agreement, and that Spain has no veto over their future?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear on that. We have continued to hold talks with the Gibraltar Government—as, indeed, we have with others—to make sure that they are fully aware of the negotiations as they go along. We are very clear about Gibraltar’s position. My hon. Friend makes an important point about the Labour party and the rest of the Opposition: they claim that they want to respect the referendum vote, yet here they are trying to suggest we should revoke article 50. That is the exact opposite of what the British people wanted.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
As a lifelong negotiator who has stood up for workers all my life against the actions of Conservative Governments, I say to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) that the jewel in the crown of British manufacturing is the automotive sector. It is a world-class success story that has transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers, and more than half our cars are sold into the EU. Will the Prime Minister provide more detail on the implementation period? The industry is facing mounting problems, particularly given the importance of regulatory alignment to the sector and the integrated nature of European supply chains. If the Government get this negotiation wrong, they will do grave damage to the automotive sector and thousands of workers will pay the price with their jobs.
The Prime Minister
I recognise the importance of the automotive industry, but there are also a number of other industries here in the United Kingdom that are very important for our jobs and future prosperity. We have set out the framework for the implementation period. I have been clear both here and in the Florence speech about the rules and regulations that are required during that implementation period, but they have to be negotiated with the European Union, and that is exactly what we want to start to do.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am keen to accommodate remaining colleagues. However, although we have been blessed with commendably succinct replies from the Prime Minister, the length of some questions has equalled the eloquence with which they have been expressed, so there is a premium on brevity.
Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)
Businesses in my constituency are concerned about outcomes, particularly the frictionless movement of goods across Europe and the mutual recognition of standards, rather than membership of particular institutions. Will the Prime Minister reassure me that, during the second phase of negotiations, those outcomes will be the Government’s priority?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is exactly why we have said that we want to negotiate a new agreement and a new partnership with the European Union. It will be the interests of businesses across the United Kingdom that will be part of what is driving us towards that new arrangement.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for her statement to the House today. I listened with interest when she stated that she was both a proud Unionist and strong on the Union. I take heart from that. I want to give comfort to the people in Northern Ireland on this matter of not having a soft or hard border down the middle of the Irish sea. I want that assurance because the people of Ulster feel that they are being set on the sidelines.
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to give that assurance. We do not want to see a border down the Irish sea either. We want to maintain the integrity of the internal market of the United Kingdom.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Former New Zealand High Commissioner Lockwood Smith has said that there are few advantages to the UK in leaving the EU without bringing back ambitious responsibility for our own trading arrangements across the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while we all accept the importance of a short period of transition, we should not lose sight of the longer-term goal of pursuing our own trade deals?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are real opportunities for the UK in negotiating those other trade agreements around the world. Although we will have that implementation period, we will be negotiating and ensuring that we can put into place trade agreements that will be of benefit both to this country and to jobs in this country.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The writing is not on the wall for this Government as some say: it is just slowly sliding off. Why did the Prime Minister choose to deliver her statement from Florence when Ealing town hall would have had her? What was the cost of flying the entire Cabinet there in pounds or euros or in terms of the carbon footprint—any will do?
The Prime Minister
I am asked why I gave a speech about our future relationship with Europe on mainland Europe. I do not need to give any answer to that.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that her concept of an implementation phase will only be enacted if firm plans and a schedule for implementation of permanent new arrangements between the EU and UK have already been agreed?
The Prime Minister
Yes. It is very simple: the implementation phase is a period for practical changes to be put in place. We cannot know what those practical changes are until we know the end state that we are driving towards. Having agreed on that end state and that future relationship, the period of implementation is purely to put the practicalities in place.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Within these important plans for leaving the EU, will the Prime Minister please confirm that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that the promised £350 million will be made available for our NHS?
The Prime Minister
As I said earlier, one reason why people voted to leave the EU was to control our money, so we will not be sending huge sums of money every year in perpetuity to the European Union. When we have left the European Union, this Government will be able to decide how we will deploy the funds that are available.
Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on her statement, and the tone of pragmatism in her Florence speech. Does she agree that, throughout this time and the implementation period, it will be right and proper to place our commercial interests front and centre in these matters regardless of any arcane or theoretical considerations, and that patience and pragmatism are not only important in the interests of this country, but most consistent with the spirit of our party too?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put such emphasis on patience and pragmatism. That is exactly the spirit in which we are entering these negotiations. He is right that we need to consider fairly and squarely the commercial interests. We must also ensure that the deal that we reach is clearly in the United Kingdom’s national interest.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
In her statement, the Prime Minister referred to a post-Brexit United Kingdom as being an independent trading nation. Can she explain how that will apply to just-in-time manufacturing in the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
An independent trading nation is one that is able to determine its own trading policy and to enter into trade agreements around the rest of the world. What the hon. Gentleman is talking about is something that depends on having frictionless borders, and, as I have said, we want to negotiate with the European Union as frictionless a border as possible.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is good to hear not only the Prime Minister’s optimism about the chances of striking a trade deal, but that we are preparing for no deal. In order to give businesses as much time as possible to adjust, will she consider drawing a line in the sand with a date attached to it by which, if we have not made sufficient progress, we will finally and simply walk away from the negotiating table?
The Prime Minister
One of the important points about negotiation is that we keep our hands as free as possible. We do want to ensure that we take business with us. As I have said, there are a number of ways in which we are discussing the future arrangements with business. The implementation period is important, and I hope that we can get on to discuss that as early as possible with the European Union, but we do need to maintain a degree of flexibility in our negotiating positions.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)
By having not yet sat down to talk about trade, the European Commission has shown that its priorities are the integrationist European project and punishing this country for having the temerity to choose to govern ourselves. That does not bode well for any deal. Can the Prime Minister tell us what balance of resources is going into contingencies in the event of no deal compared with the amount of resources going into the negotiations?
The Prime Minister
We are doing the work that is necessary to ensure that we are prepared for whatever outcome emerges from the negotiations. The hon. Gentleman is right: there have been a number of speeches recently that suggest a more integrationist approach for the EU in future. I am clear that it is important that we are that self-governing nation and that we get that good deal with the European Union because it is in the economic interests of both sides.
Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)
Given that the EU has a £70 billion annual trade surplus with the UK, does the Prime Minister agree that the European business community should be far more vocal in its communications with its political leaders, because failure to conclude a deal would not reflect well on its competence?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right: it is important for businesses based in the European Union that we achieve a good trade agreement and a good new economic partnership with the EU, and I encourage them to make that point.
Mr Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Would the Prime Minister care to comment on the remarks of John Bruton, who said that the EU cannot really trust the UK because of the huge divisions within her Government? Is that the impression we are giving our European partners?
The Prime Minister
No, the European Union is very clear on our position as it was set out in the Florence speech.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
At times such as this, it is important that Britain speaks with one voice—[Laughter.] The Opposition may laugh, but if that is the case, does my right hon. Friend agree that it was deeply disappointing that British MEPs voted against a furthering of the negotiations, which would have taken them to the crucial stage? Was she as surprised as I was that she was the only party leader to withdraw the Whip from those individuals?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is in the interests of this country that we move forward on those trade negotiations. I was astounded to hear that any MEPs had voted in favour of a resolution saying that sufficient progress had not been made and that we should not move to those trade negotiations. I have acted regarding the two Conservative MEPs who voted against British interests. It is time that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) did something about the 18 Labour MEPs who did so.
Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)
I very much welcome a transitional period for businesses to adjust, as will businesses and port authorities in my constituency. The Prime Minister has mentioned on three occasions the Irish border with Welsh, Scottish and English ports. I have read the paper this summer. I have read the House of Lords report and what the EU has said. Will the Prime Minister be clear on whether there will be a special customs union with Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland? Can she categorically say that there will be no physical borders in Welsh ports?
The Prime Minister
I have referenced the paper that the hon. Gentleman says he read this summer. It sets out a couple of options for the customs relationship overall between the UK and the EU once we have left the European Union. Of course, we need to get into these negotiations so that we can sit down with the European Union and discuss what will work for both sides. I repeat what I have said: we want to maintain the integrity of the internal market of the United Kingdom and we are very clear that there should be no physical infrastructure on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)
My local chamber of commerce welcomes the two-year transition period because business is, quite simply, booming in my constituency. The chamber of commerce actually gets that. It also gets that if there is a run on the pound, as the Opposition say there will be if they ever reach government, it will create not just job losses, but interest rate increases. If I am going to criticise my Prime Minister, it has to be on this statement—not what is in it, but the font. My ailing eyes cannot see it. In future, Prime Minister, please put it in large print not just for my ailing eyes, but so the Leader of the Opposition and his Front Bench can understand it.
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I will certainly give careful thought to it. I am sure that businesses in his constituency are thriving and recognise the value that is brought to them by having such a good constituency Member of Parliament.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister says that she wants a unique trading relationship with the EU after Brexit, so she will be pleased to know that the citizens’ assembly convened last month by the constitution unit at University College London reached the same conclusion. However, the members of the assembly also said that if a bespoke deal was not possible, the next best thing would be for us to remain in the customs union and single market. May I invite the Prime Minister to look at that piece of work? It was deliberatively arrived at and there was a three to one majority among leave and remain voters for retaining those options if a deal cannot be achieved.
The Prime Minister
We are always happy to look at any contributions made to the debate around the negotiations, but I repeat that the European Union has been very clear about the indivisibility of the four pillars. If we want to be a full member of the single market and a full member of the customs union, it means maintaining free movement and the overall jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. That is, effectively, not leaving the European Union. The British people voted to leave the European Union.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly her comments about EU citizens and, equally importantly, UK citizens living and working in the EU. She is right that the ball is very much in the EU’s court, but will she ensure that the issue remains front and centre and is resolved as quickly as possible?
The Prime Minister
I am happy to give my hon. Friend that confirmation and reassurance. We said we wanted this issue to be looked at from an early stage and it has been. Significant progress has been made and I hope that the negotiators will be able to clear up the remaining issues between us in relation to citizens’ rights so that we can give citizens that absolute certainty.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister confirm that there will be no new restrictions at the UK border for EU citizens wishing to come into the UK during the implementation period of “around two years”? I think that is the implication of what she has been saying. She also said that there will be a registration scheme. Who will she require to register?
The Prime Minister
It is right that people will be able to come to live and work in the United Kingdom, but those coming from the European Union after the point at which we have left the European Union will be required to register. This is part of the building block to the new immigration rules that will be in place at the end of the implementation period.
Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)
Constituents of mine at GCHQ play an expert and invaluable role in the defence of this nation and the continent of Europe. Does the Prime Minister agree that the unconditional guarantee of ongoing intelligence co-operation is a constructive step that should help to pave the way to early trade talks?
The Prime Minister
I would hope that the European Union would recognise the benefit of our security relationship and the relationship we have on matters of counter-terrorism, as well as on law enforcement and criminal justice more widely. That relationship is in both our interests, and I hope the EU recognises its importance.
Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Will the Prime Minister say which particular elements of full membership of the single market she thinks should not apply in any transitional arrangements?
The Prime Minister
As I have said, being a full member of the single market is indivisible from full membership of the customs union, free movement and the complete jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. We will be negotiating an implementation period and the arrangements on which we are able to operate. We will negotiate those as a country that will no longer be a member of the European Union.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has said that her position on Gibraltar is clear. If that is the case, can she explain why she made no reference to Gibraltar in her statement? Will she clarify what conversations she has had with the Spanish Government about the Gibraltar-Spain border?
The Prime Minister
We are very clear that the issue of borders and relationships is one that we wish to discuss as part of the overall future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union. As I said earlier, we have been continuing to discuss with the Government of Gibraltar their particular concerns and interests to ensure that we can provide a deal that works for Gibraltar as well as the United Kingdom.
Mr Paul J. Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Prime Minister agree that in the haste to seize control of laws, borders and money, no consideration has been given to how that is best achieved within the British state itself? Would it not be more satisfactory to convene a constitutional convention that would properly consider how the distribution of legislative and regulatory governance across the UK is achieved through each component part of the United Kingdom, including England itself?
The Prime Minister
We are doing a very simple thing. We are putting into place the wishes of the British people as expressed in a referendum and we are negotiating towards that future deal. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman talks to the leader of his party. The Leader of the Opposition says that we are being too slow, but the hon. Gentleman says we are being too hasty.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister seems to have failed to notice that the vote in the European Parliament was 557 votes to 92—a clear rejection of the Government’s chaotic strategy. It is confusing for everyone and, most of all, deeply damaging for business confidence and future investments. When will we hear exactly when the transitional arrangements will be in place? Businesses need to know now.
The Prime Minister
As I implied in my statement and have said in answers to questions, we have put forward a proposal for the implementation period. But this is a negotiation, which means that we need to negotiate the details of the implementation period with the European Union. The European Parliament gave that view, although it is not a binding vote. If the hon. Lady wants us to get on and negotiate the implementation period, she should have suggested to those 18 Labour MEPs who voted against that resolution, not in favour.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
I gently remind the Prime Minister that if she wants to make a habit of suspending Conservative parliamentarians who act against the British interest, she really does not have to go as far as Brussels to find some prime candidates. Given her often professed concern for the fate of UK nationals living in the European Union, how does she feel about the fact that when we had the opportunity to debate that precise matter in Westminster Hall on 12 September, not a single Conservative Back Bencher saw fit to remain for the entire 90 minutes of the debate? Does that not speak volumes for the real lack of concern that her party has for the 1.5 million Brits overseas and the 3 million Europeans living here?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman cannot have it all ways. The Scottish National party complains to me that I am not making unilateral declarations about EU citizens here. My point is very clear: we have the interest of UK citizens in hand as well and we want to consider that interest. We are working on that. We are actively ensuring the interests of those UK citizens through the negotiations. It is not about standing up and talking about it; it is about doing something about it.
Points of Order
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to announce that I misled the House of Commons inadvertently on the last day before the recess. I said that the Facebook page “Unauthorised Amanda Solloway” had been taken down, but I was completely wrong, unfortunately. The hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who could have had it taken down, continues to misunderstand what he is doing. Compass is a company that went into administration, and our former colleague is the wife of one of the directors, but she was not and is not involved. The page continues to pursue Amanda Solloway, but never mentions any other directors or their wives. Is there any way we could insist that this Facebook page is taken down, because it is misleading the public?
Mr Speaker
Facebook pages are not a matter for the Chair. It may be that the hon. Lady—I am very grateful to her if she is bidding for an increase in my powers—thinks that I should enjoy such, and a vista of opportunity I see before me opening up.
Mr Speaker
“No,” says the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), chuntering from a sedentary position in evident disapproval of the thrust of the implication of the hon. Lady’s point of order, but I can only say that it is not a matter for me. What I would say is that she has amplified her concern very eloquently this afternoon, and if she wishes to communicate her contribution here to wider audiences, including within social media, I am sure it is not beyond her wit to do so. I think we will have to leave it there for today.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the Bombardier situation in my constituency. During this afternoon’s proceedings, you may have detected some glib and cavalier references to what is a growing and concerning trade dispute between the United States, Canada, Boeing and Bombardier, but 4,000 constituents are employed in my constituency, 1,000 of whom are directly responsible for, and engaged with, the C series. Given my concerns and those expressed by other Members throughout today’s proceedings, can you advise us whether there has been an approach by the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and whether we, as Members who want to see a quick resolution to this spiralling problem, will have an opportunity to do so through a ministerial statement or some other means in the days to come?
Mr Speaker
Well, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will be disappointed. I think he will have been attending keenly to the Prime Minister’s statement. On the assumption—I think, safe—that he was doing so, he will have received some encouragement. I think the Prime Minister gave a fairly clear indication of an intention on the part of a Minister to make a statement on that matter. I do not mind letting the hon. Gentleman know, just between us, that I myself have had an indication from the Government that this matter will be treated of sooner rather than later. Statements to the House have concluded for today, and we will shortly move on to other business, but there are other days ahead, and knowing what an eager beaver the hon. Gentleman is, and how assiduous he is in the representation of his constituents’ interests, I feel sure he will be in his place, for example, tomorrow.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last month, the hon. Member for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) raised a point of order, and I have informed him that I wish to raise this point of order, in relation to the procurement of repair work to Big Ben and the potential award to a company that has been described as being at the heart of the blacklisting conspiracy. Members of this House received a statement by email from the House of Commons Commission saying that that contract had been awarded and that the cost had, indeed, increased. Can you advise us whether the House of Commons Commission will make a statement to this House so that hon. Members such as myself, the hon. Member for Streatham and others can raise our concerns at the awarding of this contract?
Mr Speaker
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The simple and short answer is that there are questions to the representative of the House of Commons Commission in this Chamber. It is perfectly open to the hon. Gentleman to question the representative of the Commission, and I have every expectation that he will do so.
I would just add en passant that the House of Commons Commission, of which the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is the hon. Gentleman’s party’s representative and, therefore, is well familiar with all this, has considered this matter carefully. We are conscious of our obligations to conduct any tender process fairly, and we expect the highest standards of our contractors. This is the subject of statements by the House authorities, with which I think the hon. Gentleman implied he is familiar, but all matters can be the subject of further questioning and scrutiny, and that is perfectly proper. I am sure he will be in his place to participate in any such exercise.
Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House
Mr Speaker
If there are no further points of order, I will in a moment call the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order. No. 24. The right hon. Gentleman has up to three minutes in which to make such an application.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I stand to request your permission and the leave of the House that the House should debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the policy of Her Majesty’s Government in relation to the proceedings of this House.
Before the House went into recess, we considered two Opposition day motions concerning, first, public sector pay and, secondly, student tuition fees. In both these debates, the Government argued against the motions before the House. When the questions were put, however, they remained silent, and each motion was passed without Division. In particular, it was known that, in the event of a Division, Members from the DUP would vote against the Government, who would, in all likelihood, lose.
It was widely reported that because the motions were non-binding, the Government took the view that they could effectively be ignored, as has ultimately been shown to be the case. It was further suggested in some quarters that the approach taken by the Government last month is one that we should expect to become routine. I put that to the Leader of the House at business questions on 14 September, and, significantly, she did not deny it.
I accept completely that motions of this sort are not de jure binding on the Government. De facto, however, it has long been the practice of Governments of all colours to respect the views of the House expressed in this way. Over the years, Opposition day votes have been an important means of influencing Government policy and righting wrongs. Hon. Members will recall the vote in 2009 concerning the residence rights of those who had served as Gurkhas. That was an issue resolved in this House by an Opposition day motion.
Mr Speaker, the Government are seeking to treat this House as a talking shop, rather than the place in our nation’s life where decisions of note are made. The formation of a Government that do not command a working majority in this Chamber is a rare moment in our nation’s constitutional story. It is a moment for us to assert the will of Parliament, not to see it sidelined. Those currently on the Treasury Bench will clearly find that inconvenient, but we are here to hold them to account, and not simply to do their bidding. It is for that most fundamental of reasons that I seek to bring this matter to the House for its urgent attention.
Mr Speaker
I have listened carefully to the application from the right hon. Member. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24. Has the right hon. Member the leave of the House?
Application agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman has obtained the leave of the House. The debate will therefore be held tomorrow, Tuesday 10 October, as the first item of public business. The debate will last for up to three hours, and it will arise on a motion that the House has considered the specified matter set out in the right hon. Member’s application.
Gypsies and Travellers and Local Communities
The Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Alok Sharma)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Gypsies and Travellers and local communities.
We are fortunate to live in one of the most tolerant countries in the world—I would go so far as to say that Britain is the most tolerant—and underpinning that tolerance are a set of common values that the vast majority of those from all communities in our country abide by. Those values include respect—respect for the rule of law, respect for property, public and private, and respect for one another.
Whatever our political differences, I know that every member of this House wants us to live in a just and fair country where equality of opportunity flourishes and the life chances of all our children, across all communities, are enhanced, so, as we have this debate, I want to focus on four main themes. The first is the impact on settled communities when a small minority does not show respect for the rule of law. The second is the remedies that are available to the police and local councils to deal with illegal behaviour. The third is the Government’s response to date in addressing matters related to the Traveller community, as well as what, in concrete terms, we intend to do further. The fourth is what the Government are doing to improve the life chances of the Traveller community, most importantly the young.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
On the Minister’s second point, the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, has done a huge amount of work on these issues and has set out a number of proposals to try to deal with them, which I—and, I am sure, other Members from the west midlands—will be talking about later. Would the Minister be prepared to meet David Jamieson and a number of west midlands MPs to discuss the impact of these issues in our region?
Alok Sharma
Of course I will ensure that I meet the police and crime commissioner, or that a Home Office Minister does so if that is more appropriate. I have seen the piece of work that was produced, and it is an incredibly useful document.
As I was saying, we want every single child in our country to get the best education and the best start in life, and to fulfil their potential, and that absolutely includes children from the Traveller community.
I know that in today’s debate we will hear accounts of the damage left in the wake of illegal encampments and a call for local authorities and the police to do more and to move faster in dealing with them. Indeed, many Members have written to me highlighting the impact illegal incursions have on their constituents. I recognise, as I am sure the whole House does, the huge sense of frustration and anguish about the issue that many people feel.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I personally am not tolerant. My constituents are not tolerant. When Gunners Park was littered, when Trinity football ground was paved over with a travelling community, and when Cherry Orchard Park was invaded, my constituents were not tolerant. Can we have a three strikes and out rule? These people have expensive land cruisers and big trucks. If they park on council land or private land more than three times, may we give the police the power to take those assets and sell them for the good of the community and to clear up some of the mess that is left behind?
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend expresses a view that many colleagues will have experienced in terms of the frustration felt by their constituents.
Let me talk about the powers the police have and about what we intend to do. As I said, many Members have written to me highlighting the impact illegal incursions have on their constituents. I recognise this huge sense of frustration; indeed, I share it. In recent months in my constituency of Reading West, we have had numerous illegal encampments set up on public land, including nine separate visits to Prospect Park in Tilehurst. These incursions have caused my constituents significant distress, as each leaves behind enormous amounts of waste and cleaning comes at a considerable cost to the law-abiding taxpayers.
We all aspire to peaceful and integrated co-existence between communities, where we all share the same rights and responsibilities, but there is a perception among the settled communities—our constituents—that the law does not apply equally.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I think that it would be fair to say that it is more than a perception. Many of us, certainly on the Government Benches, have heard repeatedly about this issue in our surgeries, as well as in discussions with district councillors. It is raised constantly. It is a real problem, rather than a perceived one.
Alok Sharma
Obviously, when there are problems we expect local authorities and the police to act. The view of people in the settled community is that if they were flouting the law in the same way as a small percentage of Gypsies and Travellers do, they would be treated more harshly by the authorities.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
I want to reinforce what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin). It is vital for the west midlands that the Minister meets the police and crime commissioner, as well as MPs from the area, as soon as he can to try to resolve this problem. There is a lack of resources for police and local authorities and a weakness in the law—that is meant in no way to discriminate against genuine Travellers, by the way.
Alok Sharma
I hope that what I say towards the end of my speech will give the hon. Gentleman some comfort.
Dame Caroline Spelman (Meriden) (Con)
Forgive me for interrupting, but will the Minister give the House the sense that he appreciates that this is not a static situation? In the west midlands, for example, the number of unauthorised incursions has doubled since 2011. This debate takes place against the backdrop of an increasing problem, not a static fact.
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. The fact that we have so many colleagues present for the debate makes it clear that this is an issue we feel deeply about. I want to re-emphasise that the law applies equally to everyone, and it must be seen to apply equally to everyone in practice.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the police sometimes see these cases as trespass, whereas many include criminal damage? If such damage has occurred, these instances should be viewed as that.
Alok Sharma
The law is very clear on criminal damage, but I want to talk about the powers the police have and what additional powers they have if there are transit sites or permanent sites available in the local area.
Let me set out the powers for local authorities in dealing with illegal encampments. First, it is important to put the number of illegal encampments in context. The January 2017 Traveller caravan count indicated that 13% of encampments were illegal, and about a third of those were on land not owned by travellers, yet no matter what the figures say, I know that illegal encampments often cause strife. We have already heard that in this debate.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Minister has put some perspective into his comments by noting that a very small minority of the Gypsy and Traveller community is in unauthorised encampments, from within the small minority who are actually travelling—three quarters are settled in brick and mortar accommodation. Given that this is a debate about Gypsies and Travellers, I am looking forward to hearing his fourth point about the disadvantages suffered by the Gypsy and Traveller community.
Alok Sharma
I will of course talk about that, because it is an important issue and we need to be proportionate in how we handle it. We must ensure that the life chances of all communities are enhanced.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I will be contributing to the debate later, but as the Minister is talking about statistics and the figure of 13%, will he consider that, although 13% might seem like a small percentage, when a community is repeatedly affected by Travellers, it seems disproportionate?
John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)
I just want to pick up on the last but one point about the disadvantages suffered by the Traveller community. It is extremely difficult to defuse innate concern among the settled community and potential hostility towards the Travellers if we are all suffering, and I think that all of us will have encountered periodic and repeated incursions with temporary and illegal settlements of one kind or another. With all due respect to the people who gathered the Minister’s figures, as the figures were collected in January, I suspect the result would be very different if the numbers were collected in July.
Alok Sharma
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures that I am citing are collected in January, but also in July, and I would be happy to share them with him. The fundamental point is that every incursion and illegal encampment causes problems, and that is what matters to constituents and communities up and down the country.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
Will the Minister acknowledge that prevention is better than cure? What can be done to ensure that there are more authorised sites available, particularly in areas of the country that are feeling the pressure of unauthorised sites?
Alok Sharma
Prevention is, of course, better than cure, but it is also important that all communities abide by the law.
Local authorities and the police already have extensive powers to take action. Councils have a range of powers available to them. They can very quickly obtain a possession order to remove trespassers from land, and they can apply to the courts for pre-emptive injunctions that prevent unauthorised camping in a defined area. The police also have powers under sections 61 and 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alok Sharma
If I may proceed a bit further, I will give way.
Under section 61, the police can remove trespassers who cause criminal damage or engage in abusive and intimidating behaviour, or who have six or more vehicles on the land. The police can also seize and remove vehicles from illegal encampments. Under section 62, if transit or permanent Traveller sites are available—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) made—the police can act immediately. We know that local authorities, the police and other agencies can work effectively in a multi-agency approach. There are examples of good practice across the country, and I know that colleagues will raise them.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
The Minister says that the police can take action quickly and that everybody should be treated equally under the law, but my constituents had to wait for days and days to have an illegal encampment dealt with. The Travellers trashed the local playground—human excrement was left on the children’s play equipment—but the police could not take action for days. My constituents believe that there is one set of rules for one community and another set of rules for others, and that the police cannot take action fast enough.
Alok Sharma
The circumstances that my hon. Friend outlines are not, unfortunately, unique to her constituency. I think each of us will have a similar example.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alok Sharma
My goodness, there are such riches when it comes to taking interventions. It is important that the available powers are used fully by the police.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he accept that section 62A only covers the principal or highest-tier local authority? In the case of my constituency, a site just over the border in Berkshire cannot be considered for Traveller pitches. Will the Government look at how the law is drafted to make sure that it has the intended effect?
Alok Sharma
If my hon. Friend is patient, I will come on to precisely those points.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The Minister has been patient with interventions. I will keep this brief, because I hope to catch your eye later, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is the Minister’s position on the law that what he has read out is good enough? I would counsel him against reaching that conclusion. The point is that the law is not good enough. It is too slow and too expensive, and the people who pay the cost are our constituents. We need legal change to make the removal of illegal encampments faster and cheaper.
John Penrose
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. I want to echo the comments that have just been made. The feedback from North Somerset Council and my local police indicates that, although the current powers are extensive in theory, they do not work in practice. They are too slow, and there are too many loopholes. The miscreant element of the Traveller community that is the cause of these problems understands the loopholes all too well, and we end up playing cat and mouse across county boundaries and authority boundaries. We absolutely need to reword the law, so that it works fast and effectively for the settled community as well as for the Traveller community.
Alok Sharma
I agree. We need fairness in the law, and we need it to be applied in a manner that works for the settled community.
Having given way to quite a few Members, I will proceed and see whether I can gallop through. As I have indicated, local authorities, the police and other agencies can work effectively together. There are examples of such work in the west midlands and Warwickshire, and I am sure that colleagues will talk about them. I agree that the police can act much faster when there are sites to direct Travellers to. That is why we expect local authorities, as a minimum, to plan for a five-year supply of deliverable and developable sites for Travellers.
The number of Traveller caravans on authorised sites rose from 14,498 in July 2010 to 17,938 in July 2016. We need all local authorities to step up to the plate in providing sites. Local authorities that meet their requirements help to limit the prevalence of illegal encampments. We expect local authorities and the police to clamp down on such encampments, but unless there are sufficient sites, the police and local authorities will not be able to use their powers fully.
In March 2015, the Government wrote to council leaders, police and crime commissioners and police chief constables about their response to illegal encampments. We were concerned that local authorities and the police were not being seen to be doing enough to stop such incursions, and we reiterated that the Government want local authorities, the police and other local agencies to work together to address incursions. We reissued a summary of the robust powers to remove unauthorised sites, but I am aware of growing concern that the available powers are not being used fully.
Alok Sharma
If I may, I will proceed. The Government have made important progress in ensuring that the needs of Travellers are balanced with those of the settled community. In 2012, the Government published the planning policy for Traveller sites, which requires planning authorities to make their own assessment of need. As I have said, that means identifying a five-year supply of deliverable Traveller sites. We revised that policy in 2015 and gave increased protection to the green belt.
Helen Whately
I thank the Minister for giving way. I have in the past expressed frustration with my local council for not taking enough action, but there is one site in my constituency where the local council has taken action. In December 2016, three enforcement notices were served on that site, but the appeal against those notices will not be heard until March 2018, because, as I understand it, of the difficulty of getting somebody from the Planning Inspectorate to hear the appeal. I ask my hon. Friend to consider whether there are enough resources at the centre to address the problem, in addition to the steps that our local councils need to take.
Alok Sharma
I would be happy to discuss that case with my hon. Friend afterwards.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alok Sharma
If I may, I will make some progress.
We introduced a general duty to assess the accommodation needs of all sections of the community who reside in caravans, and we sought to strengthen the local authority position in determining inappropriate development by having up-to-date local plans.
We have reflected on the views about illegal encampments expressed by Members in previous debates and in letters to the Department—we are hearing those views loud and clear today—and I can announce that the Government intend to consult on the effectiveness of enforcement against unauthorised developments and encampments. We want to seek views on whether there is anything we can do to ensure that existing powers can be used more effectively. Let me be clear, however: this is not a signal to local authorities and the police that they should wait for the outcome of such a consultation. They have the powers to act, and we expect them to act.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Minister for giving way. I welcome the announcement that local authorities are being encouraged to provide more settled sites, but does the Minister agree that the enforcement problems that local authorities and the police face often relate to a lack of resources, due to local government cuts?
Alok Sharma
Over £200 billion is being made available to local authorities to deal with a range of issues over the next four years. Several colleagues have made the point about cross-agency and cross-authority working, which I am sure we will hear about in this debate, and that is absolutely the way to go.
Several hon. Members rose—
Alok Sharma
If I may continue, while it is right that we seek to deal with illegal encampments, which are perpetrated by a small percentage of the Gypsy and Traveller community, we need to do everything we can to improve the life chances of that community. The Gypsy and Traveller community has had poor life chances for too long, and it is the ethnic group with the lowest educational attainment and the worst health outcomes.
When it comes to education, we expect schools to have data and evidence-led approaches to support all their pupils—whatever their backgrounds. High proportions of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller pupils claim free school meals and benefit from our strategy to raise the attainment of disadvantaged pupils through the pupil premium. We have invested £137 million in the Education Endowment Foundation to help schools understand what can raise disadvantaged pupils’ attainment. As for access to healthcare, the Government have commissioned research to investigate which approaches to community engagement are most likely to be effective at enhancing trust between the Traveller community and mainstream healthcare services. That project is due to report in November this year.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s announcement that the Government will consult on solutions to this difficult problem. If I heard him correctly, he said that they will consult on whether existing powers can be better used, but will he confirm whether the consultation will consider whether new powers are necessary? Will it cover both of those things or just the first?
Alok Sharma
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Colleagues and constituents will be welcome to write in to the intended consultation with all their views on the current powers or on additional powers that they think may be necessary.
NHS England is working to improve access to healthcare and health outcomes for Gypsies and Travellers. In November 2015, NHS England produced guidance for GP practices to clarify the rights of all patients, including patients from the Gypsy and Traveller community. The guidance includes the responsibilities of providers in registering patients with a GP practice and was complemented by the publication in March 2017 of a patient-facing leaflet to support people from Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities to register with a GP. The Prime Minister launched an audit in August 2016 to look into racial disparities in public services stretching right across government, and it will be published shortly. My Department will act upon the recommendations that emerge from the audit and will also publish a new integration strategy in the coming months.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
York Travellers Trust does excellent work in providing support for York’s travelling community. However, it says that the community needs proper facilities on sites, especially warm areas for children to play and learn in. Will the Minister consider that in any future planning for sites to ensure that families have proper spaces in their community?
Alok Sharma
The location of sites and the provision of services are matters for local authorities, so I encourage the hon. Lady to talk to her local authority about that.
Alok Sharma
I am about to conclude. I have taken quite a few interventions, but I apologise to colleagues who have not been able to intervene.
Britain is one of the world’s most successful multiracial and multicultural societies. My Department works to bring communities together—we build on what unites us—but to belong to Britain we must all embrace a common set of values, and we must all show regard for the law. We are committed to making sure that Gypsies and Travellers can benefit from the same life chances as everybody else, but we are also prepared to take strong action when people refuse to follow the law. With our intended consultation, I want to send a clear message: the Government are listening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the Opposition spokesman, it will be obvious to the House that a great many people want to speak this evening and that time is limited. I therefore warn colleagues in advance that there is likely to be a time limit on Back-Bench speeches, starting at about seven minutes and probably going down depending on the number of interventions and how long people speak for. As ever, it is for each colleague to have regard to others as well as to himself or herself.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
I feared that I had come into the wrong debate. I am fairly certain that this debate is about Gypsies, Travellers and local communities, but the Minister finished his speech—I applaud his final remarks—by making a real point about the overwhelming majority of the travelling community, who are law abiding and who live settled lives, but against whom the disadvantages are enormous. The House ought to recognise that as well as recognising, as I do as a constituency MP, that the antisocial and illegal actions of some are unacceptable. We have to get the balance of our debate right.
I will come on to discuss unacceptable encampments, but the Minister is right to say that all communities must abide by the law. Most of the travelling community does abide by the law, and we need to place it on record that the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller community are our fellow citizens. That group probably faces the biggest levels of prejudice and discrimination in Britain, and the House has a duty to do something about that for our fellow citizens. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) shakes his head, but I hope he does not disagree with that point.
A YouGov and Traveller Movement poll, the results of which were released today, rather sadly show that 10% of our fellow people would still be extremely unhappy at one of their family members having a relationship with somebody from the black or Caribbean community and that 3% would be unhappy about a relationship with someone from the White British community. However, it also found that 42% of people in this country would be unhappy about a relationship with somebody from the travelling community. That demonstrates the level of prejudice that still exists in this country.
The various parts of the Traveller community are simply not homogenous. Some 75% of the Traveller community are actually not travellers and live in bricks and mortar, just like hon. Members from both sides of the House. It is a minority—something like 1,400 of the 22,000 caravans that exist—that causes real nuisance. Government Members have been absolutely right to say that when incursions take place, as they have in my constituency, that is unacceptable to the local communities who suffer the damage, but we must still say that Gypsies and Travellers are part of the local community in many places.
Tony Lloyd
I just want to make a few more points, but I will most certainly give way in a moment.
Many Travellers are in jobs—skilled, unskilled and professional—and some are public servants. I call to mind Jim Davies, a sergeant in the Thames Valley police. Along with Petr Torak of Cambridgeshire police, Jim Davies founded the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller Police Association, which now has 100 members. Having spent a lot of time in recent years trying to increase the number of people from minority communities in our police force, I found it interesting that the Traveller community is one of the few groups with a proportion of people in the police that more or less mirrors its proportion in society more generally. Jim Davies, who has a Romany background, is about to retire after 30 years of serving the people of Thames valley and I applaud him.
Tony Lloyd
I will give way to my right hon. Friend first, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
John Spellar
Does my hon. Friend accept that the public view of the community will continue to be shaped by the appalling behaviour of the minority, who bring absolute chaos to their own communities, and by the perceived inability of the authorities to act, even though they can act under existing powers, as my own borough of Sandwell has demonstrated, by creating a site to which Travellers can be directed straightaway—within 24 hours—and by taking out orders against individual families who persistently break the law? When such action is taken, the public will be reassured and will live in greater harmony with the majority of the community who, as he is absolutely right to say, are acting peacefully and lawfully. We must deal with these rogue elements.
Tony Lloyd
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but let us be very clear that if we were talking about any other minority community, the idea of stigmatising the majority because of the illegal behaviour of a minority would be unacceptable and atrocious. We must not stigmatise them. We should act against those whose behaviour is unacceptable and illegal, but we should not stigmatise them.
Bob Stewart
I actually lived in a Traveller community for a few days, and I must tell the House that one of the biggest problems is that people who act illegally are giving their children no chance in life because they cannot get an education. Most of the children under 17 in the encampment I was in, which was mixed, could not read. When I advocated their joining the Army, for example, they said, “Mister, you don’t understand. They wouldn’t have us.” It took me two days to understand what they meant: they could not read. This is something we have to crack.
Tony Lloyd
I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. Let me remind him, if I may, of Jim Davies, about whom I spoke a few moments ago—a Romany who spent 30 years serving the public in our police force. People like that are already the role model we want in that community.
Tony Lloyd
I will not give way, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I need to make a little progress; otherwise I fear I will be taking time off those who want to disagree with me later.
When a seven-year-old child says plaintively, “People don’t like us”, surely that should prick the conscience a little of those who want to stigmatise the whole of the travelling community. When we know that 77% of the travelling community have been victims of hate crime or hate speech, when we know that less than 20% would report hate crime or hate speech to the police because they fear no action would be taken, when we know that half of the Traveller community when seeking employment —the sort of thing we want them to do—have faced discrimination, and when we know from a recent survey that four in 10 of our fellow countrymen and women would not want their child to play in a Gypsy home, we know we have a problem.
The 2015 report of the Equality and Human Rights Commission made it clear that the position of Travellers is getting worse. As the Minister conceded, we still have massive challenges to face in many different areas. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) made a point about education. Some 57% of young people now get GCSEs with five grades from A to C, but among the Irish Travellers the figure is as low as 18% and among the Gypsies it is as low as 9%, so we know we have a problem. Another problem is when a teacher says to people in her class, “There’s no point in teaching you as you’ll end up tarmacking drives.” We have a problem in our educational system.
We know that people are denied access to our health services. One of the paradoxes is that not only does that lead to a 10% lower life expectancy among Travellers, which is outrageous in modern Britain, but it means it is less likely that Traveller children will be vaccinated, which matters to everybody. We know about herd immunity, and if we allow that to continue and do not ensure access to our health services, we will actually harm the health of the population more generally.
We know that there are more Traveller children in care. The Travellers account for 0.1% of the population, but only 0.03% of apprenticeships go to people from the Traveller community. Some 5% of our prison population is made up of people from the travelling community, and 8% of women in New Hall Prison are from a Traveller background. I say to the Minister that we must now have some proper accounting. The NHS does not count Travellers as a community of note, and that has to change.
Alok Sharma
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the way in which the NHS currently accounts for people is based on the breakdown in the 2001 census. He will know, however, that an ongoing piece of work in the NHS is looking at whether we can move to using the categories in the 2011 census, which includes Gypsies and Travellers.
Tony Lloyd
That is comforting, but it is six years since the census was taken. This is not a new phenomenon, and I think we really can and must do better. I know that this is not a matter for the Minister’s Department—he is in the invidious position of having to respond for the Home Office, the Department of Health, the Department for Education and so on, which is always like drawing the short straw—but he has to go back to his colleagues and say that this is simply not good enough. Proper accounting is the starting point.
It did not have to be this way; it could have been so very different. The previous Labour Government left a good legacy. The Equality Act 2010, along with subsequent case law, has made sure that Travellers are defined as a protected minority. The Housing Act 2004 provided a statutory basis for an assessment of the need for housing and caravan sites for Travellers. The periodical review of housing needs that local authorities are supposed to undertake was brought in under the previous Labour Government.
However, the Equality Act was flouted by the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Sir Eric Pickles, who was guilty of unlawful discrimination when he singly picked out Gypsies, saying that any application by Gypsies for a green-belt site would need special consideration. That was unlawful, but—let us be honest—it was also unacceptable. It was unacceptable behaviour to be so discriminatory.
Why was the assessment of need removed by this Government? Will the Minister tell the House that such an assessment will now be put back in place, because it ought to be there? The periodical review has gone, and where are the 28 commitments of the ministerial working group? Is the Minister determined, as I am, to do something to better the lives and the life chances of the Travellers? The 2016 draft guidance review of housing needs for caravans and houseboats has not been delivered in proper form. Where is it? The Minister made no mention of any of these points.
Under the affordable homes programme, £60 million was available for Travellers for Traveller sites. The Minister did not tell us how many new sites have been allocated. He did not tell us where the money is, or what it has been spent on. That matters, frankly, because I can tell the House that in the south-east, for example, only 10 of the 66 local authorities now have a five-year plan for the supply of Traveller sites. In the east and west midlands—this is of concern to my hon. Friends from the midlands—only 15 of the 70 local authorities across the whole region have a five-year supply plan.
We know that only a third of local authorities in London have completed a Traveller accommodation needs assessment. The Minister said that the Government have exhorted local authorities to complete such assessments, but only a third of London authorities have done so. In my own area, two local authorities actually believe they have no need for places for Travellers, which is not acceptable. The question is: what will the Government do about that?
Dame Caroline Spelman
The idea of a five-year supply plan in relation to an itinerant population is a difficult one. As the hon. Gentleman will have heard earlier, we have seen a doubling in the number of illegal Traveller incursions in the west midlands since 2011, and in my own green-belt constituency, which has provided 26 additional pitches, we have seen a doubling in the number of illegal travelling incursions in the past 12 months. The fundamental problem is that when we seek to move the Travellers to the new pitches, they do not want to go to them.
Tony Lloyd
I will come on to the point that the right hon. Lady makes in a few moments. Of course there is an issue with unauthorised sites. I have experienced it in my erstwhile role as a police and crime commissioner and as a constituency MP. Like many other hon. Members, I believe that the law is inadequate at the moment and that we need to look at changes.
Anecdotal evidence from local authorities suggests that those that are good—which provide sites—end up attracting the Travellers who cannot be placed elsewhere. That is a real issue because unless the power exists—it did, but the Government took it away—to insist on local authorities conforming to some credible plan, the burden falls disproportionately on the good local authority to the advantage of others.
Kate Green
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the case that he is making. He may also wish to comment on reports from friends and families of Travellers that certain rogue landlords who control sites put legitimate Traveller and Gypsy families under pressure to leave the sites, as they believe they will get more economic value from the sites if they can bring new tenants into the properties.
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend tells me something that I did not know and I am grateful because that should form part of the Government’s thinking.
Let me be clear: I do not countenance antisocial or illegal behaviour. Why would I, any more than anyone else? We are probably talking about 1,400 caravans that cause the problems. The Minister should not be too casual about his belief that powers exist. Sections 61 and 62 as operated by the police are not adequate because—not wrongly—they include a provision that the police have to ensure that there is a suitable, well-managed site to move Travellers to. That is a sensible provision, but it works only if such sites are available. We come back around, on this circular problem, that we can have all the powers we want but if the sites are not available, they will simply go round and round.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend makes the salient point that since 2010 the Government have systematically removed both the carrot and the stick for local authorities to provide appropriate sites. Then they are puzzled by the increase in unlawful, unauthorised encampments. Is not the solution to provide sites? It is a very limited role for local authorities when broken down in that way, and then the problem would go away of its own accord.
Tony Lloyd
My hon. Friend invites one of my conclusions and I will come on to exactly that point.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
Does the shadow Minister not accept that the problem with requiring the provision of authorised sites is that a county cannot accept unlimited liability for those sites just because it happens to be a popular place for Travellers to visit? Most local authorities have provided a reasonable number of sites, but demand exceeds supply. It cannot be down to the taxpayer to meet that demand no matter what.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Gentleman is not right: many local authorities are not providing any sites and we need to establish that fact. If there are no sites, we will simply move people from one illegal, antisocial encampment to another, however much we operate the revolving door. That achieves nothing, and is neither rational nor fair to the communities who bear the burden of those illegal visitations.
Wera Hobhouse
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need to include the boating community in the travelling community? Members of the boating community do not want to be moved around, but under the current provisions that is what is happening. It is important, when talking about the travelling community, that we also include the boating community, which is increasing.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point, and I am aware that the owners of berths are beginning to make moves against their existing tenants, which is not acceptable. If she will forgive me, the world of narrowboats and house boats is a very different one to that of Travellers, but she may have a chance to expand on her point later.
Tony Lloyd
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will make some progress. It is only fair.
The other point I make to the Minister about the law is the disparity between private land and public land. Normally, on private land it is possible to obtain action by bailiffs within 24 hours. With public land, that is rarely possible. Local authorities need to be under a duty to exercise a test of reasonableness, but within that it should be possible to align the actions that local authorities can take with respect to public land. Public land does not only belong to wicked councils, but may be owned by hospitals or schools. One of my hon. Friends was telling me about an incursion on to some playing fields in his constituency. It can take days and days to get any action on such incursions, and we need to look at the broad definition and bring public land into the realm of private land.
In Leeds, negotiated settlements have begun to take place. Encampments were costing some £10,000 each in local authority and policing costs. By negotiating with Travellers on stopping sites, the council has been able to establish better processes for, for example, the dumping of rubbish and the times of coming and going to the site. That has led to a significant reduction in the number of encampments and a saving of some £200,000 for the local authority and the police. That is the kind of sensible action that we should encourage.
The Minister’s speech was fascinating, but it was empty of real commitment—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
What would you do?
Tony Lloyd
The Minister has been talking for large parts of my speech, so he does not know what I would do. I talked about the need for a change in the law—not a review of the law—[Interruption.] I would be delighted to give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr Marcus Jones
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned on several occasions that he would like to see a change in the law. Will he say how he would like to see the law changed?
Tony Lloyd
If the Minister had been listening, he would have known that I talked about bringing private land into conjunction with public land and about making sure that the police’s powers could be used more effectively. The police are frustrated. I talked about the problem of section 62 and the fact that at the moment the police have to have an alternative site.
The reality is that we have to couple the use of those powers with the investment in sites, which Conservative Members are reluctant to do. When the comment was made that Government cuts to local government had had a serious impact on the capacity to provide sites, it was met with a howl of derision from Conservative Members, who once again want to protect austerity except when it affects their constituents.
We need to see investment in sites. We need to know where the £60 million has gone from the affordable homes scheme. We need a Government who have a genuine commitment to reduce the level of discrimination in our society. I sympathise with hon. Members who face problems from antisocial and illegal behaviour by Travellers, and those should be dealt with, but—as I began by saying—the lot of many of the travelling communities is unacceptable. One Traveller says, “As a PhD student I have been treated as an oddity or as incompetent by my peers and professors.” Another said, “I went for a cleaning job. When I told the pub owner where I lived, she said we don’t serve your sort and I won’t employ you.” I have read of someone saying to a nine-year-old child, “I’ll burn your caravan down while you sleep. Dirty thieves, you should’ve been deported, even the young one.” That was to an English-born child. When that happens, we know we have a problem. We can rail against the minority of illegal Travellers—we can and they will—but let us make sure we also deal with the real issues that affect this community which is so badly discriminated against. They are our fellow citizens and they deserve better from this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) has finished. He cannot give way. He has concluded with an excellent peroration. This will be a lively debate, as it should be on such an important subject, so I am afraid I have to impose an immediate time limit of seven minutes on Mr Mark Francois.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The whole issue of Travellers is one that resonates deeply in my county of Essex, not least because of the events at Dale Farm several years ago, when Councillor Tony Ball and Basildon Council took action to uphold the law and clear one of the largest illegal Traveller encampments in the country. I note that a number of my Essex colleagues are in the House this evening: my hon. Friends the Members for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), for Southend West (Sir David Amess), for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart). That shows the degree of concern among my colleagues in Essex about this issue. Indeed, I understand that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, have also had some issues in your Essex constituency with regard to Travellers. Essex is here, one way or another, in very significant numbers.
It is important to stress that many Travellers are law-abiding, but it is also true that unfortunately a minority do cause a number of problems for people in the settled community. From my own experience, we can divide these problems broadly into two categories: first, those caused by non-travelling Travellers, which I will explain in a moment; and, secondly, those caused by travelling Travellers. Non-travelling Travellers are not people who move regularly from place to place. They sometimes breach planning guidelines and regulations to develop buildings, quite often in the green belt, by laying hard core in breach of planning controls and then seeking to build properties thereafter.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
Being a Traveller is not about the frequency with which you move. It is very remiss of the right hon. Gentleman to call people who are not moving at any given point “non-Traveller”. Being a Traveller is part of your ethnicity and I do not think it is up to him to define their ethnicity.
Mr Francois
I am just talking about Travellers who are not travelling. This is the point I am trying to make. It is sometimes a misnomer to call these people Travellers, because they are not actually travelling at all. They are merely seeking to exploit weaknesses in the planning system to try to develop properties where others cannot.
We have had exactly that problem at an area in my constituency called Hovefields in Wickford, where Travellers have attempted to do that, despite two High Court injunctions to the contrary. Travellers have recently laid many tonnes of hard core on land at Hovefields and have then sought to expand the existing area of their properties upon it. Local members of the settled community have been subject to harassment and intimidation when they have sought to protest to the council about those changes. I am sure the whole House condemns that behaviour. Basildon Council is continuing to pursue the matter through the courts, but, as the Minister will be more than well aware, the whole process of enforcement in relation to breaches of planning regulation can be very cumbersome indeed.
Mr Francois
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a big Traveller problem in Hammersmith.
Andy Slaughter
Interesting point. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Dale Farm. I had the opportunity to visit it twice with the late Rodney Bickerstaffe and the late Lord Avebury. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever been there to talk to the Traveller communities. I just want to be clear that he is not making a link between someone’s ethnicity and their ability to follow planning regulations.
Mr Francois
The point I am making is that I believe all people should be equal before the law. I shall go on to explain exactly why that should apply.
Basildon Council—I spoke many times to Tony Ball, who was in charge of clearing Dale Farm—is continuing to pursue the matter through the courts. However, as the Minister knows, that can take a very long time. It is deeply frustrating to some of my constituents that they are expected to respect planning law—for instance, if they wish to build an extension to their domestic property—yet it would appear that some Travellers sometimes take little notice of the planning regulations by which others are expected to abide. What we are asking—I reiterate the point—is that all people should be equal before the law; otherwise, how can we expect to uphold the current planning regime? I therefore ask the Minister to consider—as part of the consultation, which I warmly welcome—whether anything further can be done to strengthen the enforcement powers of local authorities against such deliberate breaches of planning regulations. We all know it goes on and we all know it has been going on for years. It is about time the Government did something to try to bring this practice to an end.
The second category, the travelling Travellers, are those who do move from place to place. Some—I say again, some—of these Travellers move across the country establishing temporary encampments, quite often on public land such as car parks, other parks and open spaces. This has been a particular problem in Essex in recent years, including in my own constituency. As the Minister said, councils have the opportunity, working with the police, to serve so-called section 61 notices to move Travellers on, but very often that just results in them moving to another public open space where the whole rigmarole starts again. The current powers available to police and local authorities do not act as a deterrent to people who wish to break the law in this way.
I understand that Ministers are now considering whether changes need to be made, and I take tonight’s announcement of a consultation exercise as a very positive development. I believe we should now look across the Irish sea for a solution and adopt the Irish Government’s system of making such deliberate acts of trespass a criminal offence. In fact, the Irish system is one reason why so many Traveller families from Ireland now come to the United Kingdom. By making this change, I believe that we could provide a very real deterrent to those who seek to trespass quite deliberately on public land. To echo what was said from the Opposition Benches earlier, prevention would be better than cure. I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions with Roger Hirst, our very active police, crime and fire commissioner for Essex, and can tell the House that he is also firmly in favour of adopting the so-called Irish option.
In summary—I know many Members are keen to speak—I congratulate Ministers on securing this debate and on seeking to ascertain the will of the House on this important issue. In the debate, I think Ministers will hear calls from both sides of the Chamber for something further to be done to help to reduce the problems that some Travellers sometimes cause some communities. The time for action is now. I very much hope that Ministers will listen to the House and that following the consultation—they can take this speech as a submission to it—they will finally determine to adopt the Irish option and provide the real deterrent we have needed for so long.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to speak from the Front Bench. I did not expect to do so, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) has been injured. I am sure I speak on behalf of the whole House when I wish her well and a safe return to this place. I am very grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate.
I would like to outline a bit of context and history, because those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it. The first anti-Gypsy Act was passed back in the 1500s. It allowed the Crown the power to remove Gypsies from England by any violent means necessary. In 1547, Gypsies were effectively enslaved. Edward VI instituted a law that branded Gypsies with the letter “v” on their front for a period of two years of enslavement. If they escaped, they were then enslaved for life. And of course the House does not need a lecture on what happened to the Gypsy and Romani communities during the Holocaust.
While researching this debate over the recess, I read the excellent book by Katharine Quarmby, “No Place to Call Home”, which I commend to the House. I would be more than happy to place a copy in the Library. I was struck by the account of the tragic murder of 15-year-old Johnny Delaney in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire. He died on 28 May 2013 after having his head kicked in. One of the murderers, jumping on his head with both feet, said it was okay because, “He’s only a Gypsy”. It is important, therefore, that we approach this debate with an understanding of the context and history.
As one would expect from a Scottish nationalist Member, I want to talk about some of the challenges from a Scottish angle. The 2011 census was the first to include the option of Gypsy or Traveller as an ethnic category, and in it 4,200 people in Scotland identified as white Gypsy Travellers, although the real number is estimated to be between 15,000 and 20,000 by those who have worked with the community. In my speech, which I will keep brief because a lot of Members want to contribute, I will talk about education, health, housing, discrimination and hate crime and the media. I was disappointed that the Minister spent 20 minutes talking about enforcement, when there are clearly other issues facing the community.
On education, we know that Gypsy Travellers have some of the lowest attainment rates in Scotland: 28.1% leave school with no qualifications at SCQF level 3 or higher, compared with 1.9% among all leavers. The Scottish Traveller Education Review Group has developed guidance that went out to consultation, and the Scottish Government are currently considering the responses. I hope that the report can be implemented soon.
I want to touch on health because, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) outlined, some of the community’s health indicators are very poor: life expectancy is 10 years lower; and mothers within the community are 20 times more likely to have experienced the death of a child. That is a staggering figure and one that the House should reflect upon. There is a lack of cultural awareness and understanding among medical professionals, so it is important that the Royal College of General Practitioners is developing a toolkit on commissioning for socially excluded families. I hope that that can be developed further.
Much of this debate has centred on housing. Only seven of Scotland’s 32 local authorities do not provide a council site for Gypsy Travellers, including my own in the city of Glasgow, which closed its last council camp in 2009 because of a lack of demand. Scottish councils provide approximately 500 pitches across 32 sites. The sizes vary from fewer than 10 pitches to up to 30, and I am glad to see that guidance has been issued to local authorities to find some way of allowing these people to stay in traditional safe communities.
The House is more than aware that Gypsy Travellers want to live on private sites, which can help to support their independence, self-sufficiency and security, because too often they face difficulties with the planning system. It is incumbent on us as politicians to work with them, but I am afraid that some of the tone in this debate so far seems to suggest that we are working against them and that we see them as the opposition. Considering the context and the history I just outlined, that is deeply worrying.
I want to touch on discrimination and hate crime. Media coverage, in particular, is overwhelmingly negative. An Amnesty-commissioned report in 2012 considered the media treatment of Scottish Gypsy Travellers. It stated:
“Amnesty…is concerned at the wealth of evidence showing discrimination against Scottish Gypsy Travellers and the hostility and divisions between Scottish Gypsy Traveller and settled communities.”
It considered several studies and 190 media articles over a four-month period: 48%—nearly half—painted a negative picture of the Gypsy Traveller community, while only 28%—less than a third—were positive. The most shocking figure, however, was that only 6% presented a community voice, so only on very few occasions was the community given the right to reply. I do not think we would accept that in any other walk of life, but somehow in the media it seems to be acceptable.
It is incumbent on politicians and the media to be careful with their language. I was disappointed over the summer recess, therefore, when the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), during an interview—a fairly quick-fire interview, I do accept—said that if he were Prime Minister for one day his priority would be tougher enforcement on Gypsies and Travellers because they were a blight on our communities. Amnesty was right to call it inflammatory language.
David Linden
If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene, I am more than happy to allow him to put his apology on the record in the House.
Douglas Ross
First, I want to clarify this point for the official record: I did not say: “because they are a blight on our communities”. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the words he has added. I also said, many times afterwards, that this issue affects my constituents in Moray and constituents across the whole UK, and in many cases it is people in the settled communities who feel ignored because their voice is never heard in these debates.
David Linden
I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to reopen this issue. [Interruption.] Will the House calm down for a minute? His apology on Radio Scotland was welcome, but he is on the record as saying before that they are a blight on local communities, which is deeply regrettable. I am glad that he has apologised.
Douglas Ross
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) has now said twice that I said on the record that travelling communities are a blight on their areas. I did not say that, as I mentioned in my intervention on him. Can you do something to stop him telling these untruths?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
I think you have just done it yourself. I think you just corrected the record. We need not worry.
David Linden
I am sad that the debate has descended to this level. If the hon. Gentleman is not happy, I am sure his constituents will be more than happy to Google it.
It is important that we as legislators moderate our language. Some Conservative Members would do well to do that. Gypsy Travellers have suffered enough discrimination, so it is important that we come together, understand our differences and learn from history. The inclusion of a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller history month would be a very good way of reflecting on that, so I support that idea, but I return to my original point: those of us who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it.
Mr Deputy Speaker
We now come to Sir Paul Beresford, with a five-minute limit.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)
That is discrimination, Mr Deputy Speaker! I will have to talk extremely quickly.
I thank the Minister for offering us this consultation and for expanding it to take in ideas and solutions. Surrey, and Mole Valley in particular, has had considerable and unpleasant experience of Travellers. Most are not Romani Gypsies. Most have very strong Irish accents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) might have given us an explanation of why. For simplicity, I divide them into three groups—he divided them into two—the first being those who use legitimate sites. They are law-abiding. They utilise the education service; they go to schools. They use the national health service. They are part of our community.
The second group are those who buy land on the green belt, squat on it, bring community disharmony and exhibit aggressive abuse of the planning system, acting as if, while it applies to the settled community, they are above it. I have two particularly notorious sites in the Mole Valley. Both are on green belt and both groups abuse the planning system by making retrospective applications. We then get appeal, generally at the last minute, followed by reapplication, followed by rejection, followed by re-application, followed by refusal, followed by appeal, and so on. Both groups blatantly use the presence of children as reasons to reject the legal orders obtained by local authorities for their removal from the sites.
Relationships with local communities are fractious at best and often punctuated with verbal threats and threats to the surrounding communities. I have received a few myself. One site is on inherited land. The other was bought with cash, from whatever source. At the weekend, people arrived with caravans, trucks, bulldozers, loads of rubble, piping, electrical wiring and so on. By the end of Sunday, they had installed an electricity supply and tapped into a water supply, whether legally or not. Electric gates on pillars suitable for a garish stately home were put in. Then the nonsense started: hopeless applications, refusals, appeals, more refusals, more appeals. In the case of the gates, this has been continuing for 14 years, and looks set to continue for several more at least. We now have a review, and I ask the Minister to look at that case in particular. I would be delighted to come along and explain to him the difficulties.
The third group consists of the true Travellers on whom we have been concentrating this evening, who are an expensive menace to my local authorities, parish councils and farmers. This year Surrey has been particularly plagued by groups who descend on open land that contains community grounds, school grounds, farmland and so on. Fortunately—I am a member of the National Farmers Union—the farming community is becoming quite adept at prevention.
Those groups have been taking anything between one and 30 caravans, plus associated vehicles. They descend on the site and squat. Civil action to remove them can take between days and weeks, and is very expensive, especially for some of Surrey’s little parish councils. When they have eventually been removed by expensive bailiffs, the sites are generally disgusting, featuring everything from food waste to children’s soiled nappies and worse. Returning them to a decent condition involves added expense.
As I have said, I should be delighted to visit the Minister, with one or two of the helpers who have to deal with all this, to advise him on how we feel that the law should be changed. I am particularly in favour of the change in the law suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who proposed that we should adopt the Irish example. We should extend it by not only making this a criminal offence, but giving the police the power to require the people whom they approach on the sites to prove who they are. The biggest problems for the police at present are the giving of “Mickey Mouse” names and the fact that enforcement is extremely difficult. I should love to come and see the Minister—and he is faintly nodding, so I will take that as a yes.
Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)
With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I shall breach the normal partisan rules of the House and say that the Minister of State made what I thought was an excellent speech, in which he balanced the humanity that should inform us all with the frustration and annoyance that affect so many of our constituents. I felt that he spoke very well indeed, and that his words were matched by those of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd).
May I home in on what we are actually talking about this evening? We are discussing Gypsies and Travellers and the impact on local communities. I think we have accepted that 76% of the people who identified themselves in the census as members of the travelling community are in fact resident, but it is other people about whom we are talking. I will not stigmatise them by saying that they are of a particular ethnicity or origin, or that one can tell where they come from by their accents, because I do not like that. Everyone in the Chamber knows what we are talking about here. Let us talk about the people who are having an impact on our constituents, because they are the people who have chosen to live outside the law. To live outside the law you must be honest, and the problem is that people who are living outside the law are causing great distress and great pain.
It breaks my heart that many of us who are of Irish origin or have Irish backgrounds feel that, in many respects, we are stigmatised by the association with Irish Travellers, when the truth is much more than that. Ealing does not contain verdant fields and great open spaces where the lowing herd winds slowly o’er the lea and the plowman homeward plods his weary way, but we experience regular incursions by Travellers.
Matt Western
In contrast, we have a lot of greenery around us in Warwick and Leamington, and the summer saw a significant rise in the number of communities setting themselves up in the constituency. The authorities are under huge pressure, and I really feel for them, because they are hamstrung by the planning laws as they stand. They are also not aided—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. The hon. Gentleman must sit down. This is an intervention, and interventions are meant to be very short. A great many Members wish to speak, so I cannot allow people to make speeches in the form of interventions.
Stephen Pound
I take the point made by my hon. Friend. I think that many of us feel the same irritation.
As I was saying, Ealing is not blessed with huge open spaces, but the open spaces that we have tend to be public parks, school playing fields, sports fields and golf courses, every one of which has suffered from a Traveller incursion in the last few years. It is not as if Ealing is one of the boroughs that say, “We will have no Travellers.” It is not a borough that sets its face against people who have every right to identify themselves as having a certain ethnicity. We have a caravan site. Every time there is an unauthorised encampment in the borough, we investigate the status of the children to establish whether they are receiving education and what their health conditions are. We do not try to shove people off without a second thought. Nevertheless, between 2012 and this summer there have been 140 illegal occupations in the London borough of Ealing, the majority of which have been on council land.
I have had interactions with the travelling community since the mid-1970s, as a housing officer, as a housing association officer, as a councillor, and even as a mayor and a Member of Parliament. I entirely accept that there are some who will approach you when they move on to the land and say, “I am the guy in charge: if you have any problems, come and see me.” Others, however, will commit the most ghastly antisocial behaviour, such as throwing stones at cars, and a couple of weeks ago there were some horses at a petrol station on the A40. That is cruelty to the horses, but it is also pretty appalling for the people who live in the area.
There are some who take things too far in the wrong direction, and worst of all are those who use the encampment for fly-tipping. There is no more heart-breaking sight than a sports field where a group of amateur footballers have been trying to get together to play football—to bring people together for the good of the community—and there is a 2-metre-deep pile of asbestos-ridden household waste that costs us a fortune to clear up. Let me give the House a rough idea of what that means. The legal costs alone in the London borough of Ealing between June 2016 and the present time were more than £200,000, and officer time amounted to more than £130,000. Our borough is not swimming in cash. I doubt that any Member in the Chamber represents a constituency that has more money than it knows what to do with, but our clear-up costs amounted to £250,000.
These are not really encampments. They are, in fact, illegal businesses. I pay tribute to Ealing council officers such as Yasmin Basterfield, Chris Bunting, Jess Murray and Paul Murphy—not the other Paul Murphy; the one in Ealing—who do an incredible amount of work with their teams. However, we do not have the confidence of the local community that we can sufficiently address this issue. What happens is that, suddenly, a great glistening cavalcade of chromium-plated 4x4s—if only it were a caravanserai!—roars down and sets up an encampment on our open space, and then the problems start.
In the brief time that remains to me, I shall ask the Minister four basic questions, to which I want to hear four answers. Section 61 has been mentioned, and section 61 is not good enough. It needs to be enforced properly. What guidance will the Minister give his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about a protocol to enforce it? Why cannot legal advisers in magistrates courts sign the warrants over the weekend? Will the Minister at least speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who is present, to establish whether the Ministry of Justice can do something about that? Every vehicle that arrives can be identified through a registration number. Why can those numbers not be used to identify the people who are responsible for the crime, and then prosecute them? What could possibly be wrong with that?
Finally, could we have a few bob from the Government for the unanticipated costs of clearing up? Frankly, it is crippling us in the London borough of Ealing.
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
Throughout August this year, I was contacted by a large number of constituents who were concerned about the illegal encampment of Travellers. Travellers had broken into and occupied parkland near Stoke Gifford in my constituency. and then—having been successfully evicted from there—occupied another site in nearby Patchway.
Having considered the issue in some depth over the summer, I believe that there are failings in three key areas: provision of pitches and transit sites, enforcement and oversight. I shall deal with the last of those first, because I am convinced that the current lack of oversight is the root cause of many of the problems exemplified by the issue in my constituency.
Three separate Government Departments—the Department for Communities and Local Government, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice—have a stake in the problem of illegal encampments and the powers to prevent and remove them. Those powers themselves are then split between councils, as a planning issue, and the police, as a matter of trespass and public order. At least five public bodies are therefore connected with the situation in some way. Of course I applaud sensible and practical localism, but central Government must not abrogate their duty to assist local authorities.
In an immediate response to the incidents in my constituency, I submitted written questions to two of the Departments involved. I feel that the responses of both Departments underline the current belief of central Government that illegal encampments are purely a local issue. The Home Office, quite properly, restated that
“The decision on when and whether to use police powers is an independent operational decision for the police.”
While it is not up to the Home Secretary to directly command the police operationally, I am sure that my constituents will be concerned to learn that no national guidance is available to chief constables about the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use their existing powers to remove illegal encampments.
Similarly, the Department for Communities and Local Government confirmed:
“The Government has made no estimates”
of transit sites for Travellers, as these are a planning responsibility for local authorities. Again, that is strictly correct, but is it sensible Government policy to perform no central planning or analysis of how local authorities are performing in their responsibility to provide transit sites?
There is evidence in these responses of a total lack of oversight of or concern about the problem from central Government. My constituents will no doubt be baffled to learn that a problem as mobile as illegal Traveller encampments is not monitored at a central level but considered a purely local issue. If we are to resolve the other problems that my constituents’ experience has revealed, we must begin with the Government taking a greater leadership role in tackling these problems.
The current legislation on illegal encampments dates back to 1994—the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act—and, as I have outlined, there is no real way for any of the Departments concerned to be sure that the current arrangements are working for our constituents, and nor does there appear to be effective guidance to police forces on the circumstances in which it is appropriate to use their powers. The result is not sensible localism, but a postcode lottery. Section 61 of the 1994 Act is clear that should any damage to property or land occur, the police are empowered to compel trespassers to vacate land that they have already been asked to leave. That did not occur in either Stoke Gifford or Patchway, and it was left to the council to undertake enforcement action through the courts.
The police have existing powers to enforce the law. For example, a very senior councillor with public service spanning five decades—30 years as a police officer and almost 20 years as a councillor—Councillor Brian Allinson, who is also a very good friend of mine, informed me that a fellow councillor suffered some pretty horrific abuse and threats. As a former police officer, Councillor Allinson was shocked that there seemed to be no follow-up or further action by the police. He pointed out that, when he served in the police force, that would have been considered a serious threat against the person and tackled with the due consideration it merited. I am still waiting to meet the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner to discuss the full circumstances of the incidents, but the police, with Home Office guidance, must be properly prepared to enforce the law to deal with illegal encampments where crime and disorder has taken place.
As has already been said, prevention is better than cure. I am pleased that South Gloucestershire Council recognises in its local plan that
“the presence of a transit site...can speed up enforcement action”
However, the same plan also notes that the site must be within the same local authority area as the land affected for the police to gain extra powers.
Again, it is clear that this is not just a local problem; there is a lack of central Government help and a lack of effective legislation. I urge South Gloucestershire Council to re-examine the provision of transit sites after these recent incidents, but the first move must come from the Departments in ensuring that the police are enforcing the law of the land without fear or favour.
Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) sought to leave the Minister with two impressions: one was a series of four questions—we all look forward to the answers—and the other was a compliment on his speech. I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, because I thought the speech lacked any ministerial intent to do anything about this problem.
The problem is increasing across the country, particularly in the west midlands and certainly in Coventry, which I have represented for a few years now. Over the past five years, the number of illegal encampments—I stress that I am talking only about the illegal encampments—has doubled. We are facing an irritant that is causing real problems and that, in the end, will breed exactly the sort of prejudice, bias and racial discrimination that the previous Labour Government sought to prevent through legislation, which I approved of. The simple fact is that the problem is coming back and it is corrosive, and the whole Gypsy and Traveller community is being affected as a result, which is totally wrong because we are talking about a small percentage, but the illegal occupation of these encampments is increasing.
The Government’s response leaves a lot to be desired. When we look at what they have done, we see that the previous Secretary of State, under the coalition Government, was convicted in the High Court for racial discrimination. We have seen the Government remove from local authorities the statutory obligation to at least carry out a census of the arrangements in place for sites in their areas. It is a pattern of disengagement from the problem, which we all face. It is not just the large metropolitan areas, such as the west midlands, because we have heard Conservative Members refer to county councils across the country making representations.
I say this to the Minister: for goodness’ sake, show some ministerial authority, concern and drive to sort this problem out. What have we had instead? We have had a promise that there will be a consultation. Nobody could be against consultation—we can even warmly welcome it, as the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) did. He said that it was the greatest thing he had ever heard, and the next minute he said that the time for action is now. Well, the time for action has been kicked into the long grass. The Minister does not need a consultation to answer the four questions. He does not have the answers, but he could find them. That is what I urge him to do tonight, and this is the brunt of what I want to say.
Mr Robinson
No, my hon. Friend has had a good go already and other Members wish to speak. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) wants to contribute, for example.
The Minister has had an offer—it is unprecedented, in my experience—from the West Midlands police and crime commissioner to get into a dialogue about specifics, because we need action or legislation from the Government, not consultation. That, together with a bit of money here and there, could make a big difference—we can never solve this problem—in reducing the frequency and intensity of these encampments. That is what we are looking for: action, not words, though, yes, consultation will allow us all to play our part.
The Minister has offered us a meeting. If I was in his position, I would have asked for that meeting: “Come in and let’s see what we can do together.” We now speak as a combined authority in the west midlands, as many hon. Friends will do this evening. We can offer the cross- county and cross-borough co-operation that the Minister is looking for, but we need a lead from the Government that they want action in this area, and a bit of money would make all the difference. For goodness’ sake, get going and, while the consultation is ongoing, devise a plan of action to implement the decisions afterwards. We have been waiting for the final draft of the guidance to local authorities for months, and the draft that was produced was virtually acceptable. Put an end to this drift and disengagement, get a grip and show yourself to be a Minister by doing something about it.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Not surprisingly, the calling of this debate has stimulated considerable interest in my constituency, from constituents, the local councils, the police and the media. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), this is a hot topic in south Essex. Indeed, in the run-up to the general election, I wrote to the Prime Minister’s policy adviser, asking that further measures be included in the forthcoming manifesto, because quite frankly the public are fed up. They are fed up that the same rules do not appear to apply equally to all members of society, whatever their cultural background. That is what we are talking about: illegal activity perpetrated in the main by Travellers. This is not about discrimination or attacking someone’s culture, way of life or traditions; this is about all of us playing by the same rules and abiding by the same law, having the law applied to us equitably and all taking responsibility for our actions in the same way.
I have a page here listing some horror stories of recent incidents, but unfortunately I do not have time to go through them. However, I want to thank the local councillors whom I have worked with over the past few years to tackle these issues. In particular, I want to thank Councillors Tony Ball and Phil Turner, both former leaders of Basildon Council, Rob Gledhill, the leader of Thurrock Council, and Gavin Callaghan, current chairman of Basildon’s policy and resources committee.
I accept that the travelling community faces many challenges, as described in the various briefings that have been circulating, and that no one should be subjected to hate speech or hate crime. Equally, however, it is reasonable that the settled community can expect the law to be applied evenly. As we have heard, following the clearance of Dale Farm, which was a success, unfortunately both Basildon and Thurrock Councils have been on the frontline in trying to tackle the seemingly endless unauthorised encampments. In south Essex, we have had some success, particularly in Thurrock, with the new conservative leader of Thurrock Council regularly seen at evictions, where the police were robustly enforcing section 61. Unfortunately, he tells me that that was last year; this year, there is greater reluctance to enforce section 61. One of the key reasons, he suggests, is that the guidance for the police has shifted emphasis from “or”s—breaches of this, that “or” the other—to “and”s. It is thus almost impossible to apply section 61, except in the most extreme cases. He also highlights one of the key problems: when the legislation was drafted, it did not clarify how far an encampment would have to move. Ridiculously, we end up with encampments moving only a very short distance and the whole process starting again. That needs to be looked at—I want that distance to be measured not in metres, but in miles.
Finally, we need to change the guidance on criminality before and during these encampments. At present, perhaps rightly, collective responsibility for criminal damage—whether the cutting of padlocks or the removal of gates—cannot be applied as a group enters a site; for an offence, an individual and evidence need to be available. However, again, a simple change to the current legislation to amend the wording so that it says, “Where criminal damage has occurred and unauthorised persons have entered public land” would allow the police to act more quickly. In the same vein, we have to be realistic about what happens on these sites—the amount of environmental damage. We need to consider how we can hold the collective responsible for the clean-up, which often runs into many tens of thousands of pounds.
We have tried. We have worked with the current legislation, engaged with the police, encouraged greater enforcement, worked with the Essex Countywide Traveller Unit and used the courts, but frankly that is not working. I accept that the law is blind, but the public are not—they want action and they want it now. All I am trying to do is level the playing field. We need not only a few tweaks to existing legislation but a change in the law as identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford.
Calling for Ministers to adopt the so-called Irish option of criminalising deliberate acts of trespass such as those that we see frequently in south Essex is a sensible move and it has my 100% backing. I do not believe that it criminalises a way of life or is discriminatory; it criminalises an activity—unauthorised encampments and trespass. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister’s views on tweaks and changes to the law.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
I want to make a few points about illegal Traveller encampments and the impact they have on constituencies such as mine.
I should say at the outset that I do not accuse the whole Traveller community of taking part in illegal encampments or in pitching caravans where they should not; I am sure that many do not do that and are frustrated with the reputational damage done when it happens. But that does happen, and it causes significant anger and frustration in the community when it does. In my constituency, illegal encampments are regularly set up on common land, waste ground, car parks and even public parks. The Travellers move on to a site. If they do not move when requested, the council can apply for a court order, which typically takes one to two weeks and also, of course, incurs legal costs for the local authority. When the Travellers eventually move on, there are usually significant clean-up costs.
Wolverhampton City Council tells me that it has to go through this process 10 to 20 times a year. Adding legal costs and clean-up costs together, it says that it typically costs £10,000 to £15,000 a time to deal with an illegal encampment—that is 10 to 20 times a year in just one local authority. There was recently an illegal encampment in land off Prouds Lane in Bilston in my constituency. In May this year, the small fence protecting the land was driven through for the caravans to get on; there were upwards of a dozen caravans there. Residents were understandably angry at this trespass on to the land. The council applied for the court order. When the Travellers eventually went after about 10 days, they left huge piles of rubbish around the site. The council moved very quickly to clear the rubbish, and I commend it for its swift and effective action. Although the council moved as quickly and effectively as it could, afterwards my constituents asked questions about the legal costs involved and why local council tax payers should have to pay them.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the costs are for not only local councils but many private residents and landowners, who have to spend their own money to clean up and deal with the issue of illegal encampments? One of my constituents has written to me about spending £3,000 a week on the problem.
Mr McFadden
The hon. Lady makes a good point: the costs are often private as well as public.
My constituents also asked about the costs of the clean-up and, again, why local council tax payers should have to pay them. They asked what could be done to secure the site from a repeat of the experience and who would pay for that.
When the Travellers eventually moved from Prouds Lane, they went to East Park—I mean right in the middle of the public park in the East Park area. My constituents watched their public asset being abused by an illegal encampment. That pattern repeats itself over and again in many parts of the black country and, as we have heard, many other parts of the country, too. As we speak, another illegal encampment has been set up on the Bilston Urban Village site in my constituency. The council is wearily going through the same legal process of trying to get it removed.
Given the repeated pattern of what is happening, it is clear that the current system is not working properly: it is too cumbersome, it takes too long and it is too costly. I would like the Minister to consider two questions. I welcome the consultation, but it cannot just be about current powers. First, will it address what legal changes can be made to give councils and the police the power to move these encampments much more quickly than at present?
Secondly, what more can be done to ensure that those responsible for the clean-up bill actually pay it, rather than it being left to local residents to pay? We should remember that the costs involved are not only the legal and clean-up costs, but the ongoing costs—for example, of taking preventive measures such as the installation of bollards and fences all around the black country. Local residents will argue, with some justification, that if they parked their car in the wrong place, they would be fined, and that if they did not pay the fine, it would escalate along with the legal process. Yet that does not seem to happen in these cases.
The law dealing with these matters is not fit for purpose. It takes too long and imposes costs on the law abiding public, not those who have broken the law. There appears to be little or no disincentive to setting up illegal encampments. Those who do so know that there will be a delay before the council gets its court order and they are rarely forced to pay for the costs arising from their dumped rubbish. The law gives them no incentive to stop the behaviour.
Allowing the situation to continue is resulting in costs piling up for local authorities and local taxpayers. It also corrodes public trust in law enforcement. Most importantly, it is not working because the pattern of illegal encampments is continuing. Although we do not have a vote on a substantive motion tonight, I hope the Minister does not just listen and forget what has been said. I hope the Government will come forward soon with proposals to strengthen the law to make enforcement faster and easier for councils and the police.
James Heappey (Wells) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), with whom I very much agree. I am delighted that we have time this evening for this important debate, and I thank Sedgemoor and Mendip District Councils and Somerset County Council for the enthusiasm with which they provided me with information for my contribution. That tells us something about how big an issue this is for them. It is also an issue of real importance for my constituents, who have been angered again and again by illegal encampments.
In the past two years, there have been illegal encampments in Berrow, Street and routinely in the car parks and sports club of Burnham-on-Sea. There have been illegal encampments in Shepton Mallet and Brean as well as the more “permanent” Traveller sites with dubious planning status at Pilton, Theale, Cross and Wick—and, until recently, Rodney Stoke.
There is a sense that there is one rule for the travelling community and one rule for everyone else. I want to share some quick examples of illegal encampments with the House, to draw out some points about their cost and the frustration of local communities and councils.
In June, just before the Glastonbury festival, there was an illegal encampment near the festival site in Shepton Mallet. Mendip District Council moved as quickly as it could to initiate legal proceedings, but it still took 10 days, and even then, when the Travellers were being escorted out of the town, they tried to break into the local park to reoccupy that instead. The cost to the Travellers of their time in the town was absolutely nothing. The cost to Mendip District Council was £27,745, and that does not include the policing costs of trying to escort them out of the town at the end of that illegal encampment.
In Burnham-on-Sea, at the Pier Street car park, the Travellers know exactly how long they can stay. They come back again and again—often it is different groups of Travellers—and every time Sedgemoor District Council has to initiate the legal process, at a cost of £355, plus the cost of staff and solicitors’ fees. To make things fair, when the Travellers are in the car park, the council suspends car parking charges for everybody else. That is great for those shopping in the town, but it means lost revenue for the council.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
That did not happen in my constituency, where we had the farce of people parking in the car park and receiving fines—these were legal motorists—which I then had to get overturned by the council. That again emphasises that there is one rule for one and another rule for another.
James Heappey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Indeed, that was exactly what happened when we had the very first occupation in Burnham-on-Sea. Traffic wardens were giving tickets to those who had parked legally but overrun, while the Travellers were allowed to be there without penalty. We are talking about the main tourist car park for what is—I can say this now that my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) has left the Chamber—Somerset’s premier seaside resort. The presence of an illegal encampment in that car park—especially one right next door to the coach park, which is an important part of our town’s business—creates entirely the wrong first impression, may well lose us business and certainly costs local businesses nearby, and that is without mentioning the clean-up costs that the local council incurs as well.
In the nearby village of Berrow, there was a Traveller encampment on the village green. Given the mess that the green was left in afterwards, Berrow chose as a village to spend quite a large proportion of its annual precept on building a bund all the way around the green. I question whether money that is hard earned by parish councils should be spent on preventing illegal activity rather than on more positive improvements for the community altogether.
I should also mention that there have routinely been encampments on private land up in Brean, a popular tourism destination, which means that businesses that contribute enormously to our local economy are left holding the baby and are responsible for bringing in the bailiffs and moving those Travellers on. Additionally, Somerset County Council has told me that in the last three years it has spent nearly £25,000 on moving Travellers on from the public highway and a further £6,000 on the clean-up costs afterwards. At every turn, there is an asymmetric cost—a cost to councils, Avon and Somerset police, local businesses and the community, but no cost whatsoever to the Travellers who have made the illegal encampment.
The argument is that illegal encampments are an issue only if there is inadequate provision of authorised sites, but there are 64 authorised pitches in Somerset. In Bath and North East Somerset and in North Somerset, the two adjoining local authorities, there are a further 50, so there are 114 pitches available in the county of Somerset. How many can the taxpayer be expected to provide? We live in a beautiful part of the world, with a good local economy, but surely our liability for Travellers cannot be unlimited or set simply by Traveller demand. We must be willing to say what is a fair provision for councils to offer. We must reduce costs to local authorities or find a way to pass them on to the Travellers who are illegally encamped.
We must ensure that the process is quicker, so that we end this cat-and-mouse game, whereby the Travellers understand exactly how long they can stay, stay for exactly that long and then move on before they incur any cost, while the council has incurred all the cost in the process. The Irish option, which a number of colleagues have discussed this evening, is well worth looking at. We must ensure that the rules are fair for both the travelling and the settled communities. There can no longer be one law for the Travellers and another for everyone else.
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)
I have no criticism at all of the law-abiding majority who live by the rules and make a positive contribution to our communities, but I am here today to speak up on behalf of residents in Dudley, who have had to put up with illegal and antisocial camps this summer, as in previous years.
Parks and public open spaces have all been used for illegal encampments. Gates have been broken and bollards removed to access the sites. Residents and their kids have been unable to use community facilities and parks. Vehicles have been driven in a dangerous and antisocial way, destroying the environment and putting local people at risk, as well as the Travellers and their children. Some of the sites have been left with huge amounts of rubbish and waste, including in some cases, unbelievably, human waste in children’s play areas. This is completely unacceptable, and I want the council and the police to be able to deal with such sites much more quickly. I also want the council to take much stronger measures to prevent them from being occupied in the first place.
Earlier, I mentioned the work done on this by our police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, who is urging MPs to back stronger powers to tackle unauthorised Traveller encampments. In place of the vague talk of reviews and all the rest of it, he has concrete proposals, which I hope a group of MPs and the PCC will be able to come and talk to Ministers about.
For example, at the moment the police can only direct difficult travelling groups to a transit site within a council area. Council borders are administrative, and a change in the law to allow the police to direct groups to transit sites in the wider area would be fairer and more effective. Our PCC believes that banning those responsible for repeated criminal activity from the whole of the area for specified short periods would be a serious deterrent, because there is currently no easy way to stop an antisocial group travelling between and within each local council area until it is moved on. Indeed, for a number of the parks subject to such activity in my constituency this summer, it was just one group being moved from one site to another, a few hundred yards or half a mile away. The process repeated itself throughout the summer, at enormous cost and hassle for local people, the council and the police.
Our PCC is calling for better protection for businesses and private land by changing the law to protect private landowners from being repeat victims of unauthorised encampments. He also wants sanctions made available for groups that return to the same private land and reductions in the time taken for evictions. He believes that injunctions should be available to cover larger areas than the specific individual site covered at the moment. Finally, he believes there should be more temporary or transient sites made available—Dudley actually has permanent sites available for the travelling community—so that Travellers can be moved on more quickly from local community facilities.
I accept, as I said at the outset, that it is a minority of the travelling community who cause problems, and I am sure that it is just as frustrating for the majority. However, it is my job to speak up for people in Dudley who have been affected by these camps. What my constituents have had to put up with this summer, as in previous years, is completely and utterly unacceptable, and they and I want tougher and swifter action to deal with them.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), who is a fellow west midlands MP. Indeed, there seems to be a strong west midlands-Warwickshire theme running through this debate, and I am delighted that the Minister responding is a west midlands Member of Parliament and will understand the issues.
We have seen plenty of those issues in my constituency of Rugby, particularly on eastern side, close to the urban area of Coventry. One of the reasons why the problem occurs is that the market for those in the travelling community is based in that urban community. They are not often able to settle in the urban community and are on the urban fringe. One of the issues in Warwickshire is that we have been able to provide enough Traveller pitches. Very often, therefore, when an encampment is moved on, the authority has been able to demonstrate sufficient provision.
We have had incidents where pitches do exist but the group of Travellers being moved on are not willing to go on to vacant pitches because they are not able to get on with those already occupying the site. That certainly seems to be one problem. We have had great support from our police and crime commissioner in Warwickshire, Philip Seccombe, who has recently implemented new protocols, building on the work being done in the west midlands.
I want to focus on abuses of the planning system, making reference to three examples. The first relates to the number of encampments set up on the Friday before a bank holiday, with the travelling community knowing that the enforcement officer will not be at work on the Monday and so they have a longer period in which to get these developments done and entrenched. In my area, they have often done this on a site straddling two local authorities, creating issues of ownership and who the lead authority to deal with the situation would be.
The second example relates to what happens when sites are then approved, often on a temporary consent. In Barnacle, in my constituency, a number of subsequent temporary consents have been given; temporary consents of two years have been given on three or four occasions. Each time that happens, the settled community believes that the site is becoming more permanent and it has concerns.
The third thing I wish to draw attention to is the manipulation of protections within the green belt. The national planning policy framework defines previously developed land, with a presumption in favour of development, as land on which there was previously a permanent structure, but that presumption does not apply where land is occupied by an agricultural or forestry building. That exemption does not apply in respect of an equestrian building, and a number of instances that have taken place around the village of Wolvey in my constituency have been drawn to my attention by Councillor Adrian Warwick of Warwickshire County Council and Councillor Chris Pacey-Day of Rugby Borough Council. In these examples, a number of equestrian buildings have been built, with double glazing and insulation, and have been used as stables for a period of time, but with the clear intention that at some future point an application for a residence might be made. Such applications have been made, with Rugby Borough Council, as the local authority, turning one down only for it to be granted by the Planning Inspectorate. The planning officers at the borough council have drawn my attention to this loophole, telling me that it could easily be dealt with by adding the word “equestrian” to the appropriate annexe to the NPPF. I ask the Minister whether he and his officials might look at that loophole and exemption, to circumvent the approach that is being made by a number of people. I am not suggesting that these applications are always made by people from the Gypsy and Traveller community, but they are being made in those areas where there are substantial incursions into the green belt by Gypsy and Traveller sites. I hope that the Minister will examine that issue.
I take the point made by many hon. Members that at the heart of this debate is a concept of fairness and a belief, often held rightly, that some members of the travelling community are able to take advantage of and subvert planning rules that govern the remainder of us. We therefore need a tightening of planning controls so that we do not get so many retrospective applications, we do not end up with a surfeit of multiple temporary consents and we do not have the abuse of the building of stables on land in the green belt.
Dr Paul Williams (Stockton South) (Lab)
As a Labour MP, it is rare that I find myself in agreement with the Prime Minister, but last year, in her first speech upon taking office, she talked of the need to tackle burning injustices, and when I was elected in June I made a pledge to my constituents that I would work to tackle inequalities and injustices in our society. Healthcare occupies a special place in our country, but universal care cannot simply adopt a universal approach. In our communities, it is often the case that those with the greatest health needs are those least likely to access NHS services. Gypsies, Roma and Travellers are more than twice as likely as others to suffer from a long-term health condition, their infant mortality rates are high and, most worryingly, the suicide rate among Irish Travellers is six times higher than that of the wider population.
The GRT communities have unique and significant healthcare needs, and our NHS services should be intelligent and flexible enough to meet their needs. However, research published last month by the Traveller Movement highlighted the difficulties many Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities face when accessing healthcare. In this place, Members often speak out against the unfairness of postcode lotteries, but rarely do we speak of the-injustices faced by those who have no postcode at all. NHS guidance states that being unable to provide proof of address should not be a barrier to accessing health services, yet far too many Travellers find themselves unable to register with a GP or access other local health services. Without access to GP services, families are unable to access even the most basic treatments of the NHS; we could be talking about a mother being unable to access adequate antenatal care, young parents struggling to obtain vaccinations for their children, someone in a mental health crisis or older generations being left without the medication they need to manage their long-term conditions. This denial of access to NHS services simply is not good enough, and the Government must work with NHS England to communicate more clearly to frontline healthcare providers that they cannot refuse to register GRT people for “no fixed abode”.
Decisions taken about healthcare are strongest and most effective when they are based on medical evidence and data. NHS England still does not include Gypsies, Roma and Travellers as a defined ethnic group in its data collection, but I welcome the Minister’s comments in this debate that that is being explored. Inclusion in NHS data collection could be the start of a transformation in healthcare for GRT communities. Not only would it enable national comparisons to be made, but it could improve local authorities’ understanding of these groups and enable much better representation of GRT needs in their joint strategic needs assessments. That is the first step in starting to address these stark health inequalities.
Recording data will be a welcome step forward, but recording alone will not be enough. Improving information sharing across the NHS and among other public services is key to improving access for Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, especially given their complex health needs and high levels of mobility. This is not about singling out Travellers, or even isolating them, by creating dedicated services—that is not what GRT communities want. All they ask is for the same access to the high-quality NHS services we have all come to expect and that everyone deserves.
The Government talk a good game on tackling burning injustices, but to say that their actions were lukewarm at best would still be generous. They may have their own community and cultural identity, but Gypsies, Roma and Travellers are as much a part of our wider community and society as anyone else, and that needs to be recognised. Instead of demonising, ostracising and alienating Travellers, the Government should be engaging with the communities to better integrate them into society and public services.
I want to live in a society in which differences in culture, belief and tradition are accepted. Our diversity gives us strength. I do not want to live in a society in which differences in health outcomes are tolerated. The health inequalities faced by GRT communities need to be measured, analysed and tackled head-on to remove the injustice of early deaths and needless illness and disability. Let us hope that this debate shows us in our best light: as champions of diversity and warriors against unfairness.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
Having represented Moray as a councillor and Member of the Scottish Parliament, and now as an MP, I have dealt with Gypsy Travellers and their integration with the settled community on many occasions. That is why, during the quick-fire interview with Core Politics TV mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), in between questions about my favourite karaoke song and what I would discuss with the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) were we stuck in a lift together, I mentioned that, if I was Prime Minister for the day, there should be tougher enforcement against Gypsy Travellers. I shall explain my choice of words later in my speech, but illegal and unauthorised Gypsy Traveller encampments in Moray were a problem when I made that comment in June, they were a problem when the interview was aired in August, and they remain a problem as we debate this issue tonight.
There are, of course, many other issues that would be priorities for any Prime Minister, and I have apologised for saying that enforcement against Gypsy Travellers would be my No. 1 priority, but I do not apologise for speaking up on behalf of the communities throughout Moray that have been affected by illegal and unauthorised encampments. I look forward to contributing to the Westminster Hall debate—secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—later this week to expand further on this discussion. It is clear to me that the formation of illegal and unauthorised encampments, and particularly how they are left by the travelling community, leads to much of the friction between the travelling community and the settled community.
Of course, the vast majority of Travellers go about their life in a respectful and friendly way. Sadly, as is the case with much of society, the actions of a minority create a bad impression of the entire community. That brings me back to the remarks I made in June. I called for tougher enforcement. The definition of enforcement is
“the process of making sure that people obey something such as a law or rule”.
I may not have been successful in getting my point across, but I was calling for action to be taken when illegal behaviour occurs or local rules are ignored—for exactly the same treatment as we would expect for people who are not Gypsy Travellers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions enforcement; he will be aware of the TV programme “Can’t Pay? We’ll Take It Away!”, which shows that it is not just a matter of moving people off from wherever they are, because there are also court costs. Does he feel that those costs should not fall on the people? There should be a more urgent process to try to get the people off before all that happens.
Douglas Ross
Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and will address that issue later in my speech.
Historically, Moray has had an unusually high number of unauthorised encampments. Some suggest that that is because we have no official Travellers site, yet in 2006, when there was a dedicated site, there were 132 unauthorised sites—one of the highest numbers recorded in the area. It is also important to consider why we no longer have an official halting site. The Chanonry site near Elgin was purpose-built for the travelling community, but ended up as a fortress of illegal activity. It was eventually raided by more than 100 officers from Grampian police in the biggest operation of its kind in Moray. Those arrested were sentenced to a combined 24 years’ imprisonment. I listened to what the Minister said about local authorities establishing sites, but it is not a simple task. Sites are clearly a problem for the local area: given the experiences at Chanonry in Elgin, the communities at Kingsmeadow near Forres and at Arradoul near Buckie, they were reluctant to have an official halting site in their area.
In response to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) I would say that actions have consequences. As a result of the actions of Travellers on the Highlands and Islands Enterprise land near Forres, that public body was forced to pay £10,000 to clear up the mess. A site near the old airfield at Dallachy was littered with human waste and needles when the Travellers moved on. In many other parts of Moray, local people and businesses have been intimidated and threatened by the occupants of these sites.
We have heard a lot about fairness; I wish to comment on fairness for the settled community, who often feel not only that there is one rule for the travelling community and another for them, but that their view is ignored. I am a new Member, and I know how highly regarded the House of Commons Library is, but I was disappointed that its briefing for this debate on Gypsies and Travellers and local communities did not mention local communities once. It mentioned settled communities four times: there were three references to tension between the settled and travelling communities, and only one line that mentioned the impact of Traveller sites on the settled community. The fact that there was just one line in a 53-page briefing document will reinforce the feeling of many people in the settled community that their views are ignored.
I have been labelled a bigot and a racist for expressing the concerns of many of my constituents about this issue. Among all the criticism, though, I have also received a huge number of emails and letters from people from across Moray and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom —people who wanted their concerns to be expressed and the issue to be debated. After all that, I hope that people will take some comfort from the strength of feeling shown by Members from all parties in this debate, and will no longer feel that their voice is ignored.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, I am particularly pleased to contribute to this debate and to endorse the comments of colleagues who have pointed to the fact that Gypsies and Travellers are members of our local communities whether they travel, live in houses, or live in settled sites in caravans. The communities have a long history of a rich contribution to our cultural traditions, and an equally long history of suffering intolerance and abuse.
I wish to start by remembering Rodney Bickerstaffe, lost to us last week, who was known to many of my colleagues as a leading union figure and a champion of pensioner rights. He was also president of the Labour Party Campaign for Travellers’ Rights. In 2004, he wrote:
“A litmus test of society’s commitment to fairness and equality is how it treats the most excluded. Current evidence suggests we are failing with regards to the Gypsy and Traveller community.”
It is extremely distressing that, today, we still know that Gypsies and Travellers continue to suffer what has been rightly described as the last respectable form of racism. I call that out when it is seen as coming from opinion leaders. Last year, in Amazon Prime’s “The Grand Tour” Jeremy Clarkson was found by Ofcom to have made comments that had the potential to be “insulting and offensive”, relying heavily on “offensive and stereotyped comparisons”, but the programme was broadcast none the less.
Recently, the Rooney family went on trial on charges relating to modern slavery. In response to defence claims that all Travellers had workers operating under similar conditions, the judge commented:
“Sadly, I very much fear that you may be correct about that.”
I do not believe that the judge had any evidence for making such assertions. It is really important that people in public office do not make those kinds of claims in an unsupported way.
I wish to follow the example of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) who talked about disadvantage and inequalities in health outcomes by making some comments about educational outcomes. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) about the very poor educational outcomes suffered by young Gypsies and Travellers in the education system. We know, as he said, that they are much less likely to meet the GCSE threshold. Indeed, their performance is understated further by the fact that many do not even complete schooling beyond the age of 14. We know that they are more likely to be in special schools, more likely to be excluded, more likely to drop out of secondary education and 10 times less likely to go to university. The reasons for that include racist bullying in schools. Today, the Daily Mail reports the case of Ben Bennett, who was forced to change schools 11 times as a result of bullying and abuse.
There is a low level of aspiration for the community among teachers and the teaching professions—my hon. Friend rightly drew attention to that—and a lack of funding for Traveller education services, which helps schools to introduce policies to support the education of Gypsy and Traveller children. That scheme has now gone, and, as a result, schools feel unwelcoming to Gypsies and Travellers who are now more likely to be educated at home. There are problems with that as Ofsted is not required to check whether education is actually happening in the home setting, and will only visit if the parents request it.
I am not saying that we should remove that access to home education, because if we do that and do not address the structural discrimination in education it is more likely that these children will drop out of education altogether. What we need are positive policies to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller children thrive and do well in schools. There are very good examples of how that can be done effectively. For example, zero-tolerance bullying policies can be implemented. I urge the Government to work with the children’s commissioner and non-governmental organisations in looking at how such policies might be developed and introduced. The employment of members of staff from the community has been found to be very effective in schools that have a high concentration of Gypsy and Traveller children. It is important that the Government get their promised education advisory group up and running and that it includes members of the Gypsy and Traveller community.
Finally, it is also important to remove and reduce discrimination and discriminatory perceptions in wider society. We must do more to embed Gypsy and Traveller culture across all education settings. I endorse the calls this evening for the introduction into the curriculum of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller history month. If we can get things right in early settings in our schools, I am confident that Gypsy and Traveller children will do better and that our society will enjoy a greater sense of community cohesion with this long-standing part of our local community.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I recognise her genuine aspirations and intentions, but this is a very serious matter in Essex. That is why our newly-elected colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Clacton (Giles Watling), for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) and for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), have all been present in this debate.
It should not surprise the House to know that people flood to Essex; it is God’s country. It should surprise them even less that people flood to Southend-on-Sea, which is the finest seaside resort in the country and this year’s alternative city of culture. Our town welcomes people from throughout the United Kingdom and all over the world, but we do not welcome people who are aggressive and violent, and who have no regard for other people and how they live their lives. Now, I am not going to get involved in an argument about the definitions of what a Traveller is or what a Gypsy is. I am talking about people arriving out of the blue in the small urban area I represent and occupying a park or a playing field—there are no farms. It is a difficult situation. The general public are very angry about this issue and we—the politicians—are being blamed for our lack of action. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) gave us a solution.
I have consulted with our council’s chief executive, who tells me that evidence packs for court applications are required each and every time there is an encampment. Officers spend significant amounts of time gathering and compiling evidence, making court applications, and serving and following up possession orders. This time results in lost productivity and inability to deliver normal services to residents. Calculating the exact cost is difficult. A typical incursion, however, involves departmental officers, legal teams, enforcement agents, the council and the police. My goodness, Southend-on-Sea Borough Council has been magnificent and our local police have been wonderful in dealing with the situation. Incursions also involve court administrative and hearing time, waste management officers and contractors, locksmiths and general contractors, and the media.
The worst example in my constituency happened between 7 July and 11 July. My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) was here earlier. Now, when I used to represent Basildon, these people were frightened of me and they soon disappeared. I do not seem to have the same effect in Southend, where I turned up at Oakwood Park and, within a few minutes, swiftly did an about-turn. There were small children being absolutely abusive and I saw violence being used. The costs associated with that situation were £13,000 and the cleansing contractor alone cost £2,500—that was for 14 caravans. It was disgraceful destruction that spoilt the pleasure of the local residents who use the park. The encampments often damage land and generate a significant amount of rubbish. Portable toilets are often emptied into the bushes, creating a public health risk. There were six events in Southend this year. There I was in Priory Park—an iconic park—when suddenly we realised that eight caravans had turned up.
The amenity value of parks and open spaces for residents and visitors is removed when an incursion is in place and often until the remediation has been completed. I am told that the cost of parks officers’ time to deal with Traveller issues this summer alone was in excess of £4,500. Many Traveller groups have a high understanding of the current legal processes and are able to use that knowledge to ensure that they can stay for as long as possible before moving on to another area. The council invests in preventive measures, blocking off car parks to high-sided vehicles with height barriers, having concrete road blocks and additional security personnel at car parks. That can be effective but it can also prevent legitimate users of the area.
I say to the Minister that there is no point in having a debate unless there is action. Obviously, colleagues and I welcome the fact that we are being invited to have input in the process, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford has the answer and I hope the Government will adopt his solution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We still have a great number of speakers, as Members will see, so after the next speaker the time limit will be reduced to four minutes.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
My hon. Friends the Members for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) were right to remind us—as indeed did my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) from the Front Bench and others—about the importance of people’s right to live in the way they choose and about the alternative lifestyles that people have. That is a source of strength for our democracy, and those people are members of our local community, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston was also right to point out the inequality that exists in educational achievement, health and many other factors. I have reiterated those points in my own community, as I am sure other hon. Members have in theirs, in the face of comments on Facebook and elsewhere as a result of some of the illegal sites we have had. That is really important because, if it becomes a choice between supporting the right of people to live in the way they choose and, by objecting to criminal behaviour, not supporting that right, we will not get very far.
So let me start by saying that I support the right of people to live in the way they choose, and that is a source of strength for our democracy. But it cannot be right, in defending that right, for constituents, as other Members have pointed out, to have to put up with a small number of people in a community creating real and difficult problems. It makes it more difficult to defend an alternative lifestyle, which I would wish to defend, if we do not speak up and speak out against some of those who are conducting criminal activity. Indeed, many in the Traveller community wish for those others not to cause them problems.
For example, it cannot be right that I defend an alternative lifestyle that rips up playing fields without any thought for the children who play on them. It cannot be right that I defend an alternative lifestyle in the face of a leisure centre having to be closed to people using it because some will not conform to the rules that everybody else conforms to. So I will defend the right of people to live in the way they choose, but I will not do that—whoever they are and whatever their alternative lifestyle is—if they do not conform to the rules, regulations and laws of the country, as everybody else has to.
I have said time and again that the frustration comes when people in my community and, I am sure, in communities up and down the country see law breaking and see people doing things for which they themselves would be punished, arrested or dealt with by the authorities. In summing up, the Minister must be really clear in defending the right of people to live their lives as they choose, but he must also be clear, as we have all said, about the importance of respecting the rule of law.
Earlier, the Minister of State said he was going to consult on existing laws, and there is clearly a problem with them—if there were not, everybody would not be complaining about them. However, the police are complaining, local people are complaining and local authorities are complaining, so are we talking about new powers as well? That is my simple question for the Minister.
I conclude with this: it is a source of great strength for our country that we have different people living according to different lifestyles, which I would not personally choose, and I hope they can carry on living in that way for many years to come, but they also need to obey the law.
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
Much of the debate has understandably focused on illegal encampments, and I certainly have those in my area, too, despite Bradford Council having not too long ago spent £820,000 refurbishing Gypsy encampments, including in my constituency. Even though only eight pitches are being used at Esholt, also in my constituency, that does not stop illegal encampments in other parts of the constituency, when there are perfectly good pitches to be used on such sites. It is not surprising that local people are fed up about it.
There are examples after examples. In March, it was reported that one caravan invaded an 84-year-old lady’s land. She was told that it and the other caravans trying to gain entry would leave if she paid £1,200. More recently, in August, there were reports of a man in Slough who ended up having to pay £5,000 to some Travellers after he tried to go through the legal channels and was left with so much waste at the end that the estimated clear-up was going to cost £20,000. The Government have to get a grip of this issue and I hope that the debate will spur them to do so.
In the brief time available, I want to touch on a couple of issues that have not been mentioned to do with other areas where Gypsies and Travellers cause a huge number of problems. One is the treatment of animals. The mistreatment of animals at the Gypsy site in Esholt is absolutely disgusting. In March last year I called for a debate on the subject of Travellers and animal welfare. Despite numerous complaints from me, local residents and other campaigners about the appalling treatment of animals, particularly horses, at Esholt Gypsy encampment in my constituency, for many months Bradford Council and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did absolutely nothing.
That comes back to the same point: people feel that different rules apply to different people. If anybody else were treating animals in that way, they would be prosecuted, but because they were Gypsies and Travellers, people were pussyfooting around them and people, understandably, get fed up. I am delighted that the RSPCA eventually took some action and people were convicted—rightly so and not before time, but also not before those animals suffered far more than they should have done.
The other thing I want to point out is the very high level of criminal activity among Gypsies and Travellers. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) alluded to this when he pointed out that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons suggested that some 5% of prisoners identified themselves as Gypsy, Romany or Traveller. It does not take a mathematical genius to work out that, if something like 0.1% of the population in England or Wales is Traveller or Gypsy, and if 5% of the prison population identify themselves as Gypsies or Travellers, we have a massive problem in terms of crime.
Some people—no doubt the sort of politically correct people who have taken over the Labour party—might well suggest that that is all down to the fact that all judges and magistrates are racist against Gypsies and unfairly punish them in the courts, but the fact of the matter is, as we all know in our heart of hearts, whether it is politically correct or not to say so, that there is a much higher level of criminal activity among Gypsies and Travellers than among the rest of the community, and that is reflected in the fact that so many more of them are in prison than is the case among the population at large. Given that we know how hard it is to be sent to prison in the first place, I begin to wonder what crimes they must be committing. This does not apply just to adults who are Gypsies and Travellers; it also applies to juveniles and young offenders. We must not pussyfoot around these issues—we must address them head on. The public expect nothing less.
Laura Pidcock (North West Durham) (Lab)
I know that I am new to this place, but I found the tone of the debate quite odd. When I saw that we were having a general debate on Gypsies and Travellers, I thought I must be missing some substantive motion that would be more specific and would narrow it down somewhat. That would have allowed us to debate a specific point, rather than having a general debate about entire communities—and I say communities on purpose because Gypsy and Traveller people are not a unified group. There is no one community that we can talk about.
The Minister’s speech positioned Gypsies, Travellers and local communities, but they are one and the same. Gypsies and Travellers are part of local communities and are our constituents if they reside in our constituencies. There should not be an othering of those communities. I know that this may be a controversial point, but imagine if there were a general debate on black people and local communities. We can hear how nonsensical that would sound to an outside observer.
Having worked alongside Gypsy and Traveller communities for many years, I know that tired and powerful stereotypes about them still exist, such as that they will put a curse on us, that they do not pay their taxes—a slur that I am very disappointed to say I heard shouted from the Government Benches during the debate— that they are more violent or that they are dirty, unruly or strange for wanting to be nomadic. We need to challenge the persistent argument that there are legitimate and non-legitimate Travellers, and I will come back to that point in a second.
Philip Davies
On the question of paying taxes, I refer the hon. Lady to what John Grant, the chief inspector at the RSPCA and a Gypsy himself, said about Gypsies and Travellers in a speech—she can watch the video of it on the RSPCA blog—to the world horse welfare conference in 2012:
“I would say 95% don’t pay any taxes. A lot of their money is held in new motors, new caravans and good quality horses.”
That is what a Gypsy and Traveller himself said. Does the hon. Lady know better than he does?
Laura Pidcock
There are many types of taxes that communities may pay. We know of very many rich people who avoid paying their taxes, but that has not been made the subject of a long debate.
There is little understanding among policy makers and legislators about nomadism historically or in contemporary life. There is often a judgmental snobbery about Gypsy and Traveller communities and traditions, which means that legislation starts from the presumption that a settled life in bricks and mortar is culturally superior. Very little attempt is made to distinguish between travelling communities, and that normalises the homogenisation and, I suppose, exoticisation of those communities.
Because of the inadequate number of sites in the UK, Gypsy and Traveller families are forced on to the road. They face journeys of hostility, with constant evictions, boulders on many green spaces and trenches dug by communities to keep trailers off. Provision is inadequate, but I have heard from very few Members any critical analysis of the consequences. Inadequate provision on the road means that Gypsy and Traveller families have little access to water and no bin provision, and they often face annoyed and angry communities. I can understand why communities are angry and annoyed if a horrendous mess is left behind, but it is not possible for those families to travel constantly. At some point, they have to stop. There must be much more provision for Travellers and Gypsies to reduce tension and secure their human rights.
My substantive point is that the planning policy for Traveller sites, which was released in 2015, is very much part of the problem. The guidance redefines who Gypsies and Travellers are for the purpose of planning. In essence, if a Gypsy or Traveller stops travelling permanently, even because of education or ill health, they cease to be a Gypsy or Traveller. In my eyes, that is cultural sanitation and real arrogance on the part of the Government.
As I have mentioned, being a Gypsy or Traveller is much more than moving from one place to another. It is part of a person’s history and ancestry—part of the fabric of their existence—and the Government’s belief that they can supersede the community’s self-definition with their own definition is absurd. If a Scottish person no longer lived in Scotland, would that mean that they were no longer Scottish? No, because nationality and cultural identity are about much more than where somebody resides. A member of the travelling community, Phien O’Reachtigan, who is part of the National Gypsy and Traveller Council, has said that the definition has forced the community on to the road, and as a result there is more conflict between Travellers and local communities.
I finish by saying that we are all very mindful of the horrendous discrimination and racism that Gypsy and Traveller communities have experienced, and we need to create a system that helps us to eradicate such racism rather than exacerbating it. I do not have hope, listening to this debate tonight. We need to make sure that we are not part of the eradication of Gypsy and Traveller culture. This place needs to take quick action to reduce conflict. If we do not, I can only imagine that conflict in communities will increase.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
All of us could sign up to four outcomes that relate to tonight’s debate. First, we should all believe in freedom and equality under the law. Secondly, we want the best possible community relations, but good community relations are undermined because we sadly do not always have equality under the law. Thirdly, we want good outcomes for all disadvantaged groups, but education and health outcomes for Travellers are shockingly bad, as we have heard tonight. Fourthly, we want fairness for those in the settled community who are persistently affected by adverse Traveller behaviour. We should all be able to sign up to those four principles, so I hope that we can coalesce, take some of the heat out of the debate and get some positive solutions.
I commend the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who made the key point that local authority Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessments are impossibly unfair on some areas that already have large numbers of people and over-occupied sites, because such areas will never be able to fulfil the requirements currently placed on them by the Planning Inspectorate. I was disappointed that the Minister who opened the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), did not mention the concerns about some privately run Traveller sites where, frankly, the rule of law does not currently apply and where horrendous things are happening. I am aware of sites where we have seen modern slavery, the abuse of tenants who are sub-letting and all types of criminality. I ask the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), to pick up on that point about privately run sites when he responds. Local authorities cannot enforce the law on such sites, requiring a warrant to enter some of them. Planning legislation is utterly unfit for the task.
We know that rubbish has been left all over the Olympic park, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) mentioned the incident at Langley near Slough. We also know what happened in Cromer recently, where the chief constable of Norfolk admitted that real anger and alarm had been experienced by many in that community following a rampage of Travellers that should not have been allowed.
As for action, I have several suggestions. We need an up-to-date Land Registry. We need the Gypsy and Traveller accommodation assessment to require people to answer questions in interviews. If they can avoid answering the council officer’s questions about whether they are Travellers, the system simply does not work. We need immediate court access for local authorities. The planning policy guidance on Traveller sites from the Department should include a requirement for licensing, which would give local authorities proper power. I want the ability to impound vehicles involved in fly-tipping or other criminal activity, regardless of ownership. I also want checks on the wealth of Travellers, some of whom are enormously wealthy. Why should the taxpayer have to provide pitches for them?
A constituent—a member of the settled community—came to speak to me after a dinner last week and said that he has experienced endless break-ins and arson attacks and that sewage and rubbish have been dumped all over his land. He looked at me and said, “Does anyone in the Government care about this issue?” I want to be able to go back to him and say, “The Government get it. The Government do care. We are here for everyone to be treated equally.”
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
Like so many others, my constituency has been plagued by the problem of illegal encampments for the past two years. It is the same in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), who cannot be here tonight because he has suffered a bereavement. I want to make it clear that I am referring to the behaviour of a problematic minority; I have no wish for my remarks to be construed as a general criticism of Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people.
Enforcement and clean-ups have cost Birmingham City Council an estimated £700,000 in the past year, and there are some 395 unauthorised encampments across the seven west midlands authorities, which provides some idea of the scale of things in the area. I thank the police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson, the officers and councillors of Birmingham City Council, Adrian Jones of the National Federation of Gypsy Liaison Groups, and Abiline McShane, who is a constituent of mine. All of them have helped my understanding of the issue.
I concur with other Members’ comments about the problems that illegal encampments cause so many of our constituents. There is no single solution, but there are some things that would help. More transit sites would give people more places to go to and make it easier for the police to use powers to move people from unauthorised sites.
Police powers would be strengthened if they could direct groups across combined authorities. I urge the Government to consider a change to section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to allow police officers to direct unauthorised encampments to a site in a neighbouring authority where the authorities are working together as a combined authority or under some other sharing arrangement. That would make a significant difference to some of the problems we have at the moment.
We could do with a further change to protect private property so that, if a landowner recovers a site from unauthorised occupation, there is some sanction to prevent repeat returns, which is what happens at the moment. I know it is not popular to ask for money, but I think the Government should consider a fund from which local authorities might draw or borrow money to help with setting up transit sites, because they are key to a long-term solution.
There are obvious problems, but I want to praise West Midlands police, Birmingham City Council and particularly Councillor Karen McCarthy for pioneering the use of injunctions against persons unknown. That marks a substantial change in the law, and will make it easier to get injunctions in the future.
I want to conclude by saying that injunctions are not the answer—we simply end up with a displacement problem —but rather a short-term solution or sticking plaster. We need to find longer-term measures, some of which, to be fair, the Minister hinted at today. It seems to me that quite a lot of effort is being made by Members on both sides of the House for people to be reasonable. We have to find solutions that are practical and address the problems our constituents are experiencing, but that do not seek to scapegoat people unnecessarily. That will not solve our problems but create a different set of problems, and leave us with the same issues time and again.
Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
My constituents in Poole are reasonable and tolerant people—they believe in live and let live—but every summer, about the time of the Dorset steam fair, several groups descend on the town. We are not blessed with fields and farms, but we have parks and public open spaces, and quite often these groups illegally occupy them by causing criminal damage. The police do not take action because they do not have confidence in the law at the moment and tend to avoid getting embroiled in such situations. It then falls to the local authority, Poole Borough Council, which has a choice: either it takes legal action, which is long and imprecise and, if the group it is taking action against moves a few hundred yards or to another site, a total waste of time and money; or it negotiates with the groups, providing toilets, bags, some help and support, and sometimes water, in the hope that they will leave after 10 days or two weeks.
Whatever the council does, my constituents get upset, because they have to pay the bill for the clean-up at the end of the occupation. In the meantime, they are quite often denied the use of a park, play area, facility or playground for their children and grandchildren. They get very angry about that, and they get even more angry when they phone the police and get excuses. They phone the local council, which spends most of its time explaining what it cannot do, rather than what it can do, and they then phone all the local councillors, who helpfully tell them to contact the Member of Parliament.
Eventually, my constituents get around to me, and I say that when I have had meetings with Ministers, I have made the point that sections 61 and 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 do not actually work. We need to do something about that. In the past, Ministers have announced that they would have a consultation. The last time I talked to a Minister—my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis)—was six or seven years ago, and there was a consultation at that point. Although I welcome such a consultation, what is necessary for public confidence is action.
Relations between Travellers and the public would be much better if there was a precise way of dealing with the problem. Then we could get to the root of the problem which, as many hon. Members have said, is about education and health in the Traveller community. What we need is to give confidence to the police and the local authority so that they can take action efficiently and effectively, without too much cost, so that they are happy, my constituents are happy and we can start to deal with the nub of the problem, which is the under-achievement and so on in the Traveller community.
What we have at the moment is a total and utter mess. Confidence in law and order drops, confidence in the council drops, confidence in councillors drops and confidence in the Member of Parliament drops. The reality is that people feel very dissatisfied. In a world where it is sometimes difficult to persuade people to turn out to vote, if someone is behaving antisocially at the bottom of their garden and we cannot do anything about it, they ask, “What’s the point?”
I hope that the Minister hears the message from today. First, we need a consultation which will receive plenty of advice—we have heard some good advice from colleagues today. Secondly, we need a timescale, because we do not want the issue to disappear into the Department for Communities and Local Government and never come out. Thirdly, as we have the joys of a two-year Session—we will not have a Queen’s Speech because of Brexit—we will have time to get legislation through. There is bound to be a criminal justice Bill, so let us use the opportunity and legislate.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I start by saying how much I appreciated the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), for Stockton South (Dr Williams), for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), the last of whom so ably chairs the all-party parliamentary group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma. They have given at least some balance to the debate.
I was dismayed, as I am sure other colleagues were, by the title of the debate. “Gypsies and Travellers and local communities” immediately suggests division. Gypsies and Travellers are part of local communities, and there is an inherent contradiction in the title of the debate. I am sorry that some of the comments we have heard today have echoed the calumnies and untruths that appear in the media, especially papers such as the Daily Mail, The Sun and the Channel 4 Gypsy wedding series. I have heard it repeated that Gypsies are rich, and that there is one law for Gypsies and Travellers and another for the settled community.
Last month, the Traveller Movement published its excellent report, “The last acceptable form of racism?”, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale quoted. I fear that that is what it is. Let us recall the statistics, rather than unfounded rumours. Three quarters of Gypsies and Travellers live in bricks and mortar, so only a quarter are in caravans, let alone travelling at any one time. When one breaks that down into how many are in unauthorised encampments, it comes to 4% of that 25%. So we are talking about 1% of the total at most. Just as the vast majority of Gypsies and Travellers are not causing any nuisance or problems for their neighbours, so those people who do cause such nuisance are not necessarily Gypsies or Travellers. I regret the elision of ethnic groups with antisocial behaviour, the flouting of planning laws and so on.
I saw a survey today that said that
“37% of parents would be unhappy (just four out of ten would be happy) with their child going to the home of a Gypsy/Traveller for a play date. Again, this compares with just 5% for Black Caribbean and 2% for White British.”
In one way we should celebrate that no division was found—as would probably have been the case 30 years ago—between how the black community is regarded compared to the white community, but what an indictment it is that people can show that degree of prejudice. The people answering that survey are not inherently racist, but they have picked up so much from the media. It is not from their own experience, because most people do not know Gypsies and Travellers in their own communities. I hope that the House gives no succour to such views.
There is a history to this, which includes the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and what the last Labour Government did in requiring local authorities—and giving them the funds—to provide legitimate sites. I am afraid that the Conservatives in office have taken that money away and removed the requirements on local authorities. Conservative Members then throw up their hands and say, “Look at this increase in unauthorised sites.” If there are transit sites with facilities and if there is negotiated stopping, we do not get conflict. We do end up with local authorities saving money, and Gypsies and Travellers living in harmony with the settled community.
Mr Francois
If I may contradict the hon. Gentleman, Basildon Borough Council has a considerable number of sites for Travellers, yet it still suffers from the sorts of problems I outlined in my speech. He is incorrect to say that if there are sites, we do not get problems.
Andy Slaughter
I thought the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, with all due respect, was one of the worst I heard today. I am afraid his intervention just confirms my view. He should remove the blinkers and prejudice from his own eyes before making contributions of that kind.
Let me end by speaking to those in the Gypsy and Traveller community, because they do watch these debates. I praise organisations such as Traveller Law Reform Project, The Traveller Movement, Friends, Families and Travellers, and the London Gypsy and Traveller Unit, who admirably represent those communities. There are, notwithstanding some of the speeches they will have heard today, many parliamentarians, past and present, who have done their best to represent Gypsy and Traveller communities. I particularly pay tribute to the late Lord Avebury, who introduced the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and was an advocate throughout his parliamentary lifetime; Tim Boswell, who is now in the other place; Richard Bennett from the Local Government Association; Julie Morgan, who used to run the all-party group; and Rodney Bickerstaffe. I will end by quoting from his obituary in The Guardian this week, which said:
“At one time his mother’s family were so poor they lived in a Gypsy caravan in a field. Unsurprisingly, given his unstinting championing of the underdog, Bickerstaffe was one of the few public figures to loudly champion the cause of Travellers over the years.”
I wish that more Members of this House would emulate Rodney’s example.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for bringing the debate gently back to Essex once more.
I rise to stand up for my community in Tendring and Clacton, which has the beautiful aesthetics of a rural district. However, so much open space makes it vulnerable to illegal encampments. We are a coastal resort and, like many others around the country, we have regular incursions, especially during the summer and over bank holiday weekends. In short, we pretty much know when and where to expect incursions, and we should be able to react swiftly and positively. It needs to be stated that we have a moral obligation to all our citizens to make sure local policy works for everyone. That, quite rightly, includes the provision of good quality legal Traveller sites. However, that cannot overshadow the damage inflicted on land, policing and local authority budgets, and on community relations, from excessive and illegal encampments. We have legal Traveller sites, but that is not where Travellers necessarily want to go.
In May this year, three caravans and a van arrived at Vista Road recreation ground in Clacton, in the corner of the field next to the boundary with Clacton County High School. At Easter, 16 caravans stayed on land at the front of the Columbine Centre, next to Walton-on-the-Naze Lifestyles, making it their home for almost a week. We had to clean up for both and it was very expensive. Travellers also pitched up on a school playing field, just as children left to begin their summer holidays, with seven caravans and vehicles arriving on land that backs on to Whitehall Academy and Clacton Coastal Academy.
This causes great disruption to the community and it must be managed in the right way. For my Clacton constituency in Essex, there are broadly two routes for redress against illegal encampments. First, the Essex countywide Traveller unit—ECTU—is informed. Its team makes a visit and then serves a direction to leave. That gives the group 24 hours to move off. If they do not do so, the whole process of court action begins. Alternatively, the police have the section 61 powers, which can be used straight away if criminal damage or public safety is an issue, or if more than six vehicles form the encampment. I commend the Home Office for working closely with the police to ensure the powers they have are fit for purpose. However, the decision on when and whether to use police powers is an independent operational decision for the police. Put simply, it is a judgment call for the police.
In our community, police action is preferred as it is swift and shows the full force of the law to those who seek to break it. I am mindful, however, of the issue of police capacity in enforcing such laws. I personally would be relaxed about paying a few more pounds a year on my precept if the 2% cap were removed, as it would allow us to increase police funding and give us greater capacity to use the current laws. While the police precept cap seems to be a separate issue, I must say that my constituents wish to see the law robustly enforced.
Julian Knight
The problem is, though, that there is no guarantee that the money would be spent on that. It could just fall into the general police budget.
Giles Watling
It could indeed, but we have to find the money from somewhere, and it is lacking in Tendring district. I had a long talk with my local commander just two weeks ago and I know roughly where we are going.
My local residents would not get away with illegal developments, and neither must anyone else—it is one law, and we must all be equal under it. Section 61 powers should be used wherever necessary, and the appropriate resources must be part of that—not a popular thing to say, I know. Essex has a very low precept, and thus a 2% increase would raise far less per head than a 2% increase for a force with a higher precept. I do not think my constituents would begrudge an extra £10 a year or so if it meant an increased policing capacity to act swiftly and decisively on issues such as these illegal sites, and of course on many other criminal activities.
We need a two-pronged conversation about the fitness of the law and the ability to deliver it. All people in Clacton want is fairness under the law. Seeing an illegal encampment tackled is a hallmark of this concept. While I am open to conversations about changing or tightening the law, as mentioned earlier, the starting point must be giving the current law the opportunity to function at its peak potential and thus scrapping the precept cap and increasing policing capacity to tackle the illegal encampment. Then we can perhaps move on to the Irish option.
Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to this debate because, since my election, my constituents have called upon me to raise this matter in the House.
I want to focus on the fairness of the illegal incursions. We expect everybody to abide by the law and accept that there are rules we have to abide by. Over the last couple of years, Medway has seen a large increase in the number of illegal incursions. Medway was formerly part of the county of Kent, which has a long history of Travellers, Roma and Gypsies. As a county, we have been extremely tolerant and accepting of their way of life, but over the last couple of years we have seen our town centre car parks used as encampments and criminal damage done.
In one case, Travellers arrived at a green flag park in the centre of Rochester—it has a friends group and is a jewel in the crown of Rochester—on a Friday evening. Sadly, we could not get a representative from the council to turn up that evening, and it took some time to get the police to turn up to try and protect the site. I was actually contacted by constituents. I and my fellow ward councillor, Stuart Tranter, who happened to be mayor at the time, had to go out at 12 o’clock at night to speak to the Travellers because unfortunately we could not get a representative from the council to attend. The excuse given by the duty officer at the council was that he was too fearful to attend on his own. I pointed out that I was the MP and down there on my own and that I would speak to people within my constituency.
Another major issue is the effect on businesses. We have seen incursions not just on council land but on private land and industrial estates. Some businesses in Strood have contacted me and said that it has affected their business and their ability just to get into work and operate.
As I have said, in the past there has been what I regard as a reluctance on the part of the police to use the powers that they have. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) that it comes down very much to the individual judgment call of the police at the time. In the case of one incursion in my constituency, a van was driven across a green park space, pushing against a resident. The police decided to tell the resident that he should behave because he might be arrested, while allowing the Gypsies to stay where they were. That caused discomfort in the community, and many residents were up in arms very late at night.
Luckily, because of my action, there is now an agreement between Medway council and the local police and a procedure, and I hope that that will help next year. However, I welcome the consultation, because it is clear that the present arrangement is not working in built-up areas such as mine. We need to act if we are to retain the confidence of the community.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Everyone in the House will agree that members of our communities have a right to choose alternative ways of life, but none of them has the right to opt out of British law. When that breaks down, not only community cohesion but respect for the rule of law and those who represent the people affected break down as well.
Over the past three summers, there have been a number of Traveller camps in Dudley. Some of those camps, although unauthorised, have caused very little damage or disruption. Indeed, at least one group of travellers from Scandinavia tidied up after themselves, mowed the grass, and probably left the pitch in a better condition than they had found it in. Sadly, however, too many others have caused significant criminal damage and disruption to local communities. There have been illegal incursions in areas including Netherton, Woodside, Wordsley and Kingswinford. There has been defecation and urination on playing pitches and children’s playing areas. While the impact of that is, of course, felt most keenly by residents in the immediate area, the cost of dealing with it—in terms of enforcement and clearing up—is felt by the whole borough and has amounted to more than £150,000.
The reflex reaction is that the police need more powers, but there is rarely any suggestion of what those powers would look like, how they would be used and, indeed, whether they would be used. I certainly support giving the police new powers to deal with illegal Traveller camps, but I think that many of the reasons that are given for the fact that the police often seem to consider it inappropriate or unlawful to use section 61 powers because of the lack of welfare assessments and the needs of the children are likely to be applied to any such new powers. We need far clearer guidance, because there is enormous variation across the country, and often within police forces, in the way in which the section 61 powers are used. I look to the Minister, working with colleagues in the Home Office, to produce that clearer guidance on which councils and police forces can rely, so that they know when it is appropriate to use the powers that the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 appears to grant to police forces.
We need reform of how section 62A is structured, with regard to the area to which Travellers can be moved for a transit camp, and in how capacity is assessed, so that combined authorities can pool their capacity and the police can move unauthorised camps into transit camps, such as those being developed in Dudley.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
I warmly welcome the proposed review of the law in this area because, as the Minister will know, I have asked questions about this before. I want to reference the Library, which is usually a great source of information, and to thank it for its briefing paper for this debate, which states:
“Unauthorised sites are frequently a source of tension between the travelling and settled communities… a shortage of permanent and transit Gypsy and Traveller sites continues to be a pressing issue, which results in unauthorised encampments”.
However, I must say that this is wrong in principle. All parties here agree that we need to build more homes, but if I was to build a home unlawfully and say that that was the reason, I would be laughed out of court.
We do have discrimination in this country, not against Travellers and Gypsies, given the number of advocates they clearly have on the Opposition Benches, but against the hard-working, honest residents of communities up and down the land, the silent majority and too often the forgotten people. There is not a level playing field and something must be done.
Whether it is section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, which takes too long to effect—a constituent wrote to me about their frustration at the length of time that these matters seem to take—or section 61 of the same Act, which gives the police powers that they cannot use, perhaps because the disruption is below the threshold of public disorder, which perhaps will be dealt with in the review, or section 62A, which I referenced in an earlier intervention, which gives the police the powers that I think they need to direct trespassers on any land, but which is restricted because there must be a Traveller pitch in the same local authority area, this is unfair. If I build a home without permission because I want to live somewhere, the local authority does not have to give me another plot. It is a totally unlevel playing field and something must be done.
In the short time available, I want to say something about local councillors and councils. I commend County Councillor Rhydian Vaughan, who has been working on a Traveller case in Bramley, where it is alleged that the children of Travellers have been firing ball bearings at windows in the vicinity. I pay tribute to Borough Councillor Venetia Rowland, who has been working on a case involving the illegal felling of 500 trees in Sherfield, bordering the residents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) over in Sherfield Park. That is totally wrong. They know how to play the system and they have played it, and it is unacceptable. Some parish councils are also worthy of mention, such as Silchester Parish Council, which has been tackling the retrospective planning application for an unauthorised Traveller encampment.
Even though the principle is wrong, my constituents recognise that, within the law today, it is necessary to provide those other sites. One wrote to me, stating:
“I believe that locally there is already provision for travellers…albeit in Berkshire, so the broad area cannot be characterised as failing to provide facilities for travellers”.
But the legislation does not take that into account, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) mentioned earlier.
I share the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). I hope that today’s debate will be the start of a real shift in Government policy—a policy that has not shifted since 1994—and that it will lead to the Government reconsidering criminal legislation in this area and recasting existing legislation to make it work. More must be done. Constituents demand it—and, boy, do they deserve it.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I do not know whether you have ever visited Solihull, Mr Speaker, but it is blessed with many parks and other green and open spaces. I, like the rest of my town, was really looking forward to spending the summer enjoying those open spaces, but unfortunately we have attracted an unprecedented spate of Traveller incursions, which has tested Solihull Council’s defences and my constituents’ patience to the limit.
Unauthorised camps deny residents access to shared community spaces, but that is the least of the trouble: they are also very often accompanied by a spate of antisocial and even criminal behaviour. Not only have local businesses reported vandalism, but in the most recent incursions an elderly lady and autistic child were attacked in Shirley Park.
I have even had reports of rubbish being taken from Birmingham, where there has been a prolonged bin strike, and dumped on public land in Solihull by groups of Travellers in exchange for cash payments. The distress caused can be measured by the huge volume of emails I have received over the summer and the almost 4,000 signatures on my petition calling for the council to invest in new, more effective protections for public spaces, as well as the targeted injunctions mentioned earlier by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar). The rich irony is that I know for a fact that those injunctions in Sandwell have worked—the groups have moved down to Solihull. That pattern is repeated across the country, judging by what hon. Members have said today.
I have also spent months in close contact with council officers and the police communicating the concerns of residents and local landlords. Too often, I have found that a particular group were simply being chased from park to park, with a council needing to seek a new eviction notice in the courts every time the Travellers pitched up at a new location. Other bands would circumvent court orders by temporarily merging with others and parting again in new combinations to which the order no longer applied. The police potentially have some powers under section 61, but the bar for implementation can be very high indeed. I have argued strongly that that bar needs to be lowered and that the repetitive nature of these incursions should be taken into account.
A lot of money has also been spent on the proofing against Traveller incursions of public spaces and parks. Okay, that can work in some instances, but it can also ruin the aspect of these green spaces. Why should my constituents have to tolerate trenches being dug, trees being uprooted and bollards being put in place? Why should council officers not be at work because they are guarding other green spaces, while Travellers are being moved on from other locations?
Many suggestions have been made today, and I am sure that stories such as mine have been repeated throughout the debate. I appeal to Ministers. They said that the review will consider the law; I presume that that will mean new laws. I hope that they will take soundings from my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr Syms). Enough is enough: we cannot keep playing this game every summer with our constituents—the public land, the cost, the damage. The Government must toughen up the laws. Let us give them the sinews to act.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
Odd stuff has been going on in the Chamber this evening, Mr Speaker; I have been keeping an eye on it while you have been gone. Before you left, however, you may have seen the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) congratulating the Housing Minister on how he opened the debate. Since you have been gone, the hon. Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams) has congratulated the Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wells (James Heappey) has agreed with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), and I have agreed with the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).
The people watching on the TV and seeing this unusual level of agreement will clearly be scratching their heads in the months and years to come if we do not sort out this significant problem as we have discussed this evening. We have heard about hundreds of unauthorised encampments costing millions of pounds. Until 26 September this year, we had 54 unauthorised encampments in Walsall: 40 on public land and 14 on private land, costing a total of £190,000—that is just the cost to the council and does not include the cost of police and other support services. This summer has felt like a bizarre game of cat and mouse, as the council has chased pretty much the same group of Travellers all around the authority.
For me, a huge part of the solution lies in injunctions. We have heard mixed messages this evening about whether they work or not, but in the black country we have got a High Court injunction against car cruising. That injunction has been taken out against unknown people, and since it came into effect, I understand that 17 people have been prosecuted. If it is possible to have an injunction of that nature across the whole black country, why can we not have something similar that will address the issue of unauthorised encampments?
Now that we have got a combined authority in the west midlands, why not move some powers up there to give it greater power to deal with the problem? For example, we have heard Members talk about section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. I understand that one of the problems is that the police can move people only within a borough. Clearly, we have a level of devolution in the west midlands; we have got the combined authority. Why do we not give those seven authorities the opportunity to try to tackle the problem collectively? I would also like the Government to review the law in relation to private land and businesses. The police and crime commissioner advises that better legal protection for private landowners and business premises would assist with that work.
I do not think it is beyond the wit of the people in this room and the Government to deal with the problem. We have heard from Members in all parts of the Chamber that there is a willingness to collectively address the problem. I hope sincerely that after this debate we see some movement in that direction.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The hour is late and we are all short of time, but I welcome the consultation that the Minister has announced this evening. I hope that it will extend not just to local authorities, but to businesses and private landowners, who are also affected.
The Minister has mentioned that constituents can feed into the process. I will be encouraging mine to do so, because Gypsy and Traveller-related matters, particularly unauthorised encampments, are currently the biggest issue in my postbag and email inbox. It is fair to say that the issue takes up a huge proportion of time in my office in telephone calls from residents who are feeling frustrated, scared, upset, sometimes intimidated and sometimes, understandably, quite angry. For us in Aldridge-Brownhills, these are not just one-off, short-stay visits that leave without a trace; no, they have become regular incursions, like the ones we have heard about this evening, since the start of the summer. However, we are talking not just about this summer; this has been building over a number of years. The encampments often last a week at a time, and it is not uncommon for them to comprise more than 50 caravans.
We have seen encampments in Aldridge, Brownhills, Pelsall and Walsall Wood. It is understandable that my constituents are at breaking point with what has become a merry-go-round of cat and mouse. “When will it end?” they are asking. They are tired and fed up with the antisocial behaviour, the noise, the rubbish and the mess—it can be household, domestic and even human waste—that is so often left in the trail. It is the council that is left to clear up the mess and the council tax payer who picks up the bill. In the borough of Walsall, this runs into hundreds of thousands of pounds. This is money that could be going back into our communities, to those services that we really value and want to see strengthened.
As Members have probably gathered, I feel strongly about this. I feel strongly that local councils need to work much more closely with the police and that the Government need to seek to understand—this is why the consultation is a starting point—whether existing legislation needs to be implemented more effectively, which would be a help, or strengthened. Some suggestions could include looking at sections 61, 62, 77 and 78 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Irish solution, which was touched on earlier; common law; the use of injunctions; the use of transit sites; and criminal justice measures covering littering, fly-tipping and environmental protections. Basically, what more can be done to protect sites? A long-term solution is needed, but my residents need some short-term protections too.
I had wanted to touch on Traveller issues relating to educational attainment and health inequalities, and on modern slavery, which we should address, but sadly I do not have the time to do so. This evening, I wish to keep the focus on the areas I have outlined, as they have been very much raised by my constituents. It is not good enough for public bodies to gold plate human rights and equalities legislation. The issues faced by the settled community when an unauthorised encampment arrives on their doorstep are huge, as I have seen all too often. The cost to the council and the police, and the pressure and strain on resources, can be immense. I am fortunate in that I have a Westminster Hall debate on Thursday; I plug it now to anyone wants to contribute. Let me close with a reminder of a salient point: with rights must surely come responsibilities, and with responsibilities will come respect.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Disappointingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, tonight’s debate has focused on the challenges experienced by communities as a result of unauthorised encampments. Although we should not dismiss or minimise the impact of those sites, we should not lose sight of the genuine, law-abiding Gypsy Traveller experiences. I have been looking through “The last acceptable form of racism?”, the report produced by the Traveller Movement, and some of the examples it contains are distressing:
“Schools are the worst. Gypsy children are constantly bullied”;
“Even the teachers would call our family the ‘Gypsy family’. Like we were a disease”;
“Because me mam couldn’t read or write, they belittled her”;
“Many kids used to verbally abuse me over being a Gypsy”;
“Schools don’t take bullying of Traveller children seriously”;
and
“If I put Romany in the equality monitoring section, never got interviews”.
This goes on and on in different areas, be it healthcare, policing or access to services. These things are all part and parcel of our communities and we have a responsibility to deal with then.
The repeated demonising and marginalisation of a whole community risks further isolating them and growing the sense of adversarial aggression. This House has a responsibility to set the right tone in a debate such as this and not allow a genuine desire to raise issues from constituencies around the country—I believe that is what it is—to spill over into discriminatory language. Thankfully, this evening’s debate has mainly been undertaken with great care, and I wish to thank colleagues from across the House for their considered contributions.
One in eight, or 13%, of Traveller caravans are on unauthorised sites, and many more authorised sites are needed. The number of caravans has grown in the past decade, but changes to councils’ duties since 2010 mean that Ministers cannot accurately establish the need for sites and homes, and cannot plan or secure any new supply needed to meet demand. The west midlands has been very well represented here this evening, and clearly a significant level of disruption has been experienced in that community, but it is important that we look at the fact that across the eastern and west midlands regions combined, just 15 out of 70 local authorities have identified full five-year plans for deliverable sites. Clearly, there is great scope for improvement on that, in order to try to ease those tensions and tackle any unsuitable sites that are being used.
Let me deal with some of the comments made by some of my colleagues. First, we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who was addressing the point about people living outside the rules of communities and highlighting the specific challenges posed by city unauthorised encampments. He indicated that his local authority has tried to work with those encampments but has experienced 140 unauthorised sites, which have caused difficulties, including hazardous fly-tipping. He says that these are not encampments but unlawful businesses, and perhaps a change of view as to how people are operating would assist in dealing with some of those issues. He recommended getting magistrates to give orders over the weekend and utilising the DVLA to search vehicle registrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) mentioned that there is a potential for bias and racial discrimination to be bred if we allow the current tone of debate to grow in the way that it is doing. He pointed out that the Government have removed councils’ duty to conduct assessments of need for facilities, education and health, and he urged them to put an end to the drift, get a grip and not kick the issue into the long grass.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden) expressed his frustration with the reputational damage done to the majority of the Traveller community by a small minority. He mentioned the £150,000 to £300,000 a year that is spent on legal costs and cleaning up. In tight financial times for local authorities, that is clearly a great source of frustration, particularly for settled residents who see money spent on what they would consider unnecessary issues. We should consider his point about how to secure sites to prevent future abuse. He also discussed council and police powers, the ability to move encampments, and ways to get those who cause the damage to meet the clear-up costs, because as it stands the law is not fit for purpose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin) spoke about the removal of the administrative borders of local authority areas—as did many other Members—to allow police forces to tackle cross-border illegal activity to alleviate pressure at unauthorised sites. He urged tougher and swifter action against those who act illegally.
I was pleased to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (Dr Williams), because it changed the general tone of the debate. He gave a much more compassionate and broad consideration of the debate subject, highlighting the fact that those in greatest need are the least likely to access the support services that they need. He said we should ensure that GPs should not be able to refuse to register those from the Gypsy, Traveller and Romany community because they have no fixed abode. He also mentioned how the Government talk a good game on tackling burning injustices but fail in this arena.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said how important it was for those in public office not to make sweeping generalisations. She said that we should not make negative statements without the evidence to support them. She reiterated how fundamental education is to our society and spoke about how marginalised children from the Gypsy, Romany and Traveller communities are in schools, affecting their ability to attain academically, to integrate into society and to access public facilities. She also mentioned the case of a child having to move schools 11 times because of bullying. I found that particularly distressing, because in any other circumstances there would be outrage from us all.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said it was important to support people in how they choose to live, but that we must not allow those who break the law to get away with it—we must consider the effect they have on other people. [Interruption.] I appreciate the notice about the lack of time. I just wish to mention very quickly the contributions by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock), for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter). They all made incredibly important points and I am sorry that I cannot go into them in more detail.
In closing, will the Minister please think again and restore the requirement for local authorities to assess these communities’ housing needs? How many sites have been established since 2015 and how much of the £60 million for affordable housing has been allocated to new or refurbished Traveller sites?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Marcus Jones)
I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Given the very limited amount of time available to me, I might not be able to address every single issue, but it is absolutely clear that there are strong feelings around the House. I, too, feel extremely strongly about this issue: so many of the challenges that colleagues have mentioned—particularly those relating to illegal encampments—remind me of the challenges I have faced in my own constituency, Nuneaton. Many of my residents have suffered in a very similar way from illegal encampments.
I am therefore very pleased that today we have signalled our intention to seek a call for evidence to review the way in which existing powers are enforced and to understand what more can be done to tackle many of the issues raised in the debate. However, I caution Members because, whatever powers this House has given, and may give, it is important to say that those powers will inevitably be enforced at local level and that enforcement is the key to success in this regard.
Let me deal with a number of points that have been made. There was a strong feeling among Members that there should be parity among all communities in respect of the planning system. That was certainly a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena). They also said that they expected enforcement powers to be used in a proportionate but fair manner by local authorities. They were also concerned about the green belt—we all value the sanctity of the green belt. We have made it clear that temporary or permanent Traveller sites are not appropriate green-belt development and that the personal circumstances and needs of particular families are unlikely to clearly outweigh the harm to the green belt. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) said in relation to the village of Wolvey. He set out his feelings with regard to the national planning policy framework, and he should consider making a contribution on that matter during the call for evidence.
Members have also mentioned unauthorised encampments. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) made the extremely important point that everybody, no matter who they are or whatever part of the community they represent, must comply with the rule of law. My hon. Friends the Members for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Dudley South (Mike Wood) also covered that important point. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire also mentioned the challenges of private sites that he has experienced in his constituency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby mentioned another important point: the Warwickshire protocol that is being developed for dealing with illegal Traveller encampments. It is important that we see strong local leadership to use the powers that are already available.
In the call for evidence, one matter is likely to feature very strongly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford and my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), for Wells (James Heappey), for Southend West (Sir David Amess) and for Clacton (Giles Watling) talked about other jurisdictions and what has been done in Ireland in relation to the problem with illegal encampments.
I do not have a great deal of time to cover all the other points that were made. I wish to bring some balance to this debate, because this is not just about the challenges that we have with Gypsies and Travellers in our constituency. It is also about a proportionate response. As we have heard, the challenges that we face are generally from a small group of the various Gypsy and Traveller communities, and we need to ensure that we balance this with fairness so that Gypsies and Travellers do not face issues such as hate crime, which have been mentioned. We need to be clear that, whomever it is perpetrated against, hate crime is not acceptable in our society. The issue of life chances for Gypsies and Travellers was also mentioned. Much of what has been said tonight will be picked up during the race disparity audit that is being considered by the Government.
To come back to the central point, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that Gypsies and Travellers are fully integrated in our society and that they enjoy the rights of our society, but as important are the responsibilities that everybody in our society has. I am confident from tonight’s debate that we will be able to take this matter forward. I look forward to hon. Members contributing to the important call for evidence that is being undertaken by the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Gypsies and Travellers and local communities.
Air Rifles
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
As I am often moved to observe, and I observe again, if there are Members who, quite unaccountably, are leaving the Chamber because, for reasons of lack of taste or other considerations, they do not wish to be present to hear the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) on the Adjournment, I trust that they will do so speedily and quietly so that the rest of us can hear the hon. Lady.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, thank you for allowing this debate on the use and control of air rifles. This is a subject that the House has debated in the past, but which continues to have serious consequences for many of those we represent. Too many lives have been unnecessarily lost and too many serious injuries have been inflicted upon innocent civilians. Sadly, a large proportion of these victims are children and young people. We cannot ignore the issue and we need to do something about it.
Let me explain my interest in the issue. On 1 July 2016, my young constituent Harry Studley—then just 18 months old—was shot in the head and critically injured with an air rifle. Thanks to the efforts of the local emergency services, including the swift intervention of the Great Western air ambulance and the clinical staff at Bristol Children’s Hospital, little Harry pulled through despite his injuries. Harry’s parents, Ed and Amy, have explained to me that he has been left partially sighted, suffers memory loss and has post-traumatic seizures as a result of the incident. A local man was convicted of causing Harry grievous bodily harm and jailed for two years.
Many people living in Bristol and the west country will recall hearing about this devastating incident in the local media. Parents listening to the heart-breaking details of the case would understandably have asked, “Could this happen to my family? Could the incident have been prevented? What can be done to make these weapons safer? Should these weapons be banned?”. Those are all valid questions and there are more. In young Harry’s case, it was suggested that the weapon was being cleaned. Would legislation making trigger locks compulsory on these weapons have prevented this dreadful and life-changing incident? We will never know in this specific case, but we have a solemn duty as elected representatives to scrutinise, to keep asking questions on behalf of those we serve and to bring greater safety.
As Harry continues to recover, I pay tribute to his family. They have shown great resilience in the face of adversity. Crucially, they have been tenacious and determined that we should all learn from the incident that transformed their futures. As part of this work, they have closely monitored further incidents with air weapons. They were encouraged by the debate held in Westminster Hall in September 2016 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson), whose long-standing interest in the issue dates from 1999 when a constituent of his, aged just 13, was killed. The 2016 debate called for the introduction of trigger locks, the safe storage of air weapons and a review of the impact of recent Scottish legislation, which I will come to later.
In a written response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn, the then Home Office Minister responsible indicated that the Government would
“review the current air gun leaflet”
and
“keep a close eye on the introduction of air weapons licensing in Scotland”,
an issue to which I now turn.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this topic to the House for consideration. She will know, after discussions I had with her earlier, that Northern Ireland has very strict legislation covering air rifles and, indeed, all weapons. I say kindly and carefully to her that the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance have laid out strict protocols and rules within the remit of the law. Does she feel that the law in England and the UK is sufficient to stop these things happening?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, for the information he has shared with me and for his expertise in this area. The point I will come on to is that we need to learn in England from what happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland and that children in Bristol South should be afforded the same level of security as children there, and I will return to that.
Hon. Members will know that, following a series of tragic incidents involving air weapons, the Scottish Government acted to address the problem. Under the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015, it has been an offence since the start of this year to use, possess, purchase or acquire an air weapon without holding an air weapon certificate. It is a condition of that licence that weapons are securely stored in order that access and possession cannot be gained by a person who is not authorised. The licence application also requires the disclosure of criminal convictions, and the police must be satisfied that the applicant can possess an air weapon
“without danger to the public safety or to the peace”
before issuing an air weapon certificate. That is over and beyond section 21 of the Firearms Act 1968, under which a person who has been convicted of an offence may be prohibited from possessing firearms, including air weapons.
In the run-up to the change in the law, 20,000 air weapons were surrendered to the authorities in Scotland and destroyed—20,000 fewer potentially lethal weapons were on the streets, and I think the House will agree that that makes Scotland safer. However, in England, just since the start of May 2017, there have been incidents involving air weapons and children in Carlisle, Bury, Chelmsford, Ipswich, Exeter and, most tragically, Loughborough, where, in August, a five-year-old boy was reportedly shot and killed with an air rifle—another tragic child death. In spring 2016, a 13-year-old boy was killed in Bury St Edmunds.
Jo Churchill (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)
I thank the hon. Lady for bringing what I consider a very important issue to the House. I pay tribute to that young man, and to his family and friends, all of whom have come to see me, and we have discussed some of the items the hon. Lady is raising today. Does she also agree that guns that are not manufactured by licensed manufacturers cause a problem and need to be looked at? There are also issues around hair triggers, magazines that do not necessarily show that they have been discharged and ammunition being left in the chamber that is not known about. Does she agree that those are the sort of things we should be looking at?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful for that intervention, and I certainly want to learn from other hon. Members’ experience and work in this area. I assured the Studley family in my constituency that, on issues such as this, hon. Members will work together cross party to achieve the best legislation.
In his speech last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn informed the House that 17 children had died as a result of air weapons in the last 27 years. Sadly, it appears that that number has risen again, and I repeat that we need to do something about that. I ask the Minister to reconsider the response given last year to my right hon. Friend; it is simply not good enough to review the text of a leaflet.
In this House, on 20 April, the then Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), told me the Government have
“no plans to ban or licence”—[Official Report, 20 April 2017; Vol. 624, c. 801.]
air weapons, on the basis that misuse applies only to a small minority of people. Many of the people we represent would argue that many of the laws that currently protect them from all sorts of heinous acts are in place to protect them from a small minority, and even if only a small minority is affected, the consequences of their actions are grave and merit our attention, regardless of the numbers.
Many hon. Members share an interest in animal welfare, and I would add that, since successfully securing this debate, I have been contacted by Cats Protection, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and others.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I became aware of this issue when cats in my constituency were shot and I looked into it. We now know that over 1,800 cats have been shot since 2012. Cats Protection has a live petition, which already has 72,000 signatures, calling for the licensing of airguns. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we updated our legislation in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and I know from my reading of previous debates that she has done a lot of work on this issue. I shall certainly be asking for more updates on the comparison with Scotland to identify whether that is the right way to go.
Most of the law in England and Wales on air weapons dates from the 1960s and it is time properly to re-examine the legislation to see whether it is fit for the 21st century. When an issue has such a devastating effect on the lives of families with such regularity, I would expect the Government to be considering such action already. It is for the Minister to decide what any review should cover, but at the very least I would expect a detailed consideration of licensing in the light of the change to the law in Scotland; of whether the fitting of trigger locks should be mandatory for all new air weapons sold; and of whether the reasonable precautions requirement on all airgun owners for the safe storage of air weapons and ammunition is adequate. My constituents are also interested in laws governing the registration and transfer of these weapons and would be grateful for an explanation of the current position and any proposed changes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise these questions and stress in closing that the purpose of my securing this debate is not to ban air weapons outright. It is about their safe use. I want children and young people in my constituency to be protected from future tragedies like those that have been all too common in recent years. Surely Bristol South’s children deserve the same protection as children living in Scotland.
The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) not just on securing the debate but on her persistence in pursuing an issue of great importance and on how she has framed tonight’s debate on safer use of airguns. I know that she has been concerned about the issue for some time following the appalling injury suffered by Harry Studley in her constituency. He was just 18 months old when he was shot with an air rifle in July of last year, and I join the hon. Lady in applauding the resilience of his family and the actions of the emergency services in saving his life.
As will become clear in my speech, the Government are not remotely complacent on this issue, but it is important to make the point early on that we have strong firearms controls in this country. They are there for a purpose—to minimise the risk of harm to the public —and, within the general consensus about the importance of these controls, the regulation of air weapons has long been a matter of debate, with lawful users arguing that they should be allowed to enjoy their property without unnecessary restrictions, and others arguing for tougher regulation to improve public safety.
As the hon. Lady rightly pointed out, the recent decision by the Scottish Government to introduce a licensing regime for lower-powered air weapons has quite rightly led to a renewed focus on the regulatory position in England and Wales. She will know as well as I do that a balance has to be struck, particularly regarding weapons that present a lower risk and weapons that are used in well-regulated environments such as shooting clubs.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Lady’s remarks this evening, and I have also given careful consideration to the report presented by the coroner in relation to the tragic death of Benjamin Wragge, who was 13 when he was accidentally shot with an air weapon in 2016. I have recently written to the coroner and confirmed my intention to review the regulation of air weapons in England and Wales. I think that this is an appropriate time to take stock of the regulatory position and assess whether the current controls, which are already strong, continue to be appropriate and effective.
Jim Shannon
The contributions from Members who have personal knowledge of the matter have made this a difficult Adjournment debate. When it comes to looking further into legislative change, will the Minister assure hon. Members that consultation will take place with shooting organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Countryside Alliance?
Mr Hurd
There is no point in having a consultation if it does not include the opinions of those with a voice and an educated view, so I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I also provide the assurance that I will be meeting members of Benjamin Wragge’s family later this year. I will listen carefully to their views, as I will to those of their Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who has written to me on the matter.
I intend to look carefully at the existing controls on air weapons, including how best to ensure that such weapons are stored safely and securely, so that they do not get into the hands of children. The hon. Member for Bristol South suggested that features such as trigger locks should be used, or that air weapons should be required to be stored in a locked cabinet. Those issues need to be looked at in some detail.
I should make it clear to the House that, although I think that a review of air weapon regulation is important and timely, we will do so against the background of existing controls that are, by all international comparisons, very robust and of a long-term decline in the number of crimes involving air weapons. For the record, I will set out some of the existing controls. First, the law recognises that some air weapons are more dangerous than others. In particular, only lower-powered air weapons can be held without a licence. More dangerous air weapons need to be licensed by the police. In addition, I believe that we have robust controls to prevent unauthorised access.
Jo Churchill
On a point of clarification, if a lower-velocity weapon is adapted to give it a higher velocity—I think that is, if not simple to do, quite easily achievable—how do we regulate for that, if there is no form of checking of how air rifles have been adapted?
Mr Hurd
My hon. Friend predictably makes a very good point. That is exactly the kind of circumstance that the review needs to look at, to make sure that regulation and controls are on top of existing practice in the market.
The point that I am trying to make to the House is that existing controls, particularly in relation to preventing unauthorised access, seem robust, on the face of it. The sale of air weapons to those aged under 18 is prohibited, and except in special circumstances under-18s cannot possess them. Air weapons can be sold only by registered firearms dealers. These dealers must keep records of all sales, including details of the purchaser, and they must complete the sale in person. In respect of online sales, although advertising on the internet and collecting payment via websites is permitted, the final transfer of the air weapon must be completed face to face and not through the post. That is an important safeguard against under-18s accessing such weapons online.
Those restrictions help us to reduce the risk of misuse. Alongside that, we know that accidents involving air weapons can occur, and that when they do, the consequences can be tragic and absolutely devastating. This is why it is vital that all who are in lawful possession of air weapons store them and handle them securely and safely.
Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)
The hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) mentioned the case that occurred in Loughborough over the summer, although I am not going to talk about it because it is still subject to investigation and potentially other proceedings. She highlighted that a number of incidents have, tragically, involved young children. Will the Minister consider—perhaps this is something that we might write to him about in a review—whether there is an argument for saying that when air rifles are handled while children are around, there should be extra requirements on the behaviour of adults, if I may put it like that? That might provide an additional safeguard.
Mr Hurd
I thank my right hon. Friend for her intervention. I have a huge amount of sympathy for that instinct, and I encourage her to write in along those lines, as she suggests.
The Home Office provides guidance on the practical steps that owners can take to secure air weapons and on how to handle them. We will shortly—genuinely shortly—be publishing a revised edition of the guidance, which will be available online and to new purchasers as a leaflet to help reinforce the important safety messages. We will also promote the messages in magazines that are aimed at air weapon users. It is an offence for a person to fail to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorised access to their airguns by those under the age of 18. That measure was introduced to help prevent more tragic accidents, following a number of deaths involving young people under the age of 18 playing with air weapons.
When I look at what is in place to avoid the misuse of air weapons, I see a robust set of regulations. It is an offence for any person
“to use an air weapon for firing a pellet beyond the boundaries of the premises. It is an offence for a supervising adult to allow a person under the age of 18 to use an air weapon for firing a pellet beyond the boundaries of premises. It is an offence… to have an air weapon in a public place without a reasonable excuse… It is an offence to trespass with an air weapon… It is an offence to have an air weapon if you are prohibited from possessing a firearm… It is an offence to fire an air weapon without lawful authority or excuse within 50 feet… of the centre of a public road in such a way as to cause a road user to be injured, interrupted or endangered. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill certain wild animals and birds… It is an offence to knowingly cause a pet animal to suffer unnecessarily, which could be committed by shooting at a pet animal. It is an offence to have an air weapon with intent to damage or to destroy property. It is also an offence to have air weapons and be reckless as to whether property would be damaged or destroyed. It is an offence to have an air weapon with intent to endanger life.”
Looking at the statistics, it is clear that most offences involving air weapons—around two-thirds—relate to criminal damage. As for death or serious injury relating to air weapon offences, there were around 30 serious injuries relating to air weapons or their misuse in 2015-16. Although the number of air weapon offences has decreased significantly, reducing by 77% between 2003 and 2016, there was a rise last year, so it is clear that we cannot be complacent, which is why I have instructed the review that I have mentioned this evening. I hope that it has the support of the hon. Member for Bristol South.
Karin Smyth
I am encouraged by the Minister’s remarks. I made a point about the comparison with Scotland, so will his review of the regulation look at and learn from the evidence from Scotland and, indeed, from Northern Ireland?
Mr Hurd
The short answer is yes. There has been a significant intervention in Scotland and it would be quite wrong for us not to consider the evidence. The scale and circumstances are obviously different, but it would be wrong for us to ignore it completely, as my predecessors have indicated.
In conclusion, if I have not already been clear, let me be quite clear now that the Government recognise that there are legitimate uses for air weapons such as shooting sports, which the hon. Lady also confirmed in her remarks, and that a balance needs to be struck between the freedom to pursue such interests and regulation or control. The existing controls on air weapons are helping to reduce their misuse and the occurrence of tragic accidents involving these weapons, but whenever accidents do occur—I have looked back on the roll call of tragic incidents, which often involve children—it is right to look again at the controls to see whether further changes are required or justified. As I said earlier, I intend to undertake a review of the regulation of air weapons in England and Wales to assess whether any further measures may be necessary to protect the public.
Let me close by again thanking the hon. Lady for securing this debate and for how she framed it. I hope that my remarks have satisfied her that the Government take this issue very seriously indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Home Department
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Metropolitan police have warned of steep increases in gun and knife crime in London over the past year: gun and knife crime have risen 42% and 24% respectively, and recorded crime is up across virtually every category, which does not chime with what the Minister is saying. Police numbers fell for the seventh consecutive year in July, and many forces are at breaking point. I do not see how asking the police to foot the £50 million bill for the Government’s disingenuous pay deal will help to solve the crisis. To talk about the Mayor’s precept in London is simply trying to pass on to hard-pressed Londoners the cost of the Government’s failed policies.
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which gives me the opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police for its deep and consistent engagement with my colleagues in the Home Office working on action plans to tackle the spike in violent crime in London. We do a huge amount of joined-up work supporting our colleagues in the police force in London to tackle these issues. Taxpayers all over the country pay for policing through a combination of general taxation and local precepts. Given that the Metropolitan police consumes about a third of the police budget for England, I do not think it is too much to ask Londoners to pay their fair share of the precept, just as my constituents have to pay their fair share.
[Official Report, 14 September 2017, Vol. 628, c. 987-88.]
Letter of correction from Sarah Newton:
An error has been identified in an answer to the urgent question.
The correct response should have been:
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which gives me the opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police for its deep and consistent engagement with my colleagues in the Home Office working on action plans to tackle the spike in violent crime in London. We do a huge amount of joined-up work supporting our colleagues in the police force in London to tackle these issues. Taxpayers all over the country pay for policing through a combination of general taxation and local precepts. Given that the Metropolitan police consumes about a quarter of the police budget for England, I do not think it is too much to ask Londoners to pay their fair share of the precept, just as my constituents have to pay their fair share.
Petitions
Climate Change
Climate change objectives and obligations
School funding formula in Calderdale
Closure of Marske Medical Centre
Continuation of local bus services in Congleton Constituency
Local Bus Services in Torbay
Written Statements
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Contingent Liability
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Harriett Baldwin)
I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a Contingent Liability (CL) in the region of £150 million associated with Programme HADES.
Programme HADES will provide the continued delivery of motor transport, supply, aircraft and ground engineering, and airfield support services. HADES will replace expiring unit-specific multi-activity contracts at a number of units from 1 April 2018. The programme will ensure continuity of service provision at minimum cost and is essential to support strategic defence and security review 2015 outcomes.
The maximum CL is in the region of £150 million, which ensured healthy competition from prospective tenderers. There is also a further CL of £643,000 associated with the indemnity given to contractors for terminal redundancy liability associated with ex-authority staff.
The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or a motion relating to the minute, or by otherwise raising the matter in the House, final approval will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS144]
Commonwealth Games 2022
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Karen Bradley)
I wish to inform the House that, on 9 October 2017, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport laid a minute recording the submission of a bid by Commonwealth Games England, Birmingham City Council, the West Midlands Combined Authority and DCMS to host the 2022 Commonwealth Games in Birmingham.
Birmingham’s bid presents an excellent opportunity to demonstrate the very best of global Britain to the world, showcasing the UK as a destination for international trade, education and tourism. It has the full backing of Government and will not only help grow the economy in the west midlands and beyond but leave a strong sports legacy by upgrading facilities to benefit both elite athletes and the local community.
The Government will provide around 75% of the net budget costs of delivering the Games and an underwrite of the total event budget, as well as a series of further guarantees which the CGF requests accompany the bid. The bid, therefore, creates contingent liabilities for the UK Government in relation to Commonwealth Games.
The minute notes these liabilities as Government’s commitment to provide funding for the Games, underwrite the costs, and provide a number of further guarantees relating to the successful planning and delivery of the event. These contingent liabilities will only take effect in the event of a successful bid and our agreement of a hosting contract with the Commonwealth Games Federation.
The bid was submitted on 30 September 2017 and, due to the much shorter than usual timeframe in which to prepare the bid, I apologise that there was insufficient time to notify Parliament of our intention before the House returned.
Parliamentarians may signify objections by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament by 31 October. Final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.
[HCWS146]
Student Finance Update
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation (Joseph Johnson)
I am today confirming the earnings threshold above which individuals are required to make contributions to the cost of their education from April 2018. I am also confirming the maximum tuition fees for the 2018-19 academic year.
Earnings threshold
The earnings threshold will be increased from 6 April 2018. From its current level of £21,000 the threshold will rise to £25,000 for the 2018-19 financial year. Thereafter it will be adjusted annually in line with average earnings.
The new threshold will apply to those who have already taken out and will take out loans for tuition and living costs for full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in the post-2012 system and those who took out or will take an advanced learner loan for a further education course.
The lower threshold for variable interest rates for post-2012 student loans will also rise to £25,000 on 6 April 2018, and the upper threshold will rise to £45,000 from £41,000 on the same date. Both the repayment and variable interest thresholds will be adjusted annually in line with average earnings thereafter. In 2018-19 around 600,000 borrowers will benefit from the threshold changes. Most of those 600,000 borrowers will both make lower contributions and have a lower rate of interest applied.
The repayment thresholds applicable to pre-2012 student loans, the older mortgage style loans and master’s loans are not affected by these changes.
Tuition fees
Maximum tuition fee caps will be maintained at 2017-18 academic year levels in the 2018-19 academic year.
For HEFCE funded providers that have a current Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) award and have an access agreement with the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses will remain £9,250 in 2018-19. For HEFCE funded providers that have a current TEF award but do not have an access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses will be £6,165 in 2018-19. For HEFCE funded providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum tuition fee for full-time courses in 2018-19 will remain £9,000 for providers with an OFFA access agreement and £6,000 for providers without an OFFA access agreement.
Maximum fee loans for all new students and eligible continuing students who started their full-time courses at publicly funded providers on or after 1 September 2012 will be maintained at £9,250 in the 2018-19 academic year.
For continuing students who started their full-time courses before September 2012, maximum tuition fee and fee loan caps at publicly funded providers in 2018-19 will be maintained at £3,465.
For HEFCE funded providers that have a current TEF award and have an access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses will be £6,935 in 2018-19. For HEFCE funded providers that have a current TEF award, but do not have an access agreement with OFFA, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses will be £4,625 in 2018-19. For HEFCE funded providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum tuition fee for part-time courses in 2018-19 will be £6,750 for providers with an OFFA access agreement and £4,500 for providers without an OFFA access agreement.
Maximum fee loans for all new students and eligible continuing students who started their part-time courses at publicly funded providers on or after 1 September 2012 will be maintained at £6,935 in 2018-19.
For all new students and eligible continuing students who started their full-time courses on or after 1 September 2012 and are undertaking courses at private providers that have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan will be £6,165 in 2018-19. For private providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan for full-time courses will be £6,000 in 2018/19.
For all new students and eligible continuing students who started their part-time courses on or after 1 September 2012 and are undertaking courses at private providers that have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan will be £4,625 in 2018-19. For private providers that do not have a current TEF award, the maximum fee loan for part-time courses in 2018-19 will be £4,500.
The Government will set out further steps on HE student financing in due course.
[HCWS145]
Mental Health Act Review
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)
The Government have commissioned an independent review of mental health legislation and practice to tackle the issue of mental health detention.
There have been concerns that detention rates under the Mental Health Act are too high. The number of detentions has been rising year on year, and last year on average there were 180 cases a day where people were sectioned under the terms of the act. People from black and minority ethnic populations are disproportionately affected, with black people in particular being almost four times more likely than white people to be detained.
The Government are committed to improving mental health services and ensuring that people with mental health problems receive the treatment and support they need, when they need it. This can mean that people need to be made subject to the Mental Health Act—that is, be detained or ‘sectioned’. In these cases, our dedicated professional staff—including psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, and the police—work tirelessly to ensure that people are treated with dignity under the Act, and that their liberty and autonomy are respected as far as possible.
Professor Sir Simon Wessely, former president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, will lead the review which will deliver recommendations for change to the Government. Sir Simon will look at the evidence, review practice, and above all consider the needs of service users and their families, and how best the system can help and support them. He will identify improvements in how the Act is used in practice, as well as how we might need to change the Act itself. Vice chairs will be appointed to work with Sir Simon and ensure the leadership of the review has comprehensive professional expertise whilst also being representative of service users and others affected by the Mental Health Act.
Following consultation with stakeholders, Sir Simon will produce an interim report identifying priorities for the review’s work in early 2018, and develop a final report containing detailed recommendations on its priorities, by autumn 2018.
Further detail on the independent review, including its terms of reference, can be found at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-announces-review-to-tackle-detention-of-those-with-mental-ill-health.
[HCWS143]
Infected Blood: Government Response
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jackie Doyle-Price)
In 2016 the Government decided to improve the way we support people who have suffered as a result of the infected blood tragedy of the 1970s and 1980s. At this time the Government committed an additional £125 million of support to those affected, more than doubling the Department of Health’s annual spending on the scheme over the spending review period to April 2021.
Following the 2016 consultation we announced new annual payments for people with chronic hepatitis C (stage 1 infection) and a new one-off payment for bereaved partners and spouses; a new process for those with stage 1 infection to apply for the higher payment amount; and increased annual payments from 2018-19.
In March 2017 we launched a second consultation, looking at the new voluntary process by which those infected by stage 1 Hepatitis C can apply for higher annual payments (the Special Category Mechanism). The Special Category Mechanism aims to benefit beneficiaries with hepatitis C stage 1 who consider their infection, or its treatment, to have a substantial and long-term impact on their ability to carry out routine daily activities.
The consultation was open to all beneficiaries and other interested parties across the UK to comment on our proposals. The consultation closed on 17 April 2017.
The Government have listened carefully to the consultation responses, analysed pre and post-consultation evidence from other sources, and reviewed consultation proposals in line with respondents’ views and evidence. Following this, the consultation response sets out the Government’s plans for reform, which are summarised below:
Introduction of planned uplifts in annual payments from 2018-19. All beneficiaries will receive an increase in annual payments from 2018-19.
A new Special Category Mechanism (SCM) for those with hepatitis C infection at stage 1 in November 2017.
The introduction of a single programme of discretionary support for all—infected and bereaved.
An increase in the overall level of funding for discretionary support from 2018-19.
All annual payments will include the winter fuel payment.
Addition of type 2 or 3 cryoglobulinemia accompanied by membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, MPGN), to the current hepatitis C stage 2 conditions.
A letter will be sent to the beneficiaries of the English scheme to make them aware of these changes, and advise them on how to access the consultation response, a link to which is also provided as part of this statement. When the SCM process opens beneficiaries with hepatitis C at stage 1 will receive a letter telling them how to apply.
For the first time, all beneficiaries of any of the current five schemes will be receiving support from a single scheme. As previously announced the NHS Business Services Authority (NHSBSA) will become the new single scheme administrator in England, with effect from 1 November 2017. While this transition takes place, annual and discretionary payments and services will continue to be made by the current schemes to ensure a smooth transition to the new scheme with minimum impact on the beneficiaries.
The Government strongly believe that all those who are affected by this tragedy should be supported by a fair and transparent scheme that focuses on their welfare and long-term independence. With this additional funding and scheme reform, the support provided to those affected by the infected blood tragedy will be greater and fairer than ever before.
A copy of the full consultation and the related equality analysis can be found on gov.uk using the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/ infected-blood-support-special-category-mechanism.
[HCWS142]
DFID Supplier Review
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Development (Priti Patel)
The UK is an acknowledged world leader in the provision of development and humanitarian aid. Our aid budget acts not only in the interests of the world’s poorest, but also in Britain’s long term national interest.
Our global leadership in development requires continuing efforts to improve value for money, efficiency, innovation and effectiveness. I am therefore introducing tough new measures to ensure that the aid managed by DFID contractors delivers the best possible results for the world’s poorest people, provides value for taxpayers’ money and upholds high standards of ethical and professional behaviour.
A tough new DFID supply partner code of conduct will cover commercial requirements, ethical behaviours, transparency obligations, environmental sustainability and social responsibility. DFID will monitor suppliers’ implementation of the code, with legally enforceable sanctions for non-compliance.
DFID will introduce greater transparency to drive down costs along its supply chains. DFID contracts will now include tough new measures to bear down even harder on costs, fees and overheads, and to provide greater transparency in contracts and throughout supply chains. These include open book accounting clauses enabling DFID to obtain, use and verify information from its suppliers to make sure we have access to full financial information on costs to enable us to fully challenge value for money. It will also include a clause which we can use if necessary to intervene to ensure a fair deal for the taxpayer.
DFID will open up procurement to new entrants in the UK and overseas, simplifying documentation and processes and making greater use of digital platforms and social media to allow potential suppliers to access contract opportunities. A programme of business engagement events in the UK and overseas will facilitate engagement by new suppliers and the Department will also carry out research into the specific barriers facing by local suppliers in developing countries in accessing contract opportunities.
DFID will level the playing field for small suppliers and sub-contractors, ending the imposition of agreements which restrict sub-contractors’ ability to work for other suppliers. It will introduce new protections for small suppliers and sub-contractors operating in consortia, including contract checks to eradicate so called “bid candy” practices in which major suppliers drop sub-contractors once they have won the contract. We will continue to break up suitable tenders into manageable sizes and services to better enable smaller suppliers to compete.
A robust, comprehensive approach to supplier management will enable the Department to hold suppliers to account across their entire portfolio of work with DFID, bringing DFID into line with best practice in the private sector. This will allow DFID to challenge delivery partners more strongly on value for money, identify underlying performance problems and tap into a supplier’s wider areas of expertise.
DFID will put more information in the public domain, so that members of the public can assure themselves directly that DFID’s aid is being used effectively. This will include a policy on allowable costs in day rates paid to consultants and annual league tables of supplier performance. We will publish annual information on our commercial practices, setting out performance during the year and making further recommendations for improvement.
These reforms will complement the detailed line-by-line review of every programme in DFID’s portfolio, either already approved or in design phase, carried out by my ministerial team. They will help to ensure maximum impact from the development programmes delivered by DFID’s contractors, complementing the work done in the civil society partnership review to strengthen value for money from grants to civil society organisations, and in the multilateral development review to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the international development system.
[HCWS141]
Northern Ireland Update
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (James Brokenshire)
The DUP and Sinn Fein continue their discussions towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. The parties have reduced the number of issues between them—including on some aspects of language and culture—but clear differences still remain. The Government are committed to continuing to work with all the Northern Ireland parties and the Irish Government, consistent with the three-stranded approach, towards reaching agreement quickly. I have been in regular contact with party leaders and Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney and will have further meetings in Belfast this week. The Prime Minister has been actively involved throughout this process. This has included her recent meeting with the Taoiseach and discussions with the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein. She shares the high priority which I place on the Government being ready and willing to work tirelessly to support the restoration of the Northern Ireland devolved institutions.
It is crucial that, with this support, the parties continue to do their utmost to reach an agreement which allows them to make those decisions which are important to the people of Northern Ireland. The parties have shown leadership and the ability to look beyond their differences in the past to resolve significant challenges which have separated them. I have urged the parties to focus their remaining efforts and energies on closing the outstanding gaps swiftly to find a resolution which will pave the way for the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. With the right spirit of compromise this can be achieved and now is the time to come together and reach agreement.
I stand ready to bring forward legislation to enable an Executive to be formed quickly once agreement has been reached. But the timeframe for this is not indefinite. As Secretary of State, I have a responsibility for good governance and political stability in Northern Ireland—which has now been without a full Executive for 10 months. If devolved Government is not restored in the next few weeks, I will consider carefully what steps are needed in the best interests of the people, the voluntary sector, public services and businesses in Northern Ireland. As a minimum, this would involve introducing legislation later this month to set a budget for 2017-18 putting Northern Ireland on a path towards greater UK Government intervention in its day to day affairs.
We are not at this point yet. It is in the best interests of Northern Ireland and its people to have strategic decisions taken by locally elected politicians in the interests of the whole community. That is why the Government remain resolute in their efforts with the parties to secure the outcome which a majority of Northern Ireland want and need: the restoration of devolution. Ultimately, it is for the parties to reach agreement, but Northern Ireland has come so far and I encourage the parties to keep this firmly in mind as they work towards finding that resolution.
[HCWS147]
House of Lords
Fracking: Policing
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have reviewed their policy of making no funding stream available to meet additional policing costs incurred as a result of fracking.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, it is not correct to suggest that there is no such established funding mechanism available. Police and crime commissioners can apply for special grant funding to help meet the additional costs of unexpected events, including policing protests at hydraulic fracturing sites. The Home Office has previously provided special grant funding for the policing of fracking protests.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I thank the Minister for her reply. I was at Preston New Road two weeks ago, which is the front line of anti-fracking protests in Lancashire. The remarkable thing was how many local residents were protesting, because every level of local government had turned down the fracking application from Cuadrilla, yet the Government came in and overturned all those local decisions. How does that fit with the Government’s manifesto promise to allow local people to decide for themselves? The Government have not only broken their promise but have also incurred hundreds of thousands of pounds-worth of extra policing costs, which the public have to pay.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness raises a number of issues. Peaceful protest is a vital part of our democratic society. However, it is important that protesters protest within the law. The noble Baroness mentioned Lancashire. In the last few weeks, 26 people have been arrested in Yorkshire, two of whom have been released under caution and 22 have been charged, including for assaulting a police officer. That obviously relates back to costs: if people stayed within the law, perhaps the taxpayer would not have to pay for all these additional policing costs.
Baroness Featherstone (LD)
I suggest that the Government follow Scotland’s example and ban fracking, in which case there would be no policing costs in this regard. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I think it is a great shame that Scotland has taken the decision that it has. It has had a moratorium on fracking since 2015, and it appears that this is now permanent. However, we believe that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely in the UK, and that there are strong regulations in place to protect individuals. It is important because it will reduce our gas imports, create jobs and heat our homes.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that there is a moratorium on fracking in Wales. In those circumstances, is it not a bit ironic that the Gwent police force was sent up to Lancashire for the purposes of controlling the protesters? Given that the costs of such an exercise can sometimes become very great, can she give an assurance that all the costs incurred by Gwent will be paid for from central funds?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, mutual aid between different police forces is very well established, and the costs for meeting those things are, of course, sorted out in the wash.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that if the police and the authorities were to give in to the nimbys who are against fracking, the nimbys who are preventing planning consent being given to deal with the housing shortage crisis would be at it as well? It is nimbyism and it needs to be put down.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I refer my noble friend to my previous answer about protesting being a vital part of our democratic society. However, he raises a very important point. The most recent figures from the public attitude survey carried out by BEIS show that the vast majority—90%—of the public feel that they simply do not have enough information about fracking. That and not the fact that it is taking place is where the problem lies.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I too have been reading the Conservative Party manifesto—it is sad but there we are. Perhaps I may quote from it. It says that it is necessary to,
“maintain public confidence in the”,
fracking,
“process … uphold our rigorous environmental protections, and … ensure the proceeds of the wealth generated by shale energy are shared with the communities affected”.
Has that happened yet?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord will know that there is no active fracking at the moment but I am pleased that he spent the Recess reading the Conservative Party manifesto. The important thing is that advances in technology are happening all the time, and fracking will be an important part of our energy security going forward. For example, the noble Lord may have seen recently that superhydrophilic filters have now been invented. They remove 90% of the hydrocarbons, bacteria and particulates from any post-hydraulic fracturing feed. These are all good things. I think that we should support fracking and of course make sure that the local communities benefit too.
Lord Hayward (Con)
Further to my noble friend’s comments in relation to Scotland, does she not recognise that Grangemouth refinery is in part dependent on such gas supplies? The SNP welcome it, yet it has now said that it is not willing to have such supplies developed and researched in Scotland.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree with my noble friend. I said that it was a great shame about Scotland, but we must recognise that Scotland has a 50-year history and heritage of oil and gas exploration and drilling. It is a great shame that it will not be participating in this and a great shame that Grangemouth will potentially suffer.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Lancashire PCC sought help from the Home Office to pay for the extra costs of policing fracking protests following a government decision overruling Lancashire County Council. This request has so far been declined, and the Minister for Policing has stated that,
“there is no central government funding stream available”.
Can the Government say whether the Lancashire PCC, who is responsible for the county’s police force’s budget, has the statutory power, if he so chooses to use it, to instruct his chief constable not to provide policing in connection with the fracking protests until such time as the Government agree to help with the additional expenditure incurred on the grounds that there is no provision within his police force’s budget for such expenditure and that money is not available from other parts of his budget? Is the answer yes, he has those statutory powers, or no?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I will have to revert to the noble Lord on whether he has those statutory powers. However, special grant funding has been used to support fracking protests before. In 2014, Sussex got £905,000. Greater Manchester applied for funding but it was refused because it was not a significant amount of its budget. However, in the case of Lancashire, the application for £3.1 million is still under consideration and no decision has yet been made.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, one of the attractions of fracking is that it produces fuel onshore. The noble Baroness will be aware that over 30% of the energy supply in this country comes across the sea. As the Government seem intent on scrapping or selling the bulk of the Royal Navy, does that make fracking even more important to us in the future?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and I am pleased that we got on to the Navy. However, to turn to ships, the noble Lord raises a very important point. One-third of our energy demand comes from gas and we currently import a huge amount of gas. By 2030, we could be importing three-quarters of the gas that we use. That will come in ships from the US, which is a very long way away. That is why we need fracking in our country.
Brexit
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Dykes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current assessment of the prospects for reaching a Brexit agreement with the European Union by March 2019.
The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)
My Lords, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said when closing the fourth round of negotiations, we have made considerable progress on the issues that matter, increasing certainty for citizens and businesses. Thanks to the constructive and determined manner of both sides in negotiations, we are making decisive steps forward. Both parties want to achieve the best possible outcome and the strongest possible partnership for the future by March 2019.
Lord Dykes (CB)
Yes, but when are the Government, at long last, going to produce viable proposals for the Irish border which will also be acceptable to the Irish Government and the Dáil?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, there has been a very firm, fair and collaborative discussion about the issue of Northern Ireland. The most recent discussions continue to be constructive and we have made progress in some areas. For example, we have begun drafting joint principles on preserving the common travel area and associated rights, and have continued building on the general principles of ensuring that there is no hindrance at the border.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister give us her current assessment of the prospect of reaching an agreement on Brexit within the Conservative Party by March 2019?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, the Cabinet has made it clear that it is fully in support of the Prime Minister.
Lord Higgins (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would speed up negotiations if the British Government put forward quite specific and quantitative proposals with regard to what we think any exit payment ought to be?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend speaks from his background of work in the Treasury. There is a move from the Commission to change the rules of the game. The rules set out at the start of the negotiations were that we should have sufficient progress by this stage. Suddenly, some members and parties are saying that we should have agreed a particular sum. This is more than horse-trading; it is the future of our country. We are having a technical and detailed discussion that will bear fruit.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, going back to Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that the only way to stop there being any border between Northern Ireland and the Republic is for us to be members of the customs union?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, it is a fact that as we leave the European Union we are not going to cherry pick one or more of the four freedoms—the Commission has made it clear that that is not acceptable and we understand and abide by that. However, we do seek a strong customs partnership. We cannot be in a customs union unless we have all the other freedoms, and, of course, contribute to the budget, without having a say in it: that is not the British way.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister say what effort the Government made before triggering Article 50 to ensure that they would be able to discuss with our partners in the EU the new partnership straightaway? If they did not make any such efforts, was not that a little foolhardy?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, when we triggered Article 50 it was at a time when we had already heard extensive analysis of a range of issues that we knew would be the subject of discussion in reaching an agreement on our withdrawal from the European Union. That includes, as I have mentioned at the Dispatch Box in the past, an analysis of more than 50 sectors of the economy. An extraordinary amount of detailed work has been carried out, which is why we have been able to publish a raft of papers this summer.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Prime Minister allowed herself to think again about holding an early general election. Why will she therefore not allow people to think again about the advisability of Brexit once they know the facts?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, I remind the noble Baroness, who is also a friend, that her party, which stood for that in the last election, got hammered.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we all have cause to be grateful for the calm, prudent, constructive contribution of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in these talks?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
Yes, my Lords. I have seen that close up because I was fortunate enough to be briefed throughout the summer by officials from the Treasury about the patient, technical work that they have been carrying out to ensure that when we are able to reach agreement not only on principles but on practice, the result will be fair for this country as well as for the rest of the European Union.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, as we know, the European Parliament will get a vote on the final deal. It has passed a resolution saying that it does not consider that sufficient progress has been made to go on to the all-important trade negotiations. The Bank of England, agriculture, industry, higher education and UK citizens all want progress. Is it not time to put the national interest first and make real progress on these talks so that we can get on to the deep trade ones?
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, we have made great progress—we would say sufficient progress—to be able to proceed with the next stage of our negotiations. Of course, as the noble Baroness will certainly recall, Article 50 specifically says that discussions on the withdrawal agreement should be against a background of discussions about the future partnership. We are ready, willing and able, and it is time now for the European Commission to be more flexible to be ready for the next stage.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, to return to the question of the two parts of Ireland, does my noble friend recall that Monsieur Barnier, after publication of Her Majesty’s Government’s proposals, said that the European Union was opposed to an invisible border? Surely there will be no progress on this issue until Europe changes its mind.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
My Lords, my noble friend, who has some of the best experience of the issues of importance to Northern Ireland, raises a crucial point. Flexibility is important from the Commission and also from other members of the European 27. A political decision will ultimately make the difference. It is worth noting that the Motion in the European Parliament to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, referred a moment ago proposed that one part of the United Kingdom—Northern Ireland—could remain in the single market and the customs union, thereby breaking up the United Kingdom. That cannot be a way forward.
Work Capability Assessment
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thomas of Winchester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reform the Work Capability Assessment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Buscombe) (Con)
My Lords, we consulted on work capability assessment reform in the Improving Lives Green Paper and have committed in our manifesto to building more personalised and tailored employment support to help disabled claimants and those with health conditions to return to work where appropriate. We continuously seek to improve the WCA, including recently stopping reassessments for claimants with the most severe and lifelong health conditions and disabilities. We will set out further plans in due course.
Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)
I am grateful for that Answer and am glad that there is some progress. However, does the Minister agree that the WCA is particularly bad at assessing whether people with more than one impairment—constant pain, for example—are capable of doing jobs in the real world of work and not just theoretical jobs? Will she undertake to ensure that the assessment will be underpinned by rigorous research into the kinds of jobs that people with limited capability for work could do? Also, will she ensure that any new legislation in this area is piloted first?
Baroness Buscombe
The noble Baroness will know that this is the fifth review of the work capability assessment since it was introduced in 2008. It is important to continually reassess and review the way the assessment is carried out. That is why since April, when we rolled out the new PSP—the personal support package for people with health conditions, which may include having one or more conditions—we have recruited 300 new disability employment advisers and 200 community partners, as well as introducing peer support job clubs in 71 jobcentres. We have allocated £15 million to the flexible support fund, made changes to the permitted work rules and have almost completed the rollout of the health and work conversation. This is in line with our ambition to provide a support system that can be tailored to individuals’ needs.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Prime Minister has accepted that the system is still flawed. There have been five reviews. I follow on from the earlier question: do we not need a pilot to make sure that this review actually works?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, the Improving Lives Green Paper was published in October 2016. I am pleased that we received around 6,000 consultation responses supported by 166 accessible events across the country. That is good; it is all about us listening to people, to understand what is truly needed and how we can tailor support to meet the needs of different people. Since the Green Paper consultation, our officials have been working hard to analyse that fantastic response. We are working towards an autumn publication which will set out our response to the consultation and how it has informed what we are going to do next.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, to ensure that the work capability assessment is fit for purpose, will the Government undertake to carry out a thorough inquiry into the alarming reports that assessors are disregarding evidence of unfitness to work put before them by claimants; and that claimants are even taking their own lives as a result of the stress to which they are subjected by work capability assessments, something which has been confirmed by coroners’ findings?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, it is important to point out that we are talking about approximately 2.4 million claimants who make up the employment support allowance caseload. Obviously the references made by the noble Lord to particular individuals are of concern, but the nominal expenditure forecast for 2017-18 is £15.3 billion. In that case, we have to proceed with care in the changes we make, to ensure that the delivery of assessments works for everyone. Since the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments took over the contract to carry out assessments in 2015, a number of improvements have been made to claimants’ experience of them. The number of HCPs has been increased by 68%—
Baroness Buscombe
I am sorry, but I think that noble Lords would like a clear explanation. Since August 2017, the centre has ensured that claimants go through the assessment process more quickly and increased the number of mental health champions it employs, as well as appointed a head of customer experience.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, two noble Lords have asked specifically about piloting any revised work capability assessment. Will the Minister now answer that question about piloting?
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I hear what noble Lords are saying in relation to piloting. As I have said, our officials are working hard to consider the next steps. I will take that suggestion back to them. They are thinking about all the future plans and taking into account the concerns of all the 6,000 people who responded to the consultation. Of course, if there is a wish to have more pilots, I am convinced that my department will look at that.
Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister is bringing forward plans, that is extremely welcome, but before she makes any positive changes will she look at the Ministry of Justice employment tribunal statistics that were published last month? They show a rate of successful overturn on appeal in ESA cases of 68%. Further, the mean period for the disposal of a case is now 20 weeks, which is three weeks longer than last year. These are important things that need to be remedied in any plans she brings forward, so a review is fundamentally and urgently needed now.
Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, we are committed to ensuring that people have the best support possible. That is why we have allocated £330 million for new voluntary employment support for people with limited capability for work over four years, starting with this year. The current system fails to provide the right incentives and support to help disabled people and those with health conditions toward and into work. Those people deserve better.
Sterling: Euro Exchange Rate
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the relative value of the euro to the pound sterling on individuals and businesses.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has an inflation target, not an exchange rate target, and the Government do not express a view on the level of exchange rates. The value of sterling adjusts flexibly in response to economic conditions and market forces and sentiment. The Government will continue to monitor economic developments closely, while at the same time taking steps to promote economic growth and to support individuals and businesses.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, since 2015 the pound has lost between 20% and 30% of its value against the euro, leading to the loss of Monarch Airlines and Air Berlin, among others, in the last few months. Does my noble friend the Minister believe that the quantitative easing programme embarked upon by the Bank of England to shore up the level of the pound and keep interest rates down is sustainable? Will the Treasury come clean on what the real cost to the UK economy—to individuals and businesses—will be if the United Kingdom crashes out of the European Union without a deal?
Lord Bates
We can certainly say that a number of those elements are, rightly, matters that are independent of government. The Bank of England has been given the UK macroeconomic mechanisms to make those judgments on interest rates. Interest rates are at an historically low level. Exchange rates can have a negative effect on imports but a positive effect on exports. It is important that we emphasise that the fundamentals of the British economy remain strong. Employment is at record levels and we continue to grow and expand, and we want to see that continue. That is very much the positive outcome we want from this complex negotiation.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)
My Lords, if the economy is so strong, why was our credit rating reduced recently? Sometimes Governments preside over the depreciation of their currency in order to improve their balance of payments and trading position. Why is that clearly not working under this Government?
Lord Bates
Since 2010, the economy has grown by 15.3%. That is 1.5 times the level of France. I do not necessarily want to remind the noble Lord, who was standing on this side of the Dispatch Box during 2008-09, that the economy contracted by 6.3% during that period. The fact that we have record levels of employment and are seeing sustained growth should be welcomed and built upon.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, a fall in the relative value of the pound was advanced by some of the most enthusiastic Brexiteers as the antidote to future potential export tariffs. Can the Minister tell this House whether that is also Her Majesty’s Government’s policy? If the answer is yes, what evidence has been amassed over the last 12 months of a phenomenally low pound to support that view?
Lord Bates
As I have said, the Government have not said exchange rates are their responsibility. Those matters are driven by the markets and sentiment. We have to make sure we have a strong, competitive economy. That is why we have lowered taxation rates, why we have high employment levels and why the Chancellor has announced a new national productivity investment fund of £23 billion. We have to do everything in our power; the markets will respond as the markets respond.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend take this opportunity to remind people that the strength of the euro has been bought on the backs of those unemployed young people in Greece and the southern European states, that the eurozone is embarking on a project to screw that down even harder, and that the misery that will create is one of the reasons why we are best out of the eurozone?
Lord Bates
My noble friend is absolutely right that we are out of the eurozone as far as that is concerned. The strength of the UK can be recognised not only in how people respond to our market but in how they respond in terms of foreign direct investment. That is a much more concrete and long-term form of investment. The UK continues to be the second-largest recipient of foreign direct investment in the EU and second in the world only to the United States. The fact that companies such as Nissan, Toyota, Apple and Bloomberg are making major long-term investments in the UK should encourage us to do the same.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, in saying that we do not have an exchange rate policy but simply an inflation policy, the Minister has repeated the Written Answer that he gave to a Question that I tabled. In the hypothetical situation of the pound falling further, is it not ever more obvious that it is a totally false binary to say that we have a policy on inflation but not one on the exchange rate, when the one feeds into the other in a very material way?
Lord Bates
I acknowledge the noble Lord’s great professional experience in economics, but I am saying something slightly different. I am not saying that we do not pay attention to that and do not watch it at all; I am saying that the way in which it has been configured, through successive Governments, is such that this is a matter for the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England to respond to. Where inflation rises above 3%—its target is 2%—it has to respond. Where it sees matters which are causing concern, it can choose to cut interest rates—as it did after the referendum, to historically low levels of 0.25%. We are not saying that we do not have any policy; we are saying that we have a core set of policies which the Government are responsible for and we are acting on them.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
Will the Minister explain to the House why we have been downrated?
Lord Bates
If someone wants a historical lesson on the accuracy of the ratings agencies in making predictions, the events of 2008-09 might raise some question as to what they were doing then. We are talking about a downgrade of one notch. That reflects some concerns that they have about the transition period as we exit the European Union. They are perfectly entitled to say that. We are saying that we have a clear plan as to how we want that exit to happen, we want it to happen as soon as possible and we believe that the prospects for this country thereafter are very positive indeed.
Fire Safety
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many bids from local councils for funding of fire safety measures in tower blocks have they (a) accepted and (b) refused since the tragedy at Grenfell Tower on the 14th June 2017.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice. In asking the Question, I refer the House to my registered interests, particularly as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, building owners are responsible for funding fire safety measures but, where works are required to ensure fire safety, we are ensuring that lack of financial resources will not prevent them going ahead. Thirty-one local authorities have contacted DCLG. We have invited councils to provide more detail about essential works and will consider requests as information is provided. Discussions are ongoing, but we have not turned down any requests for essential works.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Since 2007, the fitting of sprinklers has been compulsory in new blocks over 30 metres tall. The London Fire Commissioner has said since the Grenfell Tower tragedy that retrofitting sprinklers,
“can’t be optional … can’t be ‘a nice to have’”.
However, the Minister’s honourable friend the Minister for Housing in the other place has been telling councils that bids for sprinklers are additional rather than essential. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the Government to reflect on and review those decisions in the light of comments from the Government since the tragedy and the advice of professionals in the fire service and elsewhere, who regard these measures as essential and not additional?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the position as set out by my right honourable friend the Minister, Sajid Javid, in his letter of 31 July, where he clearly indicated that essential local work for fire safety will not be restricted by financial resources, remains the position. We are currently in discussion with six authorities, one of which, Portsmouth, has now submitted all the documentation required—it is the only one to have done so so far and we are now looking at it. There are another 35 which we are still assessing, and 31 local authorities have responded in full. If they set out essential work, we will, as indicated in that letter, ensure that the resources are forthcoming.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for asking this Question, because there is considerable concern in local authorities about funding the costs of cladding replacements. Forgive my cough; I have caught the Prime Minister’s bug. It is shocking to me that the Government are failing to take full financial responsibility for the failures of public policy, the Grenfell Tower fire being the result of those failures. I have two questions for the Minister. First, I understand that 186 buildings have failed the more stringent tests by the building research laboratories on cladding and fire safety. Will the Government publish a list of those buildings so that those of us who are concerned can see the extent of the problem? Secondly, I asked in this House on 26 June about the Government taking full financial responsibility for funding local authorities’ costs for cladding. The Minister agreed that this was an important aspect for the Government to consider. I think that he ought to consider it now and let us know that they will be funded, so that those people will be safe.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness. On her first question, I will certainly revert to her and to other Peers who have participated in this debate and put a copy of the list of the 186 buildings concerned in the Library. On cladding, I come back to the central issue, the subject of the Question, which is essential works. Essential works, which might include sprinklers or might not, will be assessed by the department on a case-by-case basis. As I say, until now we have had one completed documentation, which we have just received and which we are looking at. I do not think that there is anything unfair about that. There are five further authorities that we have asked for further information; they will, no doubt, come forward with it. Each case has to be assessed on what the fire officers are recommending and what the building owners think is required; there is no standard rule. We will look at it, but I repeat the undertaking made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in his letter in July that we will not stand in the way of the performance of essential work because of a lack of financial resources.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister enlighten the House a bit more about how the word “essential” is being defined? From the answer he just gave it appears that it is a very mutable concept. Will he give us some idea of what criteria are being brought to bear when determining, even if it is on a case-by-case basis, what constitutes “essential”, particularly when it appears that the consistent advice of the fire service is that, for example, retrofitting sprinklers is essential? Is its advice being questioned, or is advice being sought from elsewhere?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, I come back to the basic point that no application has been turned down: every application that has been made is still open and there have been 31, covering roughly 10% of authorities. We are looking at those. Clearly, “essential” is going to depend on the circumstances of each case; I do not think that I can do fairer than that. It is what is deemed necessary by the building regulators and by the owners and it will be looked at by the department. I come back to the basic point that nothing has been turned down. We remain wedded to the central concept that safety is everything and we will not allow lack of financial resources to prevent essential building work.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that similar approaches in terms of financial recompense will be taken to requests regarding housing association property that was transferred from council housing structures originally? I declare my interests with two housing associations.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an interesting and fair point. The application is made separately in relation to housing associations but exactly the same yardstick is used. Once again, we will not allow financial difficulties to stand in the way of doing the essential work. I do not know of any housing association which has made an application that has been turned down. I do not think that that is the case. If I am wrong about that, I will write to noble Lords.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. The Minister has just said that no applications have been turned down but at the weekend it was reported in the media that Nottingham City Council’s request to install sprinklers inside flats and communal areas in 13 towers had been turned down because, according to the Housing Minister:
“The measures you outline are additional rather than essential”.
Given that there is a public inquiry and, separately, a building regulations review, if either or both of those reviews conclude that works to fit sprinklers are essential, will the Minister guarantee that the Government will fund them?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a fair point. The position at the moment is that nothing essential has been turned down—I checked that with officials today. Clearly, an inquiry and a review of building safety regulation and fire safety are ongoing. It would make a material difference if one of those were to come forward with something that is essential forthwith. We will look at that situation. I do not think that is an unfair response. It is something that could happen and, clearly, in the light of changed circumstances we would have to look at that anew.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, rightly, the focus has been on housing associations and social housing generally but will my noble friend the Minister assure the House that with regard to high-rise buildings that are either in shared ownership or actually in private ownership, the Secretary of State has written to those developers to check that there are not safety concerns in those blocks? Some of the fires that we have seen in other countries have been in privately owned dwellings.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, my noble friend makes an entirely fair point. I think that has been the subject of a letter from my right honourable friend. I will double-check that, if I may, to ensure that that is the case, and if it is not we will certainly need to pick it up.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
But, my Lords, there is no difference between a publicly owned block and a privately owned block. Over the months, in replies to these Questions that have been asked in the House, the Minister keeps drawing a distinction between where the work should be required by law to be carried out and it being left voluntarily to private landowners. How can the Minister carry on justifying this great inconsistency?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth
My Lords, that is not an inconsistency I have expressed. I think it must be a figment of the noble Lord’s imagination. I certainly have not said that at all. What I have said, just now in response to my noble friend Lady Berridge, is that we will look at it in exactly the same way. Anything that is essential to be done will be done. We will ensure that financial hardship does not stop that happening.
Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill
Monday 9th October 2017
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Act 2018 View all Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Act 2018 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 5 September 2017 - (5 Sep 2017)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Con)
My Lords, I am very pleased to be able to assist my noble friend Lord Bourne in moving the Second Reading of this short but vital Bill.
In our modern world, businesses and individuals depend on being connected, and the ways in which this happens are becoming more and more diverse. We are fast moving beyond mere mobile phones to increasingly digital communications, and in the future this will include ultrafast broadband technology and 5G—the next generation of mobile connectivity. Fibre is crucial to both of these. The Bill will support that progression for both fixed and mobile or wireless networks by delivering a vital part of the Government’s package on fibre investment. The Bill will provide the framework to implement the Chancellor’s promise in the Autumn Statement 2016 to allow 100% business rate relief for new fibre up to 2022.
Many noble Lords have raised the problems of slow internet or poor mobile phone services. These matters are important to people. They affect the enjoyment of their lives and the success of their businesses. By delivering world-class connectivity we can transform our public services, bringing efficiencies to business and improving the lives of individuals. Central to this challenge is providing the digital infrastructure that can support these demands. All these connections rely on more fibre-optic cable. Fibre is the gold standard, and we are committed to delivering it, but we have heard concerns from operators that business rates acts as a barrier to that investment.
The commitment given at the Autumn Statement in 2016 will mean that new fibre investment made after April 2017 will not be subject to business rates until 2022. Telecom operators will continue to pay rates on their existing network, alongside all other ratepayers who pay business rates on their business properties, but by providing a temporary relief for new fibre we will give this sector the boost it needs to meet demand. The sector has been calling for this and telling us it will make a difference in the delivery of new fibre. We have made great progress in the last few years to improve connectivity across the UK. Superfast broadband is already available to 93% of homes and businesses; we are on track to reach 95% by the end of the year. We want to go further and providing rate relief on new fibre will help achieve this goal.
We will have the opportunity to discuss the Bill in more detail in Committee but I will briefly outline what it does. This short Bill contains six clauses and, essentially, gives us the powers we need to deliver the relief through regulations. The first three clauses contain the powers for those regulations covering occupied and unoccupied properties on local rating lists, and those on the central rating list held by the Secretary of State. The remaining three clauses deal with consequential and financial matters, allowing the relief to be backdated to 1 April 2017.
In order to calculate how much relief should be awarded on telecom networks, the regulations made under these powers will require the valuation officer to issue a certificate of the rateable value attributable to the new fibre. This will then be used by the local authority to calculate the amount of relief which should be awarded, ensuring that we will give relief only on the new fibre and not on any existing networks. We have already published draft regulations, in August, explaining how this will work and started discussions with the sector on its implementation. Consultation on the draft regulations will run for 12 weeks. The Valuation Office Agency will also hold discussions with the sector on how the relief will operate in practice. So I hope noble Lords will appreciate that we have already explained how the powers will work, thereby ensuring that the scheme operates smoothly.
More widely, the Bill is just one of several measures we are taking to boost Britain’s connectivity, including our ambition for more fibre. Over the summer we announced more details of the universal service obligation, so that every household will be able to get acceptable broadband by 2020. This will provide a vital safety net to ensure that no one is left behind. In the Digital Economy Act we reformed the Electronic Communications Code, which regulates agreements between site providers and communications operators, to make it easier to deploy, maintain and upgrade electronic communications infrastructure. We are also forming a dedicated team to look at how government can remove barriers to deployment, which will work with other departments and industry.
We will see a more competitive market as a result of the agreement between BT and Ofcom to separate out Openreach. A legally separate Openreach will serve not just all its customers but the whole of the United Kingdom. We are supporting fibre rollout through a £400 million Digital Infrastructure Investment Fund. This will help accelerate the rollout of fibre by providing better access to commercial finance for alternative developers of full-fibre infrastructure. In turn, that will help smaller operators compete with larger players. The Government’s investment will be at least matched, on the same terms, by private sector investors. As a result, we expect to see private sector investment into full-fibre broadband reach around £1 billion overall. We are also investing £200 million in our local full-fibre programme, supporting local bodies to stimulate new fibre development.
In total, our efforts are worth £1.1 billion to support the sector, and once this Bill receives Royal Assent the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Valuation Office Agency will move quickly to implement the rate relief for new fibre retrospectively to 1 April 2017. We want to see a country where people are better connected, where everyone can get online and reach their full potential and where no one is left behind. This Bill provides a step on that journey. I beg to move.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I want to say a few words on this Bill. It is extremely welcome as the rateable value of fibre connections has long been a problem in the rollout of new systems and new local solutions. BT has for some time used it to block other providers with alternative solutions. It has been quite a problem. Several companies have gone bust over it, and there is litigation on it in the EU at the moment. One problem is that when a new company tries to put in a new solution and has to light some fibre, it is rated very highly, as if it suddenly had as many connections as that fibre could take, not the 10 or 20 subscribers the company may have to start off. Every time BT connects something new to fibre or puts new fibre down, it reduces its rate bill because of the deal that was done when it was set up by statute. Nothing has been done about this. It is inherently unfair and anticompetitive, and something needs to be done about it.
The sad thing about the Bill is that we are talking about new fibre only. What about making the old stuff competitive too, so that we can have alternative solutions? There should be an opportunity to look at that, but I suspect that good lobbying behind the scenes has made sure it will not happen.
The language of the Bill is so obscure that I find it quite difficult. The Explanatory Notes told me something about it. I am not sure whether it applies to newly laid fibre only or to dark fibre that has not been used and is about to be lit. I hope it applies to both because if fibre is already in the ground but has not been used, what is the point of forcing people to lay a new fibre cable to get it working? I cannot see why the Bill cannot be extended to make it more economic for people to attach to existing fibre to provide new local solutions where necessary. There is fibre there, but for one reason or another it is not economic for BT to do the last bit of the connection. I do not get the argument for it having to be totally new fibre.
The trouble is that BT is a publicly owned company not a UK plc asset. We have no control over BT. It has lots of problems to face. It inherited an enormous pension deficit. I have huge sympathy for its commercial problems operating in a global market. However, that does not mean that the British taxpayer, the British broadband user and people who are trying to get businesses going or to reduce the cost of government by getting broadband into areas that do not have it, such as parts of London, communities on the edges of cities and towns and certain rural areas, although some rural areas are better than others—we should not snap at little bits of the problem. We should take a bigger view. What annoys me is that if we put the amount of money we are putting into smart meters into rolling out broadband, we would have no problems and we could have smart meters everywhere. There is a lack of logical thinking at the beginning, but I am almost diverging.
I cannot work out how much power is in the hands of the Valuation Office Agency. It worries me that it tends to favour the incumbent as opposed to new development, quite aggressively in some circumstances, and, despite appeals, is not interested in increasing the rollout of broadband. It is more interested in sticking to what it sees as its rules and rating stuff like a Victorian water pipe.
I have had quite a few briefings on these issues over the years, and they give rise to concern. I hope things are going to change. This is a move in the right direction. I am still worried that Openreach is a wholly owned subsidiary of BT. When you look at how investments run and how things work up the corporate pipeline, you can influence things an amazing amount, even though you are not meant to, by where you put your investment, how you repatriate the profits, jiggle the money around et cetera. The separation may not be as great as we think.
The important thing is to get universal fast broadband out there everywhere, even in areas that do not have people living in them, because when the internet of things comes along, it will not work unless we have broadband everywhere. We need to worry about this to a greater extent than people think. It is not just a matter of cabling up every house, but that will be a start, so let us get there as quickly as possible and reduce the rates bill and the blocks to getting it out there, most of which are commercial.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interests. I only recently, four months ago, stepped down as chief executive of TalkTalk, the internet service provider.
In my brief time in the House, I have heard many speeches lamenting poor broadband speeds, and it is quite cheering to speak today in a debate about a potential, although admittedly only partial, solution. Connectivity, as my noble friend said, is essential to modern life, and becoming more and more essential. Unfortunately, the copper wires that we all—98% of households—depend on for broadband today are not fit for propose. It is nothing short of a miracle that they deliver even poor broadband at all, because they were certainly never designed to when they were laid decades ago. Full fibre, on the other hand, is designed for that.
I draw the analogy with the electricity market. Imagine if we all had apps on our phone to check the power wattage into our homes and we started conversations of an evening by saying, “I’m terribly sorry, we live quite a long way from the electricity substation here, and therefore the lights don’t work all the time”. That is exactly what happens with copper-based broadband today, and it is not good enough for now, let alone for the world that we will be inhabiting in the next 10 or 20 years. I worked for a business that was starting to trial full fibre right the way to the home. Families using it do not say, “I have fantastic ultra-fast broadband”; they just say, “My broadband works; it does what it says on the tin”. That is why pushing to have full fibre, and fibre-optic cable laid right the way to everybody’s home or business premises, is so important. It is modern technology that will not just be fit for today—all you have to do is pump more power down it and it will be fit for a very long time ahead.
It is extremely good to support the Bill today, because although I am hugely hopeful about the role Britain can play in the digital revolution, and how we can emerge stronger and more competitive as a result of it, we do not do very well on full-fibre take-up today. As I have said, 98% of households use a copper-related product, so although availability is a bit more than that, there is a 2% take-up in the UK. That compares to 40% in Sweden, 26% in Portugal, 11% in France and an EU average of just under 9%. These are figures from the FTTH, the Fibre to the Home Council Europe, from this time last year. We are a long way behind today and I am pleased to support a Bill that will incentivise all providers to start investing more firmly in full fibre. The danger is that the large incumbents attempt to eke out a return from their legacy copper assets, while the new businesses are daunted by the sheer scale of the challenge ahead in investing in full fibre. So it is great to see the Government coming up with a proposal that will genuinely incentivise everybody to invest.
I will just make three brief comments on the Bill. First, it is very important that the scheme cannot be gamed. I am reliably informed by people in the industry that, according to the business case based on full rates relief, ripping out existing fibre and replacing it with a new one that would be eligible for rates relief would pay back in just a couple of years. It would be a real shame if an intent to do the right thing translated into a subsidy for the old networks we already have. I assume that this will be in secondary legislation, and it would be very good to hear from my noble friend how the Government intend to ensure that this cannot be gamed and will genuinely incentivise the building of new fibre to premises across the UK.
Secondly, this is a good Bill but it is only a relatively small contribution. I believe the Treasury estimate is £60 million over five years—would that all our broadband problems could be solved with £60 million over five years—so this is good but it is only a start. The Minister has set out quite an impressive list of other initiatives that the Government are putting towards nudging, cajoling and encouraging the industry to build out more fibre, and it is hugely important that we complete on all those actions. It is not the words that will drive this but the actions and there is a lot more to do, particularly making it easier for all providers to access existing poles and ducts; ensuring that the commitment to the universal service obligation is not an excuse to rely more on copper and less on investing in fibre; and ensuring, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has just said, that Openreach separation is just that and genuinely drives the investment that the country needs.
I bow to the experts here, of which I am definitely not one, on the rating regime. While temporary short-term relief in a specific sector is good, I very much doubt that it is the long-term answer to enable businesses to understand how the rating regime works and invest in the things that the country needs for the long-term future. That all said, it is important that we do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good. This is a good Bill and I am pleased to support it.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of interests as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I have to say that I agree with much that has been said by people who know much more about this subject than I do, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding.
I speak from my understanding of what is being proposed. As the Minister said, this is part of a package of inducements to the telecommunications industry to ensure wider accessibility of superfast broadband. However, that seems to raise the question of why telecoms companies are not obliged by law to ensure that there is full superfast broadband access. In a situation where public bodies such as the Government and local authorities are digital by design, households as well as business premises need access to broadband to access public services. That is my first query. I accept that steps have been taken in that direction, but when I think that other utilities such as water and electricity companies are required by law to ensure that there is access to their services, it seems to me that connectivity should be on an equal footing. I look forward to hearing how the Minister might respond to that comment.
The financial inducements in the Bill to put in full-fibre broadband will not be necessary in West Yorkshire, where European Union funding is currently enabling that to happen. What a shame, therefore, that we are on the route to leave the EU because it might have been able to fund it out of EU funds rather than out of public funding from the Government.
Much-improved connectivity is of course welcome, so the purpose of the Bill will clearly be welcome. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has pointed out, though, all it does is provide full-fibre connectivity to the nearest roadside cabinet, and the further you are from that cabinet the worse your connectivity will become. That will put a limit on connectivity. I was interested to hear that there had been only 2% take-up of full fibre to the house. Have the Government considered inducements to the telecoms companies and providers of broadband to ensure that there is full-fibre connectivity to the premises rather than to the nearest roadside cabinet? That is how we will get access to superfast broadband across the country.
The other major question which the Bill raises, and to which I have seen no answer, is that, as well as broadband connectivity, we need improvements to mobile connectivity. For many families, mobile connectivity is far more important than broadband connectivity. Poorer families can often afford to access only mobile technology and do not use full broadband. That is true everywhere, but is particularly the case for improved mobile connectivity in rural parts of the country, where it may be the only way that many people can access public services—through their mobile phones.
To expand on that point for a minute, experts in this House may be able to throw some light on this, but I understand that 5G will be more advantageous than having superfast broadband to many people—not to businesses, I accept, but to many individuals and their families. Should there not be inducements to companies wanting to extend the reach of mobile connectivity, as we are doing here with broadband?
I think the Minister has answered the other point I wanted to make, but I was concerned about how local authorities will access reimbursement for the loss of business rates. It sounded as though it will be the responsibility of individual local authorities to claim reimbursement through the Valuation Office. If regulations have been laid, perhaps the Minister can expand on them when he responds.
Finally, I urge the Government and perhaps their Bill drafters to amend the Bill to include information about the meaning of the formulae that have been included, which make for interesting reading. For example, the Bill states:
“Where subsection (4F) below applies, the chargeable amount for a chargeable day shall be calculated in accordance with the formula—
”.
Nowhere in the Bill is there any indication what A, B, F or C is, and further on in the Bill, we have a “T” as well. I know that the Bill relies on amendment of previous legislation but, for the sake of transparency and the understanding of those who will be affected by the Bill, it would be enormously helpful if Bill drafters included notes about what the formulae mean.
With those remarks, I welcome the move to extend both the speed and reach of broadband through the Bill and hope it can be extended to mobile connectivity.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the Bill as far as it goes. It is a positive step in boosting investment in fibre broadband infrastructure and the development of 5G. The Bill will encourage new fibre rollout, and that will boost connectivity for both residential and business users. That will have knock-on effects for improved economic growth. It has been estimated that 5G infrastructure will outstrip the economic benefits of fibre broadband by 2026, when that technology will have become outdated. It is important to ensure that we have the right infrastructure and connectivity speeds to deliver improved economic growth, boost businesses and create the new jobs of the future that we will all need.
There have been suggestions that the boost to economic growth with the new 5G network will be worth billions of pounds to the UK economy, so it is imperative that we place ourselves at the top in delivering the speed and connectivity for business and residential users, so that we have the tools to compete with anyone in the world. However, we were expecting a much larger Bill, dealing with a wider variety of local government finance issues, and it is disappointing that the Government have decided to come forward with only this one small part. Lack of parliamentary time really is not a good enough excuse for this and, if that is what the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, is going to tell the House shortly, it would be useful if he could update us on when we can expect the wider issues to come back to Parliament that were contained in the Local Government Finance Bill lost due to the Prime Minister calling the general election.
Local authorities need certainty and stability in these very challenging times, as does business. The lack of clarity on business rates, the shambles of the business rate revaluations and the hastily pulled together packages go nowhere near enough, while our high streets are in crisis. It is no way for the Government to behave. We have been exceedingly quiet in respect of legislation since the general election; we have just come back from another break, and we are away again next month—the lack of parliamentary time argument is difficult to accept. There may be a lack of will on behalf of the Government or, dare I suggest it, something of a crisis in the Government at the moment.
In subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 4, the Government appear to be taking Henry VIII powers. I have not seen a report from the Delegated Powers Committee, but I have seen the note issued by the department. It would be helpful if the Minister could reassure the House as to the limited nature of these powers, because Clause 4(4)(b) appears to contain a very wide power indeed.
The omission from the Bill of anything meaningful in respect of improving the rural broadband offering is most disappointing. Many noble Lords on all sides of the House speak up for rural areas and the threat to both their viability and sustainability across a wide variety of issues. I can recall debates about housing provision for working families, rural bus services, train services, shops, pubs and many other issues. Delivering proper broadband services, let alone anything close to 5G, is vital to ensure that our rural areas prosper. Without firm action from the Government on this matter, we risk leaving numbers of our fellow citizens further behind, which is not acceptable for them or the communities in which they live, which seek to remain sustainable. I shall table an amendment on that issue for debate in Committee.
Another issue that I want to explore further in Committee is the definition of “new fibre”, which the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, referred to in his remarks. The regulations propose that this is to be fibre that was,
“not laid, flown, affixed or attached before 1st April 2017”,
with those operators which light dark fibre already in the ground not eligible for relief. I want to explore the potential that that has for distortion and the risk to companies that have already invested in fibre networks, which may be at a competitive disadvantage to another company that comes along and lays new fibre that is exactly the same as the fibre already in the ground but not yet lit. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe, made reference to that issue, which we need to discuss much further in Committee.
In Committee in the other place, my honourable friend Mr Jim McMahon tabled an amendment to require the Secretary of State to provide an assessment to Parliament on how the business rates relief system was working. I would, again, like to bring that back for consideration by your Lordships.
In conclusion, we give a cautious welcome to the Bill as it stands, although there is disappointment that some of the wider issues that I have outlined have not been brought forward. I have a couple of issues that I intend to raise as amendments to this Bill in Committee, and I have posed a couple of questions to which I hope the Minister can respond.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government and Northern Ireland Office (Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Ashton for introducing this Second Reading debate and all noble Lords who have participated in it. I am grateful for their contributions and for the welcome—so far as it went. This was, predictably, a wholehearted welcome but with regret for some things which the legislation did not contain. I can understand that, and I will deal with it shortly.
I will focus first on what the Bill does contain. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is absolutely right: it is an important facet of the legislation that it helps the residential sector as well as business and provides assistance for the 5G mobile connectivity element, as referred to by the noble Baroness. The objective of this measure is to support and reward companies which invest in the telecoms network. As such, it is important to appreciate that this is actually buying something. This dates from April 2017 so we therefore do not propose to compensate any fibre which was already in the ground in February 2017. This is for new fibre put down for a five-year, fixed-term period. This brings me to the gaming aspect: I too was keen to know whether this was likely to be gamed. On consultation and inquiry it looks unlikely but we are watching this like hawks. If noble Lords think there is some means by which it could be gamed I invite them to let us know because we are, obviously, seeking to make sure it is not. I am pretty convinced that it could not be, because the financial incentive would be zero.
As we have heard in the debate, this is a technical area in respect of both telecommunications networks and how they are treated in business rates. We will, no doubt, return to the detail in Committee, but I reassure the House that we intend to develop the proposals for this measure in collaboration with the sector and only after consultation. The draft regulations are out for consultation at the moment and that will go on until 21 November. There is still an opportunity for everybody to participate in that and I encourage experts and politicians—do not take that the wrong way—to do so, particularly those who understand it in detail and politicians who represent those who do. My noble friend Lady Harding clearly understands this area very well, as does the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. I am very grateful for their participation and for giving the House the benefit of their expertise.
Broadband speeds and connectivity impact on the everyday lives not just of businesses but of households. Investment in new fibre will make a real change to people’s lives and is part of a package worth over £1 billion to the sector, as my noble friend Lord Ashton outlined. Providing rate relief for new fibre will give a welcome boost to investment. My noble friend Lady Harding asked about access to BT lines. They are consulting on that at the moment and we regard it as important. In terms of the rates relief offered, there will be a level playing field for participants in the system. No fear or favour is given to any provider: they are all treated in the same way.
It is important and fair to all ratepayers that telecoms operators pay business rates in the normal way, outside this five-year period where there is relief. We will not therefore seek to provide relief in relation to dark fibre, which would clearly be wrong. However, we have heard concerns about business rates deterring investment in new fibre, and providing this temporary relief from business rates just for new fibre investment would send a clear message to operators. If you invest in new fibre after 1 April 2017 you will not pay rates on it until 2022. For that new investment, you can remove business rates from the spreadsheet. As my noble friend Lady Harding indicated, that is important for getting investment going in this area where we lag behind. This legislation has some important provisions.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, raised the issue of the Henry VIII clause. As he will know, consistent with my approach to legislation I am very keen to bear down on this, so I have looked at it to make sure that it is as confined as it can be. I well remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, participating in our proceedings and rightly being tough on Henry VIII clauses. This has not yet gone to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but it will do so. As I say, we seek to confine it as much as is sensibly possible and, of course, it will be subject to affirmative resolution. I hope that both those points reassure the noble Lord.
Such is the technical and fast-moving nature of the sector that I do not think it would be prudent to try to put on the face of the Bill the detailed arrangements of the scheme. These will be done in the detailed regulation through consultation and discussion. I know that noble Lords will understand that. However, we want to ensure that the House is fully aware of how we intend to operate this measure. As I have said, we have published draft regulations and are continuing discussions with the sector, and the Committee stage will give us the opportunity to consider these matters in more depth.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, sought, somewhat mischievously, as is his wont, to try to open this issue of rate relief on a much broader front all over the place. I have indicated previously that we remain very much wedded to the retention of business rates. I have also indicated that we will want to look at the broader issue of the high street versus the internet in the context of the G8—I think I am right in saying that—in which we participate, and take a lead on that. I think that is due next spring, so I can give the noble Lord that reassurance.
As I said, draft regulations will come forward. I reassure those who have a close connection with local government—the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, raised this issue—that local authorities will not be financially disadvantaged as a result of the relief. We will, through grant payments, compensate local authorities for the loss of the rates income that they suffer through the rates retention scheme as a result of this relief. This is a commitment that I am happy to restate and it is also given in the consultation document.
I thank all Members who have participated for the support that they have shown, at least in terms of the central core of this legislation. The commitment to provide rate relief on new fibre was given by the Chancellor in the Autumn Statement 2016. To maximise the benefit of this policy, telecoms operators need to be confident that the relief will be applied retrospectively to April 2017. I confirm that that will be the case. That is why we have brought forward the Bill as quickly as we have, with the support of the Opposition Benches, certainly in the other place and here too, to send a clear signal to the sector that this relief is on its way. With that, I commend this legislation to the House.
Devolution (Constitution Committee Reports)
Lord Lang of Monkton
That this House takes note of the Reports from the Constitution Committee Inter-governmental relations in the United Kingdom (11th Report, Session 2014-15, HL Paper 146) and The Union and devolution (10th Report, Session 2015-16, HL Paper 149).
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, thanks to the courtesy of my successor as chairman of the Constitution Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, I welcome the opportunity to introduce the debate on two reports published by the committee during my tenure.
I also welcome to the House, and to the Dispatch Box for his first appearance there, my noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank. I am sure that the House much looks forward to his maiden speech and to further contributions, particularly given his knowledge of agriculture, especially fisheries, and his experience in the European Parliament. We wish him all success as he takes up his new role.
Our committee has waited quite some time for the opportunity to debate these two reports. The Union and Devolution report was published over a year ago and that on intergovernmental relations two and a half years ago. Since then there have been two general elections, one election in Scotland, another in Wales, the constitutional crisis in Northern Ireland and the referendum on our membership of the European Union. We are nevertheless grateful for this opportunity to debate the reports. Despite that heady brew, I believe that our reports remain valid—indeed, perhaps even more so—and relevant to present circumstances. I particularly welcome the fact that the European Committee’s admirable report on Brexit and devolution is to be debated alongside the report of the Constitution Committee, adding topicality and focus to our proceedings, and I look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, introduce his committee’s report shortly.
If Europe has been one unsettling force upon our nation’s constitution over the past half century, devolution has been another. It is one that has cast a shadow over my entire career in politics, as it has over those of others who have consistently resisted it, because we believed that it could not form a new or stable settlement that would improve government but would, instead, generate an inexorable process of demanding ever more powers with no obvious stopping point and, ultimately, would put in jeopardy the unity of the United Kingdom. And so it has proved. This is not the time to dwell on the past but it is why our committee decided that there was a need to address the subject in a positive way, accepting that what was done is done, and trying now to find ways of bringing stability and balanced decision-making to what has become a dangerously fragile situation.
For years, the approach of central government was one of instant concession to the inevitable demands from the new territorial Administrations for ever more powers. What was piously called “incremental devolution”, when a “settlement” became a “process”, was in fact open house for a succession of ad hoc, piecemeal, demand-led giveaways. I know that those involved in the successive tides of further devolution tried hard to rationalise their packages—I say that particularly because I see my noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Selkirk present today; both of them will speak after me and both were active in seeking to develop successful packages—and it is always possible to do so because you can rationalise anything if you try hard enough.
However, I blame central government because it offered little, if any, resistance. In the case of the Smith commission, for example—I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, in his place, unless he has just slipped out, because his was a heroic achievement in attaining any kind of outcome from the commission’s deliberations—the Government promised at the outset to accept in full whatever the committee of MSPs might demand. This was a wholly reactive process that gave no thought either to the role of Parliament or to the implications of such changes for the integrity of the nation as a whole. That is where we are now, but at long last in the case of Scotland, where the threat is most acute, the Government of the day, in the person of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, has said, politely but firmly, “No, now is not the time”. For that, she deserves great credit—it has changed the weather.
Dwelling on Scotland for a moment, if I may—for it is important as part of the background to our recommendations—despite the clear verdict of the Scottish people in the 2014 referendum to remain in the United Kingdom, the Scottish Government, instead of getting on with governing, have continued to pursue separation to the exclusion of all else. It is my belief that they prospered in the subsequent 2015 general election not because of a sudden belated rush of converts to separation but precisely because the electorate thought that the referendum had already settled that matter “for a generation”. They failed badly in 2016 and 2017 because it had by then become clear that they intended to break that pledge.
In Edinburgh, the administration of Scottish government has been neglected—almost no legislation has been laid before the Scottish Parliament—so it comes as no surprise that in a recent Scottish opinion poll fewer than half of voters were reported to believe that Scotland’s health service, education service or economy had been improved by 20 years of devolution. Perhaps the First Minister should remember the words of Alexander Pope:
“For forms of government let fools contest;
Whate’er is best administer’d is best”.
It is with “whate’er is best administer’d” that our reports are concerned.
But the Scottish experience reveals that the destabilising threats persist. The constitution needs continuing careful attention. Enoch Powell’s dictum that power devolved is power retained may remain true in theory, but in recent years we have come close to ceding sovereignty not just de facto but even in legislation. The 2016 Scotland Act, with its ill-advised declaratory first two Sections, has already led to a hazardous encounter in the Supreme Court.
Our committee’s reports have tried to set out a new way forward. Their central messages are: put the United Kingdom first in constitutional matters, and make no change that could undermine the core United Kingdom Parliament, where all the countries of the union are well represented. At the same time, central government should work proactively and sympathetically at all levels with its devolved Administrations, recognising the different needs in each and, above all, dispelling the despairing criticism we heard in evidence from both Wales and Northern Ireland of “devolve and forget”.
These three words should send a strong signal to central government that a new approach is needed. Our report on intergovernmental relations sought to outline that approach. We recognise that there would need to be continuing reappraisal, which, since we published it, the Scotland Act 2016, the Wales Act 2017 and now the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill will inevitably bring about. This makes it more important than ever that the right mechanisms are in place to govern relations between Governments in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Of course, it seems hard to make headway when all approaches from the centre are met with hostility in some quarters, but consultation may eventually achieve progress where confrontation never will. We made a large number of recommendations but I will confine myself to some of the main ones. In particular, we called for a major overhaul—reinforced, I am glad to say, by the EU Committee’s recent report—of the Joint Ministerial Committee. We called for more transparency of its meetings, agendas and minutes, and for more frequency of meetings, allowing the devolved Administrations to initiate policy proposals. We sought reforms to the committee’s structure, including more formal bilateral mechanisms to manage intergovernmental relations and more co-operation between central government and the devolved Administrations. We welcome such changes as have followed, and especially, of course, the establishment of the European negotiation sub-committee. We expressed deep concern at the lack of co-ordination and oversight of the devolution settlements and called for the identification of a senior Cabinet Minister with specific responsibility for oversight of the constitution as a whole.
After publication, we waited for almost two years for a response from the Government. When it came, they agreed with some of our recommendations, disagreed with others—including one that we had not made—ignored a few and in six cases claimed that they were already doing them. After two years, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies. However, there has been no sense of enthusiasm for our proposals, still less of urgency. I sense that the Government have not yet fully engaged with the need to devise and articulate a vision for the future of the state and its devolution settlements. We now have to weave those Administrations into the fabric and processes of the nation’s governance. The drive must come from the centre, and that requires a new attitude and mindset.
The essence of our report, The Union and Devolution, was broadly similar: we must stop taking the union for granted. We could find no evidence of strategic thinking about the cumulative impact of devolution upon the union as a whole, so we tried to set out how the needs and interests of the union, as well as of its nations and regions, can be protected in the event of any further devolution in the future.
Lord Garel-Jones (Con)
Is it not the case that, in the increasingly interconnected global world in which we live, it is important for both Scotland and Wales to be part of a United Kingdom that is able to exercise serious influence in international fora, given that, on their own, they would be mere spectators?
Lord Lang of Monkton
My noble friend makes a very fine and highly relevant point, with which I agree.
Successive British Governments have failed to adapt to devolution. Again, it has seemed to be a case of devolve and forget. With so much now devolved, so much asymmetry, so much potential for playing catch-up and leap-frog among the different Administrations, and so many overlapping and shared competences between devolved and central government, it stands to reason that there must be a new mindset, on all sides, of co-operation and mutual understanding. That is not easy, I acknowledge, where separatism is the predominant, even the only, motivation, but in the interests of good government it is essential.
In an attempt to disaggregate the problem, we identified some key elements that underpin the union. These include the economic union, the social union, the political union, the cultural union and the security and defence union. Any weakening of those would, in our view, cause grave damage to the nation state. We urged the Government to identify which public responsibilities were, in their view, essential to the effective functioning of the union, so that they could be protected in any future consideration of devolution; and we identified a number of underlying principles that might assist that. Unfortunately, the Government in their response, published almost a year later, declined to do so beyond the headline areas of defence, foreign policy and, ironically, the constitution.
We called for a devolution impact assessment to accompany any future proposals in order to measure any negative effect that they might have on the UK’s core responsibilities and to measure any planned benefit to the relevant devolved Administration and any impact, good or bad, that might be felt in other Administrations. Again, regrettably, the Government declined to commit to those proposals. Will my noble friend the Minister now bring a fresh eye to what we seek and perhaps persuade his colleagues in government to have another look at all of this?
Among our other recommendations we called, yet again, for the replacement of the inadequate and inequitable Barnett formula with a new needs-based system. It is a continuing disgrace that the distribution of resources from the Treasury should take no account of the relative needs of the countries and regions that it is intended to help. We expressed our strong opposition to full fiscal autonomy, which would break the union apart. My personal view is that although the need is obvious for fiscal accountability, we may already have gone too far in the forms chosen for fiscal devolution and indeed with the scope of welfare benefits. We recommended that if there should ever be a future independence referendum, provision for it and its proposed terms should be set out in primary legislation and laid before this Parliament for proper scrutiny by all parts of the United Kingdom.
We recommended that in future, UK government services should be clearly branded throughout all parts of the United Kingdom in order to make sure that the electorate understand where they came from and in case the devolved Governments should by chance forget to tell them. We emphasise the vital importance that the BBC, as the national public service broadcaster, should continue without qualification to provide a common UK-wide service, particularly on news and current affairs, in addition to whatever regional and local services it may provide.
I could go on—in combination, our two reports contained 115 paragraphs of conclusions and recommendations—but I feel that I have already detained the House too long and I hope that other noble Lords will choose to bring out any important points that I may have missed. I therefore conclude by saying that the problems that the Constitution Committee sought to address are still with us. The threat of those who would tear Scotland out of the union may be in abeyance, but it has not dissolved. I am conscious that Northern Ireland is beset by serious problems. Its condition is fragile and I leave it to other noble Lords, better informed than I, to address them should they choose. Similarly, Wales, originally lured into devolution by the slimmest of margins, has its own distinctive subtleties and priorities that others may wish to draw out. My purpose is to emphasise the welfare of the union on which we all depend. Devolution is not a casual throwaway matter. We are all a part of the main. It is time to acknowledge the failings of the past and the problems and dangers that they have brought and, with care and persistence, to resolve them. I beg to move the Motion in my name.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I too am glad to welcome the Minister to the House and to the Dispatch Box, and I look forward to working with him over the months ahead. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton. I am delighted to pay tribute to the eloquence and passion, if I may say so, of his speech and to his committee for its series of thought-provoking analyses of devolution.
When the European Union Committee launched its inquiry into the impact of Brexit on the devolution settlements, we were acutely aware of the risk that we might stray into areas that are properly the domain of the Constitution Committee. We are therefore enormously grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lang, and the members of his committee for sharing their thoughts with us. I hope that our report is not guilty of any constitutional faux pas.
The bewildering pace of events since the referendum means that many of us have found it hard to keep up. The noble Lord, Lord Lang, spoke of that, and the European Union Committee is no exception. We took the bulk of our evidence in February and March, but our plan to publish a report in the spring was forestalled by the general election. While the committee was considering its draft report in June and July, negotiations started in Brussels, and just two days after we agreed our report, on 11 July, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was published. Since that time, we have had position papers from both the Welsh and Scottish Governments, along with innumerable political interventions, and who knows what will happen in the coming weeks. Given that, rather than describing our report in detail, I shall concentrate on one or two key points before turning to more recent events, in particular the EU withdrawal Bill.
The first point I wish to make, on which we are at one with the Constitution Committee, is that EU membership has, since the devolved institutions were established in the late 1990s, been part of what the committee called the,
“glue holding the United Kingdom together”.
We have a free and open internal market within the United Kingdom largely because all parts of the UK fall within the European Union single market and are subject to the same European Union rules. Once we are out of the European Union, we will need, as the Government have stated and as our report acknowledges in paragraph 210, common frameworks to ensure that the United Kingdom internal market continues to function. I think we are all agreed on that. But the fundamental basis of the devolution settlements was an acknowledgement that the different nations of the United Kingdom have different needs and that they should be entitled to develop differentiated policies and laws to take account of those needs. As we set out in chapters 3 to 5 of our report, each of the devolved Administrations faces different challenges: Wales’s hill farming sector, for example, and its reliance on manufacturing; Scotland’s specific demographic needs; and the close integration of Northern Ireland’s economy with that of the Republic of Ireland. The common frameworks needed to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom internal market after Brexit therefore also need to allow for differentiation, and the challenge which the Government seek to address by means of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is to maintain that balance to ensure both that the frameworks are in place to uphold the United Kingdom internal market and to respect the diverse interests and priorities of the different nations and regions that make up the United Kingdom.
There is huge complexity here, so in chapter 6 of our report we outline the interaction between the competences currently exercised by the European Union and those which are either devolved or reserved within our domestic devolution settlements. We note that some EU competences are already devolved, notably those relating to the environment, agriculture and fisheries. Many other EU competences are reserved, such as those relating to competition and state aid.
The central point underlying our analysis is that the domestic balance of competences is fully set out in the various Acts of Parliament which have established the devolved institutions. Parliament has thus taken a view in successive devolution Acts on what should be devolved and what should be reserved. For instance, Parliament decided that competition should be a reserved matter, but that environment should be devolved. That is why, in paragraph 237 of our report, we concluded:
“On the day of Brexit, competences … will, by default, be exercised in accordance with these pre-existing statutory provisions”.
The Government’s response to the committee’s conclusion, which we received last month and for which the committee is grateful, states:
“The UK Government is responsible for ensuring that the internal market within the UK operates freely and openly. Previously, European legislation has set the frameworks to guarantee that a consistent approach is taken across the UK … The powers currently held by the EU that provide that guarantee on the internal market are not, and never have been, within the competence of the devolved administrations”.
I find that rather opaque. I assume that the Government are referring to the acquis of single market legislation; but within that acquis, there is the bulk of EU environment legislation, which plays an important part in ensuring that the UK’s internal market operates freely and openly—yet responsibility for the environment has been explicitly devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Parliament. So on what basis do the Government claim that such legislation has never been within the competence of the devolved Administrations? I do not fully understand the Government’s position.
That takes us to the heart of the current disagreement between the UK Government and the Scottish and Welsh Governments. I find much with which I agree in the Welsh and Scottish Governments’ memoranda. For instance, the Welsh Government state:
“Legislative competence for devolved matters which are currently subject to EU restrictions would remain with the devolved legislatures post-exit”.
That is essentially the same point that our report makes. I have yet to hear a convincing counterargument. Rather, the difficulty is with the Government’s position. As Mark Drakeford of the Welsh Government told us,
“some UK Ministers … believe that, when the European Union is not there, these powers will somehow be free-floating and that if they grab them first they will be able to make decisions and the devolved Administrations will have to live with those decisions”.
Mr Drakeford’s fears seem to have been realised in the EU withdrawal Bill, which not only confers extensive delegated powers on UK Ministers but proposes that once Ministers have used those powers to convert retained EU law into domestic law, the devolved legislatures will not be able to amend that law, even in areas that fall within their competence. The Government response to our report describes this as,
“a temporary measure that provides the necessary time and space for detailed discussion on whether common frameworks are needed and how they might operate”.
There is nothing temporary about the relevant clause, Clause 11, which, as the Welsh and Scottish Governments have pointed out, contains no sunset provision. As I understand it, Clause 11 of the EU withdrawal Bill will permanently curtail the power of the devolved legislatures to amend a vast array of laws affecting areas that Parliament has determined should fall within devolved competence. Instead, those laws will be made by UK Ministers, using delegated powers and potentially with little parliamentary oversight. If I have got that wrong, I am sure the Minister will put me right.
As I said at the outset, the committee agrees with the Prime Minister that common standards and frameworks will be needed to support the integrity of the UK internal market after we leave the EU; but we also believe, equally strongly, that:
“Any durable solution will need the consent of all the nations of the United Kingdom”.
That means dialogue, compromise and mutual respect.
The key conclusion in our report is that contained in paragraph 271:
“We call on the UK Government and the devolved Governments to work together to put in place the frameworks needed to ensure consistency at UK level, thereby preserving the integrity of the UK single market, while respecting national, regional and local diversity, and the autonomy of the devolved institutions”.
Of course time is short, but even if the Government were simply to add a sunset provision to Clause 11, all sides would have time to come together and reach a lasting agreement on the common standards needed to protect the UK’s internal market, which could then be implemented by the legislatures in London, Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.
I do not know why the Government have not pursued that approach. Any attempt to use the EU withdrawal Bill to impose common frameworks on the nations of the United Kingdom against their will would contradict the principles that underpin the devolved settlements. Of course the politics, particularly between Whitehall and Edinburgh, are difficult. I will not pretend that securing agreement will be easy, but so much is at stake that all sides—led, I hope, by the Government—must surely make the effort. The Brexit negotiations are complex enough. The last thing we want is to create unnecessary difficulties, too, for the make-up of the United Kingdom.
Lord Desai (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the debate—we have three substantial reports to discuss. I also welcome the Minister to his new position. He has been thrown in at the deep end and I hope that he manages to survive this ordeal.
Given the two speakers who will follow me, I think that I have to speak for England, because no one is here doing that yet. I point first of all to the very useful table provided in the report, Brexit: Devolution. Noble Lords will see from the numbers there that the devolved regions together voted to remain; it is England which voted to exit. The margin in England was larger than the total margin in favour of exit—I have said this before in your Lordships’ House.
We have to understand that one reason for dissatisfaction in England—it may have been reflected in terms of Europe—is that it is the only undevolved region of the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said, the problem with devolution is that we have done it in a piecemeal fashion. I was told when I had my colonial education in India that that is the way we do things: we do not do things systematically; we do them one at a time. Suddenly, Brexit, among other things, has shown us the shortcomings of this approach. We have this great conflict between what the union is, what the devolved powers are and where the gaps in the arrangements are. One problem which will come up again and again in the months ahead is that, if we are to preserve the union—as, quite eloquently, the noble Lord, Lord Lang, said—we will have to do something about the problem of England. English votes for English laws was tried in a very gingerly fashion and I think that it has sunk without trace.
I do not think that it will happen but I will say it anyway: a constitutional convention or—God forbid—a royal commission will have to take on afresh the issue of the constitutional structure of the union after powers have been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with the situation of England left anomalous in that respect. We have toyed with the idea of regions of England having their own devolved governments or assemblies or something like that, but that went nowhere. In piecemeal fashion, we have now created some powerful mayors in large metropolitan areas, and there is now a movement in Yorkshire to have an independent Yorkshire or whatever it is. However, as a result of all these reports, I think that we have to come to terms with deciding what we are going to do about England. Are we going to have Westminster as a parliament for England and for the UK, or are we going to have a separate parliament for England and then have Westminster as the federal or the union parliament? It looks like an academic question, but I think it will come up again and again, because of dissatisfaction in England about lack of devolution.
The Barnett formula is one indication of this: every time the Barnett formula comes up, there is resentment in England that the same amount of money is not spent, per capita, in England as in Scotland. It may be a perfectly valid thing, because needs are different in different regions, but then you need to set an entire budget for each region, including England, on the basis of needs and then explain to people that, because the needs are dealt with equally and because they are different in different areas, this is why the Barnett formula exists; but nobody has ever done that. We have done the Barnett formula in an ad hoc fashion and it has long been reformed in an ad hoc fashion, without any reference to England.
I think it is very important that, as a result of these very important reports, we decide that now would be the best time, because Brexit is posing some very big challenges to us and when we are out, we will have problems. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said about the problem of re-establishing the single market. We are all old enough to remember that we had a single market before we went into Europe—what happened to that? Apparently it disappeared because, along the way, we have devolved power. How did that happen without anybody finding out? That kind of question is very important. We had the Kilbrandon commission, as some noble Lords will remember, back in the 1970s, but I think we need another commission, or some serious thinking as to how we will deal with dissatisfaction in England about the constitutional arrangements. It has not come up in a big way except in the Brexit world.
One problem we will have is that if the union is to be preserved, and I think that is a very important issue, we have to ask what kind of federation the union will be. Will it be one large region, England, and the three devolved regions? We see the asymmetry of that in the Brexit vote results: we may think that four units voted, but one unit overwhelmingly cast 28 million out of the 34 million votes cast for Brexit, and it was England which carried the result. Given that, are we going to have just four devolved regions, including England, or are we going to break England up into 10 separate independent regions with their own assemblies, or whatever it will be? How will we decide the question of the single market or the questions identified by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, of the social union, the defence and foreign policy union, the economic union?
Such questions have to be posed in an abstract way at the beginning and then we have to discuss the practical arrangements, instead of doing the practical arrangements in a piecemeal fashion and then finding that we have anomalies in the arrangements we have made. We will have anomalies because we have not thought about these things systematically. I do not think I can go on much longer like this, in an abstract fashion, but the problem I see being raised by the reports of both the Constitution Committee and the European Union Committee is that something will have to be done about England. The only way to do something about England is to approach the question of the nature of the union formally, and decide once and for all how we are going to include the devolution of England within the overall framework of the union.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lang of Monkton and Lord Jay of Ewelme, for introducing the debate, and their respective committees for giving us the opportunity to consider some very substantial reports containing some very important recommendations. I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, to the Front Bench. We look forward not only to his maiden speech replying to this debate—what a challenge—but his subsequent contributions to your Lordships’ House.
There is probably no better place to start than the opening words of the European Union Committee’s report, which sum up the situation quite succinctly:
“The impact of UK withdrawal from the EU on the UK’s devolution settlements is one of the most technically complex and politically contentious elements of the Brexit debate”.
If anything, that may even be an understatement. As has already been referred to, the architecture of the devolution schemes fully reflected—almost took for granted—our membership of the European Union. Section 29(2)(d) of the Scotland Act 1998 indicates that an Act of the Scottish Parliament is outwith the competence of that Parliament if it is incompatible with Community law; there is similar provision for executive actions. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jay, said that the European Union was the glue that held our union together. In addition, the structure of devolution has been such that everything is devolved unless it is expressly reserved. Devolution includes agriculture, fisheries and the environment—all devolved issues but which hitherto have had a very important European Union component. Logic would certainly indicate, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, did, that following Brexit these would become the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved bodies.
It is right to say that the Scottish Parliament, in exercising its powers over a number of these areas, has done so within frameworks established by the European Union. Who knows, if we had not been an EU member in 1998—we can speculate but it would be somewhat academic—what further exemptions might there have been in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act? But that is not where we are. There are some very good reasons why we should be pragmatic and apply common sense in suggesting that there must be frameworks which should be discussed and applied at a UK level. I do not believe it is anti-devolution to say so. The committee itself recognised that some things would be best done at a United Kingdom level when we are outside the European Union. Indeed, paragraph 19 of the Scottish Government’s legal consent memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill states:
“The Scottish Government has made clear … its willingness to negotiate UK frameworks in certain areas previously covered by EU law. This could be, for example, to support the functioning of UK markets, or to facilitate the management of common environmental resources”.
The Scottish Government themselves accept that there is a need for United Kingdom frameworks. It is important, therefore, that we address how we best tackle this and the European Union Committee is absolutely right when it emphasises the,
“need to set aside … differences and work constructively together to achieve an outcome that protects the interests of all parts of the UK. No durable solution will be possible without the consent of all the nations of the UK”.
One of the Select Committee’s recommendations reflects some of the earlier reports from the Constitution Committee about the importance of Joint Ministerial Committees. The noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, welcomed the establishment of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations). It was announced by the Government, with much fanfare, last autumn. I received during the most recent Recess a Written Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg. I had asked how many times that Joint Ministerial Committee had met in 2017. The answer was twice, on 19 January and 8 February. I have no doubt that the Minister will tell us that there is a meeting scheduled for next week and there have been umpteen, or several, bilateral meetings. But the mechanism established by the United Kingdom Government was to have a Joint Ministerial Committee. The recommendation of the European Union Committee was very practical and the Government’s performance to date has fallen well short of this very reasonable recommendation. It is a test of how seriously the Government take their responsibilities towards achieving an outcome that will be satisfactory to all parts of the United Kingdom.
If we look at how we would establish which should be the areas for common frameworks, it would be wrong for the Government to determine that this should be done on a top-down basis. The concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, with regard to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill betray a certain attitude that this would be done in a top-down way.
A body or a commission should examine these issues. It should be transparent and constructive, in a way that commands support from all parts of the United Kingdom and from all parties. The timescale of a royal commission would probably be too long. However remarkable the work done by the Smith commission, it was far too short and done with a degree of relative secrecy—it was not particularly opaque. We need something that is transparent and engages people, for example by taking evidence from the fishing industry, the agricultural industry and environmental groups as to what they think it important that we should do on a United Kingdom basis. After that the respective Administrations could, as they do now under European frameworks, produce detailed policies within that framework to meet the needs of particular areas.
Even when these United Kingdom-level frameworks are agreed, it would again be wrong if it were purely the United Kingdom Government who set the agenda. We should look for a balance of competences that is both devolved and shared. For example, the Joint Ministerial Committees could be put on a statutory footing. They would no longer be the talking shops which they often have been and could be invested with executive powers. For example, it may be necessary to consider whether they should operate with the possibility of weighted voting. Having made that agreement, the respective devolved Parliaments and Administrations—and the Westminster Parliament, as far as England is concerned—could then be allowed to work out how these agreements would be implemented in detail. That might in some ways be seen as a derogation from the sovereignty of Parliament but I believe David Cameron’s Conservative Government went down that path with their English votes for English laws. We now have a situation where one subset of Parliament, the English Members, can veto a measure that has been passed by the Lords and the Commons.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
The noble and learned Lord is making a very sensible and careful speech but could he just explain to me how agricultural subsidies would work under his scheme of things? Most of the money spent by the European Union is on the CAP and before we joined the European Union, we had a common system set by the United Kingdom Parliament. I find it quite difficult to envisage different subsidies for sheep on either side of the Scottish or Welsh borders, or how a market would operate under those proposals. I am thinking of the politics of it, where we have a Government in Scotland who wish to break up the United Kingdom. I just do not see how it could be practical. Is it not a little hypocritical of those who argue that we should remain in the European Union, and that these powers should therefore remain in Brussels, to say that they cannot possibly be exercised by the United Kingdom Parliament?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, makes an important point about the distribution of funds but that point should be agreed. It should not be done, as it were, on a top-down basis by the United Kingdom Government. I would point out to him that when there was a change in the basis for European Union agricultural payments in the early years of this century, Scotland went down the route of historic payments whereas England certainly went down that of payments based on area—I am not sure about Wales. So even under the present arrangements, there are differences in how these things are dealt with north and south of the border.
I will not detain the House on other issues relating to migration, on which the committee made important recommendations. Having looked at the Government’s response, it makes the word “banal” sound exciting—there was no response at all. The Government should have second thoughts on that and address the very important points made by the committee.
If we had a ministerial group setting out the framework, as I have proposed, we would also need some body to overlook it. That could well be done through an interparliamentary body, trying to bring the different Parliaments of the United Kingdom together—in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Westminster Parliament—to provide that kind of oversight. If that is a step towards federalism, then certainly from these Benches I do not apologise.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, some people may wonder why there is a somewhat sparse presence of Peers with Welsh links participating in this debate. One factor is undoubtedly an event taking place in Cardiff, where there is an important international football match in which Wales faces the Republic of Ireland. The outcome will probably determine whether Wales, for the first time since 1958, participates in the World Cup finals. Incidentally, my condolences to my Scottish friends.
I hope that I will gain a few brownie points from colleagues by my presence here tonight. I bought tickets for my son, my grandsons and myself a year ago, and my heart is there, but noble Lords will perhaps recognise that the supreme importance of tonight’s subject dictates that I should participate in this debate concerning the implications for devolution and Brexit. I thank the two noble Lords who introduced the important reports before us today.
Let me first refer to other events which may have a tangential significance for the subject at hand—namely, the constitutional developments in Catalonia. Without trespassing into matters outside the reports which we are considering, I shall put two issues on record. First, my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I utterly abhor the heavy-handed tactics used by the Spanish Government, which have been condemned around the world, although only belatedly and half-heartedly by senior figures of the European Union. For those of us who have been strongly committed to the European ideal and devolution, this serves to remind us that the construct of Europe is still not a Europe of the people, but a Europe which is largely orchestrated to meet the needs of 19th-century imperial states and which can still tolerate actions reminiscent of 20th-century fascist dictators. For the first time in 50 years, my faith in the European dream has been badly shaken.
Secondly, noble Lords may have noticed pictures of David Cameron being paraded by Catalan voters in Barcelona. The experience in Spain allows a new, favourable view of the events surrounding Scotland’s independence referendum in 2014. Certainly there were aspects of that event which dismayed many of my friends in Scotland but virtually everyone, I believe, accepted that if there had been a 55% to 45% vote for independence, the UK Government, while greatly saddened by such an outcome, would have respected the democratic decision of Scotland and would have worked with Scotland’s Government to secure a sensible transition to a new form of partnership in these islands.
For those of us who are sometimes critical of aspects of the British state—justifiably in some matters, such as the iniquitous Barnett formula and the impact it has on Wales, which has been mentioned tonight—there has been a salutary lesson. There are positive aspects of British democracy which we should rightly recognise, and respect for people’s views, and their right to express them through referenda, is something we should cherish. There may come a day when, once again, Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales vote on their constitutional future. They will do so knowing that, unlike the experience of the Catalans, their voice will be respected and the outcome of the referendum delivered.
That brings me to the Brexit issue. As I have already stated in this Chamber, while I bitterly regret the outcome of last year’s referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, I have to recognise that the result has to be respected, although I also recognise that Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU, and that is why the subject of tonight’s debate is additionally significant. These differences and the need to accept that the UK voted in total to leave underline the requirement to secure a form of Brexit which takes on board the diverse demands and expectations of the four nations of these islands and their elected Governments.
The referendum determined that the United Kingdom state will leave the EU, but it did not determine what would be the relationship of the UK as a whole or its constituent nations with the residual EU of 27 member states. The choice which the UK Government should be seriously addressing is whether there will be one overarching solution addressing the diverse needs and considerations of all four constituent nations of the UK, which would inevitably mean that either there has to be large-scale compromise or that the needs of some nations are subjugated to the needs of others. In other words, can we formulate a solution involving multiple geometry and a flexibility which allows a different interplay with Europe among the constituent nations of the UK? That is where consideration of the role and, indeed, the extent of devolution comes centre stage.
The report of the European Union Committee on Brexit and devolution has identified many of these problems. I congratulate the committee on its work; I was fortunate in being invited to give evidence and I thank it for that courtesy. In its conclusions, the report states, on page 4:
“No durable solution will be possible without the consent of all the nations of the UK”.
It recognises that common standards, which may be needed for the integrity of the UK single market,
“cannot be imposed top-down by the UK Government”.
It recognises that the UK Government will need to secure the consent of the devolved legislatures to the withdrawal Bill.
I also highlight the European Union Committee’s criticism of the working—or should I say the non-working—of the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations). It notes that that committee, which should have a key co-ordination function as the Brexit negotiations move forward, had only ever met twice, and not since 8 February. I also noted the emphasis placed on this by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, when he introduced the debate and indeed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, a moment ago. It is difficult to see how the Prime Minister can claim, as she did at the start of her tenure of office, that she would be “fully engaging” the devolved Administrations in the Brexit process. Indeed, in her Lancaster House speech, she saw the question of what powers should be passed to the devolved Administrations from Brussels as a matter solely for the UK Government to decide.
This brings us to the heart of the issue, concerning which Plaid Cymru has commissioned legal advice from Fflur Jones of the leading Cardiff solicitors Darwin Gray, to provide a legal analysis of the withdrawal Bill and its constitutional implications for Wales. Her paper explains why, in her opinion, the Bill is in breach of the current devolution settlement. Indeed, she goes as far as to state that, in the present form, the withdrawal Bill is,
“an existential threat to the current devolution settlement in Wales”.
The advice states that the Sewel convention, since it has been enshrined in statute,
“is a powerful political mechanism whereby all legislative changes that will affect the devolution settlement in Wales, or the introduction of any framework agreements within the UK, should be introduced by way of consultation and agreement between the UK Parliament and the National Assembly”.
Any other kind of imposition of changes would mean the UK Parliament considers it right to impose changes that affect the devolution settlements without the Assembly’s consent and which may well countermand the constitutional settlement which has been approved by the people of Wales in two devolution referendums.
This is not just a question of legal niceties, it is an issue which will impact on all aspects of Welsh life. It is true, regrettably, that Wales voted by a small margin to leave the EU. In doing so, many Brexit voters may have been motivated by the case for “taking back control”. Passing power from Brussels to London over matters such as agriculture, which are almost wholly devolved to Wales, does not in any way constitute bringing back control to Wales.
In fact, all three current devolution settlements are framed in the context of the UK’s pre-existing EU membership and reflect the supremacy of EU law. This is highlighted in the EU Committee report before us, where, in paragraph 36, it is stated,
“the European Union has been, in effect … the glue holding the United Kingdom together since 1997. The supremacy of EU law, and the interpretation of that law by the Court of Justice of the EU, have in many areas ensured consistency of legal and regulatory standards across the UK, including in devolved policy areas, such as environment, agriculture and fisheries. In practice, the UK internal market has been upheld by the rules of the EU internal market”.
How is this now to be replicated within a UK-only context? The European framework is not the plaything of one member state, nor even of the EU Commission itself. The European Court of Justice is an independent judicial body. If after Brexit we are to have a set of rules for the UK single market, laid down by just one of the four parliaments of these islands, it is, as the committee itself asserts, a development which,
“presents a risk that the complex overlapping competences within the UK could become increasingly unstable”.
In the concluding words of this report, the UK Government must work,
“in a spirit of partnership and cooperation with the devolved legislatures and governments”,
as was emphasised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. I wait with interest to hear how the Government intend to discharge this most fundamental of duties.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Jay, for the way in which they introduced the debate. I welcome my noble friend Lord Duncan to the Front Bench and I look forward to his maiden speech. He has certainly been busy in the last four months, consulting groups across Scotland. As his immediate predecessor, I did the same thing. My progress across Scotland was always forensically—one might say obsessively—tracked on social media by a cybernat called the Tartan Hippo. I grew quite fond of the Tartan Hippo, although he seemed to imagine that ministerial visits to Scotland represented some sort of extended holiday. So, notwithstanding my noble friend’s doctorate in palaeontology, if he encounters the Tartan Hippo on his travels I can only wish him the very best of luck.
We are debating today three important reports. The common thread running through all of them is how the UK manages a period of unprecedented constitutional change to provide constitutional stability and protect the integrity of the UK. The greatest existential threat to the integrity of the union has come from Scottish independence. That threat takes two forms: the direct fundamentalist threat that nationalists will seek, by stirring up grievance, to engineer the circumstances in which Scotland votes to leave the UK; and the indirect, gradualist threat that powers are indiscriminately devolved to the Scottish Parliament to an extent that the UK becomes so hollowed out that it can no longer function as a viable nation state.
No one can doubt the significance of Brexit to our territorial constitution. Handled badly, Brexit risks exacerbating the threats to the UK’s constitutional stability. Handled well, it provides a unique opportunity to strengthen the union between our four home nations. So I want to set out grounds to be hopeful and thoughts on the repatriation of powers from Brussels. The most obvious reason to be hopeful is that the threat of a second independence referendum has receded, although, I hasten to add, not gone away. Campaign fatigue is doubtless a factor but there are three other important factors: grievance denial, accountability and the SNP’s independence paradox.
On the first of those, grievance denial, the way in which the devolved Administrations are handled is often criticised, and I would be the first to admit that the UK Government sometimes do not help themselves—for example, by unnecessarily being slow to share information and not holding regular meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee. However, I know from personal experience what efforts are made to behave reasonably and to be seen to do so. The Edinburgh agreement, which has been referred to, is seen as an example of how reasonably and successfully to hold an independence referendum. It gave force and legitimacy when the Prime Minister came rightly to refuse to concede a second independence referendum. Similarly, in this 20th anniversary year of the Scottish devolution referendum, despite well-publicised tensions, the business of managing areas of shared competence has continued to be conducted successfully. City deals and the joint ministerial group on welfare are current examples of effective intergovernmental co-operation. It has become commonplace for UK and Scottish government Ministers jointly to meet with Scottish business and civic society. So while Scottish devolution was not stress-tested at the outset for the possibility of an SNP Government in Holyrood and a Conservative Government in Westminster, it is being now and is proving remarkably resilient because most people in Scotland want the two Governments to work together.
Brexit is further testing the arrangements, with the Scottish Government insisting that they will not give legislative consent to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, but let us remember that the Scottish Parliament threatened until the last minute to withhold consent for both the Scotland Acts 2012 and 2016. Indeed, many was the time that I stood at the Dispatch Box waiting, in the memorable phrase of my noble friend Lord Forsyth, for Billy Bunter’s postal order to turn up. Well, it turned up in the end in the form of legislative consent for the Scotland Act 2016, and there are sound reasons for the Scottish Government to reach agreement this time, too: to achieve more powers and ensure that Scots law continues to work.
That brings me to accountability. At its heart, the Scotland Act 2016 is about strengthening the accountability of the Scottish Government by increasing their financial responsibilities and reducing their reliance on the UK block grant. I accept that it is still early days, but the 2016 Holyrood and 2017 general elections suggest that the Smith package is having a positive effect on Scottish political debate, with less focus on what more powers Scotland needs and much more on how those powers are being used. This can only be healthy.
My final ground for hope is the paradox at the heart of the independence proposition. Brexit has not proved the recruiting sergeant for independence that Nicola Sturgeon expected it to be, and it is not hard to see why. For those who want Scotland to have more control of its own destiny, the paradox is being asked to leave a long-standing union where power is being dispersed to stay in a more recent union where the clear direction of travel, as recent speeches of Presidents Juncker and Macron make clear, is towards more integration, not less.
A similar paradox applies to the SNP’s claim that the UK Government are seeking to hoard at Westminster powers repatriated from Brussels. Not only does this defy the Government’s recent devolution record and commitment to devolve more powers post-Brexit, it is also hard to square with the SNP’s apparent preference for powers to remain concentrated in Brussels instead. Voters have a keen ear for justifications and arguments that sound fake or phoney.
Against this backdrop, the government approach set out in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to the repatriation of powers is broadly to confer on the devolved Administrations power to correct technical deficiencies in repatriated EU law in order to provide a workable devolved statute book on exit day; to replicate for retained EU law the existing requirements prohibiting devolved Administrations from legislating contrary to EU law; and to establish a mechanism for releasing, by mutual agreement of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, powers to the appropriate level of government from what is, in effect, intended as a temporary holding pattern. This makes possible an orderly process for establishing and agreeing where common UK frameworks are required, because all three devolution settlements assume the UK’s membership of the EU and, as the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and others have already said, EU law is the glue holding together the United Kingdom’s single market. Without common UK frameworks to replace this, there is a real risk of undermining the UK home market as we exit the EU.
The Government’s intentions are sound and sensible. Without that approach, powers currently exercised at EU level could flow back by default to the devolved Administrations. This would be contrary to one of the central conclusions of the Constitution Committee’s report on the union and devolution: that proposals for further devolution must take into account,
“the needs of, and consequences for, the entire Union”.
That said, moving forward, the Government will need to demonstrate that the process for agreeing how repatriated powers are allocated is both fair and robust, and there are two areas where action could be taken to build greater confidence in the process. The European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is currently asymmetrical between the constraints imposed on the devolved Administrations and the extensive delegated powers conferred on UK Ministers. I am not arguing for the constraints on the devolved Administrations to be removed. If, however, as the Government say, the delegated powers in the Bill are intended to effect not major changes of policy but technical changes to make the law work, this should be reflected in stronger safeguards in the Bill against their misuse. I commend to the House the Constitution Committee’s proposals in its most recent report for achieving this. A better balance of constraints would have the virtue of providing the UK Government and devolved Administrations with similar incentives to reach early agreement on substantive policy issues.
The second area of risk is the risk of reservation by default, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jay, has already referred. The power to fix deficiencies is time-limited, but the mechanism in Clause 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill for releasing powers from the holding pattern is open-ended. There needs to be clarity, therefore, about where the competences repatriated from Brussels will be exercised if there is no agreement between the UK Government and devolved Administrations. The Government have said that they will seek the legislative consent of the Scottish Parliament for the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill; they therefore have the strongest possible incentive to get this right, which underlines the importance of having in place a clear route map and timetable for reaching agreement. I hope that my noble friend will say more about this in his speech.
In conclusion, the great strengths of the UK’s unwritten constitution are its flexibility and resilience, which have been tested often and increasingly questioned. In the face of these challenges, the temptation is to propose statutory solutions for constitutional arrangements governed by convention and practice. However, we should be careful not to reach for judicial adjudication, excellent though it is, when what is required is political negotiation and agreement. It was the late Garret FitzGerald who asked, in relation to a public policy proposal:
“I can see that it works in practice, but does it work in theory?”.
It is unfashionable to say it, but I believe that the daily management of the Scottish devolution settlement has worked better in practice than theory and theorists would suggest. I am confident that in handling the issue of repatriation of powers, the Government will demonstrate that that remains the case—so no pressure.
Lord Morgan (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by apologising to the House. I was told that the debate was beginning two hours later than it appears to have done—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the House, but I understand that the noble Lord has withdrawn from speaking, as he was not here for the opening speech.
Monarch Airlines
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in another place. The Statement is as follows:
“I would like to make a Statement about the steps that the Government have been taking to support those affected by the collapse of Monarch Airlines, in particular the 110,000 passengers that it left abroad without a flight back to the UK and the almost 2,000 people who have lost their jobs.
Mr Speaker, this situation is deeply regrettable, and all parties considered options to avoid the collapse of the company. Ultimately, however, Monarch’s board took the decision to place it into administration and it ceased trading at around 4 am on Monday 2 October. The engineering arm of the group remains a viable business and continues to trade.
Ahead of the collapse, my department had been working closely with the Civil Aviation Authority and several departments across Whitehall to prepare contingency plans, and the response has been swift and substantial. To put this into context, this is the largest operation of its kind ever undertaken, and has meant that the CAA has essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines to conduct this operation. To give Members a sense of the scale, we have put arrangements in place to bring back 110,000 people to the UK, which requires 700 flights over a two-week period and a maximum of 35 aircraft in operation at one time. The CAA is working with 27 different airlines, and more than 200 CAA staff are working on the project, with thousands more in partner organisations. There are over 40 airports involved, in the UK, around the Mediterranean and beyond. It has required 267 coaches, carrying over 13,000 passengers. So far there have been over 39,000 calls to our customer service centre, all swiftly answered by more than 250 call-centre staff. There have been over 1 million unique visitors to a dedicated website—monarch.caa.co.uk—and 7 million page views. Furthermore, more than 1 million people have been reached through our Facebook promotion. There have been 10 government departments and agencies involved, including the FCO in London and our extensive diplomatic and consular network in those affected countries.
I have seen at first hand the work being done across government and by the CAA to make this operation a success, and spoken to some of the passengers who have returned to the UK on government flights. I have been hugely impressed by what I have seen and we have had a very strong response from passengers, with many praising the CAA and the Government themselves for a well-organised and professional response.
Normally, the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back would extend only to those customers whose trips were covered by ATOL. However, this is the largest airline failure in UK history and there would have been insufficient capacity in the commercial aviation market to enable passengers to get home on other airlines. The danger was that we would have seen tens of thousands of passengers abroad with no easy means of returning to the UK. I therefore instructed the CAA to ensure that all those currently abroad were offered an alternative flight home. As of last night, around 80,000 passengers have returned to the UK, almost three-quarters of the total number who were abroad at the time of the collapse. We have also deployed teams of government officials to overseas airports to provide advice and assistance to passengers. Despite robust plans and their success so far, this is a hugely distressing situation for all concerned. Obviously, one of my top priorities has been to help those passengers abroad get safely back to the UK and our hearts also go out to those passengers who had lost advance bookings as a result of the collapse.
In addition to supporting passengers, we have been working across government to ensure that the almost 2,000 former Monarch employees receive the support they need. I am pleased to report that airlines have already been directly appealing to Monarch’s former employees. For instance, Virgin Atlantic is offering a fast-track recruitment process for cabin crew and pilots, and easyJet has invited applications for 500 cabin crew vacancies. EasyJet is also calling for direct-entry captains or first officers who meet captain qualifications. All former Monarch employees will have received information from Jobcentre Plus outlining the support available to them. In total, Jobcentre Plus has pulled together a list of more than 6,300 vacancies across the major UK-based airlines—more than three times the number of people made redundant—which will help former Monarch employees remain in the airline industry.
The Aviation Minister has been in contact with those Members whose constituencies will have been hardest hit by these job losses, and given assurances that we will work with the industry to offer what support we can. However, I am also aware of the duty the Government have to the taxpayer, and while affected passengers have been told they will not have to pay to be flown back to the UK, we have entered into discussions with several third parties with a view to recovering some of the costs of this operation.
The ATOL scheme will, of course, provide the financial cover for those who have ATOL protection. We are currently engaged in constructive discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers in order that we might recoup from them some of the costs to taxpayers of these repatriation flights. We are also having similar discussions with other travel providers through which passengers may have booked a Monarch holiday, and I would like to thank all those involved for their constructive and realistic approach. The initial response to this unprecedented situation would not have been as successful were it not for the support and co-operation of many players.
The loss of a major British brand, which was close to celebrating its half-century, is undoubtedly a sad moment. However, this should not be seen as a reflection of the general health of the UK aviation sector, which continues to thrive. We have never had the collapse of an airline or holiday company on this scale before. We have responded swiftly and decisively. Right now our efforts are rightly focused on getting employees into new jobs, and passengers home. But then our efforts will turn to working through any reforms necessary to ensure that passengers do not find themselves in this position again. We need to look at all the options, not just ATOL, but also whether it is possible for airlines to be able to wind down in an orderly manner and look after their customers themselves without the need for the Government to step in. We will be putting a lot of effort into this in the weeks and months ahead.
This has been an unprecedented response to an unprecedented situation, and I am grateful to all parties who have stepped in to support those affected”.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the Commons by the Secretary of State. I also appreciate that the Minister has himself been directly involved in these issues as the Aviation Minister.
The demise of Monarch Airlines has caused a great many problems and much distress for both passengers and certainly some 2,000 staff who have lost their jobs. Could the Minister say how many Monarch staff have so far either found alternative employment or, perhaps more realistically at this stage, been offered alternative employment?
The government Statement said that the CAA had essentially set up one of the UK’s largest airlines to conduct this operation. I agree that this is a very good example of how a state-run enterprise can deliver effectively and efficiently. Those involved in bringing home Monarch customers left stranded by its demise are to be congratulated, not least the staff of the Civil Aviation Authority. There are, though, a few questions I would like to raise.
First, how long before the demise of Monarch Airlines did the CAA start to organise aircraft to bring stranded passengers home, since concerns have been expressed about the reality that Monarch Airlines was still selling flights a few hours before it ceased trading? If the CAA knew that Monarch Airlines was on the verge of failing, and it must have done otherwise there would not have been the issue over renewing the licence, why did it not warn the public of the potential adverse consequences of continuing to purchase Monarch flights? Is this part of a general issue that the Government are looking at in the light of the comment in the penultimate paragraph of the Statement that they intend to look at all the options for ensuring that passengers do not find themselves in this situation again?
Secondly, the organisation that took over Monarch in 2014, Greybull Capital, a private investment firm, frankly has form when it comes to the collapse of companies—My Local convenience stores and Comet, for example. Bearing in mind that the taxpayer is having to pick up at least part of the price tag of Monarch’s failure, do the Government intend to consider what role they should play in future when companies are being taken over in situations where the taxpayer is likely to have to pick up a not insignificant part of the bill if the company that has been taken over then fails?
Thirdly, I understand that KPMG was appointed to seek buyers for Monarch’s short-haul business prior to the airline’s collapse, and was actively doing so. If that is correct, is it also correct that KPMG is now acting as Monarch’s administrator, and, if so, does that not raise questions about at least potential conflicts of interest?
Fourthly, I understand that that there was a report in yesterday’s Sunday Times suggesting that the £165 million rescue package to Monarch last year was largely funded by Boeing as part of a cut-price deal for an order for aircraft. Is that suggestion correct or incorrect? It has also been claimed that Monarch had £50 million in the bank. Is that correct and, if so, who will get that money, and indeed the money from the value of Monarch’s landing slots, claimed to be £60 million?
Fifthly, the Statement says that the Government are currently engaged in discussions with the relevant credit and debit card providers with a view to recouping from them some of the cost to taxpayers of what the Government describe as repatriation flights. What is the current cost to taxpayers of these flights? What is the likely final cost before any money is recouped? What is the legal position of credit and debit card providers, and indeed the other travel providers with which the Government have said they are in discussions, when it comes to paying the cost of those government repatriation flights?
Sixthly, and finally, the government Statement says that the CAA’s responsibility for bringing passengers back extends only to customers whose trips are covered by ATOL, but that the Government instructed the CAA to ensure that all those currently abroad were offered an alternative flight home, although I understand this does not apply to those returning after next Sunday. Perhaps the Government could say if, and if so why, this latter point is the situation. In the light of the penultimate paragraph of the Government’s Statement, which referred to looking at the options and trying to prevent passengers being, to put it mildly, inconvenienced in this way again, there appear to be issues about the Government’s future intentions, to be pursued perhaps more appropriately during the Committee stage of the ATOL Bill on Wednesday.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement and for having provided the opportunity to talk to him about this issue following the failure of Monarch.
Clearly, this is a massive task and our thanks must go to those who are engaged in bringing people back to Britain. This is probably the first failure of a major UK company that can be directly ascribed to the impact of the falling pound caused by the Brexit vote. I fear that it will not be the last such failure and that the Government will have to intervene to alleviate the impact of Brexit-induced failure on numerous occasions in the future.
It is true that other factors, such as increased costs of security, were involved in this situation, but the falling value of the pound increased the costs of fuel, handling charges and lease payments in a way that proved fatal for this company. So, despite a 14% growth in the number of passengers travelling with Monarch, the company was not viable any more and nearly 1,900 Monarch employees have lost their jobs. Our sympathy must go to those who have been made redundant. It also needs to go to those customers who experienced distress and will face considerable financial loss, as many are not covered by the ATOL scheme.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. First, rumours about the financial instability of Monarch had been swirling around for weeks, yet it continued trading. I received an email a couple of days before the company collapsed tempting me to buy one of hundreds of thousands of holidays on offer. Why was the company allowed to continue not just to provide holidays to those who had already booked but to entice new customers at a time of such instability?
Secondly, it appears to have been revealed that credit card firms withheld from the airline an estimated £30 million from ticket sales because they feared that it would go under. Is the Minister satisfied that this practice was legal and that it did not contribute to tipping Monarch over the edge? Do the Government intend to investigate this situation and to ensure that in future cases of a similar nature there is no knock-on effect from action of this sort by credit card companies?
Thirdly, what percentage of customers are not covered by the ATOL scheme? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to give us a precise figure at this stage but some indication would be helpful. In what respect will the ATOL Bill, which is before this House at the moment and will be discussed in Grand Committee on Wednesday, improve the situation in the future? Will he undertake to re-examine that Bill in the light of these events to see whether more could or should be done to protect customers buying flights as part of a holiday in the new online arrangements that the vast majority of us now participate in?
Finally, how much will the repatriation cost? How far do the Government believe that they will be able to recover that cost and what steps will they take to do so?
This collapse of a company nearly 50 years old and the sheer number of customers involved emphasises how much we travel abroad these days and how important it is that the Government grapple urgently with the challenges that the transport industry faces in relation to many aspects of Brexit.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, let me first thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, for their complimentary statements about the Civil Aviation Authority, with which I completely concur. It has done a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and—if I can perhaps concede something to the Labour Party—it demonstrates that the Government can organise things relatively well, sometimes, although I continue to believe that the airline industry is best carried out in the private sector.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what percentage of staff have found alternative employment. I am afraid that I do not know that yet. It was only last Monday that this unfortunate collapse occurred, but as soon as we have some available figures I will be sure to share them with him.
How long in advance were we aware? Clearly, we had advance information that this was a possibility—indeed, it nearly happened a year ago—and contingency arrangements were put in place. It is right and proper that, when we received information a few days in advance that this was a possibility, we of course put in place contingency arrangements. I am sure that noble Lords would have been on their feet criticising me if we had not done that.
It is the case that flights were sold a few hours before the collapse, but the situation is very difficult for any airline because as soon as they stop selling flights, they will automatically collapse. Why did the CAA not inform passengers, or indeed the Department for Transport? The same argument applies. If we came out and made a statement, the one thing that that would guarantee is that the airline would then collapse. Rumours of the health of this airline have been around for a long time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, indicated. The CAA works closely with airlines and, for those that are UK based, issues them operating and ATOL licences. Part of those checks involves studying the airline’s financial health and the airline would not have received the licence 12 months ago if the CAA was not satisfied that it was in robust health. I am told that, at the time, there was a long period during which the licence was extended temporarily until further financing was received.
I am afraid that I cannot comment on the role of KPMG. It is the court-appointed administrator and will fulfil its statutory duties, part of which is to report to government within three months on the actions of the directors of the business. The noble Lord can be assured that we will take robust action if any malfeasance is proved.
In response to questions on the Boeing bailout or financing last year, I am aware of the press reports. However, as to where the money in the bank goes, there is a set process under the administration Act for how that money is allocated.
The value of the slots is an extremely complicated legal conundrum that many lawyers are currently grappling with. It is not clear at all whether it will be able to sell the slots, because the slots have to be owned by a viable licensed airline before they can be sold. Intense legal discussion is going on about whether the value of those slots can be realised. That is a matter for the CAA, the slots administrator and the administrators of the company to work out between them.
The legal position with regard to credit cards is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act, and for anybody who paid with a credit card, the credit card company is liable for the refund of their flight home and any incidental costs incurred. Similarly, with debit cards there is a charge-back arrangement. It does not provide quite the same protection as under the Consumer Credit Act but, nevertheless, customers and passengers are still protected.
Of those returning after next Sunday, we estimate that only about 5% of passengers will remain abroad. There will then be plenty of capacity in the commercial market. The reason we felt the need to step in on this occasion—as indeed the last Labour Government did in the case of XL Airways in 2008—is that there just was not enough capacity available in the commercial market to repatriate so many people. Even if you had had the money, travel insurance and ATOL protection, you would not have been able to purchase a commercial flight in the market—the capacity was just not there—and therefore people would have been stranded abroad.
Moving on to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I am afraid that I just do not agree that this was the impact of Brexit. I know that she wants to attribute everything that goes wrong at the moment to Brexit, but on this occasion she is just wrong. Monarch Airlines was carrying 14% more passengers this year than last year. The issue is that because of intense competition, particularly on the Mediterranean routes, prices dropped to such a level that the airline was not able to make money on them. Nevertheless, other airlines are making substantial profits—they have been announced in recent weeks—and they are doing well. There is competition in the market. Some routes, such as Sharm el-Sheikh and Tunisia, have had to be dropped for understandable security reasons. That has concentrated all of the market in the eastern Mediterranean. Many other airlines are setting up other routes and businesses as we speak in airports across the country in order to serve those markets. If noble Lords look on those websites they will see just how cheaply tickets are available. This was because of competition in the market. Of course, the value of the pound dropping also played a small role, but that applied to all the other airlines as well.
With regard to the rumours that were circulating, I have studied them in great detail. There were a lot of rumours in the media beforehand but, again, as a responsible Government we cannot comment on the financial health of companies; we can only act on definite information and decisions when they are made. I assure the noble Baroness that we will look at the implications of this, and I am sure that there will be studies from this House’s committees and possibly committees in the other place to look at all of the circumstances. We will take any appropriate action that falls from that. I can give the noble Baroness an estimate of the number covered by at ATOL. We estimate that, roughly, 10% to 15% will be covered by ATOL protection.
The noble Baroness asked about the ATOL Bill. Actually, the Bill would have had very little effect on this. Most of the people were flying as normal airline passengers under normal airline conditions and the ATOL Bill would not affect them. A very small proportion—10% to 15%—are covered by the existing ATOL provisions, but even with the extension to other operations that we are currently discussing in the ATOL Bill, I do not believe that many of the Monarch passengers would have been affected if that Bill had been in effect.
The noble Baroness asked about the costs. We estimate that the total cost will be roughly £60 million. We will get the final bills when the operation has finished. I can confirm that the Secretary of State and I are in active discussions with the credit and debit card companies and with the travel agents to attempt to secure as much of those funds for the taxpayer as possible. When I have more precise financial information, I will update the House.
Lord Myners (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that this was an unprecedented and most regrettable story, but it is not unprecedented for Greybull, the owner of Monarch, to have seen a company fail. In the past, companies have failed with damage to creditors, customers and employees, but with much less damage to Greybull because it has taken secured credit on receivables and fixed assets. It has put itself in the position of being a preferred creditor. I hope that the Government will encourage the authorities to investigate whether that is not an issue of fraudulent preference.
Secondly, the Minister praised the CIA and said that it could organise things reasonably well. I wonder whether it did so a year ago because the method by which Monarch was recapitalised was to lease planes from Boeing, which told it that the planes were worth £100 million more, which it could book as equity in its accounts. The Minister said that the money was in the bank. I suggest that the Minister is showing a complete failure to understand what has happened here. I encourage him to look objectively at the performance of the CIA, which appears to have licensed a business with inadequate equity, and also at the Insolvency Service and its investigation into the activities of Greybull—which this House was previously told would be reported on to Parliament, although the Government then decided that they would not publish the Insolvency Service report.
Lord Callanan
I am sure that the CIA is doing a great job, but on this occasion I will talk about the CAA—the Civil Aviation Authority. The noble Lord makes a number of very serious accusations. As I said, the administrators have a duty to report to the Government within three months on the actions of the directors. Again, as I said, if there is any evidence that those directors have acted improperly we will not hesitate to take action against them. I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord: the CAA has done an excellent job in unprecedented circumstances. I have been working very closely with the CAA and it has acted in the best interests of the passengers involved. The noble Lord shakes his head. If we had not done anything and not put any contingency plans into action to bring people back, I am sure that he and many of his colleagues would be criticising us for not doing so. The CIA—the CAA; the noble Lord is getting me into it now—has acted properly and done an excellent job in very difficult circumstances pulling together a huge rescue operation for over 110,000 people. It deserves our credit.
Lord Cavendish of Furness (Con)
My Lords, as someone who was stranded rather absent-mindedly by Monarch’s failure, may I be allowed to recognise the Government’s response? Clear instructions appeared on the internet and arriving at Palma airport we were met by courteous and efficient representatives and returned home with only a few minutes’ delay. Significantly, the representative also explained the need to protect the taxpayer as far as possible. Will my noble friend pass on the appreciation for a rescue that was so efficiently carried out?
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for his comments. I will certainly do that. Of course, we are all happy to criticise government agencies and organisations when things go wrong—quite rightly—but in this instance we should pay credit to those who have put so much work into organising this rescue operation. I am pleased that his repatriation flight worked well. The Secretary of State visited the first repatriation flight at Manchester Airport and I visited Leeds Bradford Airport to meet repatriated passengers. I was met with almost universal praise from those people for the way that the problem had been handled and the way they had been met in foreign airports by both Foreign Office staff and government surge team staff who were sent out to assist with the efforts in over 40 airports across the continent. On this occasion, things have gone extremely well. We still have a few more days of the operation left so we should perhaps not speak too early, but so far it is looking very good and we should thank the agencies involved.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure the whole House is grateful for what the Government have done with the CAA to sort out this urgent problem. I am sure contingency plans were in preparation for many months. It happens on the railways, too, when a passenger franchise goes bust or similar. But my worry is that there is a much bigger problem sitting on the sidelines in the shape of Ryanair, which seems to have forgotten that its pilots need holidays. Enormous numbers of flights have been cancelled—probably many more than in the case of Monarch. Where it will all end up we do not know. The passengers have probably had a much more difficult time sorting out how to complete their journeys than the Monarch passengers because the CAA was well organised. Will the contingency plans that have worked so well in this case be available in the future for other potential failures, whether the airline concerned is registered in the UK or not? I hope the answer will be yes.
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord is tempting me to comment on the financial health of airlines but it would be wrong to do so. I think I have been robust in the conversations and exchange of correspondence I have had with Ryanair. The company’s actions and the way it treated passengers during the flight cancellations were disgraceful and it certainly misled me when I wrote to it about the cancellations. I have made that extremely clear to Mr O’Leary in writing. While it is the responsibility of the CAA, we will not hesitate to ensure that the passengers of Ryanair or any other airline get the compensation that they require and that Ryanair and other airlines fulfil their legal responsibilities to let people know the terms of the EU 261 directive. We will not hesitate to take action through the CAA to ensure that they do so.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, would the Minister care to say a word about the passengers who were caught out in needing to return home from the UK as opposed to returning passengers? In the wake of Monarch and wishing to ensure no future disruption to passengers, should the Government be encouraging Ryanair to abide by the payment of local taxes and social security to individual EU countries where pilots are stationed on a permanent basis rather than to Ireland, where their contracts are designated? I understand that the French have won a case in the ECJ, with the result that Ryanair pulled all its planes from France.
Lord Callanan
I am afraid I am not familiar with that case, but Ryanair will have to comply with the rules and regulations in the same way as everyone else, as I said in my previous answer. With regard to passengers who are leaving this country, I am afraid that in this case our responsibilities extend to getting those who are stranded abroad repatriated. People who have booked flights in advance with Monarch will need to look at their travel insurance or their credit or debit card companies to gain a refund. However, I am sure the noble Viscount will understand that it cannot be the Government’s responsibility to fly people out from this country. We took the view that our responsibility was to repatriate those who were stranded abroad at no cost to themselves. As I have said, we are working with credit and debit card companies to try to recover as much of that money as possible, but there is a limit to how much we can intervene in these matters.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I start by declaring my interest as an advisory member of the board of London Luton Airport. These are difficult days locally, as the Minister has said. Monarch has been a proud Luton-based carrier for nearly 50 years and a good employer. It is one of two airlines that for many years helped to sustain the airport itself, together with Britannia Airways. If there is a silver lining, as has been explained, it is the vibrancy of the aviation sector, and London Luton Airport in particular, which is the fastest growing airport in the UK and the country’s fifth-biggest airport.
I welcome the action that the Government have taken and recognise that substantial costs have hit the public purse in the form of repatriation costs, redundancy payments and the pension scheme, involving the PPF. Is it right that when Greybull Capital purchased Monarch Airlines, it was on the basis that the PPF should take responsibility for a £600 million pension scheme obligation in return for a derisory stake in the business? Can the Minister also say something about Monarch Aircraft Engineering? He has said that it is not affected by this, which is good news so far because plenty of skills and skilled jobs are deployed in that company. However, can he say where this will leave the ownership of that entity?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord has given me an opportunity to pay tribute to the five UK airports involved, considering that they were informed only a matter of hours before the administration took place. All five airports, including Luton, did an absolutely fantastic job in helping us by laying on staff to inform people who, sadly, were arriving on the Monday morning expecting to go away on holiday that the airline had gone into administration. Credit is due to all the airports. I am not aware of the precise circumstances of the bailout a year ago, but I understand that the information the noble Lord has is correct. The PPF took responsibility for the pension fund as part of that deal. I was not in post at the time and I do not know all the details, and it would be remiss of me to comment too much on them, but I will write to him.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Could the Minister please deal with the point about Monarch Aircraft Engineering?
Lord Callanan
As I understand it, the engineering business is still trading normally and is not in administration. Clearly, a substantial part of its work was with Monarch, but the majority of it is with other airlines. As I say, I believe it is trading normally but if I have any updated information, I will be sure to let the noble Lord know.
Brexit: UK Plans
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to update the House on our plans for leaving the European Union. Today, the fifth round of negotiations begins in Brussels and this Government are getting on with the job of delivering the democratic will of the British people. As I set out in my speech in Florence, we want to take a creative and pragmatic approach to securing a new, deep and special partnership with the European Union which spans both a new economic relationship and a new security relationship. Let me set out what each of these relationships could look like before turning to how we get there.
I have been clear that when we leave the European Union we will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union. The British people voted for control of their borders, their laws and their money, and that is what this Government are going to deliver. At the same time, we want to find a creative solution to a new economic relationship that can support prosperity for all our peoples. We do not want to settle for adopting a model enjoyed by other countries, so we have rejected the idea of something based on European Economic Area membership. This would mean having to adopt, automatically and in their entirety, new EU rules over which in future we would have little influence and no vote. Neither are we seeking a Canadian-style free trade agreement, for compared with what exists today, this would represent such a restriction on our mutual market access that it would benefit none of our economies.
Instead, I am proposing a unique and ambitious economic partnership. It will reflect our unprecedented position of starting with the same rules and regulations. We will maintain our unequivocal commitment to free trade and high standards, and we will need a framework to manage where we continue to align and where we choose to differ. There will be areas of policy and regulation which are outside the scope of our trade and economic relations where this should be straightforward. There will be areas which do affect our economic relations where we and our European friends may have different goals, or where we share the same goals but want to achieve them through different means. There will also be areas where we want to achieve the same goals in the same ways because it makes sense for our economies. Because rights and obligations must be held in balance, the decisions we both take will have consequences for the UK’s access to the EU market and EU access to our market, but this dynamic, creative and unique economic partnership will enable the UK and the EU to work side by side in bringing shared prosperity to our peoples.
Let me turn to the new security relationship. As I said when I visited our troops serving on the NATO mission in Estonia last month, the United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security. We will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism and natural or manmade disasters. We are proposing a bold new strategic agreement that provides a comprehensive framework for future security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation: a treaty between the UK and the EU. We are also proposing a far-reaching partnership on how together we protect Europe from the threats we face in the world today. This partnership will be unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in co-operation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development.
Let me turn to how we build a bridge from where we are now to the new relationship that we want to see. When we leave the European Union on 29 March 2019, neither the UK nor the EU and its member states will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements which will underpin the new relationship we seek. Businesses will need time to adjust and Governments will need to put new systems in place, and businesses want certainty about the position in the interim. That is why I suggested in my speech at Lancaster House that there should be a period of implementation and why I proposed such a period in my speech in Florence last month. During this strictly time-limited period, we will have left the EU and its institutions, but we are proposing that for this period, access to one another’s markets should continue on current terms and Britain should also continue to take part in existing security measures.
The framework for this period, which can be agreed under Article 50, would be the existing structure of EU rules and regulations. I know some people may have concerns about that, but there are two reasons why it makes sense. First, we want our departure from the EU to be as smooth as possible. It would not make sense to make businesses and people plan for two sets of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU. Secondly, we should concentrate our negotiating time and capital on what really matters—the future long-term relationship we will have with the EU after this temporary period ends. During the implementation period, people will continue to be able to come and live and work in the UK, but there will be a registration system: an essential preparation for the new immigration system required to retake control of our borders. Our intention is that new arrivals would be subject to new rules for EU citizens on long-term settlement.
We will also push forward on our future independent trade policy, talking to trading partners across the globe and preparing to introduce those deals once this period is over. The length of the period should be determined simply by how long it will take to prepare and implement the new systems we need. As of today, these considerations point to an implementation period of around two years. As I said in Florence, because I do not believe that either the EU or the British people will want us to stay in the existing structures longer than is necessary, we could also agree to bring forward aspects of that future framework, such as new dispute resolution mechanisms, more quickly if that can be done smoothly. At the heart of these arrangements, there should be a clear double lock: giving businesses and people certainty that they will be able to prepare for the change and guaranteeing that the implementation period will be time limited, giving everyone the certainty this will not go on for ever.
The purpose of the Florence speech was to move negotiations forwards. That is exactly what has happened. As Michel Barnier said after the last round, there is a ‘new dynamic’ in negotiations. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union for all he has done to drive through real and tangible progress in a number of vital areas. On citizens’ rights, as I have said many times, the Government greatly value the contributions of all EU citizens who have made their lives in our country. We want them to stay. In Florence, I gave further commitments that the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will not diverge over time, committing to incorporate our agreement on citizens’ rights fully into UK law and making sure that UK courts can refer directly to it. Since Florence, there has been more progress, including reaching agreement on reciprocal healthcare and pensions and encouraging further alignment on a range of important social security rights. I hope our negotiating teams can now reach full agreement quickly.
On Northern Ireland, we have now begun drafting joint principles on preserving the common travel area and associated rights; we have both stated explicitly that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border. We owe it to the people of Northern Ireland, and indeed to everyone on the island of Ireland, to get this right.
Then, there is the question of the EU budget. As I have said, that can only be resolved as part of the settlement of all the issues we are working through. Still, I do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave. The UK will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership, and as we move forward, we will also want to continue to work together in ways that promote the long-term economic development of our continent. That includes continuing to take part in those specific policies and programmes that are greatly to our joint advantage, such as those that promote science, education and culture, and those that promote our mutual security. As I set out in my speech at Lancaster House, in doing so we would want to make a contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved.
I continued discussions on many of these issues when I met with European leaders in Tallinn at the end of last month. In the bilateral discussions I had with Chancellor Merkel, Prime Minister Szydło, President Tusk and the Taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, they welcomed the tone set in Florence and the impact that was having on moving negotiations forward.
Preparing for life outside the EU is also about the legislative steps we take. Our EU withdrawal Bill will shortly enter Committee stage, carrying over EU rules and regulations into our domestic law from the moment we leave the EU. Today, we are publishing two White Papers on trade and customs, which pave the way for legislation to allow the UK to operate as an independent trading nation and to create an innovative customs system that will help us to achieve the greatest possible tariff and barrier-free trade as we leave the EU. While I believe it is profoundly in all our interests for the negotiations to succeed, it is also our responsibility as a Government to prepare for every eventuality—so that is exactly what we are doing. The White Papers also support that work, including setting out steps to minimise disruption for business and travellers.
A new, deep and special partnership between a sovereign United Kingdom and a strong and successful European Union is our ambition, and our offer to our European friends. Achieving that partnership will require leadership and flexibility, not just from us but from our friends, the 27 nations of the EU. As we look forward to the next stage, the ball is in their court—but I am optimistic that it will receive a positive response, because we are seeking the best possible deal, not just for us but for our European friends too. While of course progress will not always be smooth, by approaching the negotiations in a constructive way, in a spirit of friendship and co-operation and with our sights set firmly on the future, I believe we can prove the doomsayers wrong and seize the opportunities of this defining moment in the history of our nation.
A lot of the day-to-day coverage is about process, but this, on the other hand, is vitally important. I am determined to deliver what the British people voted for—and to get it right. That is my duty as Prime Minister, it is our duty as a Government and it is what we will do. I commend this Statement to the House”.
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, it is the first day back and we are discussing Brexit already. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement, although I admit I felt an increasing sense of déjà vu as she went through it—probably I was not the only one. So much of it is vague and repeats previous speeches, Statements and comments that we have heard before.
At the outset, I want to pick up on one specific aspect. The noble Baroness will know of my interest in it from when the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, and I faced each other across the Dispatch Box on Home Office legislation. I listened carefully to the section on security—it is so vague and unspecific that it tells us absolutely nothing about priorities for negotiations or expected outcomes. Given the importance of the issue, we need more than that; phrases such as “bold, new strategic agreements” and “comprehensive frameworks” have been said time and again, but at this stage I do not know what they mean. I want to flag that up early on.
The noble Baroness mentioned the two White Papers that were published today—one is on the customs Bill. Is she aware that there are only 10 copies—nine now, because I have one—available to Members of the House of Lords? That seems entirely inappropriate and I hope she can look into it. Can she also say something about the consultation period? Cabinet Office guidelines indicate about 12 weeks as the norm for consultation, yet this paper—and similarly in the one on trade—has no deadline for consultation except to say that responses are encouraged on this by 3 November. That is less than four weeks away, and the other deadline is 6 November. That does not seem appropriate. I assume that if responses are encouraged by those dates, they are also the deadline for responses to be considered, and negotiations. I would be grateful if she could comment on those two points.
This is a hugely significant point in negotiations, the importance of which cannot be overestimated. On the day Article 50 was invoked, the countdown started for the UK to leave the EU. Only one thing was clear: two years is a very short time to ensure that we resolve all the issues relating to Brexit and our future relationship with the EU, including on trade, security, finance and our domestic regulations and legislation for public protection. We are around a third of the way through and it seems that too little significant progress has been made. Within days, we should have clarity on whether sufficient progress has been made in phase 1, to allow us to proceed to phase 2 in a couple of weeks’ time, or if negotiations will have to be delayed.
It is clear that the Prime Minister’s visit to Florence was designed to break the deadlock, and her speech was important for a number of reasons. First, it was the first time that she had accepted the need for a transitional phase—she prefers “implementation” phase; I do not care what it is called, but her recognition that such a period was required was important. Recognising the problems ahead, she tried to use the speech to jump-start the negotiations by supporting talks on a transitional, or implementation, deal.
We have always been clear, especially given the number of issues on which there is no certainty, that to prevent a Brexit cliff edge for our economy we must negotiate a time-limited transitional deal that maintains the same basic terms as we currently have with the EU. That means remaining in a customs union with the EU and within the single market while we build the bridge about which the Prime Minister spoke to a strong final deal. I welcome her commitment on that, but any negotiations should start from where we are now. Ruling out options at the start is like trying to operate with one arm tied behind our back.
This pragmatic approach has been welcomed by many of those organisations, including the CBI and trade unions, which fear the impact on businesses and jobs of a cliff-edge exit. It was a significant policy shift for the Prime Minister. She rightly recognised the warnings from businesses that opposition to transitional arrangements was already hitting the economy. Both the head of UBS Investment Bank and the chairman of RBS, and many others, have reinforced the message that unless transitional arrangements are agreed soon, there will be a significant shift of both staff and businesses out of the UK. Yet within days of the Prime Minister’s welcome comment, five of her Cabinet Ministers revealed conflicting and contradictory views. It is no surprise that the list of names is probably very similar to that for the next Conservative leadership contest. I am sure that many share the view that, following a disastrous election campaign which has weakened the Prime Minister at a time when, in the national interest, she has to be at her strongest, she is being further undermined by members of her Cabinet.
The Prime Minister’s speech was also part of her pitch that on the three key phase 1 issues, progress had been made and that progress was adequate for phase 2 to proceed. It will be a huge failure of government strategy if those talks are delayed. The Prime Minister is right that some progress has been made on the three issues, but the question is whether it is enough. It is clear from last week’s events in Strasbourg that the EU does not think that it is.
Let us look at those three issues. For those of us who voted in your Lordships’ House before the negotiations started on arrangements for EU nationals and the consequences for UK nationals in the EU, it is disappointing that this issue has not been resolved. I can see the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, pointing around the Chamber and muttering. Unless he wishes to comment, I will continue. Businesses and academia are already experiencing some of the difficulties that we feared. The lack of agreement means that both here and across the EU, British and European Union citizens feel their lives blighted by uncertainty. Many in your Lordships’ House and the other place were persuaded by the Government not to vote for our Article 50 amendment, as the Government had promised that this was an early priority and would be resolved at the start of negotiations. The Government might find it harder to earn such trust in the future.
On the matter of the Irish border, there is an agreement on the required outcome, but the Government have been unable to say how it can be achieved. Initial proposals for a “technical solution” have been ridiculed by experts. A leaked report by the Irish Revenue Commissioners sets out in stark detail the vast increase in the amount of resources and bureaucracy that may result from Brexit, which will be significant at all levels and for all communities. Not only do the Revenue Commissioners warn that an open border will be impossible from a customs perspective but they even expect the important annual ploughing championships to be hit. That will affect the quarter of a million people who attend that event, and it makes a serious point about the possibility of additional paperwork being needed for machinery imported from the UK.
On the third issue—agreeing a formula for the “divorce bill”—not only is there no agreement with the EU but there is no agreement within the Cabinet either. Depending on your point of view, Boris Johnson is either an unprincipled, gaffe-prone Minister who shoots from the hip or a first-rate diplomatic Foreign Secretary. But even he has had to retreat from telling the EU to “go whistle” to accepting the need for an agreed formula and for quick progress to be made.
There is a debate to be had on whether progress is adequate to proceed to the next stage. The Prime Minister’s confidence about this is not widely shared. A war of words seeking to apportion blame will not make it any easier, but discussion and negotiation will, as will honesty and openness about the sticking points and difficulties. It is therefore all the more worrying that two Conservative Party Members of the European Parliament, a former chief whip and a deputy leader, who were honest enough to express their view and vote accordingly that progress was not yet sufficient, have been suspended from their party. That does not inspire confidence that these issues are being examined with an open mind.
I have three specific questions for the noble Baroness. Your Lordships’ House will have seen the joint statement from the TUC and CBI on citizens’ rights. The Prime Minister said in her Statement that she expected a quick agreement, but we have heard that before. Can she be more specific? Can the noble Baroness confirm that the UK negotiating team expects an agreement on citizens’ rights this week, thus concluding phase 1 of the negotiations? If not, will the Government keep an open mind, as urged by your Lordships’ House and now by many others, including the CBI and the TUC?
Secondly, returning to last week’s events in the European Parliament, it was significant that both President Juncker and Monsieur Barnier have addressed MEPs, as they do regularly. The Prime Minister has had an opportunity to do so and has not accepted the invitation. Given the possibility of a delay to phase 2, will the Prime Minister now reconsider the invitation for her to do the same?
Finally, if the Prime Minister’s Florence speech is really to break the impasse, it is clear that we must overcome the sticking point that is the financial settlement. I am not asking for details of figures, but have the UK’s negotiators been permitted to discuss potential figures at this week’s talks? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to address those questions as well as the points made about the two White Papers published today.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, since our debate in September on the Government’s so-called position papers, there have been three developments. First, we had the Florence speech, of which this Statement is a précis. Secondly, we had the Prime Minister’s conference speech, which was noticeable for the fact that less than 5% of it was devoted to the most important issue facing the country; namely, Brexit. Thirdly, we have had an extraordinary degree of infighting among members of the Cabinet. Many of us have lived through periods when there has been infighting within our own parties, and we know what it means: it becomes all-consuming; it becomes completely debilitating. That is the state of the Government today.
As I said, the Statement is a précis of the speech made by the Prime Minister in Florence, which, in her own terms, was intended to move the negotiations forward. How does it fare in doing that? It starts by talking about the economic partnership, which is to be “unique and ambitious”. The rest of the section simply sets out what the Government will not do. It says nothing about what the Government intend this to be. This is the first of what one might call “the ball in whose court?” issues. The Government say, “We’re not having this; we’re not having that; we’re not having the other”. The assumption is that somebody will come up with a solution, but not them. Certainly, there is no suggestion in the Statement of what the solution might be.
Ditto the security relationship. The phrase there is that there is to be a partnership that will be,
“unprecedented in its breadth and depth, taking in cooperation on diplomacy, defence and security, and development”.
We wait to see what that might mean, but that is it. We then move on to the next phase, implementation. The Government have accepted that there has to be an implementation phase, and there is to be a two-year standstill. The Government should not take any great credit for this. It is impossible to move from our current position in the EU to a new position without an implementation or transition phase. All they have done is accept the inevitable with extraordinary bad grace.
Half way through the Statement, the Prime Minister marks her success in the Florence speech. She says that it was extremely successful and that Michel Barnier said,
“there is a ‘new dynamic’ in the negotiations”.
Well, there is a new dynamic for the Secretary of State—he is staying put. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is not going to Brussels today, and has not been, so all his input, at most, this week as in the past, is going to be some kind of Panglossian statement on Thursday afternoon, when he has just whizzed in, which will be immediately contradicted, no doubt, by Michel Barnier.
The Statement then gets back to the substance, the three big issues, of which Northern Ireland is the first. The Government say that we and the EU,
“have both stated explicitly we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border”.
The problem here is that nobody—not this Government, not the Irish Government, not the EU, not a think tank, not a lawyer, not a company—knows how you can be without the customs union without some kind of border control. There is not a soul on the planet who has come up with a viable proposal for dealing with that, so how can the Government believe that they are making progress there, or that they could get a quick outcome?
We then come to the EU budget, where we want to make a contribution,
“to cover our fair share of the costs involved”.
What does “fair” mean? It is a very interesting word, but the Government give zero indication of what it means. Does the EU have any idea what our view of fair is? If it does, it is certainly something that has not slipped out from anybody in Brussels or in this Government.
We now come to legislation and the two White Papers that have been published today. I have not had a chance to look at them, but I have just one question for the noble Baroness. On customs, we are about to create “an innovative customs system”. It sounds great, but is she aware that, as we speak, HMRC is in the process of reducing regional and local offices so that the ports of East Anglia, Harwich and Felixstowe, are about to be managed from Stratford, in east London? I accept that this is, indeed, innovative, but it does not fill me with any confidence that the Government have even the vaguest idea how they are going to implement a new customs regime.
Finally, we come to the conclusion, which is that, as we look to the next stage,
“the ball is in their court. But I am optimistic it”—
I do not know whether that is the ball—
“will receive a positive response”.
What is “it”? On too many issues there simply is not an “it”: there are simply vacuous statements and pious exhortations. With parliamentary Liberal Democrat colleagues I spent a couple of days in Brussels during the recent Recess attempting to find out what was really happening in the negotiations. We met representatives from the Council and UKREP, other permanent representatives, MEPs and many others. Everybody, with the inevitable exception of UKREP, was at a loss as to what the UK was really after. It was not that they were objecting to what we were after; they simply had no clue. There was no beef, as they saw it, in the negotiations. Today’s Statement, I am afraid, suggests that on current trends they are likely to be kept waiting for this beef for quite a long time.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments, as ever. I shall address some of the issues they raised. I know very well the interest of the noble Baroness in the area of security—she has held me to the fire over it a number of times—and the noble Lord, Lord Newby, raised the same issue. I stress again that the UK is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security and we will continue to offer aid and assistance to EU member states that are the victims of armed aggression, terrorism or natural or manmade disasters. Indeed, the European Council’s negotiating guidelines identify the importance of partnerships against crime and terrorism and it is clearly to the benefit of both sides to make sure that this new partnership is comprehensive and effective. I know that this will not satisfy the noble Baroness, but I stress that there is currently no pre-existing model of co-operation between the EU and third countries that replicates the full scale or depth of collaboration that currently exists between the EU and the UK in this area, which is why we want to design new arrangements that go well beyond any existing arrangements the EU has in this area and to draw on legal models the EU has previously used to structure co-operation with external partners in other fields, such as trade.
I apologise for the small number of copies of the customs White Paper. I agree that 10 is not enough and I have been assured that more are being produced and will be available shortly. I will look into the issue raised by the noble Baroness, of which I was not aware before she mentioned it.
On the implementation period, the Cabinet is united behind the vision the PM set out in Florence about a strictly time-limited implementation period based on the existing structure of EU rules and regulations during which the UK and EU would continue to have access to one another’s markets on current terms. I welcome the comments of the noble Baroness that this is, indeed, a step forward.
On citizens’ rights, we have been very clear that we want this issue resolved. The Statement made it very clear that we recognise the contribution EU citizens make and we want them to stay. As I said, and as the Statement made clear, in Florence the PM gave further commitments that the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will not diverge over time, committing to incorporate our agreement on citizens’ rights fully into UK law and making sure that UK courts can refer directly to it. As for EU citizens living in the UK, where there is uncertainty around underlying EU law we have said we want the UK courts to be able to take into account the judgments of the European Court of Justice. We will be working hard to get an agreement. I am sure that the noble Baroness will accept that I cannot prejudge or guess the outcome of the current round of negotiations, but I reiterate the importance we place on achieving an agreement in this area as we know how important it is.
On the financial settlement, the basis of our negotiations in this round is clear. We have said that we do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan as a result of our decision to leave, that we will honour commitments we have made during the period of our membership and that we will make an ongoing contribution to cover our fair share of the costs involved. Again, I cannot prejudge or guess the outcome of the current round of negotiations, but we are obviously aware that this is an important issue. I fear that I am also unable to provide the noble Baroness with any further information about the Prime Minister’s interaction with the European Parliament, but if I am able to do so at a future point, I will, of course, do so.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness raised the issue of Northern Ireland. It is important that both the UK and the EU have explicitly stated that we will not accept any physical infrastructure at the border; that means we are working from a common ground to achieve an outcome that we understand is extremely important to all of us. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about customs. The White Paper sets out that we will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK and three strategic outcomes in terms of our future customs: ensuring that UK/EU trade is as frictionless as possible; avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and establishing an independent international trade policy. I say to the noble Lord that HMRC operates one of the most efficient customs regimes in the world and we already have highly efficient processes for freight arriving from the rest of the world.
Lord Tebbit (Con)
Perhaps I might raise a couple of points with my noble friend. First, can she tell me whether we have yet valued our share of the buildings occupied by the European Union and its agencies? Have the EU authorities yet proposed how that value in those buildings will be paid back to us following Brexit?
Secondly, on the legal rights of European Union citizens here and UK citizens in the EU, can my noble friend say how many UK citizens are currently imprisoned or detained in the European Union without trial or charge, and how many EU citizens are similarly detained here in prison without trial or charge? I fancy the numbers will tell us something about the legal rights of citizens, both here and on the continent. Lastly, does my noble friend not agree that the simple and short way to solve the dilemmas around the Irish frontier with Northern Ireland would be for the Irish Republic to look after the best interests of its citizens by leaving the EU?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I would not dream of telling the people of Ireland what to do. On my noble friend’s question about prison numbers, I am afraid I do not have those figures to hand but I am happy to see whether they are available and I will write to him. In relation to the financial settlement, as he will be well aware, a lot of work has been done across the piece looking at the contributions that we have made and the settlement that we may come to. As I said, we have set out that we do not want our partners to fear that they will need to pay more or receive less over the remainder of the current budget plan. Of course, all these issues will be discussed in detail during the negotiations.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
The Government remain in complete denial about the very considerable costs of leaving the single market and, equally, about the quite significant costs of leaving the customs union. There is nothing at all about costs in either of the White Papers. If the Leader looks at pages 24 and 25 of the Customs Bill White Paper, she will see a number of things referred to which represent considerable costs to traders. There is a suggestion that traders will need new intermediaries and forwarding agents, which they did not previously utilise. It is suggested that they will need to introduce new IT systems and spend money on consultants. Have the Government made any estimate of what the cost will be to traders in this country from the restrictions that they are intending to impose when we leave the customs union? It is usually considered a good sign of honest and competent governance or administration, in the private sector or the public sector, not to commit to go into any venture without having some idea of what the cost is. The Government have not told us the cost of this gratuitous attempt to pull us out of the single market and the customs union.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As the noble Lord himself said, we have published two White Papers today, setting out our objectives for both the new customs arrangements and our future trade policy. Of course, we have a continuing dialogue with businesses involved in this and we will make sure that their voices are heard and any issues that they have are reflected in the work we do. But that is the reason we have published a White Paper, to make sure that that discussion is had.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, perhaps the Leader of the House could help me understand. There appears to be a contradiction between pages 1 and 3 of the Statement. On page 1 there is an insistence that,
“when we leave the European Union we will no longer be members of its single market or its customs union”;
then on page 3 it is asserted that the framework for the transition or implementation period would be,
“the existing structure of EU rules and regulations”.
That surely must mean the single market and the customs union. So how are we going to leave the single market and the customs union and stay in them in the transition period? I would welcome enlightenment.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We will be leaving the EU and its institutions in March 2019 but the fact is, at that point neither the UK nor the EU will be in a position to implement smoothly many of the detailed arrangements that will underpin this relationship. We want a strictly time-limited implementation period based on the existing structure of EU rules and regulations, during which the UK and EU would continue to have access to one another’s markets on current terms and the UK would take part in existing security measures. Because we want our departure to be as smooth as possible, it does not make sense to make people and businesses plan for two sets of changes in the relationship between the UK and the EU, and we should concentrate all our negotiating time on what matters: the long-term future relationship.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend accept the view that the Prime Minister has taken an entirely consistent and reasonable line on these matters? The Leader of the Opposition talked about a feeling of déjà vu—not something we would get from the Opposition’s position, which varies from week to week. That consistency is clearly important but I ask my noble friend: how much patience does the Prime Minister have? At what point do we say, “Enough is enough” to this intransigence that we are seeing? What has happened to the duty of sincere co-operation which is part of the acquis and the requirement in the treaties? At what point are we actually going to say that these people are deliberately obfuscating and creating difficulties by refusing to enter into the wider negotiations and actually get on with preparing what is in the best interests of our country in the longer term?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I entirely agree with my noble friend about the consistency of the Prime Minister’s position. In fact, we have been putting a lot of information out to the public. We have published seven Brexit position papers, seven future partnership papers and four White Papers, including the two today, and we have set out a clear vision. We want to see progress and we are hoping, as Michel Barnier said, that we will see a “new dynamic” in the negotiations. Inevitably, leaving is a difficult process but we believe, on both sides, that it is in all our interests for the negotiations to succeed and we will continue to work on them in a spirit of good will. Having said that, we also have a duty to plan for the alternative, which we are doing, because that is what any responsible Government would do, but I reiterate that we truly believe that we will come to a deal which will be best for both of us.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, in quoting the Prime Minister she said that the Government are planning for “every eventuality”. That being so, can she confirm that the Government are indeed planning for an exit from the European Union without any agreement? If that appears to be the position in January 2019, is that not the time when the people should be asked again whether they want to leave on those terms?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid that I hold a different view from many noble Lords in this House but, as I have said, we are confident of getting a good deal. But, yes, as I just said, we are planning for an eventuality where that does not happen, because that is what any responsible Government should and would do.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lord Forsyth that the Prime Minister has been consistent in her approach and I commend it. But is she aware that there are a large number of people in this country, and I count myself among them, who worry that perhaps the biggest obstacle to achieving a satisfactory outcome to these negotiations are the divisions that are being displayed on our own side? The more divided we appear, the greater the disadvantage we find ourselves at in Brussels. We are up against very experienced and tough negotiators and when they see that we are divided, they will take advantage of that. If the Prime Minister’s very sensible initiatives are to bear fruit, it is essential that she is able to enjoy the unity of purpose of her own Cabinet colleagues.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I agree with my noble friend. Indeed, the Cabinet is united behind the vision in the Florence speech. There is unity in the Cabinet. We are behind the Prime Minister because we all want to see these negotiations succeed.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I ought to be reassured by those last words but I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Tugendhat said: there is a perception that the Cabinet is divided. There has been no doubt that individual members of the Cabinet—and one in particular, who bears responsibility for this country’s foreign policy—have not been as they should have been. Either we expect him to fall into line properly—explicitly, continuously—or the Prime Minister to exercise her undoubted authority.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I have no doubt that the Prime Minister does and will continue to exercise her authority. I want to reassure noble Lords again: the Cabinet is united. We want to get the best possible deal for the UK and the EU, and to ensure a smooth and orderly withdrawal, and that is what we are all working towards.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s acceptance now that there are broad security dimensions of leaving the European Union and that the European Union has always had large security elements involved with it. I recall the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, denying that that was the case, and the leave campaign certainly did not accept it. Can the Government begin to tell us something about how they will maintain the relationship both on cross-border security and in terms of defence, foreign policy and intelligence, after we leave? Looking round the Chamber, I think there are one or two Members old enough to remember, for example, a body called the Western European Union. It existed solely to allow the United Kingdom to have conversations with the then six members of the European Community on foreign and security policy when we were otherwise outside the room. Do we imagine that we are going to try to persuade others to set up some sort of special arrangement of this sort or will we hope to maintain, for example, the current multilateral intelligence arrangements through associate membership of Europol? As the position paper on this said, these are clearly in our national interests.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I entirely agree with the noble Lord that this is an extremely important area. As I said, it is very encouraging that the European Council’s negotiating guidelines also identify the importance of partnerships against crime and terrorism. The specific details will obviously be for the negotiations but I say again that no pre-existing model of co-operation between the EU and third countries replicates the scale and depth of the collaboration that exists between the EU and the UK in this area. We want to maintain that, which is why we want to work towards new arrangements that go beyond any arrangements the EU has in this area at the moment.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, commented on the Prime Minister’s consistency in her view of what Brexit ought to look like, but at times it has looked as if the EU 27 have one position on Brexit and the UK Government have 27 positions on it. One of the issues for Monsieur Barnier is that he has been given a negotiating mandate by the EU 27 and cannot exercise flexibility, because that is not within his gift. As we look towards the next European Council meeting and beyond, what bilateral work are Her Majesty’s Government doing behind the scenes, with the ministries and Heads of Government of the other 27 member states, to look at how they could try to persuade the 27 that a different, more flexible mandate might be helpful for Monsieur Barnier going forward?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure that the noble Baroness will be aware that the Prime Minister has had regular conversations with other leaders at the events she has been to and at other stages, and that departments are of course working closely with their counterparts. We all understand that getting a good deal for both the UK and the EU is in our best interest, and that is what we are all working towards. There is a lot of engagement going on, through companies and business, on the ground to try to make sure that we can move together towards a position that we both want.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, do the Government share my view that if the European negotiators persist in their refusal to discuss our future relationship, they are themselves in breach of Article 50? Would we be prepared to seek a statement to that effect, if necessary from the European Court of Justice?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are all hopeful that we will be able to move forward together in a constructive manner. That is certainly what we intend.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, how do the Government anticipate that the common fisheries policy will work out in relation to the United Kingdom during the transitional period?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
We are committed to leaving the common fisheries policy and developing arrangements for fishing that can create a more profitable and self-sufficient seafood sector. Taking back control of our waters means that we can decide how we allocate access to our waters and our fisheries. Any decisions about giving access to vessels from the EU and other coastal states will be a matter for negotiation.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister explain how this taking back of our fishing policy will work? My understanding is that most of the fishing quotas that we received when the agreement was first made have been sold by the UK fishing fleet to foreign fishing companies. Perhaps she can explain how we are going to get the quotas back from those companies which, presumably, have been enjoying them for the past 20 years.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, policy in this area will be a matter for negotiation.
Devolution (Constitution Committee Reports)
(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, we return to the debate on the Constitution Committee’s reports and the report of the EU Committee on devolution. Among other things, this debate brings us the maiden speech of a new noble friend. My noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank is to reply to this debate in terms that I hope will reassure us about the Government’s enduring commitment to the union. He follows in office my long-established and personal noble friend Lord Dunlop, who throughout his career has been a staunch defender of the union and sometimes showed a little more flexibility than I have managed to create.
Since I entered the House in 2011, nothing has brought me greater satisfaction and pleasure than my three-year stint on the Constitution Committee between 2012 and 2015. Wise counsel was provided by convivial colleagues from across the House. Immensely skilful chairmanship was supplied first by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, and subsequently by her successor, my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton—how wonderfully well they steered our discussions. The testimony of a wide variety of expert witnesses helped to add authority and depth to our discussions. Absolutely first-rate officials drew our conclusions and recommendations together in lucid reports to the House and the Government. When the work is done, however, those involved in the committee’s activities have to brace themselves for some disappointment. The Government’s responses to their detailed and carefully considered reports on issues of great political significance are invariably delivered after long delays, in breach of the commitment included in paragraph 11.39 of our Companion to the Standing Orders:
“The government have undertaken to respond in writing to the reports of select committees, if possible, within two months of publication”.
I was a member of the committee when it carried out its inquiry into intergovernmental relations in the United Kingdom. Is it not extraordinary that over two and a half years should have elapsed between the publication of the committee’s report and this debate? In their response of just five and three-quarter pages, which they took just under two years to prepare, the Government make a perfunctory apology for the delay but offer no explanation for why this protracted delay occurred. Convincing apologies surely need to be accompanied by clear explanations.
Indeed, throughout the response as a whole, explanations of the Government’s views and decisions on the issues raised in the committee’s report are hard to find. The Government seem to think it sufficient simply to assert their own positions and views in a rather curt fashion without giving their reasons for adopting them or for rejecting, as they so often do, the committee’s recommendations. I note, too, in passing that the Government need to improve their proofreading: there is a serious grammatical error at the start of paragraph 8.
I am perhaps in danger of being unfair; the response has positive features. In paragraph 12 it states:
“The concordats and devolution guidance notes will be reviewed by the four administrations in due course”,
repeating the point for good measure in the following paragraph. But when will this be done? Rarely are definite dates assigned to the useful developments foreshadowed in the response.
We are told more than once that plenary sessions of the Joint Ministerial Committee—the linchpin of the entire structure of intergovernmental relations—are to be held more frequently. This pledge seems to be being redeemed. The Joint Ministerial Committee met in October last year and again in January this year. The terse communiqué of just eight sentences issued after the meeting in January stated:
“Ministers agreed to meet again in Plenary format later in 2017”.
Has a further date been fixed in conformity with the pledge to increased frequency?
The Constitution Committee’s report noted:
“The current reporting of JMC meetings is bland and unilluminating; much more information could be made public in advance of and after meetings”.
The eight unilluminating sentences issued after the last JMC meeting on 30 January hardly suggest that improvement is on the cards. There is, however, a specific undertaking in paragraph 17 to publish a report on intergovernmental relations this autumn. Has a firm date been fixed for its appearance?
The large measure of uncertainty surrounding many features of future intergovernmental relations surely lends weight to the Constitution Committee’s recommendation:
“The Government should consider whether the framework of inter-governmental relations should be set out in statute”.
In that way core principles and the basic shape of the system would be clearly defined and the devolved Governments would have their place in the system firmly delineated, but the Government say, curtly, in paragraph 6 of their response that they do not agree, without of course giving any reasons.
At the heart of both the Constitution Committee’s reports before us today there stands a question of immense national significance. The report The Union and Devolution sums up that issue perfectly:
“The UK Government needs fundamentally to reassess how it approaches issues relating to devolution. What affects one constituent part of the UK affects both the Union and the other nations within the UK”.
My noble friend Lord Empey, who has been detained in Belfast today for pressing family reasons, has often eloquently deplored the haphazard and ill-considered nature of recent constitutional changes which show why a new approach is needed. Ten months ago one element of our constitutional arrangements ceased to function. The ramshackle coalition of political incompatibles at Stormont collapsed. It had impressed no one with its capacity to deliver good government. Here is one illustration of the need for the fundamental reassessment for which the committee has called to ensure that such a crisis is fully considered in the wider context of the union.
Another issue that proves the point is the denial of the right to same-sex marriage in the same part of our country, even though it commands widespread support there. Why should our fellow countrymen and women, who are fully part of our union, have to endure such discrimination?
How valuable it would be to have a Cabinet Minister to whom the active guardianship and protection of the constitution was entrusted. Sir Oliver Letwin, then in nominal charge of the constitution, took the Constitution Committee’s breath away by dismissing the need for such active guardianship and protection out of hand. There is a pernicious phrase, “devolve and forget”, which was rightly disparaged by my noble friend Lord Lang in his powerful opening remarks. The danger it expresses is increased by the unduly wide scope of the convention which, remarkably, still bears the name of a disgraced former Member of this House. Is it not time to consider such aspects of devolution afresh from the standpoint of the union, the rock on which we all rest, remembering always that one large part of the reason Northern Ireland has suffered so grievously in our lifetimes is that the Parliament of the union gave it no attention during its first period of devolution after 1920?
Lord Cullen of Whitekirk (CB)
My Lords, in its report The Union and Devolution the Constitution Committee, of which I was a member, made this as one of its recommendations:
“There is a strong case for creating a flexible framework, based on appropriate principles, as a guide for future action within which any further demands for devolution can be considered in a coherent manner”.
The committee found that in the past there had,
“been no guiding strategy or framework of principles to ensure that devolution developed in a coherent or consistent manner and in ways that do not harm the Union”.
I have to say that I find the Government’s response to the case advocated by the committee to be entirely disappointing. The Government state that that they support the approach which was taken by the Smith commission and the Silk commission. That approach was, they said, considering proposals for devolution against a set of principles. One initial difficulty I have with this response is that the principles applied by the Smith commission were not similar to those of the Silk commission, as the Government claim, but were different in kind. The Smith commission followed the line agreed with the representatives of the five political parties in the Scottish Parliament, namely that a package of new powers for Scotland should,
“not cause detriment to the UK as a whole nor to any of its constituent parts”.
It was a negative principle. It was understandable that the commission used it in testing the outcome of negotiations between those parties within a short timescale, but it focused not on what devolution should do, but on what it should not do. The Silk commission, on the other hand, applied positive principles such as collaboration, equity, stability and subsidiarity. Part of its stated vision was that:
“Devolution of power to Wales should benefit the whole of Wales and the United Kingdom".
Elsewhere in their response, the Government also state that their approach to devolution,
“is governed by the principle that … it is the right thing to do for the integrity and success of the UK”.
So far, so good, but what are the other principles that they have in mind? That is not clear. Surely if the Government are in favour of the application of a set of principles to consideration of further devolution, a matter of great importance for the constitution of this country, they should say what are those principles, and do so clearly and coherently. However, they seem to have avoided doing so.
The committee identified some of the core principles which it considered should govern the relationship between the union and the devolved nations. They are solidarity, diversity, consent, responsiveness, subsidiarity and clarity. These are positive and constructive principles going to the strength of the union and the vitality of that relationship. In the case of some of these core principles, the Government have responded. Others they have ignored. It is somewhat strange that where they have agreed with the Committee, they have mostly referred to the negative principle adopted by the Smith commission in the circumstances I referred to. It is in the light of these matters that I find the Government’s response on matters of principle unsatisfactory and, indeed, lacking in clarity and coherence. It is of some interest to note that in the course of its report the European Union Committee made this recommendation:
“Thanks to Brexit, it is now more important than ever that reform of the devolution settlements should be underpinned by a clear and agreed framework of guiding principles”.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a member of the Constitution Committee. I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Lang for the way he has moved the Motion and for his most effective chairmanship of the committee. In the time available, I wish to pursue two points that merit a response from the Government. Both derive from the two reports of the Constitution Committee that are before us.
As we have heard already, the basic message at the heart of the report on The Union and Devolution is that instead of being defensive, we need to spend more time saying what is right with the union. There is a clear, positive case to be made. As the report says, the union has brought stability, peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom.
I was a member of the Conservative Political Centre National Policy Group on the Constitution that produced a report, Strengthening the United Kingdom, in 1996. My noble friend Lord Dunlop was also a member, and the committee was serviced by my noble friend Lord Lexden. We emphasised the case for the union. We argued that it reconciled order with personal liberty, and national differences with common citizenship, thanks to one constitutional citizenship established by the union. We also drew out that it creates a constitutional citizenship transcending national and regional parochialism, that it successfully reconciles the ideas of nationalism and nationality and that it promotes cultural diversity and the sharing of rich differences which diversity produces.
I am sure my noble friend the Minister will endorse these essential attributes. I think it important we put them on the record. However, the first point I wish to develop, and invite a response to from my noble friend, derives from another, crucial observation in the report on The Union and Devolution. As it says:
“Proper consideration of the cumulative impact of devolution on the integrity of the Union itself has been lacking”.
This relates to a point that I have pursued for many years, namely the essentially incoherent approach taken by successive Governments to constitutional change. Changes to the constitution have been disparate and discrete, advocated on their individual merits and not set within a clear view of what type of constitution is appropriate to the United Kingdom.
I was recently invited to pen an article entitled “Constitutional Change: Unfinished Business?”. I argued that it was more appropriate to refer to “never-ending business”, because “unfinished business” implies that there is an end-point. There is presently no end-point, because no Government of recent years have articulated what they are working towards in terms of our constitution. Specific reforms have been advocated, and in most but not all cases implemented, by Governments, and there have been changes that are essentially the product of reacting to different demands. The reaction has been, in constitutional terms, incoherent, with no obvious thought about the impact on other changes. As Professor Charlie Jeffery told the committee:
“We have seen ... a real absence of territorial statecraft—thinking about how the state as a whole can accommodate the demands for decentralisation in its various parts. Unless we do that, we will continue on this ratchet process of gradual disintegration”.
Even within the context of devolution, there is a need to see it within the wider context of the union. As we have heard, we need a clearer articulation of the case for the union: to have a grasp of the principles underpinning that union and determining what government should seek to achieve. Unless we have that, government will spend too much time in firefighting mode. However, it was clear from the committee’s two inquiries—this brings me to my second point—that one impediment to achieving this was the structure of government. As we reported in our 2015 report, responsibility for devolution was dispersed within government, with a lack of effective co-ordination and oversight. Indeed, we said it was extraordinary that the Cabinet Minister stated to be responsible for devolution, the Deputy Prime Minister, was not a member of the Cabinet Committee on that very subject.
After the 2015 election, a Cabinet Committee on Constitutional Reform was established. However, it met only once in nine months, with constitutional issues being cleared instead through the Home Affairs Committee. As we said at paragraph 344 of our 2016 report,
“consideration of constitutional issues as simply one part of the work of the much broader-ranging Home Affairs Cabinet Committee risks the loss of any explicit focus on the constitutional implications of the UK Government’s policies”.
The situation has not improved since. If anything, it has got worse. There is no Cabinet committee dedicated to constitutional reform. There is no committee on devolution. The Government in their much-delayed response to the 2015 report said that,
“issues concerning devolution cut across a large swathe of Government business considered by different Cabinet Committees”.
They said that it was up to Ministers to consider the interests of all citizens of the UK and the impact of all policies on the whole of the UK. That is it. It is in effect conceding that the Government have no structured collective means of looking holistically and proactively at devolution, and more generally the constitution. There is the Minister for the Cabinet Office with responsibility for an overview of constitutional issues, supported by the Minister for the Constitution. Where is the Cabinet Minister—where is the Cabinet committee?—that has dedicated responsibility for devolution, for addressing what we need to be doing to preserve the union? Where is the Cabinet committee that has responsibility for looking holistically at our constitution?
There is within government an obvious and necessary focus on Brexit. That, though, should not be at the expense of looking at our constitution as a constitution and how the different parts fit within a clear and coherent framework of principles, derived from an understanding of the constitution we want for the United Kingdom. Without that, we are in danger of a never-ending process of disparate and largely reactive changes, resulting in a constitutional framework that no one wants or necessarily understands. How do Brexit, developments in the union, decentralisation in England and demands for a British Bill of Rights fit together within an intellectually coherent view of the constitution we want for the United Kingdom?
We can, I believe, start to get there from some of the principles enunciated in the committee’s 2016 report. There is value, as a witness citing the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, in looking at,
“the issues that bond the union”,
in essence the constitutional citizenship to which I referred in opening. Professor Adam Tomkins, of the University of Glasgow, now an MSP and formerly a legal adviser to the Constitution Committee, said in evidence:
“We really cannot carry on, in the United Kingdom, developing devolution or developing Britain’s territorial governance in silos … Really for me the value of thinking about principles of union constitutionalism is that it gets us, or might help to get us, out of those silos and into the space where we can start thinking about the things that we have in common”.
Getting out of the silos and thinking about our constitution as such—as a whole and not simply the sum of its parts—is essential. The Government need to be on the front foot and not hunkering down in their silos.
I shall conclude by putting the two questions that derive from this to my noble friend Lord Duncan. First, echoing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, could he please delineate the principles that govern constitutional change? As I say, we need a clear and coherent framework, not only to know how to respond to demands for change but to be proactive in making the case for the fundamentals of the British constitution that have served us well and are in danger of being swept away.
Secondly, what plans are there to restructure the process of government to address constitutional change? There needs to be a structure to enable the Government collectively, at Cabinet level, to discuss and agree change within that framework of basic principles. The clear message in both reports from the Constitution Committee is that existing arrangements are not up to the task. These are crucial matters of principle and process that need to be addressed urgently if we are to maintain and promote the union of the United Kingdom.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, there are four Welsh men and women in this Chamber this evening. We are a band quite unique, bearing in mind that within the hour Wales and Ireland will be playing each other at soccer. That is another story but what it tells us is how important this debate is to those of us who are from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or indeed, as my noble friend Lord Desai said, England.
It has been an interesting debate. I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Lang and Lord Jay, on their speeches and on their committees’ reports. They are excellent; they outline the issues in front of us vividly and cogently. There is no doubt that the implications of Brexit for the devolved nations of our country are considerable, economically, politically and constitutionally. In Wales, for example, it is hugely significant economically: 70% of Wales’s manufacturing exports goes to the EU. On the question of agriculture, sheep farmers and hill farmers in Wales depend heavily upon the EU. Wales, as opposed to other parts of the UK, is a net beneficiary of EU funding. So to Wales this is an important issue.
A few weeks ago in this Chamber we discussed how important Brexit is to Northern Ireland. It was a very good debate. The problem, of course, is that there is no Executive, Parliament, Assembly or Government in Northern Ireland to deal with Brexit but, as that debate indicated, it is uniquely affected. The uniqueness of the land border is still an unresolved issue, as are the implications of leaving Europe for the Good Friday agreement and the peace process, which were helped by our common membership, with the Republic of Ireland, of the EU. I congratulate the Minister on making his maiden speech later today and welcome him to this Chamber, and I ask him to take back to his colleagues the plea—certainly from these Benches but I am sure from all Benches in the House—that those negotiations be speeded up. So long as there is no Executive or Assembly in Northern Ireland, the voice of Northern Ireland is not directly heard in the negotiations in Brussels.
Another issue touched on by many noble Lords is that the devolution settlement, not just with Northern Ireland but with Wales and Scotland, could itself be undermined unless we handle these negotiations properly, understanding that they can in fact directly affect the relationship between the UK Government on the one hand and the devolved Administrations on the other. The repatriation of powers is crucial to that.
Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us, but an issue that has been largely ignored is that we are still unaware whether the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and, hopefully—if it is there—the Northern Ireland Assembly can refuse to pass legislative consent Motions. Even if eventually that does not matter, in the initial stages it would seriously hold up the negotiations.
I want to concentrate my remarks on the relationships, which all the reports touch on, between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, first with regard to the issue of Brexit. We have said that there is no Northern Ireland Executive to deal with the issue, but a Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) has been set up. It is a good idea but does not seem to be doing an awful lot at the moment. The Constitution Committee’s recommendations—for example, on ensuring that there are pre-meetings between the various devolved Administrations and the Government on the work programme, on ensuring there is a link with the proper negotiations in Brussels, and on the timeliness of the JMC (EN)—would make it much more effective. At the moment I fear that it is nothing more than a talking shop, but it needs to be a committee with real powers and real teeth. That would be very important to the EU negotiations.
Happily, the Constitution Committee also talked about the importance of looking at the wider field of relationships between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. Much has been said about the phrase “devolve and forget”. It is an absolutely apt phrase. I spent 10 years of my ministerial life dealing with territorial departments and their relationships with the UK Government. There is no doubt in my mind that Whitehall and Westminster generally did not take the devolved Administrations all that seriously after devolution; as my noble friend Lord Wigley said, if we think about what is happening in Spain and Catalonia at the moment, we know we do that at our peril. I am convinced that the Catalonia/Spain crisis could have been assuaged if there had been negotiation, debate and discussions between the central Government and the devolved Government to avoid what is happening there now and what is likely to happen in the days ahead.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee on the work of the JMC. It was pretty hopeless, to be honest—a load of bureaucratic waffle. All the committee’s suggestions on how to improve the workings of the JMC were ignored, but the Government did not give any reason for doing so. For example, the Government do not agree that the JMC should be put on a statutory footing. Why not? What is the problem with that? It would make it more effective and give it more teeth, which would be very useful. Not a word—they just did not agree with it, end of story. That is because they do not think enough about it or take it seriously enough.
What about the question of a Cabinet Minister responsible for devolution? “There’s no point in having one. We’ll have a junior Minister in the Cabinet Office dealing with that”. When I was Secretary of State for Wales on the second occasion, I was charged by Gordon Brown with the responsibility generally for devolution and the working of the JMC. So I suppose you can blame part of the problem on me in those years, but at least we tried. It meant that I went to Edinburgh and Belfast; even though my responsibilities were technically Welsh ones, I had the general responsibility of ensuring that these institutions at least met and had some meaning. So I think there should be a Cabinet Minister. It could be one of the three territorial Ministers, as it was in my case, or it could conceivably be the Lord Chancellor, as it sometimes was, but there should be a serious attempt by the Government to ensure that proper Cabinet ministerial responsibility is held on these issues, together with a Cabinet committee.
There should be an annual report to Parliament—in the House of Commons it should be delivered by the Prime Minister; here, by the Leader of the House of Lords—on the relationship between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government. We simply do not take this seriously enough and, I repeat, we do so at our peril.
It is not just about the current situation; it is about the exchange of best practice. If Scotland are looking after the health service in a certain way which is good, why cannot the health services in Northern Ireland, Wales and England benefit from that experience? Why cannot there be sub-committees of the joint ministerial committees which meet bilaterally on different issues? This really has not been thought about enough. I hope that one result of this deliberation and debate is that the Government will at least consider improving the way we structure our relationships governmentally in this country.
There is another organisation, of course. The British-Irish Council was set up by the Good Friday agreement to deal with the so-called strand 3 of the agreement: east-west relations. It is the only one that allows the British and Irish Governments to get together. Its counterpart, the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, which meets this weekend in Liverpool, is the only body that brings together parliamentarians from across these islands. Why cannot that be used to consider best practice and improve relations?
More than 10 million people live under the devolved Administrations in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Frankly, they deserve better, and perhaps the Minister can give us some hope that, in the weeks and months ahead, we can improve the situation—not least because of what is happening with Brexit.
Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)
My Lords, the speech just made is very interesting, because we are well aware that the devolution issues relating to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all quite different. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, led delegations from his Select Committee, on which I serve, and we went to each of the parliaments and saw very clearly not only that the issues are different but that we have a lot to learn from each other.
Tonight, I warmly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. He is a very experienced parliamentarian from the European Parliament, and we very much look forward to his maiden speech—although I can think of few parliamentarians who have made more speeches before they make their maiden speech in this Chamber.
I served as an MSP for the first eight years, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, whom I vividly remember performing very effectively as Acting First Minister of Scotland when the Scottish Parliament met in Glasgow.
The Government and the opposition parties have been concentrating for months on how we can successfully undo the complex ties which bind us to the European Union. We know that there is still a long and winding parliamentary road ahead for us all to navigate, but while we discuss powers wielded by Henry VIII and the future jurisdiction—or more possibly non-jurisdiction—of the European Court of Justice, it is extremely important that we do not weaken the structure of our United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will acknowledge this danger and assure us that the Government will do everything in their power to hold together what the Prime Minister has described as our “precious union”.
During the current Brexit process, this calls for an understanding of the sensitivity and hostility of the devolved Administrations to any unjustified retention by Westminster of power returned from the EU. It also requires a wholehearted commitment by representatives of the devolved institutions to engage in genuinely trying to reach agreements which benefit the whole United Kingdom.
The report Brexit: Devolution by the European Union Committee, of which I am a member, recognises the real danger which leaving the EU can pose to the somewhat piecemeal political structure and asymmetrical disposition of devolved power in these islands. It correctly concludes that our membership of the European Union has, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Jay,
“been part of the glue holding the United Kingdom together since 1997”.
It continues:
“In practice, the UK internal market has been upheld by the rules of the EU internal market”.
It warns presciently that with Brexit comes,
“a risk that the complex overlapping competences within the UK could become increasingly unstable”.
Those statements come from pages 12 and 74 of the report.
The report cites the supremacy of EU law and its interpretation by the European Court of Justice as having ensured the consistency of regulations and standards across the whole United Kingdom. This includes devolved areas such as fishing, agriculture and the environment, whose future governance has already become a source of conflict between Westminster and the Scottish and Welsh Governments.
Clearly, it is a difficult balancing act to return power over those areas from Brussels directly to the devolved Governments while making sure that this does not result in a kind of economic balkanisation which damages the seamless working of the UK’s internal market, but this is surely a prime example of the need for the intergovernmental dialogue and co-operation which the report recommends. It must be improved, strengthened and made more transparent.
According to the report, most of the witnesses who gave evidence to the committee agreed that the United Kingdom Government needed to raise their game in this respect. It suggests that this could begin by making the present joint ministerial committees more effective by more preparation, a structured work programme and a willingness to accept that the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) is much more than a talking shop. The Constitution Committee, in its report Inter-governmental Relations in the United Kingdom, also acknowledges the need for improved lines of communication between the nations of the United Kingdom and calls for meetings of the joint ministerial committees to be given a higher profile, with more explanation of their work. The positive, well-thought-out recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Norton, deserve to be given careful and serious consideration.
In their response to the EU Committee’s report, the Government insist that they have been clear from the start that the devolved Administrations should be fully engaged in the EU exit process. We can achieve far more,
“if we pull together than if we are divided”,
they say. Any post-Brexit changes, however,
“would be for the UK Parliament and where applicable the devolved legislatures to comment upon”.
It is hard to look beyond Brexit, but once our new political course is clearly set, we must take action to shore up our own union. One aspect of this was referred to the other day, when our Scottish leader Ruth Davidson criticised Britain for being too London-centric, calling for more jobs and cultural institutions to be located around the country, better to spread the benefits of the union.
The EU Committee report sees the need in the longer term for a strengthened forum for inter-parliamentary dialogue within the United Kingdom, and states that its resourcing and relationship with existing bodies such as the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly needs careful consideration. It promises that this House will hope to play a part to begin with, by developing and broadening its well-established mechanisms for collaboration with colleagues in the devolved legislatures.
Can the Minister assure us that the Government will be sympathetic to all such aspirations and that they truly understand the need for more diversity, flexibility and transparency as we seek to strengthen and nurture our most precious union, now and in future?
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, the mood of the House seems to confirm a long-held view of mine: that the UK needs a root-and-branch overhaul if it is to hold together. That is behind many of the speeches that we have heard.
The destructive forces of nationalism—British, Scottish and Irish—have divided us to such an extent that rational decision-making is becoming nearly impossible. A referendum that I recall was supposed to unite the Conservative Party has split that party and the country. The Tory party is now a faction containing two factions fighting like ferrets in a sack. Survival of the Conservative Party, whatever it costs the nation or the interests of the people, is the overriding and only glue that holds it together. If the Tory party does not split, the nation will.
The hope and belief for the EU for many people was that it would act as an umbrella to accommodate and moderate the forces of nationalism. To some extent, that was why the EU was created in the first place. The EU provided the common space to move forward the peace process in Ireland. For many years, the SNP sought to blunt the barb of separatism by calling for independence in Europe, thus reassuring unionist sentiment that we would still be in the same family, even if Scotland became independent. The question for us is whether Parliament can save the United Kingdom from the divisive, destructive forces of the Conservative Party.
Here is an irony. At this year’s election, the Tories fell back everywhere but in Scotland. The Scottish Conservatives have 12 MPs, distinguished sharply, at least by their leader, from the ultra-conservative Democratic Unionist Party within the current government arrangement. In my part of Scotland, the Conservatives had their biggest surge for decades. North-east Scotland appears now as the Tories’ biggest stronghold across the UK. They took six out of seven seats, including my former constituency of Gordon. Why was that? Quite simply, it was a reaction against the SNP and, perhaps particularly, its former leader Alex Salmond.
In 2015, when I retired as a local MP, my party the Liberal Democrats fought a strong campaign to retain the seat with our candidate, Christine Jardine, now the MP for Edinburgh West. Sadly, Edinburgh’s gain is Gordon’s loss. Gordon had voted by two to one on a nearly 90% turnout against independence. Yet only a few months later, they voted in the former leader of the SNP as their local representative. For that, I blame David Cameron. The day after the independence referendum, he called for English votes for English laws—EVEL. “Evil”—a very good name for it. He knew what he was doing: he was promoting the electoral chances of the SNP to defeat Labour in its former stronghold of Scotland and secure a Conservative majority. And it worked.
However, on his election, Alex Salmond interpreted the result as mandate to campaign for a second independence referendum, which was a total misjudgment. The majority of his constituents were outraged. I know that from the doorsteps. Mr Salmond seemed to think that the pathological dislike of the Tories that had characterised Scottish politics for years was irreversible. He accused Liberal Democrats and even Labour of betraying Scotland and effectively endorsing Tory rule. The irony is that Alex, who loved to coruscate the Tories and fellow travellers, gave them the oxygen they needed. Tory strength in the north-east of Scotland was largely achieved by Mr Salmond’s arrogant misjudgment of local people, and his party has paid the price.
So the Tory revival in Scotland is entirely due to its robust campaign to gather the anti-independence referendum forces behind its banner. I am not decrying that as a political expedient—and it worked. But it was certainly not an endorsement of the Brexit shambles now being stumbled through by Mrs May’s Government. I doubt if it was even support for the more attractive brand of social Conservatism espoused and promoted by Ruth Davidson. After all, as a cheerleader for Theresa May she faces a backlash in Scotland if the outcome is as disastrous for the will and interests of the people of Scotland, as now seems likely.
So what do we do now? The SNP Government are wrong to pursue the idea that somehow, Scotland, as part of the UK, can maintain membership of the single market, the currency union or even some kind of EEA arrangement. That is simply not politically or legally achievable. But they are right to join forces with others to fight for continued membership of those institutions, or the best possible access that we can achieve. In my view, they should challenge Ruth Davidson and the Scottish Conservatives to join with them, and they should put Scottish Labour under pressure to do likewise, and make Jeremy Corbyn understand that, without a more constructive approach to Brexit, he will find it much harder to build a majority in any future election.
As a number of noble Lords have said, what has happened and is happening is piecemeal and full of anomalies and contradictions. These reports, as we would expect of reports of this House, are a constructive, useful and helpful contribution to the debate, even if they are somewhat belated in coming to the House. We have to assume, of course, that the key players who are making decisions are listening to this debate. If the devolved Administrations and a significant section of regional government in England—the noble Lord, Lord Desai, is right about that—see leaving the single market and the customs union as damaging and disturbing, do not the Government have a responsibility to explore how much of those we could remain connected to and what compromises would be worthwhile for that purpose? I look to the Minister in his maiden speech.
The problem I articulated at the beginning of my remarks is that it seems that the extreme Brexiteers want to break off all connections with the EU and float off into the mid-Atlantic, and will go ape at any suggestion of compromise—but without compromise there can by definition be no agreement. We know that huge sectors of British society and the economy want to maintain good links with the EU. We know that our financial services still want to serve the EU market. We know our universities and research institutions want continued co-operation. Student exchanges want to continue, and we want to collaborate on culture and the arts as well as intelligence and security—the list is almost endless. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, mentioned the sheep sector and the rest of the agricultural sector. I am not sure whether noble Lords recognise that in the week after the EU referendum, exports of Scottish lamb to France fell by 80%. They recovered because there was nowhere else to get lamb from, but it tells you that the French will not buy Scottish lamb when we leave the EU, which will destroy our entire sheep sector.
Where is the leadership? The current devolution settlement is inherently unstable, and leaving the EU makes it more so. We need some kind of constitutional convention to explore the basis for a sustainable way of governing the United Kingdom and maintaining good relations with our neighbours. We need a clear statement of where power lies—at which level—and how disputes are resolved. There may well be justification for replacing the Barnett formula with a needs-based approach and a proper share of tax revenues and tax-raising powers, as long as it is not done in an inherently destabilising way.
I am a bit disappointed that the reports reject fairly quickly any form of English Parliament, arguing that England is too big. That fails to address the fact that English MPs and voters see no need for an English Parliament because they regard this Parliament as the English Parliament. That is not consistent with the devolution settlement that we have maintained. There is a good case to be made for devolution within England—I accept that. There is a good case for devolution in Scotland, by the way, as it has been overcentralised under the SNP. But English regions should not be equated with the devolved Administrations; they do not have a historical identity.
Whether it is a Parliament or not, there needs to be an England-wide legislative forum, and we need to work out how we do that. Doing it piecemeal, as EVEL does, creates resentment, just as transferring decision-making to the devolved Administrations creates resentment in England. We need to acknowledge that. But is it not time to stop addressing legitimate concerns in ways that kick off more grievance, and to make a radical change through proper constitutional arrangements?
I would look for a federal constitution, recognising the status of England, clearly defining the powers for all components of the UK and guaranteeing the rights of local government and individual citizens. This issue is bigger than any one political party. No party can be trusted with this, and certainly not the Conservative Party. If we carry on in this incoherent, ad hoc fashion we will not just severely damage the UK’s economic and political wellbeing and our standing in the world, which is already suffering; we will undermine the sustainability of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is time to think hard and long.
Baroness Wilcox (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that I follow the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, because I was getting madly overexcited about the life ahead that I am going to have when we get out, have our go and enjoy ourselves. Listening to the noble Lord, I thought: “Gosh, what a dreary world he wants to live in”. I am glad to follow him because I think I can cheer him up.
I am a member of the EU Select Committee. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Jay, was our chairman and the House has heard a wonderful speech from my noble friend Lord Lang. If I had to pick two men to get out there and run it for us, these two could make it very well. I am looking forward no end to hearing from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, as he makes his maiden speech in the ministerial reply, which is unusual and different. I draw attention to the recent entry I have made in the register of interests as president of the National Consumer Federation. I have returned to representing consumer interests—work which brought me to this House some 20 years—this time doing so throughout the Brexit negotiations. This is an exciting and wonderful time for us to all work together.
Our report draws attention to the risks resulting from the complex, overlapping competences within the United Kingdom and the devolved regions, and the loss of the overarching EU legislative framework within which devolution has developed since 1997. As has been said, there is now an urgent need for a guiding strategy, or framework of principles, to ensure that devolution develops in a coherent and consistent manner, and to ensure that the devolution principles are underpinned by a clear and agreed framework of guiding principles. I seek assurance from the Minister, as did my noble friend Lord Lang and the noble Lord, Lord Desai, that these conclusions will be acted upon and that work will commence without delay to reform the Barnett formula.
Brexit provides many opportunities for the United Kingdom to regain control of our waters and to redevelop our fishing industry. Fisheries is a devolved policy but close co-ordination must be maintained if the United Kingdom is to achieve the future benefits that Brexit offers. The UK will assume control of 200 nautical miles and will soon be able to control access to them. Conversely, UK vessels will no longer have automatic access to EU waters. In the six to 12 nautical mile zone, those with historic rights to fish may retain their rights. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United Kingdom, as a coastal state, will need to sustainably manage fishing activities within our exclusive economic zone. It will be essential for the UK Government and devolved Administrations to work together to develop and implement fisheries policy after withdrawal from the EU. We will be required to co-operate with other coastal states to manage shared stocks. To achieve this, it is likely that some kind of quota system will be needed again to minimise the risk of overfishing. It is in all our interests for any agreements to be consistent throughout the British Isles and between the UK and our neighbouring states.
I ask the Government to implement strategies and effective mechanisms to ensure that the United Kingdom benefits fully from regaining control of all our fisheries. I also urge the Government to ensure that the inshore protection vessels start to be built now and that we look to control our waters with offshore vessels for the wider EZ. This request could equally be directed at other business sectors where interests are wider than a single devolved region.
As a long-term consumer champion who also has business interests, particularly in the small firm area, I have considerable interest in the need to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s internal market post Brexit. Consistent UK consumer rights and regulation are fundamental to an effectively operating UK market. These issues are common to all consumers, whether from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or indeed the regions within England. After all, consumers contribute 65% of the UK’s economy. Scotland trades about £50 billion per annum with the rest of the UK, for example, and much of that trade will be in consumer goods and services purchased in the three other UK nations. In meeting the challenges for devolution identified in our report, there is an opportunity for closer co-operation across the devolved regions for business and societal stakeholders. Working together, businesses and consumers have the potential to deliver an enhanced, thriving, internal market that in turn will act as a springboard for our global market ambitions.
It is certainly a challenge to transpose all the legislation built up over more than 40 years into UK law. Earlier this year the NCF held its congress to identify key messages for Government as we leave the European Union. Among the messages delivered by the congress was a call for current UK policy to protect consumers to be maintained and that, where there are gaps in domestic policy, protection should be enhanced and strengthened, especially in relation to cross-border legislation such as e-commerce, health and passenger rights. Our people’s safety is a priority; intelligence-sharing and systems of redress must continue to operate cross border. Our needs for protection and fairness are the same across all the UK.
As we transpose all the required legislation into UK law, I am concerned that lack of enforcement of the law could threaten businesses and consumers alike. All the changes we face could, without proper enforcement, provide opportunities to defraud the system and provide inadequate services to us all. As we proceed with Brexit, our ability to monitor consumer markets and enforce regulation, through trading standards and industry self-regulation across the nations of the UK, needs strengthening and improving.
In conclusion, I quote from our committee’s report, Brexit: Devolution:
“Brexit will be a major constitutional change for the United Kingdom. Any attempt to use Brexit to make a power-grab, either to ‘re-reserve’ powers previously devolved, or to claim more devolved powers, could compound instability: this is not the time to embark on controversial amendments to the devolution settlements ... The House of Lords Constitution Committee has concluded that hitherto ‘there has been no guiding strategy or framework of principles to ensure that devolution develops in a coherent or consistent manner’. We agree. Brexit makes it more important than ever that a clear and agreed framework of principles should underpin any future reform of the devolution settlements”.
It is vital that there is a well-managed, close co-operation between the UK Government and the regions on devolved matters and where consumer interests are involved. Stakeholders need to be directly engaged in the process and this can be facilitated only by our Government.
The Earl of Lindsay (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lord Duncan of Springbank and warmly congratulate him on his appointment to the Scotland Office. He brings very valuable experience to that role and to this House. His career has seen him working for the Scottish Refugee Council and the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and he knows the length and breadth of Scotland in considerable detail. He also brings a very timely experience to tonight’s debate in that he has worked for the Scottish Parliament, which has seen him gain first-hand experience of the JMC in action.
I also thank my noble friend Lord Lang and the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for introducing their excellent reports. I would happily speak on all three reports but, for the sake of brevity, I want to focus on the issues raised in the report from the Constitution Committee on Inter-governmental Relations in the United Kingdom. In introducing it, my noble friend suggested that his report remains relevant and valid. Sadly, this is the case. It is very disappointing that in October 2017 intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom remain as much of a concern requiring urgent attention as they were when the Constitution Committee published its report and recommendations in March 2015, two and a half years ago.
The disappointment is all the greater given that some months before the Constitution Committee published its report and recommendations in 2015, the then Government had accepted a key recommendation on the importance of achieving better intergovernmental relations from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, which he issued when the Smith commission launched its report in 2014. The recommendation from the noble Lord, Lord Smith, was:
“Both Governments need to work together to create a more productive, robust, visible and transparent relationship. There also needs to be greater respect between them”.
The Government, in their response to the Smith commission, agreed with his call for greater intergovernmental co-operation and respect with the following statement:
“Effective inter-governmental working is essential to guarantee the best possible provision of services and representation for the people of the UK; a renewed commitment to build these relationships and explore better ways of working, as recommended by the Smith Commission Agreement, will require close collaboration between the UK Government and Devolved Administrations”.
The Government made that commitment nearly three years ago.
It has to be said that the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in 2014 and of the Constitution Committee in 2015 were not the first time that the Government had been told that the need for greater intergovernmental co-operation was a problem that needed to be urgently addressed. Five years earlier, in June 2009, a similarly urgent call for action was put to the Government by the Calman commission when it published its report and recommendations on Scottish devolution.
I was a member of the Calman commission, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He and I both have particular reason to recall that the importance the Calman commission placed on both intergovernmental and interparliamentary co-operation was such that it became one of the longest chapters in our report and ran to 23 separate recommendations. I believe that it ran to something like 40 pages. We deliberately put it at the heart of the Calman commission report because we saw it as being such an important strand.
That call for action from the Calman commission was issued over eight years ago. The call for action from the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Kelvin, was made three years ago. The call for action from the Constitution Committee was made two and a half years ago. Here we are in late 2017, three calls for action later, still needing to see greater action and greater progress being sought and achieved. I am not suggesting that nothing has happened since 2009 to improve intergovernmental relations, nor am I underestimating the difficulty of strengthening co-operation when one of the parties involved is happy to see it frustrated. However, if you look at the timeline from Calman to today and the actual detail of the recommendations that were issued in 2009, 2014 and 2015, it is deeply disappointing that more progress has not been made. I echo the lament of my noble friend Lord Lang that there seems to be no sense of urgency.
The message over eight years has remained constant and unambiguous—that the need for co-operation is compelling and that good intergovernmental relations, alongside the ability of different Governments and Parliaments to co-operate and work together in a constructive and structured manner, are essential ingredients of a stable, devolved constitution. How can greater progress be achieved going forward and how can it be achieved without further delay? My noble friend suggested that we need a new attitude and a new mindset and I agree. I believe that we need a new focus, new energy and new determination.
The recommendations of the Calman commission and the Constitution Committee need to be dusted off and reviewed with a commitment to implementing a series of fresh measures. Many of the recommendations of Calman and the Constitution Committee are relatively modest or straightforward. Few require any legislation and all are practical and focused on delivering improved intergovernmental and interparliamentary relations. Therefore, the question is: where do we look for the much-needed new focus, energy and determination that need to be brought to bear? I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Lang suggest that our noble friend on the Front Bench would bring a fresh eye to this. I completely agree. He is new to his role and intergovernmental relations are an important dimension of his ministerial responsibilities. As I said at the beginning, his career to date is very well suited to someone who wants to bring fresh energy to the intergovernmental sphere, as he has worked for the Scottish Parliament and seen the JMC in action.
Furthermore, those noble Lords who know my noble friend know that he does not lack focus, energy or determination. Therefore, I very much hope that when he sums up, he will set out not only the Government’s commitment to the early delivery of further measures designed to improve intergovernmental relations across the United Kingdom but also his own commitment as a Minister with Scottish and Welsh responsibilities to ensure that rapid progress is made.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, I thank the committees for their excellent reports that provide a very thorough background, albeit some of it is almost historic as they have been in existence for so long before we debate them.
The noble Lord, Lord Lang, emphasised the lack of care and involvement of the UK Government in constitutional affairs and said that we must stop taking the union for granted. This Government have at best a chaotic attitude to constitutional change. In fact, for decades Governments have been less than systematic in their approach to the devolved Administrations and to the process of constitutional change as a whole. Of course, the current Government have their eyes, hours and funding all fixed on Brexit. However, Brexit itself fundamentally shakes the foundation of the union. It does so most noisily in the case of Scotland. These arguments have been well rehearsed here today. However, the impact in Northern Ireland, which has received less attention today, is massive and potentially tragic, and it is overwhelmingly ignored in England in my experience. Over the summer I had discussions with senior figures in Irish politics. They see no realistic practical solution to the border issue which observes both the spirit and the letter of the Belfast agreement. I do not need to spell out to noble Lords here today that that has huge implications for politics in Northern Ireland.
However, I want to concentrate on Wales, which, as usual, has received less focus today than Scotland, despite the efforts of, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, set out clearly the situation in relation to EU powers on, for example, agriculture and the environment and their importance to the devolved Administrations.
I do not always agree with the First Minister of Wales but I certainly always agree with his right to be at the table and his right to be heard. In his response to the EU Committee’s report, he emphasised that the Welsh Government have repeatedly but vainly tried to engage with the UK Government. Indeed, they put forward their own policy paper on Brexit and devolution, and I recommend it to those noble Lords who have not yet had a chance to read it. That paper emphasises that the National Assembly for Wales is now the principal law-making body for Wales in most matters that affect people’s daily lives; for example—it is a long list—health, education, training, housing, the environment, economic development, local government, transport, planning, agriculture, fisheries, culture, sport and recreation. Several of those powers—for example, those relating to the environment, agriculture, fisheries and economic development—are exercised specifically according to the framework of EU law.
This Parliament retains the power to legislate on any matter for Wales, as it does for the rest of the UK, but, according to the Sewel convention, which several noble Lords have mentioned today, Parliament will not normally legislate for Wales on matters within the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales unless the Assembly has given its formal consent through a legislative consent Motion. That Sewel convention has been observed throughout the history of devolution.
The Welsh Government also have their own direct relationship with the EU, as does the Welsh Assembly—for example, on the administration and strategic direction of structural funds and on implementing the common agricultural policy. They also contribute to European Councils, which Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Ministers attend. I did so myself when I was a Minister in the Welsh Government. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Welsh Government take strong issue with key sections of the Government’s response to the EU Committee’s report.
I agree with those noble Lords who raised the Barnett formula. Some welcome progress was made on this issue during the coalition Government and more recently in the Wales Act 2017, but then a bomb was placed under it through the deal with the DUP to keep the Conservative Government in power. However the additional billions are channelled to Northern Ireland, you cannot escape the fact that that deal upsets the uneasy balance that the Barnett formula represents.
The Welsh Government’s paper proposes, for example, replacing the JMC with a new UK council of Ministers to take forward negotiations, reach binding decisions and resolve disputes. My experience of the JMC is that it is not the most productive and effective of organisations, and that experience predates the point at which Brexit became such a divisive issue. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace pointed out, the JMC body established by the UK Government specifically to deal with Brexit has not met since early February, despite repeated calls by both the Welsh and Scottish Governments for it to do so. By any measure, the UK Government are clearly not even pretending to take that process seriously. Noble Lords could draw the conclusion that the Government are simply frightened of meeting the devolved Governments because they have no answers to the constitutional issues they raise.
I am also informed—I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on this—that there has been a total lack of consultation on the series of position papers issued by the UK Government over the summer, even when those papers dealt with devolved issues. The Welsh Government apparently received less than 24 hours’ notice that they were even being published.
The Government’s response represents the status quo on EU policy-making. It says:
“The UK Government is responsible for ensuring that the internal market within the UK operates freely and openly … The powers currently held by the EU that provide that guarantee on the internal market are not, and never have been, within the competence of the devolved administrations”.
However, in relation to devolved powers, such as on agriculture, the UK Government have in practice been formulating their responses in agreement with the devolved Governments. I repeat that those responses to European powers have been made with the agreement of the devolved Governments.
In respect of Wales, the government response talks specifically about the,
“opportunity to redesign our policies to make them work for us”—
the “us” being apparently the UK Government. It applies this approach to agriculture, which is of course a devolved issue. It talks about replacing structural fund programmes with a new fund, but those structural fund programmes are entirely devolved to the Welsh Government. Taking those comments along with the lack of a sunset provision on the powers that the UK Government intend to repatriate from the EU to themselves, is it a surprise that when the Government say to us, “Trust us. We’ll bring back these powers from the EU but we’ll pass them on to the devolved Administrations in due course”, so many of us simply do not trust them and suspect that this is a simple power grab by the UK Government? I remember when debating the Wales Bill having time and again to argue against the centralisation of powers.
Brexit threatens to destabilise our already shaky union. Northern Ireland poses an impossible conundrum and upsets the relationship with one of our closest neighbours—the Republic of Ireland. Northern Ireland is nowhere near as settled as it looks from this side of the water. Wales already resents the disdain with which its problems are treated by the UK Government. Recent events in Catalonia should warn the Government to take nothing for granted in Scotland. The Government must wake up and smell the constitutional coffee. They simply must engage fully with the devolved Administrations and recognise that they have to go forward with the express consent of the devolved Administrations.
I look forward to the Minister’s response and I welcome him to this Chamber. As someone who previously spoke from that place for the Wales Office, I shall be particularly interested in what he has to say in relation to Wales, but I hope that he finds his job enjoyable and fulfilling. In the long term, our untidy, lopsided devolution settlement becomes less and less sustainable and acceptable. I urge the Government to listen to those pressing for the establishment of a constitutional convention, to engage with civil society as well as politicians, and to restore respect within the union.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to the members of the Constitution Committee and the European Union Committee for their work in producing these excellent reports. In introducing his committee’s report, the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, displayed the intellect and experience he has shown throughout the years of his ministerial career. His dissection of the SNP’s record in government goes a long way to explaining, perhaps, his attitude. Perhaps, though, he was in danger of re-running the devolution battle and vote as he showed us his long-standing and genuine concern about the possible eventual road from devolution to separation. We must all work together to make sure that that does not happen. Support for the union has been common throughout the Chamber—in varying degrees, at times—and I add my support to that.
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, to his post. He follows an extremely distinguished predecessor in the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, who raised the bar very high and gained the support of this side of the House on many occasions with his attitude and ability. We wish the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, well in his new post.
The reports before the House on the union and intergovernmental relations focus on the United Kingdom’s inner workings: how we work together and how we work as one. We are, as the committee expressed, a union by consent, and our political settlement is unique to our United Kingdom. I am a very firm supporter of the union, but it is over 300 years old and we cannot say that it should not evolve, devolve or change in any way—things have got to change in the light of experience and reality. But for as long as the union is there, it will have our full support.
The Constitution Committee outlined the strengths of the union and the risks to it in the context of Brexit. As has been stated before, it is striking that these first two reports were written before the vote on 23 June 2016. The issues raised over the stability of the union, the need for a blueprint for the future and the shortfalls of the joint ministerial committee have a new context and increased urgency in the light of the current EU negotiations.
It was interesting to hear positive support for Brexit from—what is her name?—the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox. I remember her well as a Minister and so should not have forgotten her name; my apologies.
The stability of our union requires careful management of the balance between unity and diversity. This is a mainstay of the report’s conclusions. Brexit is an acute test, and an opportunity, for this. Getting Brexit right for the United Kingdom means getting it right in Northern Ireland, Wales, back home in Scotland and, as my noble friend Lord Desai mentioned previously, here in England too.
The European Union Committee report summarises the political complexities that are the backdrop to these negotiations: the Scottish independence question, which was a threat to the union; the very real concern of colleagues in the Welsh Government that Wales will be overlooked, which has also been expressed here by colleagues from Wales; and the lack of a functioning power-sharing Executive in Northern Ireland, as so expertly diagnosed and commented on by my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. It has been six months since an Executive were in place in Northern Ireland. The Government have supported multiple rounds of negotiations, which have failed to return devolved government to the people of Northern Ireland. With what new conviction and what level of involvement will the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom approach the current round of talks to ensure that the outcome is different?
The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union is currently engaged in the first round of negotiations in Brussels, which include the stark issue of the Irish border. I am impressed and pleased by the unity around the Chamber on the unique position of Northern Ireland as part of our United Kingdom. We all need to work hard to make sure that we come up with a sensible, practical solution that we can implement to assuage the fears expressed by that part of the United Kingdom. We commend the agreement there has been on all sides on the importance of retaining an open border and the Government’s stated commitment to the Good Friday agreement in their duty as co-guarantor. But—and I am not trying to gain party-political advantage here—this is the second set of negotiations in which the Government have achieved far too little. It is imperative that the Northern Irish parties are properly consulted and engaged with as we grapple with the future of this shared UK-EU border.
The joint ministerial committee has been mentioned a lot, and I was especially impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said—he will be pleased that I managed to say his name without stuttering this time. He stressed the importance of the mechanics of government that would make sure this co-operation is extended. The reports detail the strengths and shortcomings of the joint ministerial committee. Concerns have been expressed a few times around grandstanding and time limits, but the report also recognises the strength of these formal channels in bolstering informal communication between Governments. It is difficult to say how well the Joint Ministerial Committee (EU Negotiations) has been working this year, since it has not met since February.
The Labour Party took seriously the committee’s recommendation that the Government should consider setting the JMC out in statute, which has been mentioned tonight by a number of noble Lords. We supported amendments during the notification of the withdrawal Act which would have built consultation with the devolved Administrations formally, in statute, into the Brexit process. Rather than this structured blueprint on how to move forward, the Government opted instead for no blueprint. Can the Minister tell the House with what frequency and through what mechanisms the devolved Administrations have been consulted in lieu of the JMC meeting?
The reports powerfully raise the issue of shared and overlapping competencies between the UK Government and devolved powers, with the EU Committee’s report setting out the new landscape we have to navigate. We take the point of view that these are not problems to destroy things but opportunities to come to new agreements and co-operation for the good of the people we all represent. It has been mentioned often tonight that as powers are repatriated to the UK from the EU, the EU frameworks that standardised, for example, the UK’s single market, will no longer be applicable. The number of varying competencies that overlap between devolved and central jurisdictions will increase. If ever there was a moment for a thought-out blueprint on UK governmental relations moving forwards, it is now.
Genuine fears have been expressed on all sides of the House that the withdrawal Bill brought forward by the Government fails to achieve this. There are concerns that it represents a sweeping power grab by Ministers at the expense of the sovereignty of this Parliament, and undermines the United Kingdom’s devolution settlements. We all have the responsibility to make devolution work—the United Kingdom Parliament and the devolved Administrations—because we all represent people. I take the point of view that we are all trying our best to do that. But in our opinion, it requires slightly more determination to consult with the devolved Administrations and come to practical agreements with them.
Labour has tabled an amendment to remove the proposed restrictions on the ability of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly to legislate on these devolved matters. Your Lordships’ House will be aware that the Welsh and Scottish Governments have already worked together to publish a series of amendments on devolved issues in the Bill. It is not a case of accepting willy-nilly what anyone else says: these are serious people bringing forward serious suggestions and they should be looked at seriously for the future of the United Kingdom.
With regard to future working, in the coming years the Government will have to work closely with the devolved Administrations. Devolution is here to stay, but we need to secure a post-referendum settlement for the UK. I suggest that the Bill is not the best way to begin that process. What is the Government’s vision for the future devolution settlement in the United Kingdom? What thought has been given to establishing structures to be put in place so that the common frameworks that the UK as a whole needs to thrive can be consulted, agreed and legislated on?
I raise a final point about the Civil Service expertise that was also recently raised in the excellent paper on British-Irish relations. Different departments work with the devolved Administrations to differing degrees, as has been mentioned tonight. As the committee expressed, there are differing levels of success. But as officials work through repatriated powers and changes to policies in the coming years, it is incredibly important that they understand the significance of a policy for the people on the Isle of Barra as well as in Birmingham, for example. Can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to ensure that expertise about the devolved jurisdictions is widespread through the Civil Service?
We take the point of view that the union need not be threatened or jeopardised by devolution. The facts of life in Scotland are that the Labour Party was elected on a mandate in 1997 to hold a referendum. The Scottish people voted quite overwhelmingly for that. That is their expectation and that is their demand. The demand on all of us is to make sure that it works.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, this is the first time I speak in your Lordships’ House. The phrase “baptism of fire” probably springs to mind. This is indeed one of the most challenging issues that we will face as a country and as constituent parts of that country. But before I go on to that, if I may, this is also my maiden speech so I hope noble Lords will indulge me for a moment before I return to the business in hand.
I come to the House from another place, not along the Corridor, as many have done—not for want of effort on my part, I hasten to add—but from over the channel, from Brussels and the European Parliament. I represented Scotland, the largest and many would say the best constituency in the European Union. I learned a great deal from watching how that chamber works. Some things worked well and some things did not. I suspect we will be able to look again at how things are developing there with some interest as the Brexit process goes on.
Just as Charles de Gaulle lamented the challenge of governing a land of 246 cheeses, the challenge is all the greater trying to represent a land of 118 distilleries, as Scotland has. However, the tour is slightly more invigorating than the tour of cheese production in France. I had hoped to bring to this House some experience of events in Brussels and Edinburgh, but given the extraordinary collection of talent on the Benches on both sides, from former Commissioners and ambassadors to distinguished former MEPs, frankly, I just hope to keep up. I recognise that there is a wealth of experience in the debate today, and I hope to try to respond to some of that.
When the Garter Principal King of Arms asked me to consider which place name I would take as my title, I asked, somewhat tongue in cheek, whether I could take Brussels. He smiled benignly, as is his wont, and explained only if I could claim to have achieved a great military victory there. I fear my success on the non-road mobile machinery directive was perhaps not quite qualification enough. Instead, I chose Springbank in the county of Perth. My grandparents moved to the newly constructed council scheme of Springbank Road in the town of Alyth in 1934. They came from a mill cottage with an earthen floor. My mother was born there in 1936 on the kitchen table, as she would often tell me, and thank goodness for Formica. Upon marriage, my father moved into the same house and it was there that my brother and sister were born. Indeed, for the first few years of their marriage that is where they lived, alongside my grandparents and their other son. My parents’ first home of their own was also in the same council scheme. My grandparents lived their whole life in Springbank Road, as did my mother, who passed away only a few years ago. I am the third generation to hail from Springbank and I believe that it is appropriate to take that as my title. I also again commend the notion of council housing, which I believe we are once again looking to improve. It is significant and important and I commend it.
Before I move on to the substantive elements of the debate, I should give my thanks to my noble friends Lord McInnes of Kilwinning and Lady Goldie for guiding me so expertly through my introduction here only a few weeks ago. I have to admit that it was the most nerve-racking experience of my parliamentary career and I would not want to go through it again. None the less, it was an extraordinary thing to find myself here among noble Lords. I also thank the doorkeepers who have guided me more than once up different corridors and helped me to locate toilets, which are not well publicised, in different parts of the building. I thank again the clerks who have guided me through various other elements of my work and my ministerial colleagues who have guided me in so many of the elements of what I am about to speak of today. They have all shown me great kindness and I appreciate that a great deal. It is a privilege to be here.
Perhaps I may turn to today’s business. Let me begin by commending the approach of my noble friend Lord Selkirk: the union is precious and there is no question about that. Throughout the debate we have heard many noble Lords speaking of that very precious union. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton began the debate, he recognised that we must not take this union for granted. We had a close shave not so many years ago, and again the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, was very kind to point out how we worked together to try to move forward and recognise the challenges faced at that difficult time.
I shall start by addressing head-on the point made by my noble friend Lord Lang. There was a delay in the response to this paper; that is not appropriate and it will not happen again. We must make sure that we address these challenges in good time and we cannot take for granted that time will be given to us to make sure that that happens. It is also important to stress the attitude of this Government, which is to ensure that both the Brexit process and the devolution process work together. A number of noble Lords pointed out the challenge of the piecemeal approach we have adopted to our constitutional evolution, and indeed some of those changes have not always been in the best interests of the entire union. Some have been made in haste and some, I suspect, we regret and would revisit were we to have an opportunity to do so. The challenge with devolution as we understand it is that it is a ratchet that moves in only one direction. The problem is that if we do not get it right the first time, it unfortunately moves on too fast to change it around.
The joint ministerial committees were mentioned a number of times by several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lord Lang and Lord Dunlop, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness. I was a clerk in the Scottish Parliament in the early days of the joint ministerial committees and I can assure noble Lords that they were not working well then—long before we had the situation of Brexit and long before we had embraced many aspects of devolution. There were a number of reasons for that. I think that to some degree everyone expected different things from those committees and everyone was slightly disappointed by not getting what they wanted out of them. Let me answer some of the other questions which have been raised. How often have the joint ministerial committees met this year? Not enough—they must meet more often. The times we face now are a challenge and we must embrace that by doing so together, using these committees to help us take the steps forward; of that I am in no doubt whatever. But I should also stress that although these committees have not met as often as perhaps all would have wished, to some degree there were extenuating circumstances such as the election and other elements. None the less, we need to do better.
However, I would also say that the bilateral discussions have been significant and important at all stages of the process. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, was right to point out that we are well served by a Civil Service that is able to continue to collaborate even when politicians cannot always quite find themselves at the same table facing each other in the same direction. For example, in rural affairs, over the past few months of the summer period there have been more than 50 face-to-face meetings to discuss each of the aspects of Brexit as they impact on the rural affairs agenda, and that is not without significance. Again, it is important that we are as open as we can be. The UK Government are committed to being as open as they can and have been so throughout the process. Part of the challenge, however, is that we have not always been able to secure from the others participating the same level of openness, and that in itself can be a challenge. The consent aspect has to work both ways. There needs to be collaboration from both sides; it cannot just be all give on one side and all take on the other. It is important that we recognise that.
Perhaps I may go into a little more of the detail. Again, I am fearful that I will not be able to do justice to the sheer range and depth of knowledge and expertise that noble Lords have displayed today. Perhaps I may take a moment to say that, as someone who sat in the European Parliament for a number of years, I have probably experienced more serious debate and insight in the past few hours here than was often the case in some of the debates I witnessed there. First, I turn to the reports themselves. There are elements that we must look at in trying to address how we consider the devolution settlement. It is easy to look on it as unfinished business, but the question is: what would finish that business? How shall we bring together each of the constituent parts to create what needs to be a functioning constitution? We cannot simply keep feeding the crocodile and hope that it will eat us last. There needs to be a recognition of what we are for. What is our country and what shall be our constitutional settlement? We need also to recognise that each constituent part must play its role in that. We do that against the backdrop of Brexit, which makes the whole process considerably more difficult in terms of trying to achieve progress. However, I am well aware that we have to achieve that progress because without it we will be in a terrible situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Jay, made a significant contribution to the discussion today. I am under no illusion about some of the challenges the noble Lord has presented to the Government. What I would say as a former Member of the European Parliament is that there is a challenge in how the acquis communautaire functions, how the frameworks within which we exist today have been constructed and how the devolution settlement itself embraced those frameworks. It is true to say that when we witnessed the changes in Brussels, as we have done over the years, they have been negotiated by the United Kingdom with the involvement of the home nations; none the less, the devolution frameworks were established within an established European framework. That was the glue, as the noble Lord rightly put it, but none the less it was there. That is why the Government have no ambition to change in any fashion the powers currently exercised by the devolved Administrations. What we have to do is work out where the frameworks need to be functional. At the moment there are 111 areas in the Scottish legal world and 64 in the Welsh where again, we hope to collaborate to establish exactly where we can find a common framework, a common approach and the right outcome.
We have no ambition to retain powers that we do not need and do not deserve to hold. We must recognise that the devolution settlement is fixed; we will do so, but we must also recognise that on day 1 after Brexit, each element of our procedures must be legally sound. We can take no risk of there being an upset, stumble or breakdown, and we should take time to echo the points made by so many of my colleagues on these Benches. We must take time to ensure that we get the frameworks settled and sorted and workable. If we get them wrong, we will live to regret it. One problem we face now is that that day is fast approaching, so we need to make sure that on day 1 we have a legally sound system, but that we work out how, as a common people of different nations, we will come together and pull in that direction.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, is quite right. England can often be overlooked and it is one of the great challenges that we sit in what many people consider to be one of the Chambers of the English Parliament—and yet, the very nation of England itself can often be overlooked in the wider sense of the word. That is a great pity, and we need to recognise that as each of the other home nations pushes for particular changes to the wider constitutional settlement. I served as a clerk on the committee when my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness was in the Scottish Parliament—not that long ago, it seems, but here we have arrived, apparently for greater things.
Lord Duncan of Springbank
Well, we are certainly moving in the right direction.
I am aware that we face serious challenges in working out each of the component parts of the overall settlement. I am particularly concerned about the devolution settlement and the replacement for the structural funds and the common agricultural policy, to which reference was made. The Government have given a commitment to 2022. In truth, that is one year more than we would have been able to offer to the wider Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish farmers and others. That is a year more than we would have had if we had stayed in the EU. We are giving a greater degree of certainty. Each of those elements is up for significant change.
When I met the Commissioner for Agriculture in Brussels not so long ago, he talked about the fact that the overall sum of money given to farmers will be significantly reduced in certain areas and that farmers will have to tackle that. As a Government, we are committed to 2022 and we will see how we can reform and move forward at that point; but there is still no desire, I hasten to add, to seek powers being drawn back from those Administrations—none at all. It is about trying to recognise where we can work together. To give some examples—I am aware we are often accused of not explaining where those examples may rest—we are currently focusing on the wider question of pesticides. We are conscious of the food and feed law for animals, but we need a common approach. We are aware of the food labelling issue because, as we begin to look at some of the geographical indicators—I was in the Western Isles not so long ago, breakfasting on Stornoway black pudding, a feast of kings—we need to recognise that we need a common approach across the United Kingdom. The final example is infectious diseases—which is more fun to talk about than look into, I hasten to add.
We face challenges in establishing what the frameworks need to look like. We need collaboration, and that is where the joint ministerial committees will work. It is at such gatherings that officials will sit down and work, because in truth, many of these issues are almost above our pay grade. They are at the level of detail where we need to understand how the law comes together with practical and policy issues. That can be something of a challenge.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is right to point out the issue of Catalonia. We cannot see such issues being resolved with bloodshed on the continent of Europe. I absolutely agree. I am also fully aware that the Edinburgh agreement, which was brokered between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Scottish Government, is a template for how other nations may embrace the demographic and democratic challenges presented by independence movements. It is a model that many people across Europe should be looking at.
I hope the Welsh football team are doing rather well right now—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is as interested in the outcome of that match as I am—but at the same time, he is right to talk about multiple geometry. Much of our situation today is about the asymmetry of our land. We do not face, as the US does, a number of small, medium-sized and large states all mixed together. We have such asymmetry and we need to recognise that. That may be part of the challenge when we start looking at the JMC. How do we contain within the JMC the correct structures to reflect the fact that—as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out—England is just bigger? How do we recognise that asymmetry, but none the less recognise the obligations we have to the home nations to reflect on the wider settlement of our constitution? It is not as easy as I would like to think.
My predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, has been very kind to me during my time finding my feet. I have not yet witnessed the tartan hippo, although I have witnessed many other tartan animals, if I may be a little unkind. A challenge in trying to do one’s job is embracing social media—it is not always full of laughter, it is fair to say.
It is important to stress that there is an existential threat to our nation. There is no question of that. One thing I would note in passing is that there are far too few nationalists in here. There needs to be more. That seems an odd thing, perhaps, for a unionist to say, but if we are to reflect the wider interests of our country, we must recognise that those voices need to be heard in both Chambers, not just in the House of Commons. That is perhaps not for me to create, but for others to look into; none the less, at this time, more than any other, we need those voices as part of the overall discussion that we are looking into.
Some of the aspects which my noble friend Lord Dunlop was kind enough to point out need to be addressed at the technical level. There are technical deficiencies. There are some issues around subsidiarity which we need to look at and then work out how best to do the job. Certainly in the Scottish situation devolution need not rest in Edinburgh, any more than in Wales and Northern Ireland it need rest in Cardiff or in Belfast. We need to recognise where power needs to be exercised. That is the European concept of subsidiarity. We need to recognise where it works even within the United Kingdom itself. If we can do that, we have a fighting chance of ensuring that our union continues. As someone who comes from outside the central belt of Scotland, I am very conscious that there is a great lament that overcentralisation to Edinburgh can be a huge problem, yet it needs to be addressed.
My noble friend Lord Lexden is quite right that some of the issues that we are talking of are worthy of note. The long delays in responding are unacceptable, and I am happy to confirm that we will not be moving in that direction again. We will move to address that.
“Devolve and forget” is not a concept that I wish to see go forward. We cannot simply hope to push things away, particularly during the Brexit process.
I am conscious that I have several other Members to respond to. Let me make one commitment: if I do not address their questions this evening, I ask them to hunt me down and I will come back to them. I do not wish them to feel that they have been short-changed because I have seemingly glossed over their points.
In the latter moments of my speech, I need to stress Northern Ireland. That will be one of the intractable aspects of the overall Brexit situation. It is equally a challenge within the wider devolution question. I assure noble Lords that James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State, is working very hard, but we have to recognise that the challenge need not rest solely with those inside the would-be Executive or Assembly; it is at all levels within Northern Ireland. They must also be part of the wider question of devolution and Brexit.
How do I finish off without short-changing other noble Lords who have spoken? Many of your Lordships have raised important issues. We need to recognise that the EU has provided the constitutional glue within which we as a Parliament have been able to operate, but we must also recognise that because of the approach that we have taken—by holding a referendum—that glue will not be as available to us to hold these things together. We must find another glue, something else that works for us as a people but also as a country. I hope that we can do so.
I am fully aware of how challenging Brexit will be, but I assure your Lordships that, in so far as I can, I will respond to any and all entreaties to co-operate and to collaborate. We will do all that we can to ensure that there is serious dialogue on all aspects, not just with MSPs and AMs but with councillors as well, to make sure that all are part of the process. This is an important time and we cannot get it wrong, because the ratchet is turning in only one direction. If we are not careful, we will turn it too tight and, as with winding up those old-fashioned clocks, the whole thing will unravel in our hands.
I again thank your Lordships for your forbearance and kindness in listening to my remarks. I assure you that I will do all I can to take forward the issues that we have discussed today in a timely, sensitive and careful manner.
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)
My Lords, it is well known that maiden speeches are conducted in a warm glow of charm, courtesy and sympathy but also of trepidation, not just on the part of the maiden speaker but in the minds of those who must welcome them and anticipate the brilliance that they are about to face and of those who have to speak afterwards. This evening, we have heard a quite exceptional, indeed outstanding, maiden speech. I think that the whole House will recognise that.
I did a little homework during the gap in the middle of the debate on the background of the noble Lord, Lord Duncan. I discovered that he had received a first-class honours degree in geology from Bristol University and a doctorate in palaeontology from St Andrews University—I think that I have those the wrong way round. He later lectured at Bristol University and in the meantime went to the Smithsonian Institution in Washington and spent some time at Harvard University. He then took up a business career in various spheres and eventually became a Member of the European Parliament in 2014, where he fulfilled major roles in the fields of energy and environment and had the praise of his colleagues heaped upon him—as is evident from the little research that I did.
It is therefore slightly less of a surprise that he has made such a brilliant start to his career, but I think the widespread mastery that he has clearly developed over the years in many spheres will stand him and this House in good stead. His speech was eloquent, knowledgeable, masterly and stylish and the House will look forward to hearing from him again.
This is not the time to rerun the debate and I certainly do not intend to do so. The hour is getting on and it is appropriate that I simply thank all those who have taken part. It is quite difficult to knit together debates on reports from two separate Select Committees on slightly different themes, but the truth is that I believe the themes knitted together extraordinarily well in the event. There was a sort of harmony among almost all speakers as to the method and the means by which the committees had sought to convey to government the need for action and a positive response. There was also a harmony in the disappointment expressed by many speakers that that response has not been forthcoming sooner, but I hope that the debate we have had today will convey to the Government, through the good offices of the Minister, that we are not happy that devolution is being treated in the way it is, and that intergovernmental relations within the United Kingdom, between this Parliament and the other Parliaments, are not being treated as well as they should be. I know a lot of efforts have been made and some success has been achieved, but there are still deep-rooted problems. The Minister has clearly recognised this, so I simply end by asking him to pass on our concerns, as I know he will, to others. I beg to move.
Brexit: Devolution (EU Committee Report)
Lord Jay of Ewelme
That this House takes note of the Report from the European Union Committee Brexit: devolution (4th Report, HL Paper 9).
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Lang, in thanking those who have spoken in the debate, particularly those who have focused on Brexit and devolution. I also join him in congratulating the Minister on his reply. On the substance and the form of his reply, that was quite a maiden speech—and as the Minister said, thank goodness for Formica. I beg to move.